Previous 49 / 67 Next

Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 processes that applied to each of the previous Presidents who held office after 1991 are different from those that apply today. It is also arbitrary given our observations at [74] above. (3) Our interpretation 96 In our judgment, the words “this Constitution” used in the definition of “President�� in Art 2 refer to the Constitution as it has existed from time to time since it first came into force on Independence. We reach this conclusion not only as a matter of common sense, but also having noted that this is consistent with the date of commencement of “this Constitution” as specified in Art 2 of the Constitution, that is, “9th August 1965”. In short, “this Constitution” is that which commenced on Independence, which remains – in the relevant sense – the same Constitution notwithstanding the amendments which have been made to it from time to time. This interpretation is only sensible for it is not the case that, each time amendments have been made to the Constitution, Parliament has repealed the whole Constitution and started over with a new Constitution. 97 This is also consistent with the way the words “this Constitution” are used in the context of provisions that either did or could apply to situations that occurred in the past under different iterations of the Constitution: Succession to property 160. Subject to this Article, all property and assets which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution were vested in the State of Singapore shall vest in the Republic of Singapore. … Existing laws 162. Subject to this Article, all existing laws shall continue in force on and after the commencement of this Constitution and all laws which have not been brought into force by the date of the commencement of this Constitution may, subject as aforesaid, 48

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