Previous 58 / 67 Next

Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 Report and the White Paper place strong emphasis on ensuring multi-racial representation given the President’s vital role as a symbol of national unity and an expression of our national identity. The concept of how this was to be achieved was recommended by the Commission after studying various other options, and was then accepted by the Government in the White Paper. However – and we have alluded to this at [109] – the legal inquiry before us does not require us to inquire more deeply into the legislative purpose behind Art 19B(1), which introduces the concept of a reserved election, and still less the underlying reasons for wanting to implement a mechanism for ensuring minority representation. Rather, what we need to determine is the specific purpose behind the transitional provision, Art 164. To this extent, the Commission’s Report and the White Paper have no utility in terms of shedding light on that. In other words, they are incapable of giving assistance in the relevant regard, and thus need not be considered. (2) The Explanatory Statement 116 Next, we turn to the Explanatory Statement. Its relevant paragraphs state: REPRESENTATION OF MAIN COMMUNITIES IN OFFICE OF PRESIDENT Clause 9 inserts a new Article 19B to provide for a Presidential election to be reserved for a community if no person belonging to that community has held the office of President for any of the 5 most recent Presidential terms. … Clause 32 requires the Legislature to make transitional provisions for the purposes of new Article 19B. Transitional provisions will specify the first term of office of the President to be counted for the purposes of deciding whether an election is reserved under Article 19B. If any of the Presidential terms to be counted commences before the date on which Article 19B is brought into force, the transitional provisions will also specify the communities to which the Presidents who held office for those terms are considered to belong. For future Presidents, the communities to which they belong will be decided in accordance 57

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