Constitutional Law 1

19
East India Company founded in 1600 by Royal Charter. Regulating Act & Pitt’s Act 1784 gave British parliament control over Indian affairs & legislative powers. Feb 1819 – Raffles signs treaty of Friendship with Sultan Hussein & Temenggong Abdul Rahman – power to establish trading post in Singapore. 1824 – Anglo-Dutch Treaty – treaty with Sultan & Temenggong for cession by Crawfurd.

description

 

Transcript of Constitutional Law 1

Page 1: Constitutional Law 1

East India Company founded in 1600 by Royal Charter.

Regulating Act & Pitt’s Act 1784 gave British parliament control over Indian affairs & legislative powers.

Feb 1819 – Raffles signs treaty of Friendship with Sultan Hussein & Temenggong Abdul Rahman – power to establish trading post in Singapore.

1824 – Anglo-Dutch Treaty – treaty with Sultan & Temenggong for cession by Crawfurd.

Page 2: Constitutional Law 1

1826 – Second Charter of Justice – creation of Court of Judicature

1833 Charter Act – Parliamentary control over EIC. Governor-General in Council to legislate for Straits Settlements

1855 – Third Charter of Justice 1855

1867 – Transfer to Colonial Office. Establishment of own Legislative Council & Executive Council. Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements.

Page 3: Constitutional Law 1

1920s – Sir Laurence Guillemard’s reforms – more representative law- making body

1942-45 – Japanese Occupation

1945 – British Military Administration – martial law

1946 – Abolition of Straits Settlements. Singapore now colony directly under Colonial Office.

1948 – First elections for first elected members of Legislative Council

Page 4: Constitutional Law 1

1954 – Rendel Commission & Rendel Constitution

Elections 1955 – Legislative Assembly. David Marshall Chief Minister

Constitutional Talks 1956-1958

Self-Government 1958; elections 1959

Merger with Malaysia 1963

Separation 1965

Page 5: Constitutional Law 1

Constitutional Patchwork

State of Singapore Constitution 1963

Republic of Singapore Independence Act 1965

Parts of Federal Constitution 1963 – Fundamental Liberties

Page 6: Constitutional Law 1

Wee Chong Jin Constitutional Commission 1966

Entrenchment of fundamental liberties provisions

Creation of Council of State to safeguard minority rights and interests

Creation of office of Ombudsman

Entrenching of Judicial Offices

Page 7: Constitutional Law 1

Entrenchment

Fundamental Liberties, including right to vote – altered only if supported by two-thirds majority in Parliament & at national referendum.

Public Service Commission, Judicial & Legal Service Commission, Ombudsman, Council of State – altered only if supported by two-thirds majority in Parliament.

1965 – Amendment procedure of State Constitution 1963 changed to simple majority

Two-thirds majority majority only restored in 1979.

Page 8: Constitutional Law 1

Presidential Council for Minority Rights

1969

Changes to judiciary - new Supreme Court

of Judicature Act, 1969

Supernumerary judges 1971

Entrenching sovereignty 1972

Judicial Commissioners 1979

Reprint of the Constitution 1979

Barker – All major amendments

completed.

Page 9: Constitutional Law 1

Changes to Parliamentary system

Non-constituency MP (NCMP)

1984

Group Representation

Constituency (GRC) 1988

Nominated MP (NMP) 1990

Elected President 1991

Page 10: Constitutional Law 1

Exactly what is the Singapore

Constitution?

From where does it draw its

legitimacy?

What do we mean by

constitutional supremacy?

What role do the courts play in

constitutional interpretation?

Page 11: Constitutional Law 1

Based on law? Hans Kelsen –

every norm can be traced to a

higher norm and ultimately to

the grundnorm.

Based on constituent power of

the people? Are the people

even relevant?

Based on performance?

Page 12: Constitutional Law 1

Why is the Constitution is supreme?

Because it declares itself to be such – eg Article 4(1).

Because the people deem it to be such?

Because it is harder to amend than ordinary law – eg Article 5(2)

and Article 8(1)

Page 13: Constitutional Law 1

Article 4(1)

This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

Article 5(2)

A Bill seeking to amend any provision in this Constitution shall not be passed by Parliament unless it has been supported on Second and Third Readings by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of the Members thereof.

Page 14: Constitutional Law 1

Article 8(1)

A Bill for making an amendment to this Part shall not be passed by Parliament unless it has been supported, at a national referendum, by not less than two-thirds of the total number of votes cast by the electors registered under the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 218).

Article 5(2A) [in abeyance]

Unless the President, acting in his discretion, otherwise directs the Speaker in writing, a Bill seeking to amend —

(a) this clause or Article 5A;(b) any provision in Part IV;(c) any provision in Chapter 1 of Part V or Article 93A;(d) Article 65 or 66; or(e) any other provision in this Constitution which authorises the President to act in

his discretion, shall not be passed by Parliament unless it has also been supported at a national

referendum by not less than two-thirds of the total number of votes cast by the electors registered under the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 218).

Page 15: Constitutional Law 1

Implied Amendments – MacCawley v The King vs

Article 5 ‘seeking to amend’

Beyond limits placed by Articles 5 & 8, are there

any limitations to legislative power?

Are the inherent limits to the amendment power of

Parliament?

Basic Features doctrine – Kesavananda v State

of Kerala Supreme Court of India 1973.

Loh Kooi Choon (Malaysia, 1977)

Teo Soh Lung v MHA (Singapore, 1990)

Page 16: Constitutional Law 1

Article 4(1)

This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

Article 93

The judicial power of Singapore shall be vested in a Supreme Court and in such subordinate courts as may be provided by any written law for the time being in force.

Page 17: Constitutional Law 1

Judicial Review power – Only exercised once since 1965 to declare

legislation unconstitutional – Taw Cheng Kong v PP (1998) HC

Overturned in Court of Appeal. Yong CJ: ‘It is not for the courts to

dictate the scope and ambit of a section, or rule on its propriety.

That is a matter which only Parliament can decide; the courts can

only interpret what is enacted.’

Most issues concern interpretation of fundamental liberties. Limits of

judicial interpretation?

Ong Ah Chuan v PP (1981) – Privy Council – Lord Diplock –

‘generous interpretation’; avoid ‘austerity of tabulated legalism’ to

give individuals the ‘full measure’ of fundamental liberties’.

Page 18: Constitutional Law 1

Four Walls Doctrine – Yong CJ in Chan Hiang Leng Colin (1994): A Constitution is to be interpreted ‘within its own four walls and not in the light of analogies drawn from other countries such as Great Britain, the United States of America or Australia.’

Rajeevan Edakalavan v PP (1998): ‘members of Parliament are freely elected by the people of Singapore and represent the interests of the constituency who entrust them to act fairly, justly and reasonably.’

Jabar v PP (1995): ‘Any law which provides for the deprivation of a person’s life or personal liberty, is valid and binding so long as it is validly passed by Parliament. The court is no concerned with whether it is also fair, just and reasonable as well.’

Page 19: Constitutional Law 1

1. ‘The Singapore legal systems is really not very different from that of

other countries that derive their systems from the common law

tradition.’ Comment on the validity of this statement with reference

to the material you have covered in your readings.

2. What, in your opinion, are the biggest challenges to Singapore’s

legal system as you understand it?