User:Sgconlaw/Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Minister for Information and the Arts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Minister for Information and the Arts concerned an application for leave to apply for an order of certiorari and a declaratory judgment under O 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1990 Ed). The plaintiffs were members of the Jehovah's Witnesses who were aggrieved by a ban issued by the Minister for Information and the Arts under Order No. 405/94 ("O 405/94") pursuant to his powers under s 3(1) of the Undesirable Publications Act (Cap. 338, 1985 Rev. Ed.) (now Cap. 338, 1998 Rev. Ed.) (“the Act”). The ban related to materials published by the International Bible Students Association (“IBSA”), a Jehovah’s Witnesses organization. This case involved a High Court and a Court of Appeal decision, delivered by Judith Prakash J and M Kathigesu JA respectively.
![]() | This is a sandbox for an article that is being edited as part of an educational assignment called the SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia project. If you are not a member of the project, please do not edit this article. To contact the project co-ordinator please leave a message at "User talk:Smuconlaw". |
Sgconlaw/Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Minister for Information and the Arts | |
---|---|
![]() The Old Supreme Court Building, photographed in April 2007 | |
Court | High Court of Singapore and Court of Appeal of Singapore |
Full case name | Chan Hiang Leng Colin v. Minister for Information and the Arts |
Decided | 7 July 1995 (H.C.); 29 February 1996 (C.A.) |
Citations | [1995] 2 S.L.R.(R.) 627, H.C.; [1996] 1 S.L.R.(R.) 294, C.A. |
Case history | |
Related action | Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Public Prosecutor [1994] 3 S.L.R.(R.) 209, H.C. |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Judith Prakash J (H.C.); M Karthigesu JA, Thean Lip Ping JA and Goh Joon Seng J (C.A.) |
The High Court held that in order for the applicant to have the necessary standing to seek an order of certiorari, it was sufficient if there was an abuse of power by the Minister which inconvenienced someone. In addition, the sufficiency of the applicant’s interest in relation to the application had to be judged in relation to the subject matter of the application.
The High Court also held that the applicant has to show prima facie that the applicant was not frivolous or vexatious and that there were some substance in the grounds supporting the application. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s application lacked substance as the Minister had the power to prohibit the import of publications if he were of the view that they were contrary to public interest under s 3(1) of the Act. Judith Prakash J held that as the Jehovah’s Witnesses movement had been deregistered and rendered illegal in Singapore since 1972 after Order 179/1972 (“O 179/1972”) as their principal beliefs were contrary to public peace, welfare and good order, publications containing their religious beliefs would equally be a threat to such public order. Thus, no order banning such material could be ultra vires the Minister’s powers pursuant to the Act. Moreover, the plaintiffs could not be aggrieved by the ban as they would still have access to the same bible published by other organisations.
The plaintiffs then appealed to the Court of Appeal. At the Court of Appeal, it was held that their rights to challenge O 405/94 arose from every citizen’s right to profess, practice and propagate his religious beliefs, stemming from Article 15 of the Constitution of Singapore. Further, Kathigesu JA stated that there was no provision in either the Societies Act (Cap. 311, 1985 Rev. Ed.) or the Act itself which prohibited the holding of a religious belief. Thus, it was not an offence to profess the beliefs of Witnesses per se. The relevant orders basically dictate that they are not to be members of the Singapore Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (SCJW), in line with O 179/1972, and they may not have access to the prohibited publications. The court also reiterated that issues of national security were not justiciable. In this case, issues of national security were involved considering a central tenet of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is the refusal to do National Service.
It was decided at the Court of Appeal that the appellant’s case was insufficient to show that they had something substantial which might turn out to be arguable case for judicial review. Hence, the application was eventually dismissed.