By-Election Rumbles

"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." - Constitution of Singapore, Article 49

When the expulsion of Yaw Shin Leong in mid-February 2012 triggered Speaker Michael Palmer to declare the Hougang Single Member Constituency seat vacant, there was much hemming and hawing as to what should be done. Hougang resident Vellama Marie Muthu, represented by human rights lawyer M Ravi, brought the by-election issue up in court.

Justice Philip Pillai concluded on Aug 1, 2012, that “there is no requirement” in Singapore’s constitution to call elections to fill elected Member of Parliament (MP) vacancies, and therefore no prescribed time such elections must be called. Pillai explained that the term "election" in Article 49 (1) in Part VI of Singapore's constitution carries two possible interpretations:

• One, it could refer to an event, making the holding of a by-election mandatory.
• Two, it could refer to the process of election, indicating only that the way in which the process of filling a vacated seat in parliament is by election.

Ergo, Pillai ruled that the Parliamentary Elections Act "merely provides the mechanism to hold such an election (the by-election) should the Prime Minister decide to call one", instead of determining whether or not one should be held, much less when.

In simple Singlish: law say by-election must hor, but didn't say when, leh.

Constitutional law professor Thio Li-ann and adjunct law professor Kevin Tan, both of whom lecture at the National University of Singapore (NUS), as well as assistant professor in constitutional law at Singapore Management University (SMU) Jack Lee, spoke in agreement with Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Eugene Tan, assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University (SMU) School of Law who argued in February 2012 that although the Constitution did not impose a timeframe within which a by-election had to be held, it was not the intent that this should allow elections to be postponed indefinitely. The fact that the Constitution is silent on exactly when by-elections should be called should not be taken as permission not to call them at all. "In short," he wrote, "the 'default' position should be that a by-election should be automatic, although there is no hard and fast rule on the timing."

Jack Lee and Thio Li-ann also pointed out that the issue of by-elections was previously debated in Parliament in August 2008, where Thio herself, in her capacity as an NMP alongside corporate lawyer and then-fellow NMP Siew Kum Hong, argued that by-elections should be called within three months of vacancy of the parliamentary seat.

Former attorney-general Walter Woon bypassed the legal mumbo-jumbo altogether and cut to the chase: he believed the ruling party government's intention was to avoid being held to a timeline to call for a by-election. "Will the voters feel that they have not been treated fairly if no by-election is called? That is the question," he added.

To cut a long story short, a by-election was held, with Nomination Day on 16 May 2012 and Polling on 26 May 2012. Png Eng Huat won with 62.1% of the vote. Huat, ah!

To complicate Justice Pillai's position on the law, there may be a new factor in the "respectable" period of mourning thrown in for good measure. But whatever happens to Tanjong Pagar, Walter Woon's caveat looms large, "Will the voters feel that they have not been treated fairly if no by-election is called?"

The Two Men Rule Applies

It's official, the first record of a 2-men assembly. Two men between the age of 24 and 25 were arrested by the police on the afternoon of Saturday April 4 for turning up in front of the Istana with placards that read “You can’t silence the people” and “Injustice”. Police said that as both refused to budge despite efforts from the officers, they were arrested for organising a public assembly without permit, under Section 16(1)(a) of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A.

Sylvia Lim fought against 4 amendments to Laws on Peaceful Assembly in 2007:

"This refers to clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill. By clause 29 of the Bill, we are removing the heading “Offences Against Public Tranquility” and replacing it with “Offences relating to Unlawful Assembly”. By Clause 30, we will be deleting “mischief or trespass or other offence” and replacing it with “to commit any offence”.

S 141 has been amended to bring it in line with a recent Court of Appeal case: PP v Tan Meng Khin [1995] 2 SLR 505. Now, an assembly will be unlawful if people intend to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment of 6 mths or more, even if it is peaceful and does not disturb public tranquility. Under our law, a person who organizes a procession or assembly after the police rejection of a permit can be punished with max 6 months jail under the Miscellaneous Offences Act. Hence 5 or more people who gather to do so will become members of an unlawful assembly.
...
As our society continues to evolve, the time is surely ripe for us to allow peaceful outdoor protests as a form of expression. By all means, we can have rules about how, where and when such processions may be held, but wider law reform is needed. S 141 should be restricted to offences which threaten the public peace, and other laws such as the Miscellaneous Offences Act which require permits for peaceful assemblies should be modified."

So did they listen to the lady? No, instead they made Singapore a laughing stock. This is how Ms Lim spelled it out in her speech of April 2009:

"The change in definition of “assembly” and “procession” is more disturbing. As the Explanatory Statement to the Bill says, these words are no longer restricted to gatherings of 5 persons or more. This means even ONE person alone can constitute illegal assembly, thus giving the State complete control over an individual citizen’s freedoms.

First, to say that 1 person constitutes an assembly is certainly an abuse of the word. Secondly, is the government making the change because there had been incidents involving less than 5 persons which had disrupted public life? Unless there is compelling evidence to prove to us that expanding the definition of assembly and procession is needed, this expansion does not deserve our support."

Shakespeare would certainly turn in his grave for the misuse of the English vocabulary, but you can bet the ashes in the urn are not the slightest perturbed.

Two Sides Of The Coin

Steve Jobs was alive when he handpicked Walter Isaacson to write his authorized biography. He told Isaacson, who had written biographies of Benjamin Franklin and Albert Einstein, he wanted his children to know about their father, warts and all: "But I don't have any skeletons in my closet that can't be allowed out". He encouraged the people he knew - scores of people fired, abused, abandoned, or otherwise infuriated - to speak honestly. His own wife said, "There are parts of his life and personality that are extremely messy, and that's the truth. You shouldn't whitewash it".

Jobs probably knew he may not live long enough to see the finished book, released on October 24, 2011, by Simon & Schuster in the United States. Jobs died on October 5, 2011.

One of the unpleasant tales related to how he shortchanged co-founder Steve Wozniak of the bonus money for a game design for Atari. It would be 10 years later before Wozniak read about it in a history of Atari titled "Zap". When Jobs learned the story was published, he called Wozniak to deny it. But Atari's Nolan Bushnell confirmed there was a bonus paid for for each chip that was saved in the circuit board design. Wozniak cried.

Steve Jobs’ acolytes say a new book "Becoming Steve Jobs" by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli paints a more fitting picture of the Apple founder than Walter Isaacson’s 2011 best seller, “Steve Jobs”. Jobs’ former colleagues and friends have taken sides, speaking out against the old book and praising the new one. Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO and Jobs’ successor, has said that Isaacson’s book depicts Jobs as “a greedy, selfish egomaniac.”

But who did get it right? Even authors Schlender and Tetzeli had to stop and ask: “How could the man who had been such an inconsistent, inconsiderate, rash, and wrongheaded businessman ... become the venerated CEO who revived Apple and created a whole new set of culture-defining products?”

Closer to home lies another interesting question. How could a man who who would rather be feared than loved ("If nobody is afraid of me, I’m meaningless”) whip up such an orgy of adulation? TIME  magazine (April 6, 2015) suggests one clue:

“Whether Lee intended it or not, his template for Singapore became a model for many authoritarian governments that saw its success as an example of how prosperity could be achieved while controlling freedom.”

Humour Is In Short Supply

On April Fools’ Day Google’s various divisions outdo themselves by creating more practical and impractical jokes than any other tech firm. This year they have Pac-Man mode for Google Maps on desktop and mobile. Fire up Google Maps, check the clues, and search for a place where you think Pac-Man might be. The streets are your maze, while Blinky, Pinky, Inky, and Clyde are your enemies. The joke is less funny in Singapore because the enemies are ERP gantries and the astronomically high cost of a Certificate of Entitlement (COE).

And it's definitely not an April Fool joke when the Government announced that over 800,000 Singaporean HDB households will receive $45 million worth of Goods and Services Tax (GST) Voucher – Utilities-Save (U-Save) rebate in April this month. The humour is in the line about GST not being regressive, spewed by same big mouth who said an integrated resort is not a casino. You know the on-going joke, they give you a hundred dollars, they take away ninety-nine.

Malaysia introduces GST this month, but at least they have a list of tax exempt items to soothe the pain:

• RON 95 petrol, diesel and LPG fuel,
• Essentials like rice, sugar, salt, flour, cooking oil, coffee, tea, poultry and fish, 
• Public transport (LRT, KTM buses),
• Sale and rental of property,
• Books and reading materials,
• Healthcare and dental services

BTW the 6% GST is not an additional tax, it replaces the Sales and Services Tax (SST) of 5 to 10 percent. That's the difference between Malaysia and Singapore.

The bigger reason for not laughing is when a grassroots leader is still running free, threatening to maim a boy's manhood for having the cojones to speak the hilarious truth. Nobody is wasting time to file a report because the greater joke is that the Singapore Police Force (SPF) will probably work as efficaciously as they did in pursuing the 2011 case of Young People’s Action Party (YPAP) member Jason Neo. That's the fellow who posted a photo he had taken of a school bus occupied by Malay children from Huda Kindergarten, and captioned it “Bus filled with young terrorist trainees?” Surely that's not funny, right?

After The Shock

If you were one of those at risk of having brains turned into mush by the endless deluge of mindless docu-dramas broadcasted ad infinitum by the state media, an excellent counter measure would be to pick up a couple of titles at the nearest video rental.

Since working lachrymal glands will be the order of the day, start with the weepie "Aftershock" (Mandarin: Tángshān Dà Dìzhèn, Simplified: 唐山大地震). The 1976 Tangshan earthquake occurred between a series of political events involving the Communist Party of China, ultimately leading to the expulsion of the ruling Gang of Four. In traditional Chinese thought, natural disasters are seen as a precursor of dynastic change. We are situated in an earthquake-free zone, so we will have to settle for heavy thunderstorms on a Sunday afternoon.

"Aftershock" surpassed "The Founding of a Republic" (Chinese: 建国大业) as the highest-grossing locally-made film in China, earning RMB532 million. "Jian guo da ye" was made in honor of the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the People's Republic of China. The founding father here is none other than Mao, with some steps taken to humanize the dictator who severely damaged traditional Chinese culture, perpetrated systematic human rights abuses, and responsible for an estimated 40 to 70 million deaths through starvation. The film shows him passed out drunk while his comrades celebrate, and one sequence of a barely-awake Mao being carried out in pajamas during an air bombing reportedly almost got the film banned. Obvious ideological agendas prevent the filmmakers from lending the Communist characters any shades of gray.

If the glorification of Mao's exploits start to bore, Hitler's ranting in "Downfall" (German: Der Untergang) should jolt you like a bolt of lightning. The 2004 German war film directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel depicts the final 10 days of Adolf Hitler's reign over Nazi Germany in 1945. The Führer acts real nice, handing out cyanide pills as going away presents. A few journalists in Germany wondered aloud whether the "human" treatment of Hitler might not inadvertently aid the neo-Nazi movement. Ngiam Tong Dow may have fretted about mini-LKYs, now the fear is about mini-Sturmabteilung (SA), the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. Keep your children locked indoors if you spot any SA men in "brownshirts".

Like Mao and Hitler, Kim Jong-un is shown in his soft side in "The Interview". During the climatic internationally televised interview, he gets to cry on air. These guys are not all that horrible, so give them a break. Especially when today happens to be April 1st.