Jeyaretnam v Attorney-General: MAS Loan to IMF & Constitutionality

In Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by Mr. Jeyaretnam for leave to apply for prerogative orders and declarations against the Government of Singapore and/or the Monetary Authority of Singapore concerning a US$4 billion loan offered by the MAS to the International Monetary Fund. Mr. Jeyaretnam argued that the loan contravened Article 144 of the Constitution. The Attorney-General opposed the application. Tan Lee Meng J dismissed the application, holding that Article 144 applies only to the raising of loans by the Government, not the giving of loans.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application for leave dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Constitutional

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Kenneth Jeyaretnam sought leave for orders against the Government/MAS regarding a US$4B loan to the IMF, alleging a breach of Article 144 of the Constitution. The application was dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

21 October 2012

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Attorney-General	Respondent	Government Agency	Won	Won	Aedit Abdullah of Attorney-General’s Chambers Vanessa Yeo of Attorney-General’s Chambers Darryl Soh of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew	Applicant	Individual	Application Dismissed	Lost	M Ravi of L F Violet Netto Louis Joseph of L F Violet Netto

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tan Lee Meng	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Aedit Abdullah	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Vanessa Yeo	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Darryl Soh	Attorney-General’s Chambers
M Ravi	L F Violet Netto
Louis Joseph	L F Violet Netto

4. Facts

The Monetary Authority of Singapore offered a US$4 billion contingent loan to the International Monetary Fund.
The applicant sought leave to apply for prerogative orders and declarations against the Government and/or the MAS.
The applicant claimed that the loan contravened Article 144 of the Constitution.
The respondent contended that the loan was outside the ambit of Article 144.
The MAS announced that the loan was part of international efforts to ensure that the IMF had sufficient resources to deal with the ongoing financial crisis.
The loan was in the form of contingent loans to the IMF itself and not to countries borrowing from the IMF.

5. Formal Citations

Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 657 of 2012, [2012] SGHC 210

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2012-04-20	MAS announced Singapore offered a US$4 billion contingent loan to the IMF.
2012-07-06	Kenneth Andrew Jeyaretnam filed Originating Summons No 657 of 2012.
2012-10-22	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Interpretation of Article 144 of the Constitution
- Outcome: The court held that Article 144 applies only to the raising of loans by the Government, not the giving of loans.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Application of purposive interpretation
  - Scope of 'loan' and 'guarantee'
Locus Standi
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant did not have locus standi because he did not demonstrate that he had suffered special damage as a result of the public act being challenged and that he had a genuine private interest to protect or further.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Sufficient interest in the matter
  - Enforcement of public rights

8. Remedies Sought

Prohibiting Order
Quashing Order
Declaration

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Constitutional Provision

10. Practice Areas

Judicial Review

11. Industries

Government

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 133	Singapore	Cited for the principle that leave is required to filter out groundless cases and prevent harassment of public bodies.
Chan Hiang Leng Colin and others v Minister for Information and the Arts	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR(R) 294	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a prima facie case of reasonable suspicion is required to obtain leave to apply for prerogative orders.
Constitutional Reference No 1 of 1995	Constitutional Tribunal	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR(R) 803	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a literal approach should not be adopted when interpreting the Constitution if it does not give effect to the will and intent of Parliament.
Ng Yang Sek v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR(R) 816	Singapore	Cited for the principle that interpretations of a statute should not be unduly formalistic and pay undue deference to the letter of the law, not its object.
Adnan bin Kadir v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2012] SGHC 196	Singapore	Cited for the principle that courts must always consider the purpose of the law and not simply the letter of the law.
Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 112	Singapore	Cited for the requirements for an applicant to have locus standi to bring an action under O 15 r 16 of the ROC for a declaration.
Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] SGCA 45	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the threshold for locus standi is the same whether the case is brought under O 15 r 16 or O 53 r 1 of the ROC.
Eng Foong Ho and others v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 542	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the threshold for locus standi is the same whether the case is brought under O 15 r 16 or O 53 r 1 of the ROC.
Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 1033	Singapore	Cited as a case concerning a public right, namely, the public interest in the strict observance of Article 49(1) of the Constitution.
Inland Revenue Commissioners v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1982] 1 AC 617	England	Cited for the English position on locus standi in relation to the enforcement of public rights.
Regina v Her Majesty’s Treasury Ex parte Smedley	N/A	Yes	[1985] 1 QB 657	England	Cited as an English case which followed a liberal approach to locus standi.
Regina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Ex parte World Development Movement Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1995] 1 WLR 386	England	Cited as an English case which followed a liberal approach to locus standi.
Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang	Malaysian Supreme Court	Yes	[1988] 2 MLJ 12	Malaysia	Cited for the Malaysian Supreme Court's consideration of the English position on locus standi in relation to the enforcement of public rights.
Boyce v Paddington Borough Council	N/A	Yes	[1903] 1 Ch 109	England	Cited for the principle that a plaintiff can sue without joining the Attorney General in two cases.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 53

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Rev Ed) Art 144	Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A(1)	Singapore
Financial Procedure Act (Cap 109, 2012 Rev Ed) s 15	Singapore
Bretton Woods Agreements Act (Cap 27, 2012 Rev Ed) s 9	Singapore
International Development Association Act (Cap 144A, 2003 Rev Ed) s 5(1)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Contingent Loan
Prerogative Orders
Article 144
Monetary Authority of Singapore
International Monetary Fund
Locus Standi
Purposive Interpretation

15.2 Keywords

Constitution
Loan
Guarantee
President
Parliament
Monetary Authority of Singapore
International Monetary Fund

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Constitutional Law	90
Administrative Law	70
Judicial Review	60
Banking and Finance	30

16. Subjects

Constitutional Law
Financial Law
Judicial Review