Dr Chee's constitutional tribunal plea rejected

PRESIDENT Ong Teng Cheong, acting on the advice of the Cabinet, has turned down a request from lawyer J. B. Jeyaretnam that a constitutional tribunal examine if the Public Entertainments Act violates the constitution.

His view is that doing so would be "an improper interference" in the judicial process, as the courts would be the proper place to resolve the matter.

Mr Jeyaretnam made the request on behalf of his client, opposition politician Chee Soon Juan, who faces trial on Monday for giving a public talk without a licence at Raffles Place on Dec 29.

Mr Jeyaretnam, a Worker's Party non-constituency MP, wrote to the president on Jan 20, arguing that Dr Chee's "serious talk" on Dec 29 was not public entertainment in the popular meaning of the word "entertainment".

He argued that the provisions in the Public Entertainments Act, which, among other things, requires people to get a permit to hold public talks, violated Articles 14 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution of Singapore, which enshrines the freedom of speech and assembly.

In addition, Article 4 of the constitution made it clear that any law inconsistent with the constitution "shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void".

Mr Jeyaretnam's case was that the Act violated Dr Chee's right as a citizen, as well as the constitutional right of every citizen of Singapore to freedom of information and assembly and was therefore an "eminently suitable question" to be referred to a constitutional tribunal.

Article 100 of the constitution permits the president to refer questions relating to the constitution to a tribunal consisting of not less than three supreme court judges.

In a letter dated Jan 29, the president's principal private secretary Lim Siok Peng wrote: "Under the constitution, the president acts on the advice of the cabinet with regard to any reference under Article 100.

"I have been directed to inform you that the president has been advised that your request is misconceived."

She cited three reasons why.

First: The constitutional tribunal was not a court of law, but only advisory in nature. So it should be invoked only "when there is no other forum available to a person who claims that his constitutional rights have been infringed to have such claim tested".

Second: Dr Chee had been charged under the Public Entertainments Act and had claimed trial. He thus had every opportunity to raise the same constitutional question at the trial or on appeal.

Third: Since the courts had the power to try Dr Chee on the charge, and the public prosecutor had not withdrawn the charge, the matter could be resolved by the courts. Any attempt by the president to refer it under Article 100 to a constitutional tribunal would "constitute an improper interference with the judicial power of the courts and the constitutional functions of the public prosecutor."

The exchange of letters was made public yesterday by Mr Jeyaretnam, who also issued a statement regretting the decision of the cabinet.

Published in the Straits Times. Jan 30, 1999