Source: https://article14blog.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/the-hougang-by-election-case-a-belated-analysis-of-the-high-court-judgment/
Timestamp: 2017-11-19 12:30:32
Document Index: 240206916

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 49', 'Art 49', 'Art 49', 'Art 49', 'Art 49', 'Art 49']

The Hougang By-Election case – A belated analysis of the High Court judgment – Article 14
The Hougang By-Election case – A belated analysis of the High Court judgment
Date: December 5, 2012Author: subrathiru 2 Comments
It has been quite some time since the High Court delivered its judgment in the Hougang by-election case. I haven’t found adequate time to read through the judgment in order to write about it. Thanks to a couple of hours of waiting time at the Hong Kong airport last month, I penned down a few quick thoughts. Finally, I have added some finishing touches and here it is. Better late than never, I guess.
“Anyone that states that a by-election in Hougang is not mandated by law is talking stark nonsense.” http://article14.blogspot.sg/2012/02/by-election-when-not-whether.html
Now that the High Court has decided that “there is no requirement in the Constitution to call elections to fill elected Member vacancies” and that whether “to call or not to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy is a decision to be made by the Prime Minister”, I have to withdraw my rather extreme assertion. 🙂 I can’t say that the court is talking stark nonsense, can I? (I might just go the way of the kangaroo t-shirt wearers)
The main issue: “shall be filled by election”
Article 49(1) of the Constitution refers to the situation where a seat becomes vacant and stipulates that the vacancy “shall be filled by election”. The High Court judge has rightly decided to situate the phrase within the context of other usages in the Constitution as well as the historical context of its usage.
Firstly, the judge presents the possible interpretation of “shall be filled by election” as being a reference to a process on the one hand or alternatively a reference to the event, i.e. the holding of an election. He spells it out as follows:
The word “shall” ordinarily means that whatever it is referring to is mandatory. However, what is being mandated by the word “shall” in Article 49(1) is not immediately clear, because “election” can mean either: (a) an event, in the sense of, “to hold an election”; or (b) a process, in the sense of, “by the process of election”.
Proceeding on the assumption that there are two possible interpretations of the phrase “shall be filled by election”, the Court assesses the historical origins of the phrase in Art 49(1). It is here that I believe that the judgment took a wrong turn. Working with his interpretation of the 2 meanings of the phrase (‘to hold an election’ and ‘by the process of election’), it is clear that the judge has decided two possible outcomes although he doesn’t expressly state that at that stage of the judgment. But, the net effect of the court’s assumption is that the phrase is capable of giving rise to only two possible outcomes:
a) ‘to hold an election’ – where there is a vacancy, an election must be held
b) ‘by the process of election’ – where there is a vacancy, it may or may not be filled. But, if it is filled, then it must be through the process of having an election instead of some other process such as nomination.
I take the view that if we were to consider “shall be filled by election” to contain multiple meanings, then the following meaning could also be attributed to the phrase:
The judge analysed that the mandatory word “shall” could relate to either “election” as an event or “election” as a process. By associating “shall” with “election”, the specific mode of reasoning deployed by the court is possible. But, the word “shall” is more naturally associated with the word “filled”. What is mandatory in my view is the filling of the vacancy.
“95 Another significant feature of the 1955 Order was that it changed the mode of filling vacant seats in the Legislative Assembly. It no longer empowered the Governor to appoint Temporary Members to fill vacancies. Instead, depending on whether the vacant seat was one of a Nominated or Elected Member, sections 51(1) and 51(2) of the 1955 Order set out how each respective vacancy was to be filled.
96 Section 51 of the 1955 Order is the original source of Article 49(1) of the current Constitution. The exact wording of section 51 of the 1955 Order is crucial as it brings into clear light the meaning of Article 49(1) of the Constitution.”
“97 It is immediately apparent that the expression “shall be filled by election” is common to both section 51(2) of the 1955 Order and the current Article 49(1) of the Constitution. Yet, there was no ambiguity in the meaning of the expression “shall be filled by election” in section 51(2) of the 1955 Order, because section 51(1) used the contrasting expression “shall be filled by appointment by the Governor”. Such an expression clearly meant that “election” in section 51(2) referred to a process and not an event, and the word “shall” in sections 51(1) and 51(2) of the 1955 Order mandated the process of filling the seat. In other words, under section 51(2) of the 1955 Order, whenever the seat of an Elected Member of the Assembly became vacant, the only process that could be used to fill that seat was by election and not by appointment. Subsequent constitutional provisions that originated from section 51(2) of the 1955 Order and containing the same expression have the same meaning unless the text was intentionally changed.
98 The expression “shall be filled by election” in Article 49(1) of the Constitution subsequently became obscure because the distinction between the processes of appointment and election in the 1955 Order was lost in subsequent Orders in Council and later, the Constitution. It is therefore important to follow the precise chain of events in our history to understand how and why this distinction became obscure.”
‘Another significant feature of the 1955 Order was that it changed the mode of filling vacant seats in the Legislative Assembly. It no longer gave the Governor discretion to appoint Temporary Members to fill vacancies. Instead, depending on whether the vacant seat was one of a Nominated or Elected Member, sections 51(1) and 51(2) of the 1955 Order set out that each respective vacancy had to be filled and in doing so the process of filling was by appointment for the former and by election for the latter.’
What transpires is that instead of assisting the Court’s reasoning in seeing Art 49 of the Constitution as presenting a discretion in the filling of a vacancy, the legislative history indicates that Art 49’s origins lay in the transition from a discretionary filling of vacancies to a mandatory filling of vacancies. The irresistable conclusion that should be arrived at is that Art 49 removes discretion from the Executive in the filling of the vacancy and the manner of filling the vacancy. What is left is the discretion to decide on the timing of the filling of the vacancy.
Contrary to the Court’s interpretation that there are two possible meanings to the phrase “shall be filled by election” in Art 49 of the Constitution, I am of the opinion that if we were to get into the process of seeking multiple meanings in that phrase, then a comprehensive approach would be to accept that there are three possible interpretations:
a) an election must be held (event of ‘election’ must happen)
The 3rd interpretation is not only the linguistically most natural interpretation, it is also consistent with the arrangement of the provisions in the Constitution (where the word ‘may’ instead of the word ‘shall’ is used for the filling of NMP seats and should be contrasted with the word ‘shall’ for the filling of elected MP seats – the difference is not merely related to the process but to the very ‘filling’ of the vacancy itself). The 3rd interpretation is also consistent with the historical development of the elected members’ seats in Parliament. The 1955 Order moved away from discretionary filling of vacancies to the mandatory filling of vacancies.
The Vellama case has already become a Constitutional milestone by virtue of the High Court’s decision to not order costs against her in view of the strong public interest that exists in the interpretation and application of Art 49. The most fundamental of all rights in a democracy is the right to vote. The case is now proceeding to the Court of Appeal. Hopefully, the Court of Appeal would create another milestone by interpreting the Constitutional provision in a restrictive manner to prevent the Executive from exercising excessive discretion.
If the Court of Appeal upholds the High Court’s decision, then this issue has to be resolved through Constitutional amendment by Parliament. The opposition parties have to seriously consider whether they would want to make the issue of this Constitutional amendment a part of their manifesto in the next elections as the right to vote is too fundamental to be given away simply because of a lack of clarity in the provision.
Previous Previous post: Strike: A ‘four’ letter word in Singapore
Next Next post: By-election in Punggol East?
2 thoughts on “The Hougang By-Election case – A belated analysis of the High Court judgment”
While many of us would believe (in our minds) that Mdm Vallema might just be a mouth piece for a separate political motive, I cannot fathom why the AG is adamant on making her pay cost for requesting a JR, in view that an important part of the Constitution has possibly been breached.
It goes as far to say that the AG are shackling the rights of citizens to review the actions of the Executive/Parliament, by imposing the risk of monetary sanction in order to execute such rights in the future. Apart for the motive of discourage such actions in future, I can find no other reason for them to appeal the decision.
To be fair to the AG's chambers, it is acting like any lawyer would under the instructions of their client. In proceedings of this nature, AG is representing the Government of Singapore. So, the decision to press for costs would have been made by the client and not the AG.
In any event, the Court's decision on costs was unprecedented as most lawyers are accustomed to the rule that costs follow the event (i.e. the losing party pays costs to the winning party). The decision on costs in this case followed recent UK decisions that were based on the discretionary provision in the Rules of Court. The judge has rightly decided that in a case such as this involving a matter of public interest it was inappropriate to impose costs on the Plaintiff.