NMPs Fighting for By-Election. WP/SDA Silent. Why?

[makapaaa]

A House fired up
The Prime Minister and nine other MPs and Nominated MPs yesterday spoke on a motion to amend the law on by-elections. Zakir Hussain summarises some of their arguments




About the motion Nominated MPs Thio Li-Ann and Loo Choon Yong yesterday proposed a motion to amend the law on by-elections. They wanted the law to insist on a by-election in three instances:

• If the minority MP required in a GRC vacates his seat

• If half or more of the MPs in a GRC leave

• If an MP in a single-seat ward vacates his seat for any reason.

They also wanted all by-elections to be called within three months from the time the seats were vacated, unless Parliament's term was due to end in six months.

---

WHY THEY BACKED THE MOTION
NMP THIO LI-ANN

• Current system arbitrary

At present, the Cabinet decides whether to call a by-election or not. There should be some clear rules on the matter.
'Would it be unwise to trust in the audacity of hoping politicians will resist partisan temptations and that fair play will triumph?'

• Change will boost democracy

By-elections are also a good barometer for grassroots sentiment and can be a wake-up call or feedback mechanism for Members of Parliament, thereby strengthening representative democracy.

• Voters lose their MP otherwise

Without by-elections, voters are left without representation in Parliament. This is not desirable.

• New MPs can help run the GRC

A team at half-strength cannot adequately manage a GRC, and this hurts voters' interests.
However, by not insisting on a by-election when only one MP goes, a dissenting MP is less likely to vacate his seat and provoke a by-election.

• Make things fair for all parties

If a PAP MP vacates his single seat, his neighbouring MP could take over his role.
But what if an opposition ward loses its MP? Having the law mandate a by-election would be fair and promote certainty.

• Ensure there is a minority MP

Having a GRC without the requisite minority MP defeats the constitutional purpose for having GRCs in the first place, that is, to ensure minority representation.
NMP LOO CHOON YONG

• Voters want to be represented

'The desire and aspirations of people to be adequately represented in this House should not be underestimated. We should uphold the principle and not allow convenience or cost to prevent voters from being adequately represented.'

• Law can be more certain, clear

Leaving the timing of a by-election vague and ambiguous is not good practice. The law should be amended to 'give greater certainty, clarity and transparency'.
NMP SIEW KUM HONG

• GRC slate no longer the same

When voters elected MPs in a GRC, their mandate was for the team as a whole.
If the make-up changes, it becomes a different team, and so a fresh mandate is needed.

• Unfair to MPs, voters otherwise

The suggestion that it is all right for the remaining members in a GRC to cover for the vacated seat trivialises the contributions of elected members and is unfair to voters.
NMP EUNICE OLSEN

• It strengthens citizenship

There is no better way to have people take ownership of their country than to have a say in deciding their future and be involved in the political process.

• We should aspire to higher ideals

Having a full slate of MPs is the optimal situation, so we should not be satisfied with getting by with less of them.

---

WHY THEY OPPOSED IT
MR HRI KUMAR NAIR

(Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC)

• Others can step in for minority MP

A minority MP serves all in the GRC, not just his racial group. So, there is no basis for making a distinction between this MP and other MPs, when arguing for a by-election to fill a vacant GRC seat.
'His constituency role will be fulfilled by his colleagues, and his national role (of representing his minority group) by the other members of his race in Parliament.'

• Timeframe makes no sense

The motion exempts a by-election when the Parliament term ends in six months. This arbitrary deadline is not practical when, say, the seat is vacated a couple of days or so earlier. Taking the election process into account, the new MP could serve just two months before a general election is called. This is a waste of time and money.
It also presumes Parliament will complete its full term, ignoring the reality that the Prime Minister can call for an election any time.

• Just plain wrong

When GRCs were introduced, one concern was that minority MPs would be relegated to second-class status. But now, the motion has elevated and given them extraordinary powers, including the power to force a by-election.
'In other words, who calls the by-election - the PM or the MP?'
MADAM HALIMAH YACOB

(Jurong GRC)

• GRC MPs are elected as a team

Voters in Jurong GRC voted in the MPs as a team. Even if one or more members are absent, the rest can continue to represent each and every one in the GRC.
'The mandate given to us is to serve all the residents in the whole GRC as a team, and the sad loss of one of our members does not diminish that point.'

• Minorities will be taken care of

Giving a minority MP sway over the GRC's fate is not the intention of Parliament. It is also not desirable as it will breed resentment against them.
All MPs attend all functions across religious groups - that is what the GRC is all about. 'The presence of the GRC constantly reminds us of the need to take into consideration the needs of the minority communities.'

[makapaaa]

A House enthralled
Arguments and barbs fly in by-election debate; an attempted hijacking of motion and failure of equipment also add spice

By Jeremy Au Yong
		WP chairman Sylvia Lim caught many off-guard by suggesting an amendment of the motion - which would turn it into a call to abolish GRCs.

View more photos

NOMINATED MPs Thio Li-ann and Loo Choon Yong thought they were taking aim at by-election laws.
Little did they know that Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim would step into their spotlight to take a potshot at group representation constituencies (GRCs).

A STUDENT'S COMFORT 'I spent many wearying hours huddled over dusty legal tomes with a comforting chocolate croissant and instant Nescafe coffee mix, studying how minorities were protected, from the Middle Ages to our Modern Age.' ... more What Jurong residents want: Two MPs, two different conclusions BOTH spoke to Jurong GRC residents. But Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC) and Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong came away with very different conclusions. ... more

The debate yesterday over a motion on refining by-election laws might have lasted over four hours, but this was one parliamentary sitting that nobody would have described as dull.
Apart from the attempted hijacking of the motion by the Workers' Party (WP) chairman, the session also saw MPs trading barbs, equipment malfunctioning and one MP saying he had changed his mind about supporting the call to fine-tune the laws.
It all started routinely enough.
At 3pm, the end of the question-and-answer session, Professor Thio stood to present the motion on by-elections that she and Dr Loo had filed.
She had been given one hour, and proceeded to make the most of her time with a speech that ran to 18 pages. She argued her points forcefully, elaborating and illustrating in parts with details from personal experiences.
At one point, when speaking about laws that protect minorities, she recounted her time as a doctoral student in Cambridge in England: 'I spent many wearying hours huddled over dusty legal tomes with a comforting chocolate croissant and instant Nescafe coffee mix, studying how minorities were protected, from the Middle Ages to our Modern Age.'
It was not the last time that a chocolate croissant would be invoked in a parliamentary speech.
But the drama really began when Ms Lim stood up to speak. She sprang two surprises:
First, that the WP would not support the motion because it entrenches the GRC system - a concept the party has never accepted.
The second, the bigger surprise, was that she wanted to amend the motion.
What it amounted to, in fact, was a complete re-writing of it, as Ms Lim deleted almost the entire motion and replaced it with a call to abolish GRCs.
The move caught many off-guard. But like any good TV drama, Parliament took a 20-minute break, creating suspense before the ending could be revealed.
And when it came, the ending was something of a damp squib.
At the resumption of the session, Leader of the House Mah Bow Tan pointed out that Ms Lim's proposed amendments were not relevant to the original motion that had been filed.
Parliament Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi agreed, struck out the amendments and suggested that Ms Lim file a separate motion later to debate the GRC issue.
Opposition MP and WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang (Hougang), who spoke later, disagreed that Ms Lim's amendment was irrelevant.
He said that the problem with having by-elections in a GRC was rooted in the problem of the GRC itself: 'Members who speak on the motion speak at length about the original intent of the GRC. This is great evidence of its relevance (to the debate on by-elections).'
To push his point further, he focused most of his speech on the ills of the GRC system - only to be told twice by Deputy Speaker Matthias Yao to confine himself to the issue at hand, which was on by-elections.
Mr Gautam Banerjee, the only Nominated MP who opposed the motion yesterday, originally intended to support it.
But he changed his mind after listening to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's speech.
Mr Banerjee said: 'Having heard the Prime Minister, I am satisfied that we do not need to change at this time our electoral system.'
Another MP who opposed the motion was Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC). And he couldn't resist taking a swipe at Prof Thio in his speech.
Citing her comparison of a GRC that is short of MPs to the Beatles without Paul McCartney and John Lennon, he said: 'We are not dealing with the Beatles or the Bangles. Not even Earth, Wind and Fire.'
He also responded to her chocolate croissant remark: 'Singaporeans know the difference between substance and form. They are less concerned with dusty books and chocolate croissants.'
Prof Thio responded with some harsh words for him, accusing him of misrepresenting one of her points: 'We were not suggesting the blind transposition of foreign models. I think Mr Nair said that, I think that was a cheap political shot...'
There was still time for a few more surprises near the end. Prof Thio did not know the procedure for calling a division in the vote and ended up asking for it three times.
A division is when MPs record their stands electronically instead of just voicing it with an 'aye' or a 'no'.
During the vote-taking, Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines GRC) and Nominated MP Kalyani Mehta complained their machines weren't working and registered their votes verbally. He voted 'no' and she voted 'yes'. jeremyau@sph.com.sg