Last August a high court judge, Pillai ruled that the PM has all the discretion to call or not to call a by election when a single constituency seat is vacant. It more or less cast a big dark cloud over the constitutional rights of the citizens to be represented by an elected representative. Yesterday, light shone through the dark cloud to clear up this hazy matter. Three Appeal Court Judges, Chao Hick Tin, Andrew Phang and V Rajah, over ruled Judge Pillai’s judgement and re read what the Constitution really meant in a clear and logical way.
The Prime Minister may have certain leeway to decide when a
by election is to be held but he must call a by election within reasonable
time. A by election must be called to protect the rights of the people to be
represented by an elected MP. Otherwise it would lead to the disenfranchisement
of the people, an act contrary to the provision of the Constitution. Is not
this logical from the very start? Well, judges are human beans too and their
interpretations of the law sometimes left much to be desired.
The findings of the Appeal Court Judges in a way vindicated
the smear poured over Ravi as an erratic person flawed
by a bi polar sickness, meaning he is unreliable and may not even be fit to be
a lawyer. This case proved beyond any doubt that for all the harsh accusations
of a decent man in Ravi, his cranial faculty is still as
sound as anyone learned man, if not better. Ravi pushed
a case that was sound from the beginning and almost became unsound, which would
also implicate him as being unsound. Now it is very clear that Ravi
and his case are both as sound as they could be.
This judgement is a victory of the people, a victory of our
judicial system, of sound interpretation of the law, a victory for Ravi
and Vellama, two most unexpected individuals that took on the system to demand
an explanation and interpretation of the law. And the Courts of Law delivered.
And it also tells a story that judges do erred, particularly in the way laws
are written and the way words are used.
Victory of the people, a victory of our judicial system, of sound interpretation of the law, etc etc no doubt about it.
ReplyDeleteBut does this victory make our best opposition WP any stronger to be govt?
In fact when Ravi and Vellama were fighting the case, the WP even publicly dissociated itself from all of it.
And when victory is achieved, then WP come out and said "We welcome the ruling of the Court of Appeal..". See their facebook.
So even with this victory, opposition got hope or not, you say lah?
Only Sinkies themselves can give hope to the opposition.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, whether a strong or weak opposition is all depend on Sinkies, tio bo?
Surely cannot depend on foreigners what. Only PAP can, by making foreigners into citizens but so that PAP can remain as govt lah.
Foreigners become citizens sure vote PAP one.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I think Sinkies are doomed lah, except those smart ones who can still make lots of money lah.
Why should this case go to court in the first place? Coz decent people do not want to read the law decently.
ReplyDeleteAnd the correct interpretation and spirit of the law almost got screwed by the wrong interpretation of a judge.
And it takes a cleaner and a 'insane' lawyer to fight for a proper interpretation of the law.
Who and where are all the shameless people going to hide their faces?
Who decide, or rather who is one to decide what is shameless?
ReplyDeleteIf were a leader of a political party, I only care whether voters decide to vote for the party, and not whether voters decide (or say) the party is shameless.
ReplyDeleteTo be shameless is OK as long as it is not illegal.
ReplyDeleteChannel NewsAsia
ReplyDelete[Hougang resident's appeal dismissed: AGC highlights 3 main points]
"The Attorney-General's Chambers has highlighted 3 main points
that led to Singapore's highest court dismissing an appeal by Hougang resident Vellama Marie Muthu
concerning the Prime Minister's discretion about whether and when to call an election."
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/hougang-resident-s-appeal/735496.html
Victory ? Yes it is the first step but let not be cloud by old fart's nonsense again. Nothing really dramatic has been changed, really. It is just wayang again
ReplyDeleteWho can forget in the last election, old fart put many unrelated strategic regions under his own GRC, and please redbean, do us a favour to find out, and you be shocked.
Why is it that GRC is related in this ruling, read this
"The learned judges also made it clear that risk applies only in a Single-Member Constituency (SMC). The residents of a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) does not enjoy the same protection that their elected voice will always be heard in parliament. The Singapore Constitution has a special provision for that quirk in a GRC."
http://singaporedesk.blogspot.sg/2013/07/unfettered-discretion.html
It only means that in the forthcoming election, more and more important regions could magically put under old fart or pinky's GRC, with no question asked.
Anyone get it ?
As long as the evil white can still have full unfettered discretion with own created wallaby law, nothing really has been changed.
Dear Mr Chua
ReplyDeletePlease help spread the following for people to be careful while crossing roads, even at Zebra Crossing... a note from a friend ....
"Last 2 days, when fetching my baby back from my mum house in the evening time.
When we are walking towards the zebra crossing, a car just honk us to give way instead of giving way to us.
When it move past us, we saw in it are 'Ah San' nationally.
This incident just prove that 'Ah San' just hopeless and selfish.
Yet Singapore are 'importing' more such people, so more accident will happen. We just see. Mark my word."
But they can always change the constitution to suit them. They have too many voters.
ReplyDeleteThe law should be amended to require the PM to call a bye election within a reasonable period which should not be more than 3 months.. It is unreasonable to need more than 3 months to think how to FIX the opposition . The best brains in the world should be able to think super fast !
ReplyDeleteZebra crossing is only safe in Sin City. And if the Sinkies were to cross zebra crossing in third world countries, they would be run down, everyone of them.
ReplyDeleteYou are right that third world nationals do not respect zebra crossing. And if more are here, soon more Sinkies will be found lying at zebra crossings.
Let me answer the issue of GRC. I read that before. Yes, even if 4 out of 5 are dead, one GRC member is sufficient to hold the fort and no by election is needed. This is in the constitution written in by you know who. Until the constitution is changed, this has been fixed.
ReplyDeleteAny law abiding judge will have to interpret the law according to the law and that's it.
Wait, unless you have brilliant judges that will interpret the law differently like bringing in ethical obligations or like reading the unwritten spirit of the law or intent of the law.
The Appeal Judges did come close to that by saying that depriving the citizens from being served by an elected representative is disenfranchising their legal rights.
So, it can still be another interpretation waiting to stand out to denounce the article concerned as unconstitutional or against the spirit of the constitution, disenfranchisement, and should be thrown out.
Would such a day happen, would such a judge be found one day?
Yes we did see light this round, but it is nature dark cloud and lightning will certainly come again. U had read the smear Ravi got in the ST report when he fought for the case, u just can not believe the dust will settle.
ReplyDeleteI bow to Ravi and Vellama for their fearless spirit to voice up the right of the citizen.
You are wrong to state that it is written in the Constitution that, with respect to GRCs, even if 4 out of the 5 members are dead there is no need to hold a by-election. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that.The Court of Appeal in paragraph 80 of their Judgment referred the Section 24(2A) of the Parliamentary Elections Act which provides for that. As I have staed elsewhere this raises an interesting point whether this provision conflicts with Article 49 of the Constitution and is therefore void. No doubt this will be tested in future.
ReplyDeleteSuakoo like me still feel very blur on why is there a need to call for a by election.This is not productive and cause unnecessary spending.
ReplyDeleteThe people voted for the party and not the individual and if the MP leave the post,just get another member from the party to replace him till the next election.
No need to waste time over such boleow elections which can happen very often.
The constituents voted for the party and not the individual.
Whatever party or whoever MP oso the same.
No need to kacheow PM over this trivial matter.
And re-instituting Malay as the true national language is what I want to see.
ReplyDeleteIts not that I am fond of Malay language. Its because I like to see rule of law. If PAP can ignore Malay language clause, she can ignore everything in the constitution.
I will even call for imposing Hindi and Tamil if constitution say they are national language.
No need to waste time over such boleow elections which can happen very often.
ReplyDeleteagongkia July 06, 2013 6:39 pm
Ya lor. That's what I think also. Especially when the opposition is not even ready to be govt. So one more or one less opposition MP, what's the point (Short form WP), tio bo?
So maybe I think the constitution should be rewritten to say no by elections.
What do you think?
Ravi's accusers called him mad. Now, who is the mad one?
ReplyDeleteI thought only IMH or a qualified psychiatrist can call someone mad, no?
ReplyDeleteAgongkia, yar lor I think u too sotong, more qualified to talk about your experience with mei mei lor. Tio Bo?
ReplyDeleteThis case was full of irony and heart break ......
ReplyDeleteThe P E voters stick their necks out to elect a "far from intellectual ah lian" but even before the results barely sank in, the Chief Co-Driver cum Chief " In-slapper " immediately "slapped" the voters' face instead of the driver's after the P E people had given Whats The Point ( WP ) their votes ........
No meh?
Imagine after the "rice cooked liao" then the guy tell the gal who has just lost her " virginity " he cannot commit leh ....... wtf!
Till now, many voters I believe are still wondering whats the point (WP ) of expending so much time and efforts and false hopes ........
How can one not be disappointed and disgusted with a "co-driver" that they newly put into power but immediately "slapped the voters face, faith and intelligence " by telling them point blank they are not ready to be in the driver seat at all .......?
Wonder whether the self-declared Co-Driver Chief English that sucks or not? What is the exact meaning and definition of co-driver when one does not intend to take the driver seat? What if driver kanna heart attack? Passengers ( voters ) have to come in to take over the bus instead of co-driver ..,,,,?
Make any sense ......?
You tell me lah?
Only human that voters "felt kanna cheated" liao ......
Why during rally never declare huh .....? Wait until "rice cooked liao then say not ready". Fair or not ......?
anon 653 ,641
ReplyDeleteNot only constitution should be rewritten,rules and laws must be updated oso lah.
Everything so confusing,my towkay met the carpark attendant issuing summon at the carpark and ask whether the way of tearing his coupon by using 2 fifty cents for half and hour is correct.Carpark attendant says it correct but when he return before half and hour ,he was issued a 6 dollar summon .Towkay went to URA to feedback and was told by one Ah Beng officer that attendant's duty is not to teach one how to tear coupon.Give feedback to the so call URA Quality Service Manager and was told he is lucky and they are kind to fine him only 6 dollar nia nia.
I pity PM,with such incompetent and unreasonable civil servants,how to secure more votes.
On mei mei,look out for that Wing Chun sifu Lijiang emperor Wally.Never talk about experience when he is around.