A reconsideration of equal protection and executive action in Singapore
In Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General, the Singapore Court of Appeal reconsidered how Article 12(1), the equal protection provision in Singapore’s Constitution, should apply to executive actions. Departing from the established ‘deliberate and arbitrary’ test, the Court of Appeal proposed to...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3671 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | In Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General, the Singapore Court of Appeal reconsidered how Article 12(1), the equal protection provision in Singapore’s Constitution, should apply to executive actions. Departing from the established ‘deliberate and arbitrary’ test, the Court of Appeal proposed to first consider whether the relevant persons were ‘equally situated’ and subject to differential treatment. If so, this treatment had to be justified by legitimate reasons. This note argues that while the rejection of the ‘deliberate and arbitrary’ test ought to be welcomed, this approach risks returning to an emphasis on classes in equal protection analysis – an emphasis which has been criticised as tautological in the Singapore courts’ own Article 12(1) jurisprudence. A requirement to articulate the substantive requirements of equality in the specific context of the executive decision in question would offer a more principled means of analysing the constitutionality of executive actions under Article 12(1). |
|---|