Former Attorney-General Walter Woon Favours Repealing 377A Anti-Gay Sex Law

[gymcub]

The subject of universal human rights took a local turn at a university forum on Tuesday night, with two top lawyers disagreeing over whether an anti-gay sex law should be done away with. National University of Singapore (NUS) law don Walter Woon said he was in favour of repealing the law because of what he sees as a "constitutional problem".

 

The Government has said that the law will not be proactively enforced. But Prof Woon, a former attorney-general, cited Section 35(8) of the Constitution to make the point that the powers to prosecute lie with the Attorney-General.

 

"So we have a very dangerous precedent here where the political authorities are saying to the Public Prosecutor - who is supposed to be independent - there are some laws that you don't enforce," he said at the 12th NUS Tembusu Forum attended by about 250 students.

 

"I find that very uncomfortable," he added.

 

Section 377A makes it a crime for men to commit acts of gross indecency with other men, whether in private or public. It carries a jail term of up to two years. The law, enacted in 1938, has been in the spotlight in recent years following Parliament debates and constitutional challenges.

 

Prof Woon said that homosexual sex was "absolutely impossible to prove" as a practical matter.

 

He added: "As a matter of principle, if these are consenting adults, why should it carry a jail term?"

 

While considered a sin by certain religions, it could be accorded similar treatment to adultery and fornication, which are not crimes under the law, he said, adding: "If it is a sin, it is between you and God."

 

 

More here: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/walter-woon-tommy-koh-differ-377a-anti-gay-sex-law-nus-f

Edited September 18, 2014 by gymcub

[snowball]

"If it is a sin, it is between you and God."

I love this .

[Guest Guest]

"If it is a sin, it is between you and God."

 

This is a no brainer, but for some people they cannot get over the mental block of applying God's law on secular , non god believing people who are the majority.

 

Why should it be applied when a person is a non believer just makes me go up in anger . LOL

[Guest Guest]

"If it is a sin, it is between you and God."

 

Unfortunately, many fundies think they are self appointed prophets of God to carry out God's Laws.

 

That is why the Bible warn us about false prophets.

[Guest Gas]

"If it is a sin, it is between you and God."

 

This is a brilliant answer from brilliant people like Walter Woon.

 

Thank you.

[Guest Guest]

Not surprising coming from a religion that espouses the thinking that non-believers go to hell. Only religion in the world ambitious enough to try to proactively seek, or rather, DIG OUT believers from other religions like buddhism. Or that believers of other religions are going to hell. Very crass and messed-up from a rational pov don't you think?

[Foo Desmond]

ww has always struck me as being too liberal. 

[Foo Desmond]

we often legislate morality. different people draw their sources of morality from different sources. to some some ideology like utilitarianism or deontology, and for others texts or teachings. it would be wrong to say that people who differ as to their view of morality or sources of morality should be excluded from the democratic determination of what morals should be legislated. if u advocate for the repeal, then u must convince them it is not immoral, not categorically state all morality drawn from religious text cannot be legislated.

 

ww's position is underpinned by this categoric statement which in my view is driven by his overly liberal, freedom centric worldview.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Foo Desmond

[Guest Guest]

if u advocate for the repeal, then u must convince them it is not immoral, not categorically state all morality drawn from religious text cannot be legislated.

Which part of the article did you get this conclusion from?

[Guest Guest]

ww has always struck me as being too liberal.

That's local speak. In the global arena, that's up to speed. The statement "human rights is universal but hinges on local cultural context and history" is baloney and insincere. It's contradictory and doesn't make sense, a form of double speech that tries to appease both sides. Since it's established as "universal" and a "human right", shouldn't local culture be subjected and adaptive, aspire to change and mould itself to it? Unless you're saying local cultures exist in a vacuum without contact with the outside world and can subsist itself without trade and communication, and inhabitants are mutants or aliens, isn't that statement a joke or meant to deceive others?

The political maneuver involved in that juggernaut of a statement is brain freezing beyond human sense. I don't know whether to laugh or cry about it.

[Guest Guest]

Haha ya especially Singapore has always aspire to become a global city and the number of foreigners living here soon catching up with the local, the definition of local culture can then be abit ambiguouus

[Foo Desmond]

Which part of the article did you get this conclusion from?

"if it is a sin, it is between you and god"

[Guest Guest]

Ironic when the powers-that-be assigned local culture as a "desert", "non-existent", etc. and local people despise each other for being not being civil, civilized or civic-minded enough. Not all passengers who refuse to move to the back of buses are FT. We are not some odd old-fashioned religiously pious nation from a past golden era trapped in a modern world of efficiency and conveniances. We only do have a fairy-tale like local public morality that seemed to deserve being upheld by didactic drivels on local tv dramas that tries to spin impossibly pious love stories at the same time to trap eyeballs of young impressionable and wearied old minds alike for advertising dollars.

Funny though that same sex relations, when the rest of the advanced economies with far more robust cultures are accepting it, warts and all, like any other relations as their cultures continue to flourish but this insipid, floundering and craven local culture of ours view it with suspicion like some deadly poison that is going to wipe out the entire population of the world, jealously guarding this questionably non-existing "culture" insanely like some family heirloom that is worth a fortune at all costs and to the point of no return.

Much ado about nothing and making mountains out of molehills. That sadly, may become the ultimate local culture of singapore.

[bhboy]

Shut up and sit down!

If it is a sin, it is between you and God!!!

 

:clap:

     

[iamziz]

Shut up and sit down!

If it is a sin, it is between you and God!!!

 

:clap:

     

 

Stop playing God as I like to put it. 

[Guest Guest]

. if u advocate for the repeal, then u must convince them it is not immoral, not categorically state all morality drawn from religious text cannot be legislated.

.

Which part of the article did you get this conclusion from?

"if it is a sin, it is between you and god"

Haha I don't think that statement implies ALL

[onlylonely]

Walter woon. I read his law guides in uni. Hehehe

[Foo Desmond]

Foo Desmond, on 18 Sept 2014 - 2:04 PM, said:

. if u advocate for the repeal, then u must convince them it is not immoral, not categorically state all morality drawn from religious text cannot be legislated.
.

Guest, on 18 Sept 2014 - 2:39 PM, said:

Which part of the article did you get this conclusion from?

Foo Desmond, on 18 Sept 2014 - 2:48 PM, said:

"if it is a sin, it is between you and god"

Haha I don't think that statement implies ALL

Ww is saying homosexual acts should not be criminalised and his reason is if its a sin, it is a religious matter and should not be legislated into secular law. his proposition is necessarily that ALL sins are religious matters if not his conclusion (that homosexual acts should not be criminalised) would require him to answer the further question why are homosexual acts not part of the exception which stipulates that some sins can be legislated into secular law.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Foo Desmond

[Guest Guest]

Foo Desmond, on 18 Sept 2014 - 2:04 PM, said:

Guest, on 18 Sept 2014 - 2:39 PM, said:

Foo Desmond, on 18 Sept 2014 - 2:48 PM, said:

Ww is saying homosexual acts should not be criminalised and his reason is if its a sin, it is a religious matter and should not be legislated into secular law. his proposition is necessarily that ALL sins are religious matters if not his conclusion (that homosexual acts should not be criminalised) would require him to answer the further question why are homosexual acts not part of the exception which stipulates that some sins can be legislated into secular law.

Aiyo he did explain why lah.."He added: "As a matter of principle, if these are consenting adults, why should it carry a jail term?""

[abang]

If my memory serves me correctly, Walton Woon was in the first batch of NMP.

He was also a very effective one and he managed to push a bill that turns into law.

 

However being too aggressive at times had affected his career ...reminds me of 苏武牧羊。。

(The plight of Su Wu) 

[Guest Guest]

Foo Desmond, on 18 Sept 2014 - 2:04 PM, said:

Guest, on 18 Sept 2014 - 2:39 PM, said:

Foo Desmond, on 18 Sept 2014 - 2:48 PM, said:

Ww is saying homosexual acts should not be criminalised and his reason is if its a sin, it is a religious matter and should not be legislated into secular law. his proposition is necessarily that ALL sins are religious matters if not his conclusion (that homosexual acts should not be criminalised) would require him to answer the further question why are homosexual acts not part of the exception which stipulates that some sins can be legislated into secular law.

He also meant that since it is considered a sin and not everyone in Singapore is Christian and believe in the concept of sinning, therefore it is should be '' between you and god". Otherwise the law should only apply to Christians??

[Guest Guest]

He is simply saying people, whether they are religious or not, should not be using religious moral ideals to decide what is legal and illegal in a country. Period.

A tight slap to the rwligious fundamentlists. Yes!!!!!!

[Foo Desmond]

Foo Desmond, on 18 Sept 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

Foo Desmond, on 18 Sept 2014 - 2:04 PM, said:

Guest, on 18 Sept 2014 - 2:39 PM, said:

Foo Desmond, on 18 Sept 2014 - 2:48 PM, said:


Ww is saying homosexual acts should not be criminalised and his reason is if its a sin, it is a religious matter and should not be legislated into secular law. his proposition is necessarily that ALL sins are religious matters if not his conclusion (that homosexual acts should not be criminalised) would require him to answer the further question why are homosexual acts not part of the exception which stipulates that some sins can be legislated into secular law.

 

Aiyo he did explain why lah.."He added: "As a matter of principle, if these are consenting adults, why should it carry a jail term?""

 

errr no lah - his train of thought is: homosexual acts should not be a crime since they are consensual --> but the counter is that some claim that the act itself is immoral because of a moral principle derived from religion --> ww's counter counter is all acts that are deemed immoral by religion should not be legislated.

 

ww's argument is not: (1) some people claim that the act itself is immoral because of a moral principle derived from religion --> (2) ww counters by saying some acts which are deemed immoral by religion should not be legislated. (3) Other acts, which are deemed immoral by religion but could otherwise be legislated, cannot be legislated because the acts are consensual. ww's argument does not go by this line of analysis because it is far more convoluted and begs the question why are homosexual acts not caught by proposition (2).

[bhboy]

NUS Centre for International Law chairman Tommy Koh agreed that the provision should in principle be done without, but said abolishing it was "not so simple" given potential political pushback.

A majority of Singaporeans (Lawrence Khong and gang) were against a repeal going by opinion polls, Prof Koh said.

- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/walter-woon-tommy-koh-differ-377a-anti-gay-sex-law-nus-f#sthash.PHz9D5n4.dpuf

[Guest Guest]

He is saying "stop hiding behind religion to do bad things! Enough is enough!"

[lausanne]

The political pushback is significant in a country where the majority still disapproves of homosexuality as of today. I think the tide will turn in another generation or so, with the increasing acceptance of many other societies globally on homosexuality, SG can't really go against the wave in this. 

[Guest Grace on the loose]

"If it is a sin, it is between you and God."

 

Unfortunately, many fundies think they are self appointed prophets of God to carry out God's Laws.

 

That is why the Bible warn us about false prophets.

Jesus warned the people about listening to prophets who preached laws because Jesus died to replace law with Grace. Lawrence Khong is the false "prophet" whom Jesus has warned the people. Yup, even other Christian who preach Grace find Lawrence's preaching too unrealistic and outdated.  I would think Lawrence sound more like Jew than Christian, than again, he is neither here nor there like a piece of Rojak preacher.

[Guest Moderate Sinkie]

The political pushback is significant in a country where the majority still disapproves of homosexuality as of today. I think the tide will turn in another generation or so, with the increasing acceptance of many other societies globally on homosexuality, SG can't really go against the wave in this. 

Those who hate gay are the very sinkies minded people.  If your sinkiness is not so strong, you tend to be very opened and accepting towards differences.  

[Guest Guest]

Nvm. Gay haters are usually very 'cui' looking one. No one bothers to give a damn about them.

Look at Lawrence khong, thio su mien, thio li-ann, josie lau and gang and you know what the word 'cui' means. Lol

[Freedomlimer22]

I understand where people are coming from but pls do not put down Christianity because that is just wrong. Esp those who are just guest !!!

[Guest Guest]

I understand where people are coming from but pls do not put down Christianity because that is just wrong. Esp those who are just guest !!!

It is not Christianity ppl r condemning, it is a few so called Christians who give a bad name to Christianity.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

Btw, a true religion should be able to stand criticism and don't need to be defended. I m a Christian but I don't agree to everything that the church preaches..esp those man made dogma..it has caused more suffering than bringing salvation

[LordDenning]

The political pushback is significant in a country where the majority still disapproves of homosexuality as of today. I think the tide will turn in another generation or so, with the increasing acceptance of many other societies globally on homosexuality, SG can't really go against the wave in this. 

It's one thing to say it's taboo or frowned upon in local culture, but you cannot simply criminalize an act just because the majority don't like it.

Here's an example: in the past it was taboo for blacks and whites, malay and chinese to marry and have kids; while this was considered scandalous, and flouting society's conventions back then, should the government step in and outlaw interracial marriage and procreation? 

 

IMO, if it is admitted by the MPs that homosexual acts in private does nobody harm, so why should 377A be in the books?

 

Why keep a legislation that can potentially aid criminals (or the PAP- think  Anwar in Malaysia)) to blackmail homosexual couple into silence, if the criminal's have evidence of 377A being commited by the gay couple? 

 

 I quote Lee Hsien Loong's comment on "not proactively" enforcing 377A:

"De facto, gays have a lot of space in Singapore.   Gay groups hold public discussions.  They publish websites.  I have visited some of them.  There are films and plays on gay themes.  In fact, sometimes people ask, "Why are there so many?  Aren't there other subjects in the world?"  But since we have allowed it in the last few years, maybe this is a letting off of pressure.  Eventually, we will find a better balance.

There are gay bars and clubs.  They exist.  We know where they are.  Everybody knows where they are.  They do not have to go underground.  We do not harass gays.  The Government does not act as moral policemen.  And we do not proactively enforce section 377A on them. [Emphasis added]"

------

 

Basically what he said was: I know gays are around (I see what Lee did there, being gay is fine, just don't commit 377A), and police under the executive branch of the government are given instructions not to probe homosexual sex in private. There are gay bars and clubs.  

But the problem is that the judiciary is supposed to be independent of the executive and legislative arms of the government; Should someone with criminal intent try to report the matter straight to the state courts- magistrate's court (for the possible intention to blackmail). The judiciary would have to act according to the law and warrant the police to arrest the couple who had man to man sex.

 

In short, those with bad intentions now have a "not actively enforced" piece of legislation can have their way with you if they have evidence of you committing acts in private.

Edited September 21, 2014 by LordDenning

[Foo Desmond]

"It's one thing to say it's taboo or frowned upon in local culture, but you cannot simply criminalize an act just because the majority don't like it."

err, really? we criminalise beastiality and indecent acts in public and in private (if it can be seen by others). theres no concrete 3rd party harm, but these are crimes. The majority can legislate whatever law thats constitutional, be they informed by a certain conception of morality or otherwise.

 

the criminal justice system does not work in the way u describe. u can't report a crime to the courts. the matter is reported to the police. after investigating the case, the police takes the case to the prosecutor (i.e. part of the executive branch) who would then decide whether to prosecute, then the judge applies the law and sentences. even though the AG as prosecutor is independent, he would be cognisant of and can take into account the policy motivations which motivate criminalisation and this would influence his decision whether to charge the person or focus his resources on more pressing issues. so if the government states it would not enforce a law, it is quite a strong assurance against active enforcement. a person with evidence of the attempted commission or actual commission of the offence is unlikely to be able to succeed in causing a prosecution, in fact, he would be guilty of the crime of extortion or blackmail.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Foo Desmond

[Guest Guest]

"It's one thing to say it's taboo or frowned upon in local culture, but you cannot simply criminalize an act just because the majority don't like it."

. so if the government states it would not enforce a law, it is quite a strong assurance against active enforcement. a person with evidence of the attempted commission or actual commission of the offence is unlikely to be able to succeed in causing a prosecution, in fact, he would be guilty of the crime of extortion or blackmail.

Yes as you rightly pointed out it is UNLIKELY which means not totally impossible.

Furthermore, as mentioned in the article AG is supposed to be independent, but why it needs to follow gov decision of ' not enforcing' certain law. That is the point of the argument

[Guest Guest]

"It's one thing to say it's taboo or frowned upon in local culture, but you cannot simply criminalize an act just because the majority don't like it."

err, really? we criminalise beastiality and indecent acts in public and in private (if it can be seen by others). theres no concrete 3rd party harm, but these are crimes. The majority can legislate whatever law thats constitutional, be they informed by a certain conception of morality or otherwise.

the criminal justice system does not work in the way u describe. u can't report a crime to the courts. the matter is reported to the police. after investigating the case, the police takes the case to the prosecutor (i.e. part of the executive branch) who would then decide whether to prosecute, then the judge applies the law and sentences. even though the AG as prosecutor is independent, he would be cognisant of and can take into account the policy motivations which motivate criminalisation and this would influence his decision whether to charge the person or focus his resources on more pressing issues. so if the government states it would not enforce a law, it is quite a strong assurance against active enforcement. a person with evidence of the attempted commission or actual commission of the offence is unlikely to be able to succeed in causing a prosecution, in fact, he would be guilty of the crime of extortion or blackmail.

Wrong. The magistrates court hearing is open to direct application, if you have evidence. The rest of what you have wtitten are merely speculations.

[Guest Guest]

Finally, a learned and well-respected person making an enlightened remark

[Foo Desmond]

Finally, a learned and well-respected person making an enlightened remark

Why thank you!

[Foo Desmond]

Foo Desmond, on 21 Sept 2014 - 1:23 PM, said:

"It's one thing to say it's taboo or frowned upon in local culture, but you cannot simply criminalize an act just because the majority don't like it." 
err, really? we criminalise beastiality and indecent acts in public and in private (if it can be seen by others). theres no concrete 3rd party harm, but these are crimes. The majority can legislate whatever law thats constitutional, be they informed by a certain conception of morality or otherwise.

the criminal justice system does not work in the way u describe. u can't report a crime to the courts. the matter is reported to the police. after investigating the case, the police takes the case to the prosecutor (i.e. part of the executive branch) who would then decide whether to prosecute, then the judge applies the law and sentences. even though the AG as prosecutor is independent, he would be cognisant of and can take into account the policy motivations which motivate criminalisation and this would influence his decision whether to charge the person or focus his resources on more pressing issues. so if the government states it would not enforce a law, it is quite a strong assurance against active enforcement. a person with evidence of the attempted commission or actual commission of the offence is unlikely to be able to succeed in causing a prosecution, in fact, he would be guilty of the crime of extortion or blackmail.

 

Wrong. The magistrates court hearing is open to direct application, if you have evidence. The rest of what you have wtitten are merely speculations.

 

as in u mean that my claims that: 1) "we can legislate what the majority does not like", 2) the AG is free to take into account policy considerations, 3) there is a strong assurance against active enforcement, 4) that the blackmailer would be guilty of blacking are all speculations? 

 

the magistrates complaint is an oddity, the fact of the matter is it remains to be seen whether a complainant can complain about a crime that is not committed against them, because if u study the scheme under the Criminal Procedure Code (S150-153) u would realise the scheme (with its mediation and compensatory awards) is intended for complainants on whom an offence was committed against. U would also realise that the AG can take over the private prosecution pursuant to S13 CPC and then discontinue the prosecution. U should consider the very real likelihood of this happening given the very very strong inclination away from prosecution under 377A (seen in cases like Tan Eng Hong).

 

Finally, in light of the recent decision of the SGHC in Chiu Teng v SLA which accepted the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations, such a defence of substantive legitimate expectation can be raised against a prosecution pursuant to 377A.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Foo Desmond

[Guest Guest]

It is not Christianity ppl r condemning, it is a few so called Christians who give a bad name to Christianity.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

Btw, a true religion should be able to stand criticism and don't need to be defended. I m a Christian but I don't agree to everything that the church preaches..esp those man made dogma..it has caused more suffering than bringing salvation

Those man made dogmas are found in your holy book, the bible. Whichever way s you read it, the OT or the NT, it stated in no uncertain terms that gay sex is abominable and wrong. So if you are a Christian and a practicing gay, you are deluding yourself to think that your religion accepts you way of life.

[Guest Guest]

Those man made dogmas are found in your holy book, the bible. Whichever way s you read it, the OT or the NT, it stated in no uncertain terms that gay sex is abominable and wrong. So if you are a Christian and a practicing gay, you are deluding yourself to think that your religion accepts you way of life.

There r thousands more things that r being condemned the bible and yet accepted as perfectly right and moral in the world today.

I have evolved from the need to identify myself as a Christian - and stopped going to church. I don't need a man made institution to accept the way i lead my life. But I am still inspired by Jesus teaching and the greatest commandment - love your neighbour as you love yourself. I also attracted to Buddhism and see the similarities between Buddha and Jesus teaching.

[Guest Guest]

Don't have to refer to bible to know what is sin. Your eyes will tell you when you go church only to witness backstabbing, power hunger, power struggle, pettiness, discrimination, cliques, lies, sugar coating, jealousy, bitchiness, sarcasm, self righteousness, lust masquerading as cattiness, selfishness, manipulation and making use of others aplenty. Just go on one fine day and I guarantee you will witness at least two or three, maybe even four of those. Christians aren't any morally superior than the rest if us, perhaps even worse with all the lies, cover ups and hypocrisy.

[Guest Guest]

Foo Desmond, on 21 Sept 2014 - 1:23 PM, said:

as in u mean that my claims that: 1) "we can legislate what the majority does not like", 2) the AG is free to take into account policy considerations, 3) there is a strong assurance against active enforcement, 4) that the blackmailer would be guilty of blacking are all speculations?

the magistrates complaint is an oddity, the fact of the matter is it remains to be seen whether a complainant can complain about a crime that is not committed against them, because if u study the scheme under the Criminal Procedure Code (S150-153) u would realise the scheme (with its mediation and compensatory awards) is intended for complainants on whom an offence was committed against. U would also realise that the AG can take over the private prosecution pursuant to S13 CPC and then discontinue the prosecution. U should consider the very real likelihood of this happening given the very very strong inclination away from prosecution under 377A (seen in cases like Tan Eng Hong).

Finally, in light of the recent decision of the SGHC in Chiu Teng v SLA which accepted the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations, such a defence of substantive legitimate expectation can be raised against a prosecution pursuant to 377A.

The complainant could simply say after providing audio evidence he is deeply disturbed, disgusted, outraged and offended by the homosexual act of his neighbors next door and seeked the magistrates court hearing in order to persecute those gays with 377a to preserve public order, even though the act may be commited in private but 377a does not discriminate against that. He could even have reported to police citing suspicious activity like drugs and caught the gays in bed, then further inpounded them by complaining to the magistrates court citing personal and religious morality reasons to invoke 377a to mollify his assaulted sensibilities.

[Guest Guest]

Those who hate gay are the very sinkies minded people. If your sinkiness is not so strong, you tend to be very opened and accepting towards differences.

Such "sinkie minded" people are either poor in studies, religious (or rather, superstitious) or both.

[Guest Guest]

Such "sinkie minded" people are either poor in studies, religious (or rather, superstitious) or both.

They are usually very indiscriminate in friends making, very very 屌丝 and "friendly", like those chow ah lians and ah bengs.

[Guest Legal Certainty]

 

Foo Desmond, on 21 Sept 2014 - 1:23 PM, said:

 

 

 

Finally, in light of the recent decision of the SGHC in Chiu Teng v SLA which accepted the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations, such a defence of substantive legitimate expectation can be raised against a prosecution pursuant to 377A.

 

Policy based expectations are not protected or guaranteed by "substantive legitimate expectations" since the public authorities decision must be "unfettered" to allow changes of position to advance the public good i.e. depends on the caprice of the policy makers at the material time to justify what is deemed to be the public good.

 

See the following link

 

http://www.sal.org.sg/digitallibrary/Lists/SAL%20Journal/Attachments/669/(2014)%2026%20SAcLJ%20237-248%20(Chiu%20Teng%20v%20SLA).pdf

 

Quote " 24.   ...such that policy-based expectations should not be protected by substantive legitimate expectation..."

 

It is this lack of legal certainty that concerns since the continued existence of 377a allows for proactive enforcement should it be deemed in the public good.

[Guest Guest]

Walter woon ever sued the ailing CK Tang heir for organ purchase and landed him in jail for a day. He is rather proactive, even agressive I would say, and was criticised by lee wei ling for trying overly hard to prove his point that everyone is equal before the law, to the detriment of someone's health (having to endure jail sentencing with an ailing kidney).

[Foo Desmond]

errr the link u cited is an article in a legal journal by Zhida, while Zhida is brilliant, the article has no legal effect. In his article he is merely suggesting a difference should be made between promises (SLE kicks in) and policy choices (SLE doesn't kick in). If u read the judgment in Chiu Teng, no such distinction was made. Further, as Zhida rightly concedes, it is hard to distinguish between the two clearly. The doctrine of SLE secures legal certainty because as long as the requisite conditions are met (primarily - statement by public authority, then detrimental reliance), the public authority would be held to its representations, even if it relates to a policy choice.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Foo Desmond

[Guest Legal Certainty]

errr the link u cited is an article in a legal journal by Zhida, while Zhida is brilliant, the article has no legal effect. In his article he is merely suggesting a difference should be made between promises (SLE kicks in) and policy choices (SLE doesn't kick in). If u read the judgment in Chiu Teng, no such distinction was made. Further, as Zhida rightly concedes, it is hard to distinguish between the two clearly. The doctrine of SLE secures legal certainty because as long as the requisite conditions are met (primarily - statement by public authority, then detrimental reliance), the public authority would be held to its representations, even if it relates to a policy choice.

Disagree.

 

In Chiu Teng v SLA, Chiu Teng's SLE position fails even though it had detrimentally relied on 

 

(from Zhida's article)

 

Quote "4 ... published Table of Development Charges rates..."

 

which the SLA had published to

 

Quote "4 ...provide greater certainty to landowners who will now be able to compute the DP payable themselves ..."

 

since the Chief Valuer ( a public authority) had used spot valuation not based on the published Table of Values to calculate the DP because of public interest.

 

The SLA was not held to its representations even though Chiu Teng had detrimental reliance on this table.

 

Hence public authority decisions remain discretionary even if contrary to public policy pronouncements detrimentally relied on when

 

Quote "11 ... f there is a public interest that overrides the expectation, then the expectation ought not be given effect to ..."

 

It is this discretion permitted by overriding public interest that defeats the supposed legal certainty of SLE since public interest tends to be fluid rather than static and is dependent on the perceptions / caprice of the public authority exercising the discretion.

[Foo Desmond]

Yes, although there is a public interest proviso, ur reading of the implications of the case is wrong. There are several requirements for SLE to be engaged but most importantly there must be rep and det reliance. This is why i used the term "primarily".

 

The public interest proviso is stated in the judgement at [117](f) (iii) - "The court should nevertheless not grant relief if " "The public authority can show an overriding national or public interest which justifies the frustration of the applicant’s expectation". the court inevitably has to put in this proviso to prevent a SLE from inhibiting essential and necessary policy decision. The crucial question is the scope of the proviso - i.e. when is an overriding national or public interest engaged. And the cases which are cited (patel, lever (finance), and mount sinai) all suggest that the overriding public interest must meet a high threshold. arguably, when reliance is made and the consequence is the commission of an offence, there would be a need for greater countervailing public interest.

 

Edited September 22, 2014 by Foo Desmond

[Guest Guest]

Walter woon ever sued the ailing CK Tang heir for organ purchase and landed him in jail for a day. He is rather proactive, even agressive I would say, and was criticised by lee wei ling for trying overly hard to prove his point that everyone is equal before the law, to the detriment of someone's health (having to endure jail sentencing with an ailing kidney).

Aiyo just one day how detrimental it can be to ones health.

If ' everyone is equal before the law' is a principle he is trying to uphold, kudos to him!

Has the law been always compassionate to the weak and poor, those who are disadvantaged, or marginalized in the society?