Chan Hiang Leng Colin and Others v Public Prosecutor

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeYong Pung How CJ
Judgment Date01 March 1995
Neutral Citation[1995] SGHC 59
Date01 March 1995
Subject MatterCourt of appeal,Appeal,Reference to Court of Appeal,Applicable principles,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Whether stated questions were questions of law of public interest,Courts and Jurisdiction,s 60 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322)
Docket NumberCriminal Motion No 24 of 1994
Published date19 September 2003
Defendant Counselala Reddy and Soh Tze Bian (Deputy Public Prosecutors)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Plaintiff CounselWilliam Glen How QC, Leslie Netto and Tan Beng Swee (Netto Tan & S Magin)

The appellants were convicted in the district court for possession of prohibited publications under the Undesirable Publications Act (Cap 338) (the UPA). The prohibited publications were published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (WTBTS), the parent body of the sect known as the Jehovah`s Witnesses. By Gazette Notification No 123, dated 14 January 1972 (Order 123), made pursuant to s 3 of the UPA, these publications were banned in Singapore.

In the court below, the district judge imposed fines of $800, $500, $500 and $700 on the four appellants respectively.
The appellants appealed to the High Court against their conviction and sentence. On 8 August 1994, I dismissed the appeals. [See [1994] 3 SLR 662 .] Subsequently, by this motion, the appellants applied to refer several questions of law for determination by the Court of Appeal pursuant to s 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) (the SCJA). The Public Prosecutor objected. Having heard the submissions tendered by both counsel, I was not satisfied that this matter should proceed further and accordingly dismissed the application. I now set out my reasons.

It would be convenient to recite first the factual background of this case.
On 14 January 1972, the Minister for Home Affairs, pursuant to his powers under s 24(1) of the Societies Act (Cap 311) and by Gazette Notification No 179 (Order 179), ordered the dissolution of the Singapore Congregation of Jehovah`s Witnesses as a registered society. The basis for the de-registration was stated in a press statement from the Ministry of Home Affairs:

... its [the Jehovah`s Witnesses] continued existence is prejudicial to public welfare and good order in Singapore. The doctrine of the sect and nature of its propaganda are based on its claim that Satan and its dispensation are responsible for all organized government and religion. The result of the impending `Armageddon` will be the destruction of everyone except Jehovah`s Witnesses, who will inherit the earth. By virtue of this doctrine, the sect claims a neutral position for its members in wartime. This has led to a number of Jehovah`s Witnesses in the National Service to refuse to do any military duty. Some of them even refuse to wear uniforms.



At the same time, Order 123 was made by the Minister for Culture (now the Minister for Information and the Arts).


All four appellants here were Jehovah`s Witnesses.
On 2 July 1992, they were arrested for possession of several publications by WTBTS. In the appeal and in the trial in the court below, the appellants challenged the validity of both Orders 123 and 179 as being ultra vires the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the UPA and the Societies Act (Cap 311). They raised the objection that the two orders unlawfully denied them and other Jehovah`s Witnesses the free exercise of their religious liberty as guaranteed under the Constitution. Further, they contended that the two orders were null and unenforceable as having been promulgated arbitrarily and by a denial of natural justice, without notice or hearing.

In light of these challenges to the validity of the orders, I had to determine as a preliminary issue whether this court possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate on all the issues raised by the appellants, considering that it was, in fact, a criminal appeal from a subordinate court.
I held the view that these matters ought to have been properly determined in judicial review proceedings in the High Court instead. However, the Public Prosecutor raised no objections to these issues being raised. He contended that they ought to be argued and finally determined, so that the matter can be put to rest. Under such exceptional circumstances, I ruled that this court was competent to consider all such issues raised.

At the hearing of the appeal, the appellants applied by Crim Motion 16/94 for leave to adduce additional evidence.
These included orders for certain articles and publications with respect to the Jehovah`s Witnesses to be adduced, the production of files and documents of the respective ministries in making Orders 123 and 179, a full response from the respective ministries to interrogatories with respect to the making of Orders 123 and 179 and an order for adducing the evidence of an expert witness on the beliefs and practices of the Jehovah`s Witnesses. The motion was dismissed. However, I allowed the Public Prosecutor`s motion for leave to adduce additional evidence by way of affidavits from several government officials (Crim Motion No 19/94), which, in my view, amounted to a certain extent to what was sought by the appellants.

In the appeal proper, I considered the various contentions of the appellants and ruled that both Orders 179 and 123 were not in contravention of the articles of the Constitution cited nor the enabling statutory provisions.
The appellants had failed to discharge their onus of proving that the respective ministers had exercised their discretion on irrelevant grounds. I held that it was not for this court to substitute its view for the ministers` as to whether the Jehovah`s Witnesses constituted a threat to national security. I also dismissed the appellants` objections of the lack of natural justice, on the basis that the orders were clearly for the preservation of national security. I was satisfied that, as the basis of the orders clearly could not be disputed, no purpose would be achieved if a hearing was held.

Turning now to this motion, the appellants applied for an order that the following questions be reserved for the decision of the Court of Appeal:

(1) whether the ministerial order contained in Government Gazette Notification No 123 dated 14 January 1972 (Order 123) is ultra vires the Undesirable Publications Act (Cap 338) and/or arts 12, 15 and 152 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore;

(2) whether the ministerial order contained in Government Gazette Notification No 179 dated 14 January 1972 (Order 179) is ultra vires the Societies Act (Cap 311) and/or arts 12, 15 and 152 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore;

(3) whether the Ministerial Orders 123 and 179 unlawfully took away important liberties provided by the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore;

(4) whether the Ministerial Orders 123 and 179 are void for denial of natural justice and unreasonableness;

(5) whether the Ministerial Orders 123 and 179 are within the scope of reservation provided by art 15(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore;

(6) whether the restrictions permitted by art 15(4) should be governed by the `least restrictive test`; and

(7) if the answer to question (6) above is in the affirmative, whether the burden imposed by the Ministerial Orders 123 and 179 are out of proportion to the limited benefit to the interest of the State;

(8) whether the High Court erred in refusing the appellant`s request to have the documents in possession of the government examined either by the appellants or the court to ascertain if the said records really justify the extreme Orders 123 and 179 (supra);

(9) whether the High Court erred in allowing additional evidence to be adduced by the prosecutor while refusing the right to adduce constitutional evidence on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Bridges Christopher v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 3 April 1997
    ... ... by the Court of Appeal in Zainal bin Kuning & Ors v Chan Sin Mian Michael [1996] 3 SLR 121 ... In that case, ... ...
  • MV Balakrishnan v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 8 July 1998
    ...no conflict of authority. As such, the question was not so exceptional as to require reference: at [11]. Chan Hiang Leng Colin v PP [1995] 1 SLR (R) 388; [1995] 1 SLR 687 (folld) Chapman v O'Hagan [1949] 2 All ER 690 (folld) Roland Joseph George John v PP [1995] 3 SLR (R) 562; [1996] 1 SLR ......
  • Bridges Christopher v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 6 November 1997
    ...SLR 301, HC (folld) Abdul Salam bin Mohamed Salleh v PP [1991] 2 SLR (R) 344; [1991] SLR 235, CA (folld) Chan Hiang Leng Colin v PP [1995] 1 SLR (R) 388; [1995] 1 SLR 687 (folld) Osman bin Ali v PP [1971-1973] SLR (R) 503; [1972-1974] SLR 106 (refd) PP v Bridges Christopher [1997] 1 SLR (R)......
  • Ng Ai Tiong v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 March 2000
    ... ... MLJ 275 , affirmed [1991] SLR 235; [1991] 3 MLJ 280; Chan Hiang Leng Colin v PP [1995] 1 SLR 687 ; PP v Bridges ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT