Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Tribunal
It is then open to Cabinet to advise the President to refer to the Tribunal the question whether the bill in fact circumvents or curtails his discretionary powers.
If the Tribunal rules that the proposed amendment does have the effect of restricting the discretionary powers of the President, the Prime Minister is entitled to submit the bill to a national referendum for approval.
2) Act 1994, which was passed by Parliament on 25 August 1994 and assented to by President Ong Teng Cheong on 14 September 1994.
[2] Prior to the enactment of Article 100, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong noted during the Second Reading of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No.
[9]The reply by the Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was threefold:[10] Questions referred to the Tribunal may concern the validity of enacted laws or of bills that have not yet been passed by Parliament.
[11] The other two grounds relate to attempts by Parliament to circumvent or curtail the discretionary powers conferred on the President by the Constitution.
Article 22H of the Constitution deals with attempts to alter the President's powers by introducing an ordinary bill.
The Cabinet may, if it wishes, advise the President to refer to the Tribunal the question whether the bill in fact has the effect of circumventing or curtailing his discretionary powers.
[12] When Article 5A is brought into force, the President will also be able to decline to assent to a bill seeking to amend the Constitution that has a direct or indirect effect of circumventing or curtailing his discretionary powers.
The Government was represented by Chan Sek Keong and Soh Tze Bian of the Attorney-General's Chambers, and the Presidency by Joseph Grimberg and Walter Woon.
[27] The Constitutional Tribunal, which consisted of the Chief Justice Yong Pung How and Judges of Appeal M. Karthigesu and L.P. Thean, held that although Article 5(2A) was in abeyance, it represented the will of Parliament and therefore had to be taken into consideration.
The first instance of a non-governmental attempt to put an issue before the Constitutional Tribunal came from Non-constituency Member of Parliament Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam.
[28] The Finance Minister Dr. Richard Hu Tsu Tau did not agree with Jeyaretnam's interpretation of the provision, and stated that the Attorney-General had given advice that the granting of loans and the purchase of securities of this type had the prior approval of two Presidents.
The Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong confirmed that this reading of the provision, which he characterized as reddendo singula singulis (Latin for "referring each to each"), was correct.
[31] On 20 January 1999, Jeyaretnam wrote to President Ong Teng Cheong requesting the reference of another constitutional question to the Tribunal.
Jeyaretnam argued that the Act violated Articles 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, which enshrines freedom of speech and assembly.
The following reasons were given: A plea for a review by the Constitutional Tribunal was sought as a last-ditch attempt to stave off the execution of drug trafficker Shanmugam Murugesu.
Referring to cases of six recent offenders similarly convicted under the Misuse of Drugs Act,[35] Shanmugam's lawyer drew attention to the fact that those offenders had imported more than 700 grammes of cannabis, an offence which attracted the death penalty, but were eventually charged with possessing less than 500 grammes of cannabis which resulted only in a jail sentence.
[37] This issue was briefly dealt with by the Minister who simply answered it in the affirmative, rendering the need for a resolution by the constitutional tribunal nugatory.
