Previous 31 / 67 Next

Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 (c) provide for the dispensation of the requirement that a person must belong to a community in order to qualify to be elected as President if, in a reserved election, no person who qualifies to be elected as President under clause (2)(a), (b) or (c) (as the case may be) is nominated as a candidate for election as President; and (d) make such provisions the Legislature considers necessary or expedient to give effect to this Article. … (6) In this Article — “community” means — (a) the Chinese community; (b) the Malay community; or (c) the Indian or other minority communities; … “term of office” includes an uncompleted term of office. … 58 Art 19B(1) is crucial in that it introduces the concept of a reserved election. That is apparent from its title: “Reserved election for community that has not held office of President for 5 or more consecutive terms”. In this connection, it may be noted that the words “office of President” appear not just in the title but three times within the relatively short clause. The third time the expression “office of President” appears, it includes the definite article “the” before “President”, but that is in substance the same expression that has already been used twice in the same clause. Broken down, and ignoring for the moment any other clause, Art 19B(1) may be understood as follows: (a) “An election for the office of President”: As a matter of logic, this must be an election that has not yet been held because it would be meaningless, having regard to the subject matter of the clause, for Parliament to make provision reserving an election which has already taken place for candidates from a particular community. No election 30

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