Thursday, August 2, 2012

Judge and Lawyer Talking Cock

Now is the judgement a surprise? Yes? Did I hear you say Yes??? You also believe in Santa Claus and the Merlion legend! Did I hear you say No? Sorry, no prizes for you as there were 1001 cynics before you who thought so too.

There are 2 simple reasons why cleaner Vellama sure lose. OK, 3 reasons if you include this obvious reason - once she chose Mad Ravi as her lawyer, it is gone case. If she is crazy enough to take up crazy Ravi, then kaput is as certain as WP winning East Coast GRC the next time. The other reason is that in political cases where PAP's judgement, integrity and reputation is at stake and left to the court to decide, somehow, somehow, PAP always win. Always. Win. Maybe PAP's stand is so solid, or their lawyers always so steady, or other reasons you say, errr I don't know. Smirk. The house always wins!

The last reason is also very simple. Mad Ravi is talking cock. The constitution simply did not say that the election must be held within 3 months. The constitution says it is ASAP and what is ASAP only Tua Pek Kong, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu, and Harry Lee will know. Not a cleaner and a lawyer.

However this Pillai judge also a bit talking wild cock. He said that it is up to the PM to call the by-election, not that he has to call a by-election. Now, that is really shocking news. Article 49 of the constitution, others have pointed out clearly that an election is a must because of the modal verb "shall". English teachers from P1 to Sec 4 are relearning what is "shall" all about because of Pillai's "shall" as meaning "maybe if happy". Makes me wonder if Pillai passed his PSLE English! LOL Legal documents all over Singapore are being reinterpreted as we speak since "shall" loses its sense of obligation and promise and there is wriggle room for people to screw each other and break contracts.

Article 49 Filing of Vacancies
(1) Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.




Hougang resident's by-election application dismissed by High Court Judge
Updated 03:25 PM Aug 01, 2012


SINGAPORE - A High Court Judge has dismissed a Hougang resident's application to declare that the Prime Minister does not have "unfettered discretion" over whether and when to call a by-election.

Madam Vellama Marie Muthu had also applied for a mandatory order for the by-election to be called in Hougang within three months or a reasonable time, after the seat was vacated.

Mdm Vellama, 42, a part-time cleaner, had filed her application on March 2, following the sacking of former Member of Parliament Yaw Shin Leong from the Workers' Party on Feb 15.

In his judgment released today, Justice Philip Pillai noted there was no requirement in the Constitution to call elections to fill elected Member vacancies. There being no such requirement, there arises no prescribed time within which such elections must be called, he added.

Under the Constitution, to call or not to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy is a decision to be made by the Prime Minister, said Justice Pillai. Should the Prime Minister decide to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy, he has a discretion as to when to call it, he added.

The Parliamentary Elections Act merely provides the mechanism to hold such an election should the Prime Minister decide to call one, said Justice Pillai. In the event that the Prime Minister decides to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy, section 24 of the Parliamentary Elections Act requires that the President issue writs under the public seal to the Returning Officer to convene such election to supply vacancies caused by death, resignation or otherwise. "In so doing, the President is obliged to act in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution," he added.

12 comments:

  1. Article 49 Filing of Vacancies
    (1) ..."the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force."

    I think you are the one who failed your PSLE English! It says "shall be filled by election in the manner.." However, did it says must be BY-ELECTION? The next General Election is also election, isn't it? You focus on the wrong word!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous at 8.43AM is correct.

    Article 49 means that if there is a vacancy, and IF there is a need to fill the vacancy, then it has to be filled by an election. It can be a general election, or by-election. It cannot be filled by other ways, e.g. an appointment.

    Article 49 does not mean that every vacancy has to be filled by a by-election. So the judge is 100% correct. It is up to the PM whether to call a by-election or not.

    PrataBob, usually your articles are very intelligent and insightful, but here you have made an error.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Media Literacy Council started work!

    So this learned judge is right and all the law experts like Eugene Tan, Siew Kum Hong, Thio Li-ann are all WRONG in their interpretations of the constitution!

    So that means PM can also choose NEVER to call election?

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is Operation Twist Singapore style, just like inside polling station is not within a radius of....

    ReplyDelete
  5. This kind of constitution also boleh jalan?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I quote " Makes me wonder if Pillai passed his PSLE English!" Careful, you maybe in contempt of court.

    ReplyDelete
  7. How can an elected parliamentary seat ever be filled by any other method other than by another election? Anywhere in the Constitution states that an elected parliamentary seat can be filled by eg. appointment? If not, then the suggestion that an elected parliamentary seat can theoretically be filled by other methods (and therefore "shall be filled" refers to the method of filling seats) is a weak argument.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Did the legislators who wrote up the constitution intend it to be so technically complicated that only legally qualified persons can understand its meanings? Shouldn't it simply state that an election need not be held to fill a vacant seat or that the head of state or government has the discretion to decide. If the intention was to have an election to choose a replacement, then shouldn't this mean a by-election must take place as soon as practicable?

    ReplyDelete
  9. According to the following online dictionaries, the word 'shall' means:

    Dictionary.com:
    3. (in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to: The meetings of the council shall be public.

    Merriam Webster
    2a —used to express a command or exhortation
    b —used in laws, regulations, or directives
    to express what is mandatory

    MACMILLAN DICTIONARY:
    British meaning:
    4. legal used in instructions and legal documents for saying that something must be done.

    US meaning:
    legal used in instructions and legal documents for saying that something must be done.

    So, it looks like the learned judge would have none of these, but his own published by the Govt of the Republic of Singapore?

    ReplyDelete
  10. " In his judgment released today, Justice Philip Pillai noted there was no requirement in the Constitution to call elections to fill elected Member vacancies. "

    Ever wondered what it would be like if Judge Pillai's take of the word 'shall' is applied to the Ten Commandments in the Bible?

    Pillai's ruling is on par with his boss, the CJ, who decided as the AG then that when a few PAP top brass were found IN a polling station, they have not broken the election law that requires political candidates to keep clear of polling stations.

    Judge Pillai, judge extraordinary.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maybe the judge should explain because it was originally stated in the constitution that a bye-election shall be held within 3 months but someone deleted it on purpose with the best intentions at heart ... and please him why while he hasn't kicked the bucket yet.

    You see normally in cases like this a judge would have ruled that in the absence of a stated period, what would constitute a 'REASONABLE' period of time whenever 'shall' is used. But then, if they can rule something is excusable within a 200m radius, what else can we expect ?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Now now, who is right. hmmm The court which focus on,

    "in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force" and that since this election is like the parla election when the PM calls the shots.

    Or the court of public opinion, which focus on,
    "the vacancy shall be filled by election"

    ReplyDelete