A picture speaks a thousand ironies

What a priceless picture! I can't get over the depth of irony that hangs in air.

At the height of repression by the Burmese military junta and throughout the period that Aung San Suu Kyi was subject to house arrest, the Singapore government, together with ASEAN, has taken a concilliatory stance towards the Burmese government. The officially stated position has always been that engagement with the regime would be more likely to bear fruit and that isolation through boycotts and trade embargoes would not be of any real benefit to the Burmese people.

Whilst one can argue endlessly about the merits of such a foreign policy approach, it is nevertheless true that Singapore maintain trade links with the Burmese government. Our government has never denied trading with Burma. But, there have been other allegations that have been made in the past pertaining to the export of arms from Singapore to Burma and the rather controversial allegation that we turn a blind eye to the drug related activities of members of the military junta. (The allegation about the drug related activities of the military junta has been circulating on the internet. But, the sources are not easily verifiable and it is the same few sites that have repeated the allegation. So, I will leave it at that - mere allegations.)

Whatever may be the extent of the trade and investment between the 2 countries, it is an openly stated position of the Singapore government (specifically during the period that George Yeo was the Foreign Minister) that engagement with the military junta is necessary.

Given the context of the Singapore-Myanmar relationship, I couldn't help but note the irony of the above picture that BG George Yeo shared on his facebook page. It would be fascinating to find out what went through their minds.

Is an unrestrained discretion compatible with the Rule of Law?

The official position in Singapore has always been that we respect the Rule of Law. When attempts by human rights organisations or foreign governments were made to run us down, our government has stood firm and insisted that we do respect the Rule of Law.

But, what does the Rule of Law entail?

A basic premise is the view that all exercise of power is subject to the law. I, as an individual, have no right to exert power over you in such a way that I might harm your property, your person or your life. Where I may attempt to do so, laws may legitimately be in place to prevent me from so harming you. This is reflected in a variety of criminal offences and civil liability. Equally, the state has no right to exert power over any of us except as it might have been lawfully authorised to do so.

At this juncture, we can take this in two directions. Firstly, the state is justfied in punishing us by depriving us of our life, liberty or property if we have breached a law that has been clearly stipulated. Secondly, the state is justified in exercising a general power of decision making in a way that affects our rights or activities so long as the same is done in accordance with the law.

The key here is the fact that the law is used as an objective and neutral intermediary between the state and the citizen. The state seeks justification for its actions in the law as predefined. The citizen demands that the state's power be exercised solely within the ambit of the predefined law.

This is all well and fine if the predefined law is in fact clearly defined. What if the law is vague? What if the law provides an area of discretion? What if the area of discretion is so wide as to render the law redundant?

Example 1:
In the event that a Parliamentary seat shall fall vacant, a by-election shall be held and towards this end a Writ of Election shall be issued by the President within 3 months of the date that the seat fell vacant.

Example 2:
In the event that a Parliamentary seat shall fall vacant, a by-election shall be held and towards this end a Writ of Election shall be issued by the President within a reasonable time.

Example 3:
In the event that a Parliamentary seat shall fall vacant, a by-election shall be held.

Example 4:
In the event that a Parliamentary seat shall fall vacant, the seat shall be filled by election.
In exercising his power to issue a writ of election, the President shall act on the advise of the PM.

All of the above examples contain discretion. The first example is restrictive and binds the President to issue a Writ of Election within 3 months. The second one restricts the exercise of discretion to a reasonable time. The third example doesn't stipulate a restriction. But, by requiring a by-election to be held, it does not leave it too vague to allow for an interpretation that might result in the election being postponed till the next general election. The fourth example appears to give a broad discretion for the seat to be filled and for this to be done in accordance with the PM's advise.

The broadest way of interpreting the 4th example is to say that the law provides that it is the absolute and unfettered discretion of the PM to determine when he would call for the by-election. Being an unfettered discretion as to timing, it might even be postponed all the way to the end of the Parliamentary term.

Although the 4th example is not on the exact terms as our Constitutional arrangement for by-elections, it is nevertheless similar. Our Constitutional arrangement is something that I blogged about here: http://article14.blogspot.com/2012/02/by-election-when-not-whether.html"

I beleive that the extent of discretion provided in the Constitution does not go as far as to permit the PM to decide whether a by-election should be held. But, it is however broad enough to be interpreted as giving him a broad discretion to decide when the by-election should be held. This is where the problem comes in. A discretion that is unrestrained and so broad is one that renders the rule nugatory. Unrestrained discretion is ultimately an afront to the Rule of Law.

Assuming that I am the King of this country and I were to declare that I will govern according to law, the expectation would be that my discretion would no longer be the basis of exercise of power. Power will now be exercised in accordance with law. But, what if I have a law that says: "Whatever the King determines to be the appropriate tax to be levied upon the people from time to time in his absolute discretion shall be the lawful tax." Such a law gives so broad a discretion to me that the law may as well not exist. The law negates itself.

Some of the broad interpretations of our Constitution as proposed by PAP leaders provide for such a possibility that the Constitutional guarantee of Parliamentary representation is rendered nugatory. Where possible, in upholding the Rule of Law, those that interprete the law (i.e. the judiciary) must adopt a restrictive interpretation on the exercise of discretion. Thankfully, in Singapore we have the Interpretation Act to assist us in relation to issues of timing. So, I believe that the PM's discretion to decide on the timing of the by-election should be restricted both by having regard to the Interpretation Act as well as by having regard to nothing less than the foundational and organizing principle of any rule-based society: the Rule of Law.

Who got the facts wrong? Kenneth Jeyaretnam or the MICA Press Secretary?

I did a double take when I read the rebuttal letter written by Mr Peer M Akbar to the Wall Street Journal. Firstly, a little bit of context: On 7th March 2012, a letter written by Kenneth Jeyaretnam to the Wall Street Journal was published. "Challenging Singapore’s Defamation Laws" In that letter, Mr Jeyaretnam made reference to his father's bankruptcy. The relevant part of the letter is as follows:

"As The Wall Street Journal is aware, my father, Reform Party founder Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, was sued numerous times for defamation, culminating in being bankrupted over a few words in an article published in the Workers’ Party newspaper that he did not write and in a language (Tamil) whose written form he did not understand. This resulted in him losing his seat in Parliament and not being able to stand again before he died..."

My observation: KJ makes no reference to the timing of the defamation suit involving that article in the "Hammer" which was written in Tamil. He states that JBJ's bankruptcy resulted from a suit arising out of the Tamil article in the "Hammer". This bankruptcy resulted in him losing the seat in Parliament. I don't remember the events very accurately. But, I have a vague recollection that JBJ was in Parliament when he was declared bankrupt and that resulted in his disqualification. I also remember that there was a suit by some members of the Indian community against JBJ and one of the chaps was a lawyer. I used to hear a fair amount of Bar room talk about that lawyer being instrumental in JBJ's bankruptcy. So, Kenneth Jeyaretnam's letter did not shock me or surprise me. On 12 March 2012, Peer Akbur (the Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts) attempted a rebuttal of KJ's letter. The full letter is as follows:

Defending Singapore’s Defamation Laws 12 March 2012 Mr. Kenneth Jeyaretnam’s Mar. 7 letter to the editor, “Challenging Singapore’s Defamation Laws,” misrepresents basic facts. The article that he referred to was published in the August 1995 issue of the Workers’ Party publication The Hammer. J.B. Jeyaretnam was then the secretary-general of the party. The author of the article, the editor of The Hammer, and the Executive Council of the Workers’ Party (of which J.B. Jeyaretnam was a member) acknowledged that the article was “completely false and baseless” and accepted responsibility for it. They published an unqualified apology in The Straits Times on Nov. 23, 1995 and agreed to pay costs and damages. Contrary to Mr. Kenneth Jeyaratnam’s claim, this episode did not cause J.B. Jeyaretnam to lose his seat in parliament—he was not even a member of parliament at that time. Nor did it prevent J.B. Jeyaretnam from contesting the subsequent general elections in 1997, and being selected as a non-constituency member of parliament. Singapore holds its public officials to the highest standards of probity and integrity. Ministers and officials who have committed offences have been charged and jailed. Court judgments in all these cases are published, and fully open to scrutiny. At the same time, ministers who are defamed will sue to clear their name and take the stand to be cross examined. The right of individuals to protect their reputation is as important as free speech. In a healthy democracy, vigorous political debate does not involve defamatory attacks. In Singapore’s 2011 general elections, the same Workers’ Party that J.B. Jeyaretnam once led achieved its best performance since independence, with several MPs elected into parliament. It faced no lawsuits. Mr. Kenneth Jeyaretnam and his party also contested the general elections, albeit less successfully. . Peer M. Akbur Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts

This article caused me to question my own memory. On the face of it, everything appeared to be factually accurate. A quick check on the net showed that in 1995 JBJ was not in Parliament. He entered Parliament again in 1997 as a Non-Constituency MP via Cheng San GRC. So, MICA's assertion appeared to be accurate and KJ appeared to have got his facts mixed up. But, I was confused. I still carried a vague memory of the bankruptcy resulting from that particular claim. Thank God for the internet, I have proof postive that I have my memory and sanity intact. Firstly, this is a Reuters article reproduced by "Singapore-Window": Secondly, in 2009 the Ministry of Law had responded to a White Paper on Repression of Political Freedoms in Singapore by Amsterdam and Peroff. In that response, under Annex 2 the following assertions were made by the Ministry:

Mr Jeyaretnam’s bankruptcy in 2001 had nothing to do with the Government. It arose from a defamation action brought against Mr Jeyaretnam by the Organising Committee for the 1995 Tamil Language Week, the majority of whom were not politicians. They had argued that Mr Jeyaretnam had committed a very serious libel when he alleged that the Committee was seeking political gains by “nakedly prostituting itself”. Mr Jeyaretnam refused to withdraw or apologise when sued. The court found against him and ordered him to pay damages, but he was unable to pay. Mr Jeyaretnam also had other outstanding debts. Arising from the bankruptcy, Mr Jeyaretnam’s expulsion from Parliament followed due process as provided for under Article 46(2) of the Singapore Constitution. As a bankrupt, Mr Jeyaretnam would have been disqualified from practicing as a solicitor; however, he had not renewed his practicing certificate and had ceased to practise law at the point of his bankruptcy.

So, the facts as the turn out.... KJ was not wrong in his assertion about the defamatory article that led to his father's bankruptcy. Peer Akbur is wrong to state that the episode did not result in JBJ losing his seat in Parliament. It did result in the loss of the Parliamentary seat. In fact, I would have expected the MICA response to play the safe tune that MinLaw played which was to state that the bankruptcy was not brought on by a defamation suit by the PAP leaders but rather by members of the Organising Committee for the Tamil Language Week. Mr Peer Akbur. You have to do better fact checking than that when you are trying to represent the Ministry's position. It's ok. It is not too late to come forward and say that you stand corrected. :-)

PM: I intend to call a by-election. I have not decided on the timing.

The PM has given his official response to the Hougang by-election issue. The following is the relevant part of his statement in Parliament:

"The Hougang Single Member Constituency (SMC) seat is vacant after the Workers’ Party expelled Mr Yaw Shin Leong, following several weeks of media reports on Mr Yaw’s personal indiscretions. I intend to call a by-election in Hougang to fill this vacancy. However, I have not yet decided on the timing of the by-election. In deciding on the timing, I will take into account all relevant factors, including the well being of Hougang residents, issues on the national agenda, as well as the international backdrop which affects our prosperity and security."

This is the proper response that we expect from our Prime Minister. I believe that if this was the first reponse from him when the news of the vacancy in Hougang broke, there would have been very little noise from the public. For sure, there would have been pressure for the by-election to be held sooner rather than later. But, the kind of loss of political capital that the PAP has arguably experienced as a result of brandishing technical arguments through semantics could have been avoided.

It is simple. The Constitution mandates a by-election. There is no 3 month time limit. It is the PM's discretion. He just needs to exercise it within a reasonable time. The PM has pretty much stated that this is the legal position and I have no qualms with that. All those people that were arguing about whether the PM can refuse to hold a by-election can crawl back into the woodwork. The PM has clearly acknowledged that he has to call for a by-election. It is a question of when.

PM Lee:

"Article 49 of the Constitution states that when a seat falls vacant it shall be filled by election. In an SMC, a seat falls vacant when the MP vacates his office, for example when he is expelled from his political party, resigns his seat, or passes away. The timing of the by-election is at the discretion of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is not obliged to call a by-election within any fixed timeframe."

And now we wait. My guess is May/June.

860K for assisting the Review Committee?

The report on a Written Answer provided by DPM Teo in response to a question tabled by WP MP Pritam Singh nearly made me fall off my chair..

A sum of 860,000 dollars was paid to a human resource company (Mercer) for its work in assisting the Ministerial Salaries Review Committee by providing its technical expertise on human resource and remuneration issues.

Immediately, questions started racing through my head.... Here they are in random order....

Why was there a need to get an external consultancy to provide assistance? Wasn't the Salaries Review Committee itself possessed with sufficient skills for the job? If they were not sufficiently skilled, why not appoint persons to the committee that had the necessary skills?

Was the Committee specifically authorised by subsidiary legislation to call for consultancies from the private sector to bid for the project? The Committee itself performed delegated functions and accordingly could not have delegated this function to 3rd parties unless there was lawful authorisation. What was the lawful authorisation given to the Committee to obtain the assistance of a private company?

Assuming that such authorisation existed, what was/were the terms of reference given to Mercer? What was in Mercer's report to the Committee? Did Mercer make any recommendations for the reduction of salaries and if so, how much of a reduction. To what extent was the Committee's findings based on or influenced by the recommendations of Mercer? Why was there no indication previously about the existence this outsourcing arrangement?

Let's forget about what has happened, Can the report by Mercer be released to the public now? The 860,000 is taxpayers' money. We deserve to know what was in the report by Mercer. If it cannot be released or the politicians deem it undesirable to be released, what is the reason or justification for not releasing the Mercer report?

So many questions... what are the answers?

New Normal 101: How to react to a vacant Parliamentary seat?

There is general consensus that Singapore citizens have evolved. The old unquestioning attitude is still there in many quarters. But, a significant part of the population is questioning, demanding answers (often vociferously) and refusing to back down. Given the fact that the opposition vote in the 2011 Genereal Elections was slightly over 800,000 and that even amongst many PAP supporters there is a certain amount of disillusionment (that was partly reflected in the significantly small percentage of votes received by the "endorsed" candidate for the Presidential Elections), many commentators have boldly painted the picture of Singapore walking into a new era of politics.

There is no doubt that many citizens today have little tolerance for the politics of yesterday. 'More of the same' is no longer an option for the PAP. For a time after the General Elections last year, I started believing in the serious possibility that there might be a change of style in the way that PAP governs and seeks to govern in the future. But, recent events (threatened legal actions for defamation and refusal to call for a by-election in Hougang) appear to be an indication that it is difficult to teach an old dog new tricks. (For the avoidance of doubt, that is a figure of speech and not an insult in the vein of that PRC student's 'dog' remark.)

After the Yaw Shin Leong saga, I thought that the PM would play the game 'new-normal' style and affirm the Hougang residents' constitutional right. Instead, the knee-jerk reaction was to give an answer that was pretty much in keeping with the old approach. This has led me to ponder on how the PM could have reacted to the announcement of the Parliamentary vacancy. If I was the PM, this is how I would make a press statement:

"What has happened in Hougang is most unfortunate. Not only do we expect persons taking up public office to be of high competence and calibre but also to be possessed of good moral fibre. We do not know whether the rumours surrounding Mr Yaw were true. It appears now that when confronted by his own Party colleagues, he has failed to account to them on the truth or otherwise of these rumours.

Whatever may have happened, we do not seek to judge. The Parliamentary seat is vacant and the residents of Hougang have been deprived of representation in Parliament. This government is committed to the democratic franchise and the residents of Hougang have my assurance that a by-election will be held. I have not, as yet, made any decision as to the timing of the by-election. But, I will not stand in the way of the Constitutional rights of the citizens of this country. A by-election will be called expeditiously and a public announcement will be made in due course."

What has the PM got to lose by making the above statement? Nothing. The reality is that Hougang is a constituency that is not going to revert back to the PAP in a hurry. If the next General Elections are held in 2016, the PAP is bound to lose in Hougang barring some unforeseen developments. There is absolutely nothing to be gained in indefinitely postponing by-elections or in totally refusing to hold one. On the contrary, refusing to hold a by-election by relying on semantics does nothing more than alienate even the moderate voters.

How do you win political capital in a losing battle such as this? You change. You change your own operational philosophy. You recognise that political office is a privilege accorded to you by the electorate. You recognise that the right to vote and the right to have a representative in Parliament is too fundamental to be argued away. You internalise this concept more than any other partisan interests that you might have. Once you have done that, the words will come out naturally. People will notice the difference. People will begin to believe that change has not only taken root in the minds of the electorate but also in the minds of the political leaders. With that believe will come a willingness to engage in dialogue. With such dialogue, the groundwork for winning back votes can be laid.

You can't win back votes through perception management. You can do so if you change your thinking about democracy and the Constitution.

By-election: When? not Whether!

Anyone that states that a by-election in Hougang is not mandated by law is talking stark nonsense. The only issue that is open for debate is the timing of the by-election.

The existence of a discretion as to the timing of a by-election cannot be converted into a discretion as to whether a by-election is to be held. I hope that the politicians that engage in this debate do not hijack the Constitution and that they acknowledge that the filling of the vacancy of a Parliamentary seat is a requirement. The discretion that the PM has is only with regard to the most appropriate time to hold a by-election.

So, let's get the law right first. The starting point is Article 49 of the Constitution:
49. —(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

To determine what happens next, we have to look at the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218)
Section 24. —(1) For the purposes of every general election of Members of Parliament, and for the purposes of the election of Members to supply vacancies caused by death, resignation or otherwise, the President shall issue writs under the public seal, addressed to the Returning Officer.

It is commonly accepted in judicial interpretation that the word 'shall' is to be construed as mandatory whenever it appears in a legislation. Therefore, when a seat falls vacant, the vacancy must be filled. For the purpose of filling that vacancy, the President must issue the Writ of election.

Whilst the elections have to be called by the President, the exercise of his functions are subject to the constitution.

Article 21(1) of the Constitution is as follows:

21. —(1) Except as provided by this Constitution, the President shall, in the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any other written law, act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet.

The function of the President under the Parliamentary Elections act is therefore one that has to be exercised in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet. The fact that the President has to act in accordance with the Cabinet's advice does not mean that the Cabinet can disregard the law or that it can disregard the Constitutional stipulation that a vacant seat shall be filled.

I hope that the public debate on this issue moves beyond the question of whether a by-election should be held to the question of when it should be held. It is the Constitutional right of Hougang voters that a by-election be held. The cardinal principle is 'One man. One vote. One value.' It is nothing less than the demand of reason that not only is every adult given the right to vote but also that every vote carries the same value. Whilst the rest of the Singaporean voters are represented in Parliament, 25,000 voters in Hougang are disenfranchised.

An MP is not merely a postman that that listens to a constituent's complaint and forwards it to a government department. An MP is not merely a manager of housing estates. An MP is meant to be the powerful voice of the people in the loftiest forum in the land. He is a Member of Parliament and not merely a Mouthpiece of a Party. Party affiliation often nudges one to take particular political positions. I am not surprised by that nor do I expect that to be non-existent. But, the primary responsibility of the MP is to be the voice of the voiceless; to speak on behalf of those that silently suffer; to question the Executive in relation to the issues (local and national) that affect his constituents.

25,000 voters do not have a voice in parliament. Sure. This was brought on by Yaw Shin Leong. But, those voters are innocent. They have every right to have a representative in Parliament.

How soon must a by-election be held? Definitely not in 2015 or 2014. None in their right mind would suggest that as a reasonably expeditious timeframe within which to call a by-election. I would venture that even a period of 6 months enters the realm of unreasonable delay.

In fact, if we think very carefully about the constitutional role of an MP and the importance of the MP-constituent link for the workings of Parliamentary democracy, we would appreciate that every day that Parliament sits constitutes a day that the Hougang residents are deprived of representation. Every day that motions are raised, debated or passed constitutes a day that the Hougang residents did not have a say in that motion. Every day that statutes are debated, scrutinised, amended or passed constitutes a day that the Hougang residents have been deprived of a chance to shape a law through their representative.

There is, therefore, a strong case that can be made in favour of filling the vacancy before too many days, too many motions and too many laws are allowed to pass in Parliament whilst Hougang residents remain disenfranchised.

As Professor Eugene Tan of SMU rightly pointed out, Section 52 of the Interpretation Act states: "Where no time is prescribed or allowed within which anything shall be done, that thing shall be done with all convenient speed and as often as the prescribed occasion arises."

All convenient speed. That is what Hougang residents expect and that is their legal right.