Although recent developments have outstripped the speed of reporting, it seems more important than ever that we share our conversation on April 28th.
When we arrived at Vellama’s fourth storey 3-room flat, she was busy frying snacks and preparing drinks. Throughout the interview, Vellama seemed at ease, with an open and friendly nature. She spoke in somewhat broken English, and at times turned to her friend and lawyer, M Ravi, who was also present, to assist with translating from Tamil.
Forty-two year old Vellama is the sole wage earner in her family of four. She has a daughter who is 8 and a son who is 18. Her husband, suffering from alcohol-related health issues, has been hospitalized and is unable to work. Vellama also helps to take care of her 77-year-old wheelchair bound mother, and 52-year-old sister, both of whom are diabetic. Although social workers are assisting them, she still visits her mother and sister once or twice a week to help them buy groceries from the market.
She is currently receiving financial assistant from the Community Development Council (CDC) but had initially wished to approach her MP for help, by which time she no longer had one. Vellama was hoping that Mr Yaw would be able to help her mediate with her bank, which had threatened her with foreclosure. (Her lawyer is now helping her and she has since been allowed to repay her loan in instalments.) Vellama had approached Mr Yaw in October last year regarding a bank loan, but when she went to see him again in February, he had already vacated his seat.
When asked if she had gone to see any other Worker’s Party MPs, she replied that she did not want to have to keep reaching out to different MPs; she wanted to speak to a permanent MP. “If I have a permanent MP, he’ll know my problem,” she said. “Every time must go tell different MPs, very difficult.” According to Vellema, her neighbors have also expressed similar frustrations.
Faced with monthly mortage instalments, medical bills for herself and husband, and two children to provide for, Vellama works part time as a cleaner at City Hall and Orchard Road. Her job cleaning shop windows requires her to travel daily between the two locations and her entire family is relying on her earnings. Vellama says she is unable to work a full-time job because she needs to take care of her young daughter, who is already enrolled in childcare in the mornings while Vellama is working.
“People who have money don’t need an MP,” she said simply. “But me, myself, I need help from an MP.”
“Not for me also lah. Maybe other people don’t want to bring up this matter,” she said, referring to other Hougang residents who felt similarly frustrated by their lack of representation in the ward. After all, she told us “it's a citizen’s right to be represented,” in response to the question of why she chose to take up the case.
According to Vellama’s lawyer, M Ravi, she asked him what she could do as a citizen in response to the by-election matter, and Ravi said that he could assist her in filing the case. She insisted that she was not afraid to take up M Ravi’s offer. “She’s only asking for a right,” Ravi said. “What’s there to be afraid of?”
When questioned about how she plans to bear the legal costs of bringing the case to court, Vellama and Ravi revealed that people had pledged financial assistance online, and Vellama is confident that if costs is ordered against her, they will come forward to help.
In the latest court hearing at the Court of Appeal, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong suggested that both parties could agree not to seek costs from each other for the different stages of the proceedings. M Ravi told the Chief Justice that his client was agreeable to the suggestion. There has been no word from the Attorney General on this so far.
Throughout the interview, Vellama repeatedly insisted that she was not scared, but surprised by all the publicity and reaction. “I’m not scared, I’m very happy about this. Very proud," she said.
About ten to twenty ‘aunties’ in the neighbourhood, recognizing her pictures from the papers, had stopped to praise Vellama, who speaks four languages – Tamil, Malay, English and some Mandarin. She told us that friends and family have also been very encouraging about her decision to bring the issue to court. So far however, she has not been approached by any Worker’s Party members.
She assured us that she was prepared to see the whole court case through, and wishes to thank those who supported her, both online and offline.
For Vellama, the Hougang by-election case is not a question of political parties and affiliations, but about asserting a citizen’s basic rights.
“Most people may think I am against the PAP but I’m not,” she explains.
“All I want is an MP.”
Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:
Timeline of events so far:
14 February – Hougang MP Yaw Shin Leong is expelled from the Worker’s Party following his failure to meet with the leadership of the WP to explain allegations of his extra-marital affairs.
28 February – Yaw Shin Leong’s seat is officially declared vacant by the Speaker of Parliament. The vacancy took effect from 14 February.
2 March – Vellama Marie Muthu files court application through lawyer M Ravi requesting the Prime Minister to call a by-election “within three months or within such reasonable time” as the court deems fit. Her case also states that the Prime Minister does not have unfettered discretion in deciding whether and when to call by-elections in Hougang.
9 March –Prime Minister announces in Parliament that he intends to call a by-election in Hougang, but doesn’t set a date.
3 April - Justice Philip Pillai dismisses Attorney General’s (AG) objection to the application by Vellama Marie Muthu. He grants leave to Vellama and orders that her case be heard in open court on 16 April.
4 April – AG lawyers lodge appeal against Justice Pillai’s decision, and seek an expedited hearing on its appeal.
9 May – Prime Minister calls by-election for Hougang. President Tony Tan Keng Yam issues the Writ for Election calling for Nomination Day to be held on 16 May.
11 May – Vellama offers to withdraw her application because "the factual objective of her litigation has now been achieved" with the Prime Minister having called a by-election in Hougang. Her offer to the Attorney General’s Chambers is made on the conditions that the AGC withdrew its appeal against High Court judge Philip Pillai's decision on 3 April to allow the case to be heard and that the AGC does not seek costs against Vellama in the case.
13 May - Vellama's lawyer, M Ravi, informs the AGC that Vellama is rescinding her offer to withdraw her application from the Court because of remarks made by the AGC on 12 May, that Vellama risks paying costs if she continued with her application.
14 May - The AG withdraws his appeal against the Hougang by-election court case being heard in open court. The stated reason is that "there is no substantive controversy that can legitimately be the subject of proceedings before the Court."
26 May – Polling day for the Hougang by-election.