Previous 10 / 67 Next

Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 on 6 February 2017 and passed on the same day. It was assented to by President Tan on 13 March 2017 and this too came into operation on 1 April 2017. 19 In the PE(A) Act 2017, Parliament specified the first term for the purpose of determining whether and when a presidential election should be reserved under Art 19B(1). The PE(A) Act 2017 amended the Presidential Elections Act (Cap 240A, 2011 Rev Ed) (“PEA”) by inserting, among other provisions, a new s 5A, titled “Reserved elections: how counted”. Section 5A states that the Schedule to the PEA has effect for the purposes of determining whether an election is reserved under Art 19B(1) of the Constitution. That Schedule was inserted into the PEA by s 22 of the PE(A) Act 2017. It lists the terms of office of five previous Presidents and specifies the racial communities to which they belonged. The first term in that list is that of President Wee; it is not in dispute that this refers to President Wee’s second term of office which was from 1 September 1989 to 31 August 1993. 20 It was against the backdrop of these constitutional amendments and other legislative actions that the Appellant filed the originating summons which led to the present appeal. Decision below 21 We briefly recount the principal reasons underlying the Judge’s decision to dismiss the Appellant’s application. 22 The Judge carefully considered the text of Arts 19B and 164. As a preliminary point, he did not accept the Appellant’s argument that, because these articles allegedly encroach on the fundamental right of a citizen to stand for office, Arts 19B and 164 of the Constitution should be construed restrictively (at [40]–[44] of the Judgment). 9

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Tan Chen Bock v. Attorney General

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the reserved election clause solely permits choosing from the terms of office of Presidents elected by the citizens, or also includes those chosen by Parliament.

Alleged Acts: The case comes before the court on Art. 19B(1) and 164. Art. 19B(1) introducing a reserved election where the office of the President is reserved for candidates of a particular community if no person from that particular community has held office for the five most recent terms of office. The law defined community as Chinese, Malay, Indian, and other minority communities. Three individuals held the office for five terms and were not Malay. Therefore, the 2017 election was reserved for a candidate from that community. The appellant argues that this does not apply to those candidates elected by Parliament, but only to those elected by the people, which would not reserve the office for a Malay candidate.

Procedural history: The appellant filed suit in the High Court seeking voidance of Art. 19 and 164. The High Court dismissed the application on July 7, 2017. The appellant appealed to the current court and the Court heard the case on expedited basis because the Government sought to issue a writ of election for the next presidential election. The appellant appealed the case stating that lower court erroneously stated that “President” applies to those both elected by the people and Parliament, that the last term of President Wee was set as the first term in the five, and that President Wee was elected by the citizens.

Summary: The court determined that the appellant’s argument was one based primarily on the text of the constitution. The Constitution defines a President as one elected under the Constitution, not necessarily those elected under 2016 Amendments. The appellant argued that only Presidents that underwent the prior reform process may not be counted or considered Presidents. However, the court rejected this because the legislative intent was not to preclude any of the previous Presidents under this and create an unworkable standard. Parliament has the authority to determine what “five more recent terms” means under the Constitution.

Conclusion: Parliament had the power to specify that President Wee’s last term was the first term in the five term count. The court dismissed the appeal.

Legal Issue(s)

Candidate Registration

Region: Asia-Pacific

Country: Singapore

Language of Decision

English

Court: Appellate Court

Election Type: Presidential

Date of decision: Aug 23, 2017

Geolocation

Latitude: 1.289765826

Longitude: 103.8511735

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

tan-cheng-bock-v-attorney-general-2017-sgca-50-(amended-on-131017)-pdf.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Tan Chen Bock v. Attorney General

Primary Documents

Notifications