Hearing of Hougang by-election case on hold

Hougang by-election appeal to be heard in mid-May

The Straits Times, 13 Apr 2012

The appeal by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) against an open-court hearing, on a Hougang resident's bid to order the Prime Minister to hold a by-election within three months, will be held next month.

On Thursday, at a closed-door session, Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang directed that an expedited hearing of the appeal be held in the week of May 14, but did not set an exact date. He also told the AGC to file its submissions by April 26 and the resident, Madam Vellama Marie Muthu, to file her reply submissions by May 10.

His instructions take the closely watched case one step closer to the hearing that the part-time cleaner hopes to see.

After former MP Yaw Shin Leong was sacked by the Workers' Party, leaving the Hougang seat vacant, the 42-year-old filed an application on March 2 for the court to declare that the Prime Minister does not have 'unfettered discretion' in deciding whether and when to call a by-election. She asked the court to issue a mandatory order for him to do so within three months or a 'reasonable time'.

The application sparked a series of back-and-forth exchanges between the AGC, represented by Chief Counsel David Chong and Senior State Counsel Hema Subramanian, and Madam Vellama, represented by lawyer M.Ravi. The AGC sought to have the bid thrown out, calling it legally flawed, but failed. On April 3, High Court Judge Philip Pillai ruled that the case would be heard in open court on April 16.

The AGC lodged an appeal and asked for its appeal to be heard on an expedited basis, before the open-court hearing.

But at a session before the appeals judge, Mr Ravi argued that this should not be done until Judge Pillai issued the written grounds for his judgment. Last Thursday, Justice Phang agreed, cancelled the April 16 hearing, and directed that the appeal be heard only after the written grounds were released.

This happened on Tuesday, with Justice Pillai saying he had granted leave for the judicial review hearing as the 'very low threshold for leave has been met'. If the AGC's appeal is turned down, it will allow the open-court hearing on Madam Vellama's application to proceed.

Judge explains decision to hear by-election case

'Threshold met'; release of grounds means AGC's appeal can be heard

By Andrea Ong, The Straits Times, 11 Apr 2012

A HIGH Court judge has released the grounds of his decision to hear a Hougang resident's bid to order the Prime Minister to hold a by-election within three months, paving the way for the closely watched case to proceed.

In the written grounds, Justice Philip Pillai explained the ruling he made last week, when he granted leave for Madam Vellama Marie Muthu's application to be heard in open court.

'Based on what was presented and submitted to me for the purposes of the leave application, without making any comment or decision on the merits or the substantive legal issues, I granted leave for a judicial review hearing as I was of the view that the very low threshold for leave has been met,' he said.

The release means that an appeal by the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) against Justice Pillai's decision can be heard. The AGC and Madam Vellama's lawyer, Mr M. Ravi, will appear before Justice of Appeal Andrew Phang tomorrow to set a date for the appeal hearing.

If the appeal is turned down, Madam Vellama's application will go on to be heard in open court.

The development is the latest in the series of events that started with Madam Vellama's bid on March2.

After former MP Yaw Shin Leong was sacked by the Workers' Party, leaving the Hougang seat vacant, the part-time cleaner filed an application to get the court to declare that the Prime Minister does not have 'unfettered discretion' in deciding whether and when to call a by-election.

She also asked the court to issue a mandatory order for him to do so within three months or a 'reasonable time'.

The AGC, represented by Chief Counsel David Chong and Senior State Counsel Hema Subramanian, sought to have the application dismissed, calling it legally flawed.

Last Tuesday, after hearing from both sides the week before, Justice Pillai granted leave for Madam Vellama's application to be heard in open court and fixed the hearing for April16.

The next day, the AGC lodged an appeal and asked for it to be heard as soon as possible. But Mr Ravi successfully argued that the appeal hearing should take place only after Justice Pillai issued his written grounds of decision.

On Thursday, Justice Phang put off the April 16 open court hearing, and ruled that the AGC's appeal would be heard after Justice Pillai's written grounds were issued.

In his nine-page judgment released yesterday, Justice Pillai noted that the purpose of applying for leave in such cases was to 'sieve out groundless applications' at an early stage. He also shed light on areas where Mr Ravi and the AGC had clashed.

The two sides had not disputed over whether the case related to the performance of public powers and duties and was thus open to judicial review, nor over whether Madam Vellama had sufficient interest in the matter. These were two of three conditions that the court had to be satisfied on before granting leave.

But they did argue over the last condition: whether there was an arguable - or prima facie - case for granting leave for the hearing.

Citing a Court of Appeal ruling in 1996, Justice Pillai said this was not required. As long as a 'prima facie case of reasonable suspicion' could be shown, noted the 1996 judgment, 'then it cannot be said that the application must necessarily fail, for there would then appear to be an 'arguable case'.'

Mr Ravi and the AGC had also disagreed on the order in which Madam Vellama's application - for the mandatory order and declarations - should proceed.

The AGC had argued that Madam Vellama cannot apply for the declarations on the PM's discretion until she gets the court's leave to apply for the mandatory order.

In response, Mr Ravi said that if the court did not grant leave for the mandatory order application, he would immediately file a separate application for the declarations under a rule which does not require the court's leave to proceed.

In his judgment, Justice Pillai directed both parties to prepare submissions on this issue for the open court hearing.

It is not known yet when the AGC's appeal will be heard.

AGC's appeal will be heard only after judge gives written grounds

By Andrea Ong, The Straits Times, 6 Apr 2012

IN THE latest turn of events, a court hearing for a Hougang resident's bid to order the Prime Minister to hold a by-election within three months was set aside, just two days after it was fixed.

The hearing, which was scheduled to take place on April 16, was put on hold following an argument over when an appeal against it can be heard.

The latest development in an eventful week came after the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) lodged an appeal against Justice Philip Pillai's decision to hear the application by part-time cleaner Vellama Marie Muthu, 42.

The AGC had sought to have its appeal heard 'expeditiously', but Madam Vellama's lawyer M. Ravi successfully argued yesterday that this could take place only after the judge released his written grounds of decision for granting leave for his client's application to be heard.

After weighing their arguments at a closed-door session, Justice of Appeal Andrew Phang put off the April 16 hearing, and ruled that the AGC's appeal would be heard after Justice Pillai's grounds of decision were issued.

Yesterday marked the third consecutive day of developments in the case stemming from the vacant Hougang seat left by former MP Yaw Shin Leong, who was expelled from the Workers' Party in February.

On March 2, Madam Vellama filed an application to get the court to declare that the Prime Minister does not have 'unfettered discretion' in deciding whether and when to call a by-election, and to issue a mandatory order for him to do so within three months or a 'reasonable time'.

Last week, the AGC, represented by Chief Counsel David Chong and Senior State Counsel Hema Subramanian, sought to dismiss the bid, calling it legally flawed.

On Tuesday, Justice Pillai granted leave for Madam Vellama's application to be heard in open court. The next day, the AGC appealed, and asked for this to be heard as soon as possible.

'Leave must first be obtained in judicial review proceedings so that cases which are misconceived or unarguable can be weeded out,' it said. 'This was the basis on which the Attorney-General had objected to the grant of leave.'

The AGC applied for its appeal to be heard before April 16, saying that an expedited process was needed as normal appeals can take at least four or five months.

But Mr Ravi objected. Asking for the expedited appeal process, he argued, was inappropriate as it was called for only in extreme cases.

'We cannot just be rushed through this appeal because it affects citizens' rights,' he explained to reporters later. 'It's urgent but it must be done in a considered fashion, not in indecent haste.'

Instead, the lawyer argued in his submission that the AGC's appeal should not be heard until Justice Pillai issued his written grounds of decision.

'The critical issue... is whether the Attorney-General is able to demonstrate that he has established that the decision of Justice Pillai is wrong in law,' he said. To do this, he added, the written grounds have to be 'carefully considered'.

'The obvious and proper procedure is to vacate the date for the hearing of the application for judicial review pending the outcome of the appeal against the grant of leave,' he added, and suggested that the AGC's appeal could be heard two weeks after Justice Pillai issued his grounds of decision.

AGC appeals against hearing of Hougang case
Appeal against court's decision to hear by-election case will be heard today
The Straits Times, 5 Apr 2012

THE Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) is appealing against a court decision to hear a bid by a Hougang resident to get the Prime Minister to hold a by-election in the constituency within three months or a 'reasonable time'.

It filed its appeal yesterday, a day after Justice Philip Pillai decided that the application by part-time cleaner Vellama Marie Muthu will be heard in open court on April 16.

The move is the latest development in the closely watched case, which had started when Madam Vellama, 42, filed her application early last month.

This came soon after former Hougang MP Yaw Shin Leong vacated his seat following his expulsion by the Workers' Party.

The Hougang resident is seeking to get the court to declare that the Prime Minister does not have 'unfettered discretion' in deciding whether and when to call a by-election, and to ask the court to issue a mandatory order for him to do so within three months or a 'reasonable time'.

In her March 2 affidavit, she indicated that she wanted to have an elected representative in Parliament so that she could get help on issues such as her financial woes.

Last week, the court held a closed-door hearing which saw her lawyer M. Ravi arguing that the by-election should be called with 'convenient speed'.

Having no clear timeframe, he said, could result in a by-election being deferred until the next general election.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had on March 9 announced in Parliament that he would call a by-election in Hougang, but added that he had not decided on when it would be held, saying that he would take into account all relevant factors before deciding the timing.

The AGC, which is being represented by Chief Counsel David Chong and Senior State Counsel Hema Subramanian, sought to get the court to throw out the case.

It countered that the application was legally flawed, noting that the Constitution clearly gave the Prime Minister the discretion to decide when to hold a by-election for a vacant seat.

It also said that issuing him a mandatory order would ultimately amount to the judiciary interfering with the executive arm of government.

After a second closed-door hearing on Tuesday, however, Justice Pillai ruled that Madam Vellama's application would be heard in open court on April 16.

Yesterday, the AGC applied for a hearing to be held on its appeal as quickly as possible. The High Court said it will hear the application today.

By-election case to be heard in open court on April 16
Judge allows Hougang resident's application to proceed
By Andrea Ong, The Straits Times, 4 Apr 2012

THE High Court will hear a Hougang voter's bid to get the court to order the Prime Minister to hold a by-election in her constituency within three months or a 'reasonable time'.

The application by part-time cleaner Vellama Marie Muthu, 42, will be heard in open court on April 16, Justice Philip Pillai decided yesterday.

He told both parties his decision during an hour-long hearing in chambers yesterday. Madam Vellama was represented by her lawyer M. Ravi, while the Government was represented by Chief Counsel David Chong and Senior State Counsel Hema Subramanian of the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC).

Asked yesterday if the Attorney-General would appeal against Justice Pillai's decision, the AGC said 'the matter is under consideration'.

Several lawyers interviewed yesterday said they were not surprised by the court's decision to hear the application as the threshold for leave to proceed with judicial review is not high.

Senior counsel and Chua Chu Kang GRC MP Alvin Yeo said: 'From a legal standpoint, the threshold for leave is not a high one. I am not that surprised that the court has granted leave, but it does not necessarily follow that the court will grant the remedy that is being prayed for.'

Justice Pillai had reserved judgment last Friday, after a three-hour hearing in chambers to decide if there were grounds for the application to proceed.

Madam Vellama had filed her application on March 2, after her former MP Yaw Shin Leong was expelled by the Workers' Party on Feb 14, leaving the Hougang seat vacant.

Her application was to get the court to declare that the Prime Minister does not have 'unfettered discretion' in deciding whether and when to call a by-election. It also asked the court to issue a mandatory order for him to do so within three months or a 'reasonable time'.

In its arguments last Friday, the AGC sought to strike out the application on the grounds that it was 'wholly misconceived' and based on an incorrect understanding of Singapore's laws.

It said the Constitution does not stipulate a fixed timeframe for the Prime Minister to call by-elections, and ordering him to do so would amount to the judiciary interfering with the executive arm of government.

The AGC also noted that on March 9, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said in Parliament that he would call a by-election in Hougang but would consider relevant factors in deciding the timing.

Yesterday, Mr Ravi hailed the court's decision to hear his client's application as 'an important chapter in Singapore's constitutional history'.

He also told reporters that during yesterday's hour-long hearing in chambers, Justice Pillai directed both sides to look at three cases in Singapore's history in which single member constituencies were vacated but for which no by-elections were called.

The AGC disputed Mr Ravi's account, saying in an e-mail reply that 'Justice Pillai did not make any such direction'.

The AGC said that it was Mr Ravi who had raised the three past cases in his submissions at the hearing last Friday but had not produced the complete parliamentary reports on the cases.

'The Judge said that all parliamentary reports that parties want to rely on in their arguments must be produced in full at the next hearing,' the AGC said.

Constitutional lawyer Kevin Tan agreed with Mr Yeo that the threshold for leave in such cases is not high as 'the only way for an application to be struck out is if it's frivolous and has no grounds'.

Dr Tan said the court's decision also showed that Madam Vellama's application contains 'important constitutional questions to be asked and answered'.

Professor Thio Li-Ann of the National University of Singapore said: 'It is an affirmation of the rule of law that the judiciary should not be excluded from legal disputes between the state and people.'

The court has set aside a full day on April 16 to hear Madam Vellama's application. If that is not adequate, the hearing will continue on April 17.