Foreign Precedents in Constitutional Adjudication by the Supreme Court of Singapore, 1963-2013

This article surveys the use of foreign precedents in constitutional adjudication by the Supreme Court of Singapore for over a half century during the terms of the first three Chief Justices—Wee Chong Jin (1963–1990), Yong Pung How (1990–2006), and Chan Sek Keong (2006–2012)—and the first year in of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: LEE, Jack Tsen-Ta
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2015
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1524
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/3476/viewcontent/ForeignPrecedentsConstAdjuSCSinagpore_2015.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
id sg-smu-ink.sol_research-3476
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.sol_research-34762018-12-11T07:59:54Z Foreign Precedents in Constitutional Adjudication by the Supreme Court of Singapore, 1963-2013 LEE, Jack Tsen-Ta This article surveys the use of foreign precedents in constitutional adjudication by the Supreme Court of Singapore for over a half century during the terms of the first three Chief Justices—Wee Chong Jin (1963–1990), Yong Pung How (1990–2006), and Chan Sek Keong (2006–2012)—and the first year in office of the fourth Chief Justice, Sundaresh Menon (2012–2013). It concludes that while judges have always cited foreign case law, they have only actually applied foreign cases where the wording of the Constitution and the constitutional arrangements in Singapore are fairly analogous to the constitutional texts and arrangements upon which the cases were decided. Sometimes, Singapore judges quoted passages from cases in an instrumental manner to support statements of law without necessarily analyzing in detail the reasoning underlying such cases. There were also instances where foreign jurisprudence was rejected on the basis that it related to constitutional texts that were worded differently from the Constitution. In recent times the courts have been more willing to examine why foreign courts arrived at certain results, but this has not necessarily led them to adopt the same conclusions those courts reached. It is likely that the courts’ choice of which foreign precedents are followed or rejected will depend on whether they remain deferential to the policy choices of the political branches of government, or develop constitutional principles to subject these choices to greater scrutiny. 2015-03-01T08:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1524 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/3476/viewcontent/ForeignPrecedentsConstAdjuSCSinagpore_2015.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University constitutional law Supreme Court of Singapore use of foreign precedents Asian Studies Constitutional Law
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic constitutional law
Supreme Court of Singapore
use of foreign precedents
Asian Studies
Constitutional Law
spellingShingle constitutional law
Supreme Court of Singapore
use of foreign precedents
Asian Studies
Constitutional Law
LEE, Jack Tsen-Ta
Foreign Precedents in Constitutional Adjudication by the Supreme Court of Singapore, 1963-2013
description This article surveys the use of foreign precedents in constitutional adjudication by the Supreme Court of Singapore for over a half century during the terms of the first three Chief Justices—Wee Chong Jin (1963–1990), Yong Pung How (1990–2006), and Chan Sek Keong (2006–2012)—and the first year in office of the fourth Chief Justice, Sundaresh Menon (2012–2013). It concludes that while judges have always cited foreign case law, they have only actually applied foreign cases where the wording of the Constitution and the constitutional arrangements in Singapore are fairly analogous to the constitutional texts and arrangements upon which the cases were decided. Sometimes, Singapore judges quoted passages from cases in an instrumental manner to support statements of law without necessarily analyzing in detail the reasoning underlying such cases. There were also instances where foreign jurisprudence was rejected on the basis that it related to constitutional texts that were worded differently from the Constitution. In recent times the courts have been more willing to examine why foreign courts arrived at certain results, but this has not necessarily led them to adopt the same conclusions those courts reached. It is likely that the courts’ choice of which foreign precedents are followed or rejected will depend on whether they remain deferential to the policy choices of the political branches of government, or develop constitutional principles to subject these choices to greater scrutiny.
format text
author LEE, Jack Tsen-Ta
author_facet LEE, Jack Tsen-Ta
author_sort LEE, Jack Tsen-Ta
title Foreign Precedents in Constitutional Adjudication by the Supreme Court of Singapore, 1963-2013
title_short Foreign Precedents in Constitutional Adjudication by the Supreme Court of Singapore, 1963-2013
title_full Foreign Precedents in Constitutional Adjudication by the Supreme Court of Singapore, 1963-2013
title_fullStr Foreign Precedents in Constitutional Adjudication by the Supreme Court of Singapore, 1963-2013
title_full_unstemmed Foreign Precedents in Constitutional Adjudication by the Supreme Court of Singapore, 1963-2013
title_sort foreign precedents in constitutional adjudication by the supreme court of singapore, 1963-2013
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2015
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1524
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/3476/viewcontent/ForeignPrecedentsConstAdjuSCSinagpore_2015.pdf
_version_ 1772829600525582336