ANG CHENG HAI & Ors v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: MPH Rubin J
• Judgment Date: 10 April 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 97
• Citation: [1995] SGHC 97
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: S Asogan (R Raman & Company)
• Defendant Counsel: Bala Reddy and Yeow Ping Lin (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
• Published date: 19 September 2003

Judgment:

Coram: Rubin J

GROUNDS OF DECISION

The six applicants in Criminal Motion No 36 of 1994 and the applicant in Criminal Motion No 6 of 1995 face charges under s 4(2) of the Undesirable Publications Act (Cap 338) (`UPA') for being in possession of certain prohibited publications and cassette tapes which were published by one Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society and the International Bible Students Association. There is also in respect of some of the applicants an additional charge under s 21(1)(a) of the Films Act (Cap 107) for being in possession of some uncensored video tapes. It is common ground that by gazette notification No 123 of 1972 (`Order 123') the then Minister for Culture exercising his powers conferred on him by s 3(1) of the UPA deemed fit to prohibit the importation, sale and circulation of all publications published or printed by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. By gazette notification No 405 dated 4 February 1994 (`Order 405'), the Minister for Information and the Arts, in exercise of the powers vested in him by the same sub-section, prohibited the importation, sale and circulation of all publications published or printed by the International Bible Students Association.

2 The facts presented show that the applicants are adherents of a religious group known as `Jehovah's Witnesses' and the proscribed publications are material published either by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society or the International Bible Students Association, bodies which are closely associated with Jehovah's Witnesses.

3 Mr Asogan, counsel for the applicants, applied under s 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) (`CPC') for the cases to be transferred and tried in the High Court on the following grounds:

(a) that there were questions of law of unusual difficulty; and

(b) such an order was expedient for the ends of justice.

4 Counsel for the applicants whilst conceding that the publications under reference were prohibited material either under Order 123 or Order 405 contended before me that the respective ministers in exercising their powers under the provisions of the UPA had taken a `very drastic and sweeping action' by prohibiting publications which, according to counsel, are Christian in content and are essential to the applicants for the practice of their religion and to enable them to abide by the tenets contained therein. He submitted that a blanket prohibition of this nature impinged upon the applicants' right to practise and propagate their faith and runs counter to Art 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore which declares that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law, read in the context of Art 15(1) and 152(1) of the Constitution under which `every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propogate it' and that `it shall be the responsibility of the government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore'.

5 He added that the validity of the said two orders prohibiting the publications would be the `very nature of the defence' that would be relied on by the applicants at their trial and the questions before the court would include that of whether the respective ministers had exercised their discretion lawfully in bringing about the orders; whether the orders promulgated were in contravention of the principles of natural justice and whether the actions by the ministers were ultra vires the UPA.

6 Counsel went on to submit that allied to the constitutional issues were a number of questions of law of unusual difficulty, touching upon the phrases `public interest' under s 3(1) of the UPA and `public order' under Art 15(4) of the Constitution. Asserting that the constitutional arguments to be advanced on behalf of the applicants were beyond the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Courts, counsel urged the court to transfer the hearing of the applicants' case to the High Court adding that all these issues ought to be considered and determined ultimately by the Court of Appeal.

7 Mr Bala Reddy, for the public prosecutor, contended in his submision that there were in fact no issues of unusual difficulty meriting the transfer of these cases to the High Court. He said that the same constitutional issues and the allied questions of law on the construction to be accorded to the phrases `public interest' under the UPA and `public order' under Art 15 of the Constitution, were in fact raised by another group of Jehovah's Witnesses and had been fully dealt with by Yong Pung How CJ twice - once in a Magistrate's Appeal - Chan Hiang Leng Colin & Ors v Public Prosecutor < 1994 > 3 SLR 662 (case No 1) and again in a sequel to the said appeal in Criminal Motion No 24 of 1994 reported in < 1995 > 1 SLR 687 (case No 2).

8 A careful reading of the judgments of the learned Chief Justice in Chan Hiang Leng Colin (case Nos 1 & 2) reveals that the very same issues which were dealt with there were being pursued in the present applications. Although in the two earlier cases, the appellants there had also mounted a challenge to another Gazette Notification, ie Order No 179 of 1972, under which the Minister for Home Affairs had ordered the dissolution of the Singapore Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses under s 24(1) of the Societies Act (Cap 262), the...