Previous 48 / 67 Next

Tan Cheng Bock v AG 93 [2017] SGCA 50 When we pointed out to Mr Rajah these difficulties that would result if we applied s 8(3) of the IA, he clarified that his position was that at the time the 2016 Amendment was passed, the mode of electing Presidents was as set out in Art 17, that is, by the citizens. Hence, the reference in Art 2 to a President “elected under this Constitution” must be taken as a reference to a President elected by the citizens of Singapore under Art 17. As long as a President has been elected by the citizens of Singapore under Art 17, even under any previous iteration of the Constitution, the term of office of such a President could be counted for the purpose of Art 19B(1). 94 There are several difficulties with this. First, this is not a result that can be arrived at by calling in aid either s 8(3) or s 15(2)(a) of the IA. For the purposes of s 8(3) of the IA, the relevant Act that is referred to in the definition of “President” in Art 2 is “this Constitution”. For the reasons we have just set out, s 8(3) simply cannot apply in this context, given the express words of Art 164. Nor, for the reasons stated at [86] above, does s 15(2)(a) apply. 95 Second, the Appellant in effect seeks to draw a line at the 1991 Amendment and contends that Art 164 does not allow Parliament to specify the term of office of President Wee just because he was elected under an iteration of the Constitution prior to the 1991 Amendment. But this seems to us to be an arbitrary line. Once one accepts, as one must in the light of Art 164, that Parliament can stipulate, as the first of “the 5 most recent terms”, a term of office held by a President elected under a previous iteration of the Constitution, there is then no logical or principled basis for drawing the line at 1991. When pressed, Mr Rajah submitted that this rested on the fact that there was a major electoral reform to the office of the President in that year. But this does not afford a principled basis for drawing the line there. There was, after all, another major electoral reform in 2016; and significantly, as we have already noted, the 47

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