Wong Souk Yee v AG
[2019] SGCA 25
question is premised on the proper interpretation of Art 49 of the Constitution.
The central question in this appeal is whether a similar duty arises in the context
of a vacancy in a Group Representation Constituency (“GRC”).
Background
Article 49(1) and the introduction of the GRC scheme
2
Article 49(1) of the Constitution reads:
Filling of vacancies
49.—(1) Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a nonconstituency 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.
3
The proper interpretation of Art 49(1) in the present case is to be
approached in the context of the introduction of the GRC scheme. As such, we
begin by briefly setting out the broad historical developments pertaining to
Art 49(1) and the introduction of the GRC scheme. This will provide the
necessary background to the discussion that follows.
4
The drafting history of Art 49(1) was extensively discussed in Vellama
at [58]–[72]. For present purposes, it is sufficient to note that Art 49(1) has
remained substantively unchanged since its original enactment as Art 33 in
1965, save that: (a) it was renumbered from Art 33 to Art 49; and (b) some other
amendments were made as a result of the introduction of non-constituency
Members (see Vellama at [60]). At the time of Art 49’s original enactment as
Art 33, all electoral divisions in Singapore were SMCs, which, as the name
implies, are constituencies represented by a single Member.
2