Criminal Law in Singapore: Understanding Article-9 of the Constitution

This essay discusses Article-9 of the Constitution of Singapore, which outlines the rights and duties of an arrested person. It covers landmark judgments related to personal life and liberty, right to appeal, reasons for arrest, legal counsel, and detention. The essay also highlights examples of rights not guaranteed by the law, such as the criminalization of homosexuality under Article-377A.

RUNNING HEAD: criminal law
CRIMINA
L LAW
November 27
2018

1
Criminal Law
The Constitution of Singapore is a sovereign and autonomous body. It is a republic and fulfills
every aspect of a democratic country. The constitution provides various provisions related to
civil liberties and rights of the citizens of Singapore. It mainly consists of the three main bodies:
the very first is the legislature, who makes the laws the second one is the executive who makes
sure that the citizens are properly following every law in a proper and ethical way. Thirdly and
the most important is the judiciary who ensures that no citizen shall be infringed of their
fundamental rights (Marie, 2012).
The constitution of Singapore states all the rights and restricts the parliament at the very same
time. It also ensures that all the government-owned bodies are working in a proper and authentic
manner, which is not only legal but also it, is ethically correct. In this essay, the discussion
further related to the Article-9 of the constitution of the Republic Of Singapore. This article has
its own importance when it comes to the constitution. Article-9 states that- whenever the police
arrest a person in that scenario what are the different rights and duties the arrested person has.
Other than that what are the remedies and necessities that need to be fulfilled by the police. All
these aspects covered under Article-9 (Anon, 1999). The Article states that every individual shall
have a right to personal life and liberty. Unlike countries like Malaysia and The United States Of
America, Singapore makes sure that the right to life and personal liberty only is related in the
matters related to the detention or incarceration.
The Article consists of following mentioned points that specify all the details with the landmark
judgments as well. The very first clause is-
1. Article 9 ensures that no person unless the constitution allows him deprived of his
personal life as well as liberty. The case had the most landmark judgment related to this

2
Criminal Law
was Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor. The case involved two appellants who were
involved in the drugs and caught when coming back from Malaysia to Singapore. One of
them claimed that the heroin he was carrying drugs for his personal use and not for sale
or supply hence not liable for trafficking and the second appellant claimed that the police
informers wrongfully targeted him by putting drugs in his car and thus they both
punished with the death penalty for the same. The counsel for the accused brought three
main issues against the same, which stated that the judgment made by the Privy Council
was not equal as it should be as per the offense. As the death penalty as a punishment is
higher for carrying drugs. Hence, claimed that it was not in Accordance with the law as
stated in the article Lo Pui Sang v. Mamata Kapildev Dave (2008).
2. The Article states that if the detention is unlawful then there should be right to appeal in
the high court for the same as a remedy. In Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor it was
again stated that every individual no matter if proven guilty by the lower court, he/she has
full authority to appeal in the high court as an appeal so that he can listen and the
conditions of a right of Natural Justice be fulfilled (Thio, and Tan, 2009). That is right to
hear equally and justifiably.
3. The third provision states that every individual if arrested or detained required to be
acquainted with all the reasons for which he/she were arrested. The reason is as soon as
the person arrested, the rights of a citizen are present (Means, 2013). The
accusations/allegations can discuss afterward but the foremost thing is to mention all the
reasons behind (Neo, 2016).

3
Criminal Law
4. Along with all the above-mentioned provisions, the person provided with the legal
counsel to defend himself. He cannot deny by anyone for a legal representative for his
own case.
5. Article 9(5) states that if any person unreasonably delayed and not released and within
48hrs excluding all the time incurred in traveling, he be presented before the magistrate
within 48hrs and cannot be detained and arrested without the permission of Magistrate.
The landmark case of Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor was the perfect example of
Article-9 related judgment not applied properly. The case not only punished the accused
more than they deserve but every time to reject the appeals too. Thus, it is a perfect example
of the rights NOT Guaranteed by the law as stated in the Constitution.
In addition, another example related to Rights as per Article-9 NOT Guaranteed by law was
in relation to Article-377A in contradiction to Article-9 and 12 of the constitution. Article-12
that states that every individual is equal in the eyes of law NOT seen in many cases that
states- that right to love any partner of your choice is your right but if a man loves other men
is declared as Unconstitutional. Then, why not it is applicable to Homosexual and Lesbians
but only on Gay men (Chan, 2017)?
Another example is of a Gay couple named Kenneth Chee, 38, & Gary Lim, 46, along with
them the 51-year-old Tan Eng Hong, oppose by stating that the provision that Criminalizes
the Gay men is discriminatory and should be confirmed and declared as void. A person
named Mr. Tan was the first ever person to report a file against this statute in the year 2010
just after- he was accused of having oral sex with some another man in a men’s public
washroom (Radics, 2013). In addition, after this the above-mentioned gay couple i.e., Mr.

4
Criminal Law
Chee and Mr. Lim filed their case against the law stating that Article 377A is in contradiction
and infringement of Article-9 and 12 accordance to the constitution (Lum, 2014).
Lastly, the overall conclusion is that every individual has right to choose at least their
lifelong lovers should be of their own choice and above all, if everyone is equal in eyes of
law then why not Gay men. If there is a yes to Lesbians and Homosexual sex then why NO to
men. Hence, there is a need to do some major amendments regarding the laws related to what
written in Article-9, which it states that the Act should be in accordance’s with law.

5
Criminal Law
REFERENCES
Anon., (1999) Criminal Procedure’ Halsbury Laws of Singapore, Singapore: LexisNexis.
Chan, P.C., (2017) Shared values of Singapore: sexual minority rights as Singaporean value.
In Sexuality and Equality Law (pp. 247-274).
Lum, S. (2014) Why Court of Appeal rejected arguments that Section 377A was unconstitutional.
[Online] Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/why-court-of-
appeal-rejected-arguments-that-section-377a-was-unconstitutional
Marie, J. (2012) ‘The Criminal Procedure Code of Singapore’ - Annotations and Commentary.
Singapore: Academy Publishing.
Means, G.P. (2013) Soft authoritarianism in Malaysia and Singapore. Journal of
Democracy, 7(4), pp.103-117.
Neo, J.L. (2016) Constitutional Interpretation in Singapore: Theory and Practice. (16) New
York: Routledge.
Radics, G.B., 2013. Decolonizing Singapore's Sex Laws: Tracing Section 377A of Singapore's
Penal Code. Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev., 45, pp.57.
Thio, L.A. and Tan, K.Y. (2009) Evolution of a revolution: Forty years of the Singapore
Constitution. Abingdon: Routledge.