Constitution of Singapore

Supremacy of the Constitution

According to British jurist and constitutional theorist Albert Venn Dicey, three legal criteria must be satisfied before a constitution can claim to be supreme:

1. There must be codification, that is, the constitution must be written.
2. The constitution must be rigid.
3. Authority must be given to the courts to evaluate the constitutionality of legislative acts and declare them void if they are found to be inconsistent with the constitution.

Although Article 4 of the Singapore Constitution expressly declares that it is the supreme law of the land and the Constitution appears to satisfy Dicey's criteria, the view has been taken that it may not be supreme in practice and that Singapore's legal system is de facto characterized by parliamentary sovereignty.

Codification

Dicey's first legal criterion for a constitution to be regarded as supreme is that it must be written. This requirement is necessary for the precise identification of constitutional provisions, which makes it more convenient for Parliament to make constitutional amendments, and provides the judiciary with a basic text against which to determine the constitutionality of any ordinary legislation. Without a written constitution, judicial review would almost be counter to the doctrine of separation of powers as judges would get to decide the contents and wording of the Constitution. In Marbury v. Madison, the US Supreme Court held that "the powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written".

However, in Singapore not all legal rules having constitutional effect appear to be part of the Constitution. For example, white papers that contain quasi-constitutional principles would be extra-constitutional documents. By issuing such white papers, the Government may also trying to set guidelines on how the Constitution should be interpreted. Jaclyn Neo and Yvonne Lee view such documents as diluting the Constitution and blurring the line between constitutional law and ordinary legislation.

Rigidity

The second legal criterion is that the constitution must be rigid. This is important to ensure that constitutional provisions can only be changed by an authority that is higher in status than the ordinary legislative body existing under the Constitution. However, rigidity does not mean that the Constitution is completely immutable. If the Constitution is static, the nation's political development may be stunted. Instead, rigidity of the Constitution merely contemplates that compared to ordinary legislation, the Constitution should be more difficult to amend.

Different amendment procedures apply to different parts of the Constitution. This is discussed in detail below. Most of the Articles of the Constitution may be amended by a bill enacted by Parliament if there is at least a supermajority of two-thirds of all elected MPs voting in favour of the bill during its Second and Third Readings in Parliament. Since ordinary bills only need to be approved by at least a simple majority of all the MPs present and voting, the supermajority requirement is more rigorous and gives the Constitution its rigid characteristic. However, the present ruling party, the People's Action Party ("PAP") has commanded a majority of more than two-thirds of the seats in Parliament since 1968. In addition, due to the presence of the party whip, all PAP MPs must vote in accordance with the party line save where the whip is lifted, usually for matters of conscience. Thus, in substance the more stringent amendment requirement has not imposed any real limitation on Parliament's ability to amend the Constitution.

One reason for having a special constitutional amendment procedure is because constitutional supremacy requires the Constitution to endure in the long term with its main principles largely unchanged. However, in Singapore, this concept has been undermined by numerous major constitutional amendments made after 1979. These amendments, which significantly altered the structure and nature of the government in Singapore, introduced the Group Representation Constituency and Elected President scheme, and inducted NCMPs and NMPs into Parliament.

Judicial review

Dicey's third legal criterion for constitutional supremacy is the existence of an authority to pronounce upon the legal validity or constitutionality of laws passed by the nation's law-making body. While the Constitution does not expressly vest powers of constitutional judicial review in the courts, this role has been assumed by the judiciary. Hence, the third criterion appears to be fulfilled.

However, the judiciary has used its power to adjudge executive actions and Acts of Parliament unconstitutional and void rather sparingly. To date, the only instance where the High Court struck down a statutory provision was in Taw Cheng Kong v. Public Prosecutor (1998). It was short-lived, as the decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal. Delivering the Court's judgment, Chief Justice Yong Pung How emphasized the limits of judicial review, stating that it is not for the courts to dictate the scope and ambit of a section or rule on its propriety. This is a matter which only Parliament can decide, and the courts can only interpret what is enacted. This results in a conflict between the court's responsibility to be faithful to the Constitution, and its apparently restricted role in reviewing legislation.

As mentioned earlier, the High Court also held that in judicially reviewing legislation, there should be a strong presumption of constitutional validity. The burden of proof falls on the applicant, who has to establish that the impugned statute violates the Constitution. Furthermore, in Rajeevan Edakalavan Chief Justice Yong said that the elected nature of Parliament vests in them the sole authority to determine sensitive issues surrounding the scope of fundamental liberties. In contrast, the judiciary's role is to ensure that the intention of Parliament as reflected in the Constitution and other legislation is adhered to. The Chief Justice also held in Jabar bin Kadermastan v. Public Prosecutor (1995) that:

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 not concerned with whether it is also fair, just and reasonable as well.

Similarly, in Chee Siok Chin v. Minister for Home Affairs (2005), it was held that there is a need for judicial self-restraint and extreme caution with regards to whether a piece of legislation is an invalid restriction on constitutional rights. In the case, the impugned legislation was sections 13A and 13B of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act ("MOA"), which make it an offence to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The High Court held that the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression as well as the right to assembly guaranteed by Articles 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution had been effectively restricted by the MOA. It held further that these rights are not absolute and are circumscribed by Article 14(2), which provides that Parliament may impose on the rights in Article 14(1) "such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient" for various public interests. The term necessary or expedient was said to confer on Parliament an extremely wide discretionary power, the court's sole task being to ascertain whether there exists a nexus between the object of the impugned law and any permissible ground of restriction in Article 14(2). The Government must satisfy the court that there is a factual basis on which it considered it "necessary or expedient" to impose the restriction. Evidence establishing such a factual basis must be analysed in a generous and not a pedantic approach, considering the parliamentary intention of the impugned law.

The Grundnorm problem

Andrew Harding has posited that in Singapore it is Parliament, rather than the Constitution, which is supreme. This arises from the fact that the Constitution, which is supposed to be logically prior to the power of Parliament to legislate, was enacted by Parliament on 22 December 1965 through the Republic of Singapore Independence Act. As Parliament only got around to properly enacting a constitution on 22 December 1965, there was a hiatus between 9 August 1965 and that date, such that the legitimacy of laws passed between those dates can be questioned. Thus, the Grundnorm or basic norm of Singapore's legal system is Parliament rather than the Constitution.

On the other hand, Kenneth Wheare has theorized that Parliament obtains the necessary constituent power to bring a constitution into force simply by virtue of the election of its members into office. Since the constitution is a representation of the will of the people, and the people have exercised their will to elect MPs as their representatives, the Parliament has the requisite constituent power to enact the constitution. The hiatus was also solved when Parliament made the RSIA retrospective to 9 August 1965.

Subjects dealt with by the Constitution

The Constitution deals with the following subjects in 14 parts:

Amendment

The Constitution stipulates two different amendment procedures for different purposes. Most of the provisions in the Constitution may be amended with a supermajority of votes of all the elected MPs. However, a national referendum is required to amend certain provisions. This highlights the varying importance accorded to different types of constitutional provisions.

While ordinary laws may be enacted with a simple majority of MPs present in Parliament voting in favour of them on their Second and Third Readings, Article 5(2) of the Constitution provides that a bill seeking to amend the Constitution can only be passed if it is supported by a supermajority of two-thirds of the elected MPs on the Second and Third Readings of the bill in Parliament. Non-elected MPs such as NCMPs and NMPs are not allowed to vote on constitutional amendment bills.

The above procedure does not apply to any bill seeking to amend Part III of the Constitution, which protects Singapore's sovereignty. Article 6, which is in Part III, prohibits the "surrender or transfer, either wholly or in part, of the sovereignty of the Republic of Singapore as an independent nation, whether by way of merger or incorporation with any other sovereign state or with any Federation, Confederation, country or territory or in any other manner whatsoever", and "relinquishment of control over the Singapore Police Force or the Singapore Armed Forces", unless this has been supported at a national referendum by not less than two-thirds of the total number of votes cast. Article 6 itself and other provisions in Part III cannot be amended unless a similar procedure is followed.

The requirement for a national referendum also applies to Articles 5(2A) and 5A of the Constitution, though these provisions are not yet operational. Article 5(2A) states that unless the President, acting in his personal discretion, gives a contrary written direction to the Speaker, a bill seeking to amend certain key provisions in the Constitution requires the approval of at least two-thirds of the votes cast at a national referendum. Such amendments have been called core constitutional amendments. These key provisions are the fundamental liberties in Part IV of the Constitution; provisions in Chapter 1 of Part V which deal with the President's election, powers, maintenance, immunity from suit, and removal from office; Article 93A which gives the Chief Justice or a Supreme Court judge nominated by him jurisdiction to determine whether a presidential election is valid; Articles 65 and 66 which, among other things, fix the maximum duration of Parliament at five years from the date of its first sitting, and require a general election to be held within three months after a dissolution of Parliament; any provision authorizing the President to act in his personal discretion; and Articles 5(2A) and 5A themselves.

Article 5A was introduced to deal with non-core constitutional amendments. The Article enables the President to veto proposed constitutional amendments that directly or indirectly circumvent or curtail the discretionary powers conferred on him by the Constitution. However, the power to veto is not absolute as the President may, acting on the Cabinet's advice, refer the matter to a constitutional tribunal under Article 100 for its opinion on whether a proposed amendment indeed has this effect. If the tribunal's view is different from the President's, the President is deemed to have assented to the bill on the day immediately following the day when the Tribunal pronounces its opinion in open court. However, if the tribunal upholds the President's view, the Prime Minister may refer the bill to a national referendum. The President's veto is overruled if not less than two-thirds of the total number of votes cast approve the proposed amendment. The President is deemed to have assented to the amendment on the day immediately following the day when the results of the referendum have been published in the Government Gazette. This scheme prevents a gridlock that may arise if the Government calls for a new election to circumvent the President's veto. Thus, Article 5A provides a series of legal checks and balances between the President on the one hand, and the Prime Minister and Cabinet on the other. It increases the Constitution's rigidity as the power to amend the Constitution is no longer vested solely in Parliament.

Articles 5(2A) and 5A have not yet been brought into force. In 1994, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said this was because the complexity of the mechanism of both Articles surpassed what the Government had anticipated, and it was difficult to strike the fine balance between "the Government's need for operational flexibility" and the "President's duty to exercise effective oversight". On 21 October 2008, in response to a question by NMP Thio Li-ann about the status of Article 5(2A), Lee, now Prime Minister, said:

Our clear and stated intention is to refine the [Elected President] scheme and to iron out the issues that can arise in the light of experience, before we bring the entrenchment provisions into operation and entrench the rules. ... While we have delayed entrenching the scheme, we have, over the years, made a practice of consulting the President on any amendment which affects his powers, and informing Parliament of the President's view in the Second Reading speech. With one exception, in practice, the President has supported all the amendments which affected his powers. Over the last two decades, we have fine-tuned and improved the system of the Elected President in many ways. ... If after five years, no further major changes are necessary, we will consider entrenching the provisions concerning the President's custodial powers.

The Government has adopted a piecemeal approach towards constitutional amendments to deal with changing political and social circumstances.

Legislature's exercise of constituent power

Article 4 of the Constitution states that any law enacted by the Legislature which is inconsistent with the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, void. Interpreted literally, this Article seems to render Article 5 otiose as any law enacted to amend the Constitution will naturally be inconsistent with the existing text of the Constitution. To get around this conundrum, L.R. Penna has observed that the Malaysian courts have distinguished between the exercise of "constituent power" and "legislative power" by Parliament. In Phang Chin Hock v. Public Prosecutor (1979), Lord President Tun Mohamed Suffian Mohamed Hashim held that:

... in construing art 4(1) and art 159 [the Malaysian equivalent to Article 5 of the Singapore Constitution], the rule of harmonious construction requires us to give effect to both provisions and to hold and we accordingly hold that Acts made by Parliament, complying with the conditions set out in art 159, are valid even if inconsistent with the Constitution, and that a distinction should be drawn between on the one hand Acts affecting the Constitution and on the other hand ordinary laws enacted in the ordinary way.

The position in Singapore is unclear since this issue has not been raised before the courts. However, it is arguable that they are likely to apply Phang Chin Hock as Articles 4 and 159 of the Constitution of Malaysia are in pari materia with Articles 4 and 5 of the Singapore Constitution. Essentially, this will involve interpreting Article 5 as vesting constituent power in the Legislature to amend the Constitution, and Article 4 as striking down only ordinary laws enacted by the Legislature in the exercise of legislative power. Such an interpretation allows Articles 4 and 5 to be harmoniously construed, and permits amendments to be made to the Constitution. This is important as the Constitution represents the nation's philosophy, aims and objectives for attaining political stability and economic prosperity for the people, and thus must necessarily be adaptable to political and social developments.

Basic features doctrine

In addition to the need to uphold constitutional supremacy and the principle of rigidity, the Constitution is also a living document that can be amended where necessary. As the Constitution does not appear to place restrictions on the extent to which its provisions may be amended, the question of whether there are any implied restrictions on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution arises. If such limitations exist, they would serve as a safeguard against unrestrained amendment by the legislature and protect the essential constitutional features and structure. India takes this stand – the Supreme Court held in Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala (1973) that there are certain implied basic features of the Indian Constitution that are not amenable to changes and amendment by Parliament. On the other hand, in Singapore it has been established that there are no implied limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.

Position in India

The basic structure or basic features doctrine holds that there is an implied restriction on the powers of the legislature to amend the Constitution: it is precluded from amending the basic features of the Constitution. The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati established that the doctrine applies in India, highlighting that while Parliament's power to amend the Constitution extends to all its sections, essential features of the Constitution must not be altered.

The development of the basic features doctrine in India can be attributed to the role of the judiciary in maintaining a balance between the powers of the Parliament and the judiciary. The Supreme Court perceived itself as the institutional guardian and protector of individual liberties against political aggression, adopting a judicial role parallel to that of the Supreme Court of the United States as mentioned by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.

Chief Justice Sarv Mittra Sikri, delivering the leading judgment of the Supreme Court, averred that "[e]very provision of the Constitution can be amended provided in the result the basic foundation and structure of the Constitution remains the same". He proceeded to lay down the basic structure of the Constitution, stating that it includes the supremacy of the Constitution; the republican and democratic form of government; the secular character of the Constitution; the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary; and the federal character of the Constitution. He said that these basic features are founded on the "dignity and freedom of the individual", which is of "supreme importance".

On the other hand, Justice Ajit Nath Ray dissented and gave reasons for rejecting the basic features doctrine. He stated that since the Constitution is the source of all legal validity and is itself always valid, a constitutional amendment, being part of the Constitution itself, will also always be valid. The power to amend the Constitution is wide and unlimited, and there is neither a distinction nor any possibility of a difference between essential and non-essential features of the Constitution that may impede amendment. In fact, if Parliament's power to amend is extinguished because of essential features that are not expressly defined in the Constitution, the courts would be creating a new constitution. Justice Ray presented other problems of the basic features doctrine, criticizing it as being uncertain in scope. Without an evident definition of what the basic features are, the task of trying to amend the Constitution becomes unpredictable. In his view, all the provisions of the Constitution are essential but this does not prohibit them from being amendable.

Position in Singapore

In the High Court case of Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs (1989), the applicant's counsel argued that the Singapore courts should recognize the basic features doctrine and thereby limit the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The doctrine was rejected by Justice Frederick Arthur Chua. He noted that Article 5 of the Constitution does not place any limitations on Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, and concluded that if the framers of the Constitution had intended for such limitations to apply they would have expressly provided for them. Justice Chua also referred to the Malaysian case Phang Chin Hock, in which the Federal Court had rejected the basic features doctrine, stating that "if our Constitution makers had intended that their successors should not in any way alter their handiwork, it would have been perfectly easy for them to so provide; but nowhere in the Constitution does it appear that that was their intention". Moreover, if proposed constitutional amendments are only valid if they are consistent with its existing provisions this would render Article 159 of the Malaysian Constitution, which provides for amendment of the Constitution, "superfluous, for the Constitution cannot be changed or altered in any way, as if it has been carved in granite".

Justice Chua emphasized that fears of abuse of power by the Parliament should not lead to a denial of the power to amend the Constitution or restrict this power. He referred to Loh Kooi Choon v. Government of Malaysia (1977), where the Malaysian Federal Court said: "The fear of abuse of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution in any way they think fit cannot be an argument against the existence of such power, for abuse of power can always be struck down". Furthermore, Chua asserted that allowing the courts to impose limitations on the legislature through the basic features doctrine, a judge-made rule, would amount to the judiciary usurping Parliament's legislative function. A similar view was expressed in Phang Chin Hock by the Chief Justice of Malaya, Raja Azlan Shah: "A short answer to the fallacy of this doctrine is that it concedes to the court a more potent power of constitutional amendment through judicial legislation than the organ for and clearly chosen by the Constitution for the exercise of the amending power." This could infringe the separation of powers doctrine and blur the distinction between the functions of the judiciary and the legislature.

The High Court in Teo Soh Lung also referred to Justice Ray's judgment in Kesavananda, stating that radical amendments should not always be disdained as they may bring about positive changes to ensure the smooth functioning of a nation. There are reasons for allowing the Constitution to be amended. New problems may arise in the future, and the Constitution may have to be modified to suit changing circumstances. According to Justice Ray: "The framers of the Constitution did not put any limitation on the amending power because the end of a Constitution is the safety, the greatness and well-being of the people. Changes in the Constitution serve these great ends and carry out the real purposes of the Constitution."

Justice Chua also relied on Lord Diplock's judgment in Hinds v. The Queen (1975), in which his Lordship expressed the view that even fundamental provisions of a constitution on the Westminster model can be amended as long as the proper procedure provided by the constitution has been complied with:

[W]here ... a constitution on the Westminster Model represents the final step in the attainment of full independence by the peoples of a former colony or protectorate, the constitution provides machinery whereby any of its provisions, whether relating to fundamental rights and freedoms or to the structure of the government and the allocation to its various organs of legislative, executive or judicial powers, may be altered by those people through their elected representatives in the Parliament acting by specified majorities ...

Additionally, Justice Chua said that due to the differences in the way the Singapore and Indian Constitutions were made, the Singapore Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not limited in the manner the Indian Parliament's is when amending the Indian Constitution. The Indian Constitution was framed by a constituent assembly, while Singapore's Constitution was put together by the Parliament out of three different documents, namely, the 1963 State Constitution, the RSIA, and provisions drawn from the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. Parliament had plenary power to enact the RSIA from the political fact of Singapore's independence and status as a sovereign nation on 9 August 1965.

Penna has observed that the basic features doctrine appears to be irrelevant in Singapore as the word amendment is defined to include "addition and repeal" in Article 5(3) of the Constitution. "Amendment" connotes a change to the existing law that does not amount to doing away with such a law entirely. On the other hand, "repeal" implies the abrogation of the entire law by a different statutory provision that subsequently comes into force. If Parliament is entitled to repeal provisions of the Constitution, this means there is no constitutional hindrance to substituting the current Constitution for a completely different and new one. Thus, this suggests there is no place for the basic features doctrine in constitutional amendments. Similarly, Article 368(1) of the Indian Constitution, which was brought in by the Twenty-fourth Amendment, defines amendment as "addition, variation and repeal". In Kesavananda the Supreme Court had acknowledged the validity of the Twenty-fourth Amendment, yet Chief Justice Sikri seemed not to have considered the meaning of repeal when enunciating the basic features doctrine. Instead, he had merely focused on the fact that an "amendment" to the Constitution means any addition or change to it.

The High Court's decision in Teo Soh Lung remains the authority on whether the basic features doctrine applies in Singapore law, because when the decision was appealed the Court of Appeal held it was unnecessary for it to decide whether the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution can ever be limited. It left the issue open for decision in a future case.

Significant amendments

Since 9 August 1965 when the Constitution came into force, 46 amendments have been made to it. Some of the significant ones are listed below.