Chng Suan Tze v. Minister of Home Affairs

"Chng Suan Tze v. Minister of Home Affairs" [1988] S.L.R. ("Singapore Law Reports") 132, C.A., is a landmark Singapore Court of Appeal case in administrative law, specifically with regards to reviewing the grounds of detention without trial under the Internal Security Act. [Cap. 143, 1985 Rev. Ed. (S'pore), available on-line at [http://statutes.agc.gov.sg Singapore Statutes Online] .]

One of the main issues before the court was whether the test for judicial review was objective or subjective; in other words, whether or not judges could examine whether the executive’s decision to detain a person was in fact based on national security considerations, as well as whether the executive’s considerations in determining the detention fell within the scope of the purposes specified in section 8(1) of the Act. The court held for the detainees on a seemingly technical ground, but in an "obiter dictum" advocated the objective standard, stating: "All power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power." ["Chng Suan Tze v. Minister of Home Affairs" [1988] S.L.R. 132 at 156, para. 86.]

Prior to "Chng Suan Tze", the case of "Lee Mau Seng v. Minister for Home Affairs, Singapore" [ [1969–1971] S.L.R. 508, H.C. (S'pore).] had held that the satisfaction of the President, a precondition for detention, was a "purely subjective condition so as to exclude a judicial enquiry into the sufficiency of the grounds to justify the detention". Thus, the court found that an affidavit by the Minister of Home Affairs was sufficient evidence of Presidential satisfaction. The court also rejected the argument that it should be able to inquire into the "bona fides" of the President.

"Chng Suan Tze" was legislatively overruled in relation to internal security matters – amendments to the Constitution of Singapore and the Internal Security Act in 1988 restored the law to that stated in "Lee Mau Seng". The legality of these changes was challenged in the subsequent case of "Teo Soh Lung v. Minister of Home Affairs". [ [1990] S.L.R. 40, C.A. (S'pore).] In that decision, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the legislative amendments to the Act were plain and unambiguous, and thus validly established that the subjective test of judicial review now applied to internal security matters.

However, the principle that the correct test in judicial review proceedings is an objective one continues to apply in cases not involving the Internal Security Act.

"Chng Suan Tze" and the related cases that were decided in its wake are often discussed in the context of whether the judiciary should have any role in determining the national security of a country.

Notes

ee also

*Separation of powers
*Legal positivism
*Operation Spectrum