Tuesday, November 6, 2012

The Law In His Hands

To commemorate the retirement of the outgoing chief justice, the Singapore Academy of Law published a 828-page book entitled "The Law In His Hands: A Tribute To Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong". Chan, age 75, is reputed to be a prolific writer, having delivered 380 judgments in his 12 years on the Bench. One of his handiwork was produced in Parliament at the behest of then Law Minister S. Jayakumar:

21 July 1997

Prof S JayakumarMinister for Law

PRESENCE OF UNAUTHORISED PERSONS INSIDE POLLING STATIONS

On 14 July l997, THE Workers' Party issued a press release expressing "amazement" that the public prosecutor had advised police that no offence was disclosed in the reports made by it leaders against the prime minister, the two deputy prime ministers and Dr S Vasoo that they had been present inside polling stations when they were not candidates for the relevant constituencies. The Workers' Party queried why such conduct was not an offence under paragraph (d) or (e) of section 82(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.

2. On 15 July 1997, the Singapore Democratic Party also called on the attorney general to explain his "truly befuddling" decision and to state clearly if it was an offence for unauthorised persons to enter polling stations.

3. You have asked me for my formal opinion on the question raised in these two statements. My opinion is set out below.

4. The question is whether it is an offence under the Parliamentary Elections Act for an unauthorised person to enter and be present in a polling station.

5. For this purpose, the authorised persons are the candidates, the polling agent or agents of each candidate, the Returning Officer, and persons authorised in writing by the returning officer, the police officers on duty and other persons officially employed at the polling station; see section 39 (4) of the Act (quoted below) Activities Outside Polling Stations

6. The relevant sections of the Parliamentary Elections Act to be considered are sections 82 (1)(d) and 82 (1)(e). These provisions were enacted m 1959 pursuant to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections, Cmd 7 of 1968 (hereinafter called "the Elias Report)"

7. Section 82 (1)(d) provides that - "No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote".

8. Plainly, persons found waiting inside the polling stations do not come within the ambit of this section. Similarly, those who enter or have entered the polling station cannot be said to be waiting outside it. Only those who wait outside the polling station commit an offence under this section unless they are waiting to enter the polling station to cast their votes.

9. Section 82 (1)(e) provides that -
"No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day."

10. The relevant question is whether any person who is inside a polling station can be said to be "within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station". The answer to this question will also answer any question on loitering inside a polling station.

11. Plainly, a person inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station. A polling station must have adequate space for the voting to be carried out. Any space has a perimeter. The words "within a radius of 200 metres" ' therefore mean "200 metres from the perimeter of" any polling station.

12. The above interpretation is fortified by the context of the provision. The polling station, as a place, is distinguished from a street or public place. It is not a street or a public place. Hence, being inside a polling station cannot amount to being in a street or in a public place. By parity of reasoning, loitering in a street or public place cannot possibly include loitering in the polling station itself and vice versa.

13. There is no ambiguity in section 82 (1)(e). If the legislature had intended to make it an offence for unauthorised persons to wait or loiter inside a polling station, it could have easily provided for it. It did not. The mischief that section 82 (1)(e) is intended to address is found in paragraph 99 of the Elias Report. It reads:

"In order to prevent voters being made subject to my form of undue influence or harassment at the approaches to polling stations, we recommend that it should be made an offence for any person to establish any desk or table near the entrance to any polling station, or to wait outside any polling station on polling day except for the purpose of gaining entry into the polling station to cast his vote; and that it should be an offence for any person to loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 yards of any polling station on polling day ."

14 . Paragraph 99 of the Elias Report appears under the heading "Activity OUTSIDE POLLING STATIONS". The Commission of Inquiry was addressing the possibility of voters being subject to undue influence and harassment as they approach the polling stations. There is therefore no doubt whatever that this provision was never intended to cover any activity inside the polling station as there would be officials and election agents in attendance.

15. The legislative history makes the provision so clear that it is not even necessary to consider the application of an established principle of interpretation that any ambiguity in a penal provision should, whenever possible, be resolved favour of the accused.

Activities Inside Polling Stations
16. Activities inside polling stations were made subject to a different regime under the Act. Section 39(4) provides that -
"the presiding officer shall keep order in his station and shall regulate the number of voters to be admitted a time, and shall exclude all other persons except the polling agent or agents of each candidate, the Returning Officer and persons authorised in writing by the Returning Officer, the police officers on duty and other persons officially employed at the polling station."

17. Under section 39(7), any person who misconducts himself in the polling station, or fails to obey the lawful orders of the presiding officer may be removed from the polling station by a police officer acting under the orders of the presiding officer. If an unauthorised person refuses to leave the polling station when told to do so by the public officer, he commits an offence under section 186 of the Penal Code for obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his duty.

18. There is a consistency in the rationales of the regulatory schemes governing activities inside and those outside polling stations on election day. Waiting outside a polling station is made an offence because it gives rise to opportunities to influence or intimidate voters: see paragraph 99 of the Elias Report. Hence, the Act has provided a safety zone which stretches outwards for 200 metres from the polling station. In contrast, the possibility of a person inside a polling station influencing or intimidating voters in the presence of the presiding officer and his officials, the polling agents etc was considered so remote that it was discounted by the Act.

19. I therefore confirm my opinion that the Parliamentary Elections Act does not provide for any offence of unauthorised entry into or presence within a polling station. Accordingly, those unauthorised persons who only wait or loiter inside a polling station on polling day do not commit any offence under the Act.

20. You are at liberty to publish this opinion.

Signed:
Chan Sek Keong
Attorney General


At the farewell festivities, Chan said his only contribution for the book was the title. Keeping in character with his judicial mindset, he was careful to qualify the choice of words, "The title does not mean taking the law into my hands."

25 comments:

  1. "the presiding officer shall keep order in his station and shall regulate the number of voters to be admitted a time, and shall exclude all other persons except the polling agent or agents of each candidate, the Returning Officer and persons authorised in writing by the Returning Officer, the police officers on duty and other persons officially employed at the polling station."

    Who is this presiding officer? Did he commit any offence for dereliction of his duties?

    "the possibility of a person inside a polling station influencing or intimidating voters in the presence of the presiding officer and his officials, the polling agents etc was considered so remote that it was discounted by the Act."

    If the presiding officer and his officials are intimidated from carrying out their duties, wouldn't the voters be equally if not more intimidated?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Letter of law more important than spirit of law. Same with the case regarding the IMF loan.

      Delete
  2. This looks like an episode from the TV series "Kangaroo Court" produced proudly in Singapore!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What took him so long to hop out of the familee court ?

      Delete
  3. Screwing the Sinkie - Lifetime Achievement Award?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And retire back to hometown Ipoh with millions of ringgit!

      Delete
  4. The below says it all

    "The above interpretation is fortified by the context of the provision. The polling station, as a place, is distinguished from a street or public place. It is not a street or a public place. Hence, being inside a polling station cannot amount to being in a street or in a public place. By parity of reasoning, loitering in a street or public place cannot possibly include loitering in the polling station itself and vice versa."

    ReplyDelete
  5. what a joke ?
    Cannot believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A man without honour and a man without any conscience of his own. And yet they heap praises on him for a job well heeded.

    What does this make of those who praised him? Cronies from the same feather ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think for any Chief Justice to be condemned like that by his fellow citizens, it's quite a shame really.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can only hope that his grandchildren are not reading these blogs...

      Delete
    2. The apple does not fall far from the tree?
      Anyway.
      Grandchildren too busy enjoying holidays in Europe to bother with Sinkies moaning & groaning on the internet?
      Sinkies are just a bunch of complaining cowards who are too scared to vote Opposition in GE 2016.

      Delete
    3. I doubt his children or grandchildren will be bothered with reading these blogs, not when they can look forward to a sizeable inheritance. They may even get the honour to claim there is a street named after ChanSK...assuming LHL, GohCT and Tony are still around.

      Delete
    4. "..In an opinion poll, commissioned by the Reader's Digest, he was picked by Singapore public as the person they TRUSTED the most"
      -The Business Times 05 Nov 2012

      Delete
    5. Not surprised if Reader's Digest learnt the art of gerrymandering from the PAP and applied it accordingly to engineer the desired result for the opinion poll....somewhat similar to the PAP securing 93% seats in parliament with just 60% of the votes. To ignorant outsiders it appears that 9 out of 10 sporeans support them, trust them.

      Delete
  8. Who in Sin formulate, legislate and interpret the Law for judgement?
    And
    do not forget that they can do it at will.

    Justice in Sin is sinful.

    patriot

    ReplyDelete
  9. "First, we salute him because he is unspoilt by power, status and wealth..."

    "Second, he is a man of integrity..As chief justice,he has earned the trust and respect of....the public"

    "Fifth, ...His judgements are always based on sound legal reasoning"

    -Tommy Koh & TPB Menon (The Business Times 05 Nov 2012)

    ReplyDelete
  10. If one is kind, this specie can be called a good tongue twister. But the layman term would be a lackey dog. This specie is abundant throughout Malayan forests, particularly ipoh and penang.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Frankly if they are going to jail a person for having his dick sucked as corruption, should they not on the same equal standards of justice also subject any public servant (even if he holds the highest office) to a fair trial for making such an obvious judgement of error on such matters of national interest?

    Reminds me of a Chinese movie very appropriately titled "Justice, My foot" starring Stephen Chow.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If Reader's Digest is truthful and referred to those Singapore public as sycophants, friends of the ex CJ will ensure that it be gazetted and be made to pay damages. After all, our system of meritocracy made him CJ and what are friends for - you scratch my back, I yours.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This guy is a master at twisting the meaning of words as proved by the Cheng San case highlighted here as well as the loan to Indonesia case. What motivated this guy sacrifice his intellectual honesty? No prize for guessing right.

    ReplyDelete
  14. How true the following:

    The evil that men do lives after them,
    The good is oft interred with their bones,
    ....he was ambitious....

    ReplyDelete
  15. Are there stooges that do not work for their masters? Much more unthinkable for them to question or reason with their paymaster and authority.
    It would be comforting if the stooges do not stooped too low to be wholesale traitors of the people and their own conscience.
    Maybe, the worst have yet to come.

    ReplyDelete
  16. That was the day, justice died in Singapore

    ReplyDelete