Nappalli Peter Williams v Institute of Technical Education

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 28 May 1999
• Date: 28 May 1999
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 278 of 1998
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Nappalli Peter Williams

Plaintiff

and

Institute of Technical Education

Defendant

[1999] SGCA 41

Yong Pung How CJ

,

M Karthigesu JA

and

L P Thean JA

Civil Appeal No 278 of 1998

Court of Appeal

Constitutional Law–Constitution–Interpretation–Whether policy requiring training officers to take National Pledge and sing National Anthem unconstitutional–Whether pledge and national anthem ceremony religious in nature and within ambit of Arts 15 and 16 Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1992 Reprint)–Contract–Contractual terms–Implied terms–Refusal to take pledge and sing National Anthem because of religious belief–Whether ITE's policy a term of the employment contract

The appellant, Nappalli Peter Williams, was a Jehovah's Witness and a training officer at the Institute of Technical Education (“ITE”), the respondent. He was dismissed by ITE for misconduct in refusing to take the National Pledge and sing the National Anthem. He sued ITE for unfair dismissal. He argued that he had informed the ITE interview panel of his refusal and its acceptance formed part of the employment contract and his dismissal was in breach of an implied term of the employment contract. He further argued that ITE's policy requiring participation in the pledge and anthem ceremony was unconstitutional. ITE submitted that the dismissal was fair as the appellant's refusal to participate in the pledge and anthem ceremony made him unfit to be a good model for students. The trial judge found that (a) ITE did not know of the appellant's position when it confirmed him and it was the appellant who breached the employment contract by refusing to comply with ITE's rules; (b) the State's interest in the education system must prevail over that of the individual's.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The appellant's interpretation of the pledge and anthem as a religious ceremony was a distortion of secular fact into religious belief. It was not accepted as a religious belief and was not entitled to protection under Arts 15 and 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1992 Reprint): at [28].

(2) ITE's policy was a valid contractual obligation binding on the appellant. His conduct in refusing to follow the regulations was an act equal to failure to carry out contractual obligations: at [33].

[Observation: Constitutional guarantees could not be manipulated out of existence. No person could contract to deny himself or another the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution: at [19].]

Adler v Board of Education342 US 485 (1951) (refd)

Ahmad v Inner London Education Authority [1978] QB 36 (folld)

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (refd)

Donald v The Board of Education for the City of Hamilton [1945] OR 518 (distd)

Ebralinag v Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu219 SCRA 256 [1993] (distd)

Frost and Frost Trucking Co v Railroad Commission271 US 583 (1926) (folld)

Government of the State of Kelantan, The v The Government of the Federation of Malaya and Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj (1963) MLJ 355 (folld)

Hozack v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints79 FCR 441 (folld)

Kruger v Commonwealth of Australia (1997) 190 CLR 1; (1997) 146 ALR 126 (folld)

Sim v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council [1987] Ch 216 (folld)

Thomas v Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division450 US 707 (1981) (refd)

West Virginia State Board of Education et al v Barnette et al319 US 624 (1943) (distd)

Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed,1992 Reprint)Arts 15, 16 (consd)

Institute of Technical Education Act (Cap 141A, 1993 Rev Ed)s 25

Education Act 1944 (c 31) (UK)s 30

Workplace Relations Act1996 (Cth)

S Asogan (S Asogan & Co) for the appellant

Tang Khin Wai, Kannan Ramesh and Julian Tay (Lee & Lee) for the respondent.

Judgment reserved.

Yong Pung How CJ

(delivering the judgment of the court):

The facts

1 In May 1984, the appellant was accepted as a trainee teaching officer by the ITE, then known as the Vocational and Industrial Training Board but now known as the Institute of Technical Education. From the commencement of his teaching course in July 1984 up till his graduation in July 1986, he served in various postings at different vocational institutes, including those situated in Ayer Rajah and Jurong. Following two years on probation, he was confirmed as a training officer in January 1988.

2 As is the practice in Singapore schools, teachers and students of the ITE take the National Pledge and sing the National Anthem during the school assembly. In 1988, the Ministry of Education introduced a new mode for taking the National Pledge, which required the right-clenched fist to be placed over the left chest. The ITE, a creature of statute by virtue of the Institute of Technical Education Act (Cap 141A) (“ITE Act”), promptly enforced this new mode in the school through a circular distributed to ITE students and staff (“the 1988 circular”).

3 Throughout his employment, the appellant's practice was to be present at morning assembly. However, he did not take the National Pledge or sing the National Anthem. As a Jehovah's Witness, he believed that taking the National Pledge or singing the National Anthem were acts of worship which should be reserved exclusively for God and not for country. His conduct at morning assembly was uncensored until the introduction of the new mode of taking the National Pledge. The new mode made it obvious that the appellant was not participating in the pledge and anthem ceremony, since the appellant's right fist was not raised when the pledge was taken.

4 This came to the attention of the appellant's training manager, Kok Kam Wah, who informed the ITE's Deputy Director Tham Kin Foon of the appellant's conduct in a report dated 5 July 1990. On 2 January 1991, a letter was sent to the appellant, reminding him that it was a standing policy for all training staff on duty during the first period of the day to be present at the morning assembly and to take the National Pledge, as the assembly formed part of the first period. The letter warned him that non-compliance with the 1988 circular may lead to disciplinary action. The appellant did not change his position.

5 In July 1993, the ITE promoted the appellant when he passed the teachers' routine Efficiency Bar test but their position remained unchanged with respect to the 1988 circular. In a meeting with, inter alia, the ITE's director, Dr Law Song Seng, on 7 January 1994, both parties reaffirmed their respective stands. The appellant informed the meeting that he could not participate in the pledge and anthem ceremony because of his religious convictions. The director advised the appellant that in the circumstances it would be in his best interests to resign. Five days later, the plaintiff wrote to the director to say that he would not change his position...