Chee Siok Chin v Attorney-General
[2006] SGHC 112
Case Number
: OS 1017/2006, SUM 2419/2006
Decision Date
: 22 June 2006
Tribunal/Court : High Court
Coram
: Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA
Counsel Name(s) : M Ravi (M Ravi & Co) for the plaintiff; Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck and Leong Kwang
Ian (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the defendant
Parties
: Chee Siok Chin — Attorney-General
Elections – Petition – Procedure and practice – Plaintiff applying for results of general election to
be declared void – Plaintiff failing to pay required security for costs within required time – Whether
timelines and requirements under r 13 Parliamentary Elections (Application for Avoidance of Election)
Rules mandatory – Section 90, Fourth Schedule r 13 Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218, 2001 Rev
Ed)
22 June 2006
Judgment reserved.
Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA:
Introduction
1
The plaintiff had applied (pursuant to the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218, 2001 Rev Ed)
(“the Act”), specifically, s 90 thereof) for the following orders on 24 May 2006 (by way of Originating
Summons No 1017 of 2006, naming the Attorney-General as the defendant):
(a)
that the results of the General Elections 2006 be declared null and void;
(b)
that the ban on podcasting during the period of the General Elections 2006 be declared
unconstitutional; and
(c)
such other relief and/or remedies as the court deems fit.
2
The plaintiff was, in fact, a member of the team from the Singapore Democratic Party which
unsuccessfully contested the Group Representation Constituency of Sembawang during the General
Elections held on 6 May 2006, although it is not altogether clear in what capacity she made her
application pursuant to the Act (cf generally s 93 of the Act). In any event, this is not an issue in the
present proceedings.
3
In the present proceedings, the defendant applied, pursuant to r 13(4) of the Parliamentary
Elections (Application for Avoidance of Election) Rules (which are located at the Fourth Schedule to
the Act and are hereafter referred to as the “PER”), for the following orders:
(1)
That the Plaintiff’s application under the Parliamentary Elections Act [referred to at [1]
above] be dismissed.
(2)
That the Plaintiff pay the Defendant’s costs of this application forthwith.
4
The basis for the application in the present proceedings (which was filed on 31 May 2006) is
that the plaintiff had failed to comply with r 13 of the PER – in particular, r 13(1). The rule itself reads
as follows: