对新加坡平等保护和行政行为的再思考

Kenny Chng
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Blurring boundaries on ‘taking part’ in an unlawful assembly: HKSAR v Choy Kin Yue (2022) 25 HKCFAR 360 ‘The law has taken all my rights away’: on India’s conundrum of able-normative death with dignity ‘Delicate plants’, ‘loose cannons’, or ‘a marriage of true minds’? The role of academic literature in judicial decision-making Legal transplantation of minors’ contracts in India and Malaysia: ‘Weak’ Watson and a ‘misfitted’ transplant Corruption and the constitutional position of the Overseas Territories
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1