Application of Ong Ah Chuan
editSeveral local and foreign cases have adopted the Privy Council’s approach in interpreting Article 12(1).
Singapore cases
editIn the 2005 case of Nguyen Tuong Van v. Public Prosecutor ("Nguyen Tuong Van "),[1] the court reiterated the statements of Lord Diplock, and additionally restated the “reasonable classification”[2] test to be used. In Kok Hoong Tan Dennis v. Public Prosecutor[3] and Yong Vui Kong v. Attorney-General ("Yong Vui Kong "),[4] the courts indicated their support for the court’s statement in Ong Ah Chuan that the differentia had to bear a reasonable relation to the social object of the statute.
Foreign cases
editCourts in other jurisdictions have also applied the reasonable relation test espoused by Lord Diplock. In the Malaysian case of Datuk Yong Teck Lee v .Public Prosecutor,[5] the plaintiff claimed that section 27(8) of the Police Act violated Article 8(1) of the Malaysian Constitution. Article 8(1) provides that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law. It was argued the equality provision was violated because parliamentarians who participated in illegal demonstrations were subject to a higher mandatory fine as compared to “similarly offending” non-parliamentarians. The court, in response to such a claim, applied the doctrine of reasonable classification and identified a rational relation between the differentia and the object of the statute.
Similarly, in the Indian case of Bhatia v Union of India,[6] the applicant challenged the constitutional validity of an amendment to the Rent Act. This amendment sought to limit the protection of rent-control legislation to areas where the monthly rent was less than 3,500 rupees. In evaluating the applicant’s challenge, the court applied Ong Ah Chuan's test to identify “a rational connection between the legislative classifications and the object of the law”.[7]
Alternatives to Ong Ah Chuan's approach
editAn alternative to the test adopted in Ong Ah Chuan is the framework adopted by American courts. American jurisprudence has developed a “suspect classification” model, which has a constitutional basis in the Equal Protection Clause.[8] Unlike Ong Ah Chuan's approach, this model encompasses three tiers of scrutiny. The level of scrutiny to be applied in each case is dependent upon the particular facts involved.
| Levels of Scrutiny | Test | Application |
|---|---|---|
| Strict Scrutiny | The measure must be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest to withstand strict scrutiny.[9] | Applied when the challenged law impinged on fundamental rights or involves a “suspect classification”.
Race, national origin and alienage are recognized as “suspect”.[10] |
| Intermediate Scrutiny | The challenged law must be proven to substantially advance an important state interest.[11] | Applied when “quasi-suspect” classifications are involved.
Classifications based on gender or illegitimacy.[12] |
| Rational Basis Review | This rational basis review requires the law to bear a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.[13]The test requires only the existence of “any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification”[14] and the legislature is not required to supply reasons for enacting the law.[15] | Applied when the law in question neither impinges a fundamental right nor involves a suspect or "quasi-suspect" classification. |
Tan Yock Lin
Yap Po-Jen
Four Models of Equality
- ^ Nguyen Tuong Van v. Public Prosecutor [2005] 1 S.L.R.(R.) 103.
- ^ Nguyen Tuong Van, p. 123, para. 70.
- ^ Kok Hoong Tan Dennis v. Public Prosecutor [1996] 3 S.L.R.(R.) 570.
- ^ Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General [2011] 2 SLR 1189 (CA).
- ^ Datuk Yong Teck Lee v .Public Prosecutor [1993] 1 MLJ 295.
- ^ Bhatia v Union of India [1995] 1 SCC 104
- ^ Bhatia , p. ___, para. 73.
- ^ Aaron Baker (2008), "Proportional, Not Strict, Scrutiny: Against a US 'Suspect Classifications' Model under Article 14 ECHR in the UK", Am J Comp L, 56: 847 at ____.
- ^ Palmore v. Sidoti 466 U.S. 429 (1984), Supreme Court (United States).
- ^ Baker, p. _____.
- ^ Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190 (1976), Supreme Court (United States).
- ^ Baker, p. _____.
- ^ Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. 220 U.S. 61 (1911), Supreme Court (United States).
- ^ FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc 508 U.S. 307 (1993), Supreme Court (United States).
- ^ FCC , p. 315.