Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General: Constitutional Challenge to Presidential Election Amendment Act
Dr. Tan Cheng Bock, the Plaintiff, sought a declaration in the High Court of Singapore that Section 22 of the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 2017 is inconsistent with the Constitution. The Attorney-General, the Defendant, resisted the declaration. Quentin Loh J dismissed the application, holding that Parliament was entitled to specify President Wee Kim Wee's last term in office as the First Term for the purposes of deciding whether an election is reserved under Article 19B of the Constitution.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dr. Tan Cheng Bock challenges the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 2017, arguing it's inconsistent with the Constitution. The court dismisses the application, upholding the Act's validity.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Defendant | Government Agency | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Sivakumar Ramasamy of Attorney-General’s Chambers Hri Kumar Nair of Attorney-General’s Chambers Seow Zhixiang of Attorney-General’s Chambers Aurill Kam of Attorney-General’s Chambers Nathaniel Khng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Cheng Bock | Plaintiff | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sivakumar Ramasamy | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Hri Kumar Nair | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Seow Zhixiang | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Aurill Kam | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Nathaniel Khng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chelva Retnam Rajah | Tan Rajah & Cheah |
| Earnest Lau Chee Chong | Tan Rajah & Cheah |
| Zara Chan Xian Wen | Tan Rajah & Cheah |
4. Facts
- The Plaintiff, Dr. Tan Cheng Bock, sought a declaration that s 22 of the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 2017 is unconstitutional.
- The Plaintiff argued that the Act is inconsistent with Arts 19B(1) and/or 164(1)(a) of the Constitution.
- The Plaintiff contended that the count for a Reserved Election should start from the first popularly elected President, President Ong Teng Cheong.
- The Attorney-General argued that Parliament acted constitutionally in specifying President Wee's term as the First Term.
- The Defendant accepted that the Plaintiff had standing to seek the declaration.
- Parliament passed the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 2017, amending the Presidential Elections Act.
- The Act introduced the concept of a Reserved Election, updated criteria for Presidential candidates, and provided for additional members to the CPA.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 495 of 2017, [2017] SGHC 160
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Singapore gained independence from the United Kingdom as a state within the Federation of Malaysia | |
| Singapore became an independent nation | |
| Parliament passed the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1965 | |
| Encik Yusof bin Ishak was re-elected as President by Parliament | |
| Encik Yusof bin Ishak passed away in office | |
| Dr. Benjamin Sheares was elected by Parliament as the second President | |
| Dr. Benjamin Sheares assumed office | |
| Dr. Benjamin Sheares passed away in office | |
| Mr. Devan Nair succeeded Dr. Benjamin Sheares as the third President | |
| PM Lee Kuan Yew mooted the idea of a popularly elected President with custodial powers in his National Day Rally speech | |
| Mr. Devan Nair resigned due to health reasons | |
| Dr. Wee Kim Wee became the fourth President | |
| The First Deputy PM presented a White Paper in Parliament | |
| A second White Paper was presented to Parliament | |
| The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill was read in Parliament for the first time | |
| The Select Committee’s report was presented to Parliament | |
| Parliament passed the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 1991 | |
| The 1991 Act largely came into effect | |
| President Wee retired | |
| President Ong assumed office | |
| President Ong's term ended | |
| President S R Nathan assumed office | |
| President S R Nathan's term ended | |
| President Tony Tan Keng Yam became President | |
| PM Lee Hsien Loong indicated that the time had come for more sweeping change to the Elected Presidency | |
| The PM appointed a Constitutional Commission chaired by the Chief Justice | |
| The Chief Justice, as Chairman of the 2016 Commission, submitted its Report to the PM | |
| The Government issued a White Paper in response to the Commission’s recommendations | |
| The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill was read in Parliament for the first time | |
| Parliament debated the 2016 Bill | |
| Parliament debated the 2016 Bill | |
| Parliament debated the 2016 Bill | |
| The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2016 was passed | |
| The Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill was read in Parliament for the first time | |
| Parliament debated the 2017 Bill | |
| The PE(A) Act 2017 was passed | |
| The 2016 Act came into effect | |
| The Act amended the PEA with effect from 1 April 2017 | |
| Plaintiff filed the Original Affidavit | |
| Affidavit of Goh Soon Poh dated | |
| Affidavit of Tan Cheng Bock @ Adrian Tan dated | |
| Plaintiff’s Submissions dated | |
| Defendant’s Submissions dated | |
| Hearing on 29 June 2017 | |
| Plaintiff’s Reply Submissions dated | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| President Tony Tan Keng Yam's term of office expires |
7. Legal Issues
- Constitutionality of Presidential Elections Amendment Act
- Outcome: The court held that the Act was constitutional and that Parliament was entitled to specify President Wee Kim Wee's last term in office as the First Term.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Inconsistency with Articles 19B(1) and/or 164(1)(a) of the Constitution
- Validity of specifying President Wee Kim Wee's term as the First Term
- Standing to bring a constitutional challenge
- Outcome: The Defendant accepted that the Plaintiff had standing to seek the declaration.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 4 SLR 476
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that s 22 of the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 2017 is unconstitutional
- Declaration that the reference to President Wee Kim Wee in the Schedule is unconstitutional
9. Cause of Actions
- Constitutional challenge to legislation
10. Practice Areas
- Constitutional Litigation
- Public Law
11. Industries
- Government
- Legal
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 476 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements to establish standing to bring a constitutional challenge. |
| Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General | Unknown | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited as a case that approved of the standing requirements in Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General. |
| Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General | Unknown | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 345 | Singapore | Cited as a case that approved of the standing requirements in Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General. |
| Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the purposive approach to statutory interpretation and the use of extraneous materials. |
| Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 354 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the purposive approach takes precedence over common law principles of statutory interpretation. |
| Constitutional Reference No 1 of 1995 | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 803 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court must interpret the Constitution to give effect to the intent and will of Parliament. |
| Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Heng | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 183 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if a provision is well-drafted, its purpose will emanate from the words in which it is formed. |
| Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 489 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the legislative purpose of a provision can be formulated by referring to the preamble. |
| Ong Ah Chuan and another v Public Prosecutor | Privy Council | Yes | [1979-1980] SLR(R) 710 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that fundamental rights in Part IV of the Constitution call for a generous interpretation. |
| Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Collins MacDonald Fisher and Another | Unknown | Yes | [1980] AC 319 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that fundamental liberties call for a generous interpretation. |
| Ng Ka Ling (An Infant) & Anor v Director of Immigration | Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 HKC 291 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that fundamental rights should be generously interpreted. |
| Gurung Kesh Bahadur v Director of Immigration | Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal | Yes | [2002] HKCU 909 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that fundamental rights should be generously interpreted. |
| Leung Kwok Hung and Others v HKSAR | Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal | Yes | [2005] HKCU 887 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that fundamental rights should be generously interpreted. |
| Fok Chun Wa & Anor v Hospital Authority & Anor | Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 HKC 413 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that fundamental rights should be generously interpreted. |
| Tee Soon Kay v Attorney-General | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 133 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the heading of a provision can be used as an aid to interpretation. |
| R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex parte Spath Holme Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 2 AC 349 | Unknown | Cited regarding the danger of construing statements made by Parliamentarians rather than the Parliamentary enactment. |
| Pepper v Hart | Unknown | Yes | [1993] AC 593 | Unknown | Cited regarding the requirement that a statement should disclose the mischief aimed at by the enactment. |
| Melluish (Inspector of Taxes) v BMI (No 3) Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 4 All ER 453 | Unknown | Cited regarding the requirement that a statement should be directed to the very point in question in the litigation. |
| Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan v Public Prosecutor and other matters | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 173 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that an unconstitutional amendment will result in no change to the pre-existing statute. |
| Birmingham Corporation v West Midland Baptist (Trust) Association (Inc) | Unknown | Yes | [1970] AC 874 | Unknown | Cited regarding the principle that if Parliament misunderstands what a statutory provision means, a court is not therefore barred from stating the true legal position. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Presidential Elections Act (Cap 240A, 2011 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 2017 (Act 6 of 2017) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Internal Security Act (Cap 143, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Act 26 of 1990) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 1991 (Act 5 of 1991) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 1996 (Act 41 of 1996) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 2016 (Act 28 of 2016) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Presidential Elections Amendment Act
- Reserved Election
- First Term
- Article 19B
- Article 164
- Constitutionality
- Elected Presidency
- Parliamentary Discretion
- Purposive Interpretation
- Standing
15.2 Keywords
- Presidential Election
- Constitutional Challenge
- Singapore
- Amendment Act
- Reserved Election
- Article 19B
- Article 164
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Law | 95 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Elections
- Presidential Powers
- Statutory Interpretation