Previous 45 / 67 Next

Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 exclude President Wee who was elected under a previous iteration of the Constitution which included Art 17 and which has been repealed. 83 The relevant provisions of the IA are as follows: Mode of citing Acts 8.—(1) Where any Act is referred to… (3) Any such citation of an Act shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as a reference to the Act as amended from time to time by any other Act. … References to amended and re-enacted provisions 15.—… (2) Where any written law repeals and reenacts, with or without modification, any provision of a former written law, then, unless the contrary intention appears — (a) any reference in any other written law to the provision so repealed shall be construed as a reference to the provision so reenacted; ... [emphasis added] 84 It is necessary to unpack the Appellant’s argument as we have summarised it at [82] above in order to assess whether it has force. 85 If we take the Appellant’s reliance on ss 8(3) and 15(2)(a) of the IA to its logical conclusion, it would mean that a reference to “this Constitution” in the definition of “President” in Art 2 is a reference to the Constitution as it stands after the 2016 Amendment. 86 We should first say that s 15(2)(a) appears to be inapplicable. On its terms, it applies where one written law refers to a “provision” which has been repealed and re-enacted. As highlighted at [82(d)], the Appellant’s argument is 44

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