Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION
INTRODUCTION
In a Westminster model, reference to law (to assure that all individual citizens
continue to enjoy fundamental liberties) as in in accordance to law, equality
before the law, protection of the law, refers to a system of law which
incorporates fundamental rules of natural justice that had formed part and
parcel of the common law of England that was in operation in Singapore at the
commencement of the Constitution.
Note: Singapore Court of Appeal in Nguyen Tuong Van v. Public Prosecutor
(2005) rejected the Singapore Privy Councils literalist approach of reading law
in the context of Art. 9(1) in Jabar v. PP, electing to follow Ong Ah Chuan.
o Courts may depart from the process of interpretation and instead, be
guided by the principle of giving full recognition and effect to
constitutionally accorded rights and freedom.
JUDICIAL BALANCING
BALANCING)
PROCESS
AND
LOCAL
VALUES
( APPROACH
CONSTITUTIONAL BARGAIN
Thio Li-ann, Beyond the Four Walls is an Age of Transnational Judicial
Conversations: Civil Liberties, Rights Theories and Constitutional
Adjudication in Malaysia and Singapore (2006)
Convention on Human Rights where the freedom carries with it dues and
responsibilities.
CONSTITUTIONAL BARGAIN: THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURE
Thio Li-Ann, The Secular Trumps the Scared: Constitutional Issues Arising
from Colin Chan v. PP (1995)
Although it is clear that the Asian traditions attitudes towards the nation,
religion, culture, family and community are reverential, but the different
perspectives between the orient and the occident on where the dividing line
between freedom and responsibility does not justify the conclusion that personal
liberties are alien to Asia.
10
12
COMPARATIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL
(APPROACH FOREIGN CASES)
LAW
FROM
FOREIGN
JURISDICTIONS
15
American constitutionalism
o Adoption of a written constitution with a justiciable bill of rights capable
of enforcement in a court of law and represents a fetter on legislative and
executive power by dint of judicial review.
British
o Judicial review did not extend to primary legislations, and with no written
constitution/bill of rights, everything was lawful unless specifically
prohibited by statutes hence, residual liberties and not rights.
o Later the Human Rights Act incorporated the ECHR and now rights are
protected by Parliament and courts.
Singapore some examples. Refer to bottom.
o Non-judicial method methods for protection include the Presidential
Council for Minority Rights.
o A person is at liberty to do as he wishes except that which is prohibited by
law or if encroaches upon the rights of others (Cheong Seok Leng v. Public
Prosecutor (1988)).
o Chapter on Fundamental Liberties in the Constitution means that rights
are given greater protection, enjoying greater protection than statutory
interests or privileges (Taw Cheng Kong v. Public Prosecutor (1998) where
court emphasised that they are fundamental liberties and not stick and
carrot privileges).
o Furthermore, adoption of the ASEAN Charter in 2007 binds Singapore to a
treaty providing for the creation of an ASEAN human rights body.
o Courts have recognised and balanced non-constitutional interests against
constitutional rights (Chee Siok Chin v. Minister for Home Affairs (2006)).
o Aspects of the common law such as the tort of conspiracy and the offence
of scandalising the courts, also limit fundamental liberties.
International law
o Attempts to incorporate the concept of fundamental liberties through the
UN, Council of Europe etc gave birth to human rights law.
Why protect rights? Normative commitment to human dignity (both sacred and
secular).
o Intrinsic worth of the person + Principle of equality.
Judeo-Christian doctrine of personality
Imago Dei the insistence of the individual as the final value,
the emphasis upon the transcendental importance of each
mans soul, creates an insoluble conflict with any sort of
absolutism.
16
When implementing customary human rights law, national courts play a role in
enforcing human rights.
Issue is whether customary human rights law is a legal source for the judges to
draw in giving a generous and purposive interpretation to rights.
Increasing, arguments based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) have popped up, and although the UDHR is recommendatory and not
legally binding in nature, many of its provisions have since been accepted as
embodying CIL.
o Sometimes tersely dismissed as in Colin Chan v. Public Prosecutor (1994),
sometimes treated more seriously and with greater nuance in Nguyen
Tuong Van v. Public Prosecutor (2004) and Re Gavin Millar Q.C. (2008).
Malaysia has found the UDHR as only declaratory in nature and not legally
binding.
Singapore Court of Appeal has accepted that Art. 5 of the UDHR was CIL but
disagreed that death by hanging, the mandatory death penalty for drug
offences fell within its ambit.
o Nguyen Tuong Van v. Public Prosecutor (2005)
HELD: Capital punishment in accordance with due process of law is
not recognised as a violation of the customary law of human rights.
Also, in the case of conflict between CIL and a domestic statute, the
latter will prevail.
o Re Millar Gavin James Q.C. (2008)
Case was concerned with the principle of equality of arms (equality
of legal representation), which was argued to be a fundamental part
of any fair trial guarantee, as envisioned in Art. 10, UDHR. There is
no parallel in Part IV of the Singapore Constitution.
o Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor (2010)
HELD: Domestic law should be interpreted consistently with
Singapores international legal obligations, but e.g. where
international human rights law contradicts our Constitution, then it
is not amenable because our Constitution does not contain any
express prohibition against inhuman punishment (in fact, we have
rejected a proposed Art 13 by the Wee Commission).
Norms based on soft international law, which is not legally binding, have been
cited before the courts.
20
Norms of international human rights law have been invoked for educative
purposes, providing valuable insight, demonstrating viewpoint diversity etc.
o E.g. In PP v. Nguen Tuong Van (2004), counsel cited the Beijing Statement
of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA Region
adopted at the 6th Conference of Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific, with
a view to underline the importance of the judiciary in death penalty cases.
Early Examples
o Magna Carta (1215)
o French Declaration: Rights of Man & Citizen (1789)
o US Bill of Rights (1791)
International Bill of Rights
o Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Freedom of speech & belief.
Freedom from fear & want.
Art. 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should
act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Arts. 2 21: Civil political rights (life, liberty etc).
Art. 4 - ?: Socio-economic rights.
Inherent rights (are not state grants), ethical limits etc.
o Covenant on civil and political rights (1966)
o Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights (1966)
o Note: Singapore is not a party to the latter 2 treaties. We take a pragmatic
approach, where economic development is the paramount consideration,
and sometimes, certain liberties have to be sacrificed for the sake of
development and security.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Common law residual liberties form the foundation of our legal system?
Cheong Seok Leng v. PP (1988) the common law is the basic law of
Singapore, means that the common law is a source of substantive value (e.g. we
have common law privacy rights for tort of confidence and harassment).
Dr Bonhans Case (1610) where common law as a source of
normative values.
o Singapore draws a distinction between Core rights and Contested rights.
Even the UDHR is a contested article with conflicts of interpretation.
o Suggested that certain common law rights go so deep that even
Parliament cannot be accepted by the Courts to have destroyed them
e.g. In Fraser v. State Services Commission (1984), Cooke P considered
that in Taylor v. New Zealand Poultry Board (1984), the literal compulsion
by torture would be without the lawful power of Parliament.
o In Malaysia, arguments raised that there is an implied right of access to
courts, serious implications for ouster clauses.
Kekatong Sdn Bhd v. Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd (2003)
HELD: s. 72 of the Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Berhad
Act, which ousted jurisdiction to grant the injunction sought,
was constitutional under Art. 8(1) which provided for equality
before the law and entitlement to equal protection of the law.
Doctrine of the rule of law forms part of the common law
demands of minimum standards of substantive and procedural
fairness. Access to justice is part and parcel of the common
law. And since the expression law in Art. 8(1) includes the
common law, access to justice is an integral part of it.
Danaharta Urus Sdn Bhd, v. Kekatong Sdn Bhd (2004)
23
Other countries.
o Taylor v. New Zealand Poultry Board (1984) held deep rights that the
Parliament cannot override. Is this a judicial usurpation of power? Or that
theres a substantive content to the rights.
Thio Li-ann, Lex Rex or Rex Lex? Competing Conceptions of the Rule of Law
in Singapore (2002)
In Chng Suan Tze v. Minister of Home Affairs, the court rejected the subjective
test precluding judicial review of ministerial statutory discretion, and declared
that the notion of a subjective or unfettered discretion is contrary to the Rule of
Law. All power has legal limits and the Rule of Law demands that the courts
should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power.
However, Singapore still retains an array of laws allowing curtailment of
individual liberties without judicial redress so as to serve the imperative of the
broadly defined idea of public order.
o The move towards non-legal or bureaucratic control.
o Effectively concentrates unchecked power in executive hand.
o Felt need to provide a substitute check, now wielded by non-legal forms of
control and political bodies like the EP or advisory councils (composed on
bureaucrats, religious and civic society leaders) but are there checks
sufficiently muscular?
MRHA allows the Minister to issue pre-emptive restraining orders, curtailing
both freedom of expression and freedom of religious rights.
o Judicial review precluded because religious harmony issues considered
non-justiciable and in the apt province of the Executive because it is
crucial for our survival as a nation as a secular court deciding on
religious disputes would be explosive.
o Need for check provided by empowering EP under Art. 22I to refuse to
confirm or cancel a restraining order.
But only activated where the recommendations of the President
Council of Religious Harmony contradicted the Cabinets advice.
24
25
Interpreting in accordance with law, a limit placed on the right in Art. 9(1).
o E.g. imprisonment, death penalty are such limits.
Textual approach.
o Art. 2 read with s. 2, Interpretation Act.
Art. 2: Law includes written law, any legislation of the UK or any
enactment or instrument whatsoever which is in operation in
Singapore, and the common law insofar as it is in operation in
Singapore and any custom or usage having the force of law in
Singapore.
s. 2, Interpretation Act: Written law means the Constitution and
enactments by whatever name called for the time being in force in
Singapore.
o A clear positivist definition, but the text does not rule out a more robust
interpretation includes indicates that the text is not exhaustive.
Are there any limits to these limits?
o 3 possible interpretations of the word law.
Formal conception of the law enactment.
Law includes notions of procedural justice accepted in
Singapore.
Note: Conceptual difference between rules of natural justice
here in Ong Ah Chuan, and rules of natural justice in
administrative law former operates at the constitutional level
in relation to the validity of legislation, whereas the latter
operates at an executive level in relation to the validity of the
administrative decisions (but they contain the same rules!)
Former has status of constitutional rules, and can only be
abrogated by constitutional amendment under Art. 5, whereas
latter can be abrogated by ordinary legislation.
Law includes substantive theories of law e.g. fairness.
Courts seem willing to consider substantive theories of
fairness.
In Nguyen Tuong Van v. PP (2005), the Court of Appeal
indicated some consideration of a substantive conception of
law, some normative values where the common law of
Singapore has to be developed by our Judiciary for the
common good.
28
29
30
In Public Prosecutor v. Choo Chuan Wang (1992), court noted that the Malaysian
Art. 5(1) does imply the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an
impartial Court established by law.
o Case was quoted with approval in Shamim Reza bin Abdul Samad v. Public
Prosecutor (2009) which highlighted that the right to a fair trial is a
constitutionally
guaranteed
right.
Hence,
incompetent
counsel
occasioning in a miscarriage of justice may allow for the quashing of a
conviction.
33