Balqis-Maimon Abd Rahman v Soekiman bin Parjo: Civil Revision on Gender Change Order under POHA
In Balqis-Maimon Abd Rahman v Soekiman bin Parjo, the High Court of Singapore heard a civil revision concerning orders made in District Court proceedings under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). The Deputy Registrar had implicitly and expressly granted leave for the applicant's gender to be changed from male to female. Justice Vincent Hoong, delivering the judgment, set aside the orders, clarifying that the court lacked the jurisdiction to make such orders and dismissing the underlying applications.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Orders set aside; underlying applications dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Civil revision regarding orders implicitly granting leave for gender change under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). The High Court set aside the orders, clarifying the court's lack of jurisdiction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balqis-Maimon Abd Rahman | Applicant | Individual | Orders set aside; underlying applications dismissed | Lost | |
| Soekiman Bin Parjo | Respondent | Individual | No specific outcome | Neutral | |
| Rizman Bin Soekiman | Respondent | Individual | No specific outcome | Neutral | |
| Fatimah Bte Abdullah | Respondent | Individual | No specific outcome | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|
4. Facts
- Applicant sought orders to prevent harassment and stalking under the Protection from Harassment Act.
- Deputy Registrar granted orders implicitly and expressly allowing a change of the applicant's gender from male to female.
- The Deputy Registrar brought the orders to the High Court's attention, questioning his power to make such orders.
- The applicant sought to use the court orders to compel the Immigration and Checkpoint Authority to change the gender on the applicant's NRIC.
- The High Court found that the Deputy Registrar had no legal basis to make the orders.
- The High Court determined that the orders potentially placed pressure on agencies to recognize the applicant's new gender.
5. Formal Citations
- Balqis-Maimon Abd Rahman v Soekiman bin Parjo and others, Civil Revision No 1 of 2021, [2021] SGHC 160
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Deputy Registrar made an order permitting the applicant to amend his name. | |
| Deputy Registrar granted an order to amend her name from Mohd Bakhit Bin Abd Rahman to Balqis-Maimon Abd Rahman. | |
| Deputy Registrar granted an order to change the gender of the applicant from Male to Female. | |
| Pre-trial conference held. | |
| Deputy Registrar sent a letter stating that he had no power to make any order permitting or endorsing a change of gender. | |
| Judgment delivered by Vincent Hoong J. |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of the Court
- Outcome: The court held that the Deputy Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction by making orders related to gender change.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Excess of jurisdiction
- Lack of legal basis for orders
- Separation of Powers
- Outcome: The court held that the orders, if interpreted as granting leave to change gender in the national register, would represent an impermissible encroachment into the principle of separation of powers.
- Category: Constitutional
- Sub-Issues:
- Encroachment on Executive function
8. Remedies Sought
- Orders prohibiting harassment
- Orders prohibiting stalking
- Orders prohibiting hacking of social media accounts
- Leave to change gender
9. Cause of Actions
- Application under Section 12 of the Protection from Harassment Act
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 354 | Singapore | Cited to define interlocutory orders. |
| Salijah bte Ab Latef v Mohd Irwan bin Abdullah Teo | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 233 | Singapore | Cited to define declaratory order. |
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 476 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement of a real controversy between parties for declaratory relief. |
| Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v British Bank for Foreign Trade, Limited | House of Lords | Yes | [1921] 2 AC 438 | United Kingdom | Cited for the proposition that the person raising the question must be able to secure a proper contradictor. |
| Public Prosecutor v Quek Chin Chuan | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 138 | Singapore | Cited to support the point that the District Court is a creature of statute. |
| Jeff Chou Enterprise Co Ltd v Ban Choon Marketing Pte Ltd and another | District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 13 | Singapore | Cited to support the point that the District Court is a creature of statute. |
| The Redwood Tree Pte Ltd v CPL Trading Pte Ltd | District Court | Yes | [2009] SGDC 204 | Singapore | Cited to support the point that the District Court is a creature of statute. |
| Shahab Uddin Miah Borkot Ali Matbor v Kao Lee Aluminium Industrial Pte Ltd | District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 151 | Singapore | Cited to support the point that the District Court is a creature of statute. |
| Ng Chye Huey and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 106 | Singapore | Cited for the propositions that revision lies on errors of law and fact and is marked by complete flexibility of remedies. |
| Ang Poh Chuan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 929 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the revisionary jurisdiction of the General Division should only be exercised in exceptional cases where there is serious injustice. |
| Oon Heng Lye v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 1064 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the revisionary jurisdiction of the General Division should only be exercised in exceptional cases where there is serious injustice. |
| Public Prosecutor v Nyu Tiong Lam and others | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 788 | Singapore | Cited as an example where revisionary jurisdiction is exercised when the judge below acted outside his jurisdiction. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lee Wei Zheng Winston | High Court | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 800 | Singapore | Cited as an example where revisionary jurisdiction is exercised when the judge below acted outside his jurisdiction. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) | Singapore |
| Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| National Registration Act (Cap 201, 1992 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Protection from Harassment Act
- Civil Revision
- Gender Change
- Deputy Registrar
- Jurisdiction
- Separation of Powers
- National Registration Act
- Immigration and Checkpoint Authority
- Ex Parte Application
15.2 Keywords
- Civil Revision
- Gender Change
- Jurisdiction
- Harassment
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Protection from Harassment | 90 |
| Gender Recognition | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Administrative Law | 40 |
| Constitutional Law | 20 |
| Property Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law
- Human Rights