{"title":"对新加坡平等保护和行政行为的再思考","authors":"Kenny Chng","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2021.1940795","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General [2020] SGCA 122, the Singapore Court of Appeal reconsidered how Article 12(1), the Singapore Constitution's equal protection provision, 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 case note argues that while the rejection of the ‘deliberate and arbitrary’ test is 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).","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":"21 1","pages":"295 - 305"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2021.1940795","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A reconsideration of equal protection and executive action in Singapore\",\"authors\":\"Kenny Chng\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14729342.2021.1940795\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General [2020] SGCA 122, the Singapore Court of Appeal reconsidered how Article 12(1), the Singapore Constitution's equal protection provision, 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 case note argues that while the rejection of the ‘deliberate and arbitrary’ test is 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).\",\"PeriodicalId\":35148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"295 - 305\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2021.1940795\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2021.1940795\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2021.1940795","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要在Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin诉司法部长【2020】SGCA 122一案中,新加坡上诉法院重新考虑了新加坡宪法的平等保护条款第12(1)条应如何适用于行政行为。与既定的“蓄意和武断”测试不同,上诉法院建议首先考虑相关人员是否“处境平等”并受到差别待遇。如果是这样,这种待遇必须有正当理由。本案例说明认为,虽然拒绝“蓄意和武断”的测试是受欢迎的,但这种方法有可能在平等保护分析中重新强调阶级——在新加坡法院自己的第12(1)条判例中,这种强调被批评为重复。要求在有关行政决定的具体背景下阐明平等的实质性要求,将为分析第12条第(1)款规定的行政行动的合宪性提供一种更有原则的手段。
A reconsideration of equal protection and executive action in Singapore
ABSTRACT In Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General [2020] SGCA 122, the Singapore Court of Appeal reconsidered how Article 12(1), the Singapore Constitution's equal protection provision, 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 case note argues that while the rejection of the ‘deliberate and arbitrary’ test is 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).