Constitution of the Republic of Singapore

“The appellants sought a declaration that the MDP contained within s 33(1) of the MDA, read with its Second Schedule, was unconstitutional for violating Arts 9(1), 12(1) and 93 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) (“Constitution”).”

“mants brought OC 968, in which they sought, amongst other things, (a) a declaration that Resolution 1a was invalid; (b) a declaration that the passing of Resolution 1a was in contravention of r 37 of the Constitution; and (c) an injunction to restrain the defendants from carrying out the proposed works under Resolution”

“The starting point is that the Guidelines plainly do not have the force of primary legislation. This much should be clear from Arts 38 and 58(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed). Article 38 vests Singapore’s legislative power in the Legislature, consisting of the President and Parliament,”

“The MND had an interest or duty in receiving the 3rd Email. Under the 13th Schedule to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Ministerial Responsibility) Notification 2020 (“MRN”), the BMSMA is listed as one of the statutes which fell within “National Development”.”

“(c) Constitutional grounds – breach of Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (2020 Rev Ed) (“Constitution”), ie, the treatment of Orchard Towers compared to surrounding establishments was discriminatory and unequal.”

“ated (at [254] and [264]) that if the Reynolds privilege were to be adopted as part of our common law, it would have to be adopted on the basis that the freedom of speech enshrined in Art 14(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) is likewise “a right based on a constitutional”

“Article 12(1) of the Constitution”

“Majlis, to deal with the administration of Muslim law and the regulation of Muslim religious affairs in Singapore. There is resonance in this regard between the purpose of the AMLA and Art 152(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Rev Ed) which provides as follows:”

“tal punishment, and his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in 2011. Thereafter, he filed a criminal motion in the Court of Appeal arguing that his right to equal treatment under Art 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Constitution”) had been violated by the”

“ng it. By doing that it would be assuming a legislative power it does not have, and even Parliament may not have, if we agree with Jean-Louis de Lolme’s wry statement in Constitution de l’Angleterre (The Constitution of England) that “parliament can do everything but make a woman a man and a man a woman”. At the same t”

“e basis of submissions rather than proof (O 110 r 25 of the Rules of Court); and International Judges from both common law and civil law jurisdictions have been appointed (pursuant to Art 95(4)(c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint)).”

“le in judicial review is “premised on a proper understanding of the role of the respective branches of government – especially, in this context, the Executive and the Judiciary – in a democracy where the Constitution reigns supreme”: Tan Seet Eng at [99]. In short, the judiciary’s task is limited to reviewing the legal”

“after the disposal of a criminal appeal. Instead, they all concerned applications for leave to submit, post-appeal, new legal arguments (all of which concerned fundamental liberties guaranteed under the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint)) that had not been canvassed in the court below”

“out by this court for determining when a sentence of death should be imposed is too vague and lacks that quality of certainty required for it to be considered “law” within the meaning of Art 9(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Constitution”).”

“egistering the Respondent under the Societies Act. At that meeting, Mr Aw, the Respondent’s current chairman, was appointed as the secretary of the Respondent’s management committee. A constitution (“the Constitution”) was drafted to regulate the Respondent’s activities.”

“It is also of note that it is constitutionally provided under art 10(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) that while all forms of forced labour are prohibited, Parliament may by law provide for compulsory service for national purposes. Furthermore,”

“ent, as far as I understand it, was as follows. The admission of a person to DRC is prima facie unconstitutional because it results in the deprivation of a person’s liberty and thus violates Art 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Constitution”). This act of detention ca”

“f the defined periods of limitation as stipulated in the Limitation Act. The Limitation Act is “written law”, like all other statutory legislation having the force of law in Singapore (including even the Constitution) (see s 2 of the Interpretation Act), and not some “special law” that automatically excludes the operat”

“of the arguments raised by Ms Lai’s counsel in respect of the Public Law Claim was that the Senior Personnel Board had no statutory jurisdiction to terminate her employment pursuant to Art 110D(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Constitution”) because she was a confirm”

“The Hainan Tan Clan Association (“the Clan”) was set up in 1935. The Clan’s Constitution (“the Constitution”) declares that it was established to pay tribute to ancestors, emphasise education among clan members’ families, organise charitable activities, inculcate the Chinese culture and maintain good tradi”

“court that are obliged to follow decisions emanating from the High Court. In my opinion, a judicial decision of an AR, unless and until overruled by a High Court Judge (or any person qualified under the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Rev Ed) to discharge the functions of a High Court Judge), must certa”

“nguish from the prolonged delay in execution of about 8 years” and that this has breached his constitutional right not to be deprived of life and liberty save in accordance with law under Art 9(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Constitution”) (see paras 10 and 17 of t”

“counsel, Mr Low Cheong Yeow (“Mr Low”), stated he was not pursuing on behalf of his client, viz, the alleged unconstitutionality of s 33B(4) of the MDA (“s 33B(4)”) inasmuch as it violated Art 93 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“Art 93”).”

“d Schedule. There are, broadly speaking, two main points of challenge. First, they argue that the Impugned Provisions are in breach of the constitutional principle of separation of powers embodied in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Constitution”). Second, they say that th”

“given during the parliamentary debates. Additionally, Dr Ting submits that to read “person” in s 15 in a manner to include the Government would infringe upon his right to free speech under Art 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Constitution”). In a slightly different v”

“ons in other jurisdictions (eg, Senior Counsel in Hong Kong appointed under s 31A of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159); Senior Counsel or Silks in South Africa appointed under s 84(2)(k) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996) would be accorded the same treatment.”

“The words “under any law” stand in contrast to “any written law”. The words “written law” refer to the Constitution and to Singapore legislation: s 2(1) of the Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed). The words “any law” can refer to any law in the world.”

“accorded by the Land Titles (Strata) Act.” The Defendants submitted that this clause meant that all matters arising out of or in connection with the proposed privatisation were within the objects of the Constitution. The Defamation Proceedings, having arisen out of the proposed privatisation exercise, fell within the o”

“(a) s 22 of the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 2017 (Act 6 of 2017) (“the PE(A) Act 2017”) is inconsistent with Arts 19B(1) and/or 164(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Constitution”), and therefore void by virtue of Art 4 of the Constitution; alternatively”

“During the hearing, the plaintiff tendered a second article written by Calvin Liang and Sarah Shi which was published in the Singapore Law Gazette (Calvin Liang & Sarah Shi, “The Constitution of Our Constitution: A Vindication of the Basic Structure Doctrine” (http://www.lawgazette.com.sg/ 2014-08/1104.htm) (“The Const”

“focus primarily on the purported non-satisfaction of O 15 r 6(2)(b) and O 92 r 4 of the ROC, though it does question whether the proposed intervention fell within the AG’s powers under Article 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Rev Ed) (“the Constitution”).”

“in either written or oral submissions. However, no Lesotho authorities were cited to me by the Kingdom, and I have doubts whether such a claim would be available. In particular, I note that s 4(1) of the Constitution of the Kingdom limits its application to “every person in Lesotho”, and I am not confident that the sec”

“White Paper (Review of Specific Aspects of the Elected Presidency) (15 September 2016) (“White Paper”), in which it indicated that it agreed in broad terms with the recommendations of the Commission. The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill (Bill 28 of 2016) (“2016 Bill”), which included Arts 19B(”

“t used property for himself or a third party, and in spite of him having applied the property for the owner’s (unauthorised) use”. According to the Applicant, this ruling is in breach of Art 11(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Constitution”) and the principle of null”

“to alter the property with some degree of permanence and (b) to cause social disruption is necessary. Finally, the appellant’s constitutional rights to free speech and expression under Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (“the Constitution”) and to practise and propagate her religion under Artic”

“e not only the physical premises of the club but any premises in which the club’s business was being conducted. Furthermore, the MC had eventually agreed with this interpretation. Under Rule 40(a) of the Constitution, the MC is the sole authority for the interpretation of the Constitution and its decision shall be fina”

“(c) Tan Ser Hui (“D3”). He served as a committee member of the MC from 1984 to 2007. Pursuant to Rule 7.2 of the Association’s Constitution (“the Constitution”), the only appointments which require retirement are those of the Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer. Since 2012, he has been serving as the Assistant Treasurer”

“It will be observed that s 50 of the IA opens with the words “[i]n computing time for the purposes of any written law”. Section 2 of the IA defines “written law” to mean “the Constitution and all previous Constitutions having application to Singapore and all Acts, Ordinances and enactments by whatever name called and s”

“(a) for s 24(2A) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218, 2011 Rev Ed) (“PEA”) to be consistent with Article 49(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“Constitution”) so as to allow the vacancies in the MYT GRC to be filled, s 24(2A) of the PEA must be interpreted as requir”

“Although the Applicant had stated in the OS application and his affidavits that he was of the view that the Public Prosecutor had violated Articles 9 and 12 of the Constitution, this argument was not addressed in his written submissions or in his oral submissions.”

“(a) the Public Prosecutor had acted contrary to Arts 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Constitution”);”

“Third, criminal prosecution is principally carried out in this jurisdiction by public authorities. Under Art 35(8) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint), “[t]he Attorney-General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings f”

“Implied Term should be construed in a way which conforms with or is consistent with the law. Clause 12 of the Shareholders’ Agreement states that the provisions of that agreement are to prevail over the Constitution only “subject to applicable law”. In particular, shareholders cannot usurp powers which the company’s co”

“eight on the Parliamentary statements which the appellant in that case relied on because those statements did not relate to the specific issue before the court which was whether in passing Art 164 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (the “Constitution”), Parliament retained for”

“sts on their Facebook profiles. The Respondents first raised a constitutional challenge to the validity of s 3(1)(a), in view of their rights to freedom of speech and expression under Art 14(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Constitution”). The Respondents also den”

“(i) The PP’s role amounts to a usurpation of judicial power, and thus violates the principle of separation of powers which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Constitution”). This court’s reasoning in Prabagaran rejecting a similar argument w”

“Beginning first with the Intervention Issue, the Judge determined that, as part of the AG’s responsibilities contemplated by Art 35(7) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Constitution” and “Art 35(7) Constitution”), the AG has a duty to intervene (even in private litigatio”