Eng Foong Ho v AG edit
In Eng Foong Ho, the Court was concerned with whether the decision by the Collector of Land Revenue to acquire a particular piece of land was contrary to Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
According to Article 12(2) of the Constitution, equal protection of the law would also apply to the “administration of any law” in relation to the situations stated in the Article. This means the administration of a constitutional legislation may also be in breach of the equal protection clause.
In this case, the appellants were trustees of the land that Jin Long Si Temple occupied. Next to the Temple was the Ramakrishna Mission and the Bartley Christian Church. In an acquisition exercise by the Collector of Land Revenue, the land the Temple occupied was acquired but the other two properties were not. The appellants argued, inter alia, that the acquisition of the Temple was against the equal protection clause as the State discriminated against them in acquiring only their property and not the other two properties.
The courts then developed and applied a modified rational relation test in determining the constitutionality of the Collector's and the State's decision.
Firstly, as the validity of the Land Acquisition Act was not contested, the court said it was "not necessary for us to discuss the principle of reasonable classification of laws".”[1] However it seems apparent that, if contested, the court would have to determine if the differentiating law was founded on an intelligible differentia, based on the rational relation test developed in Taw Cheng Kong.
The court then went on to state that the administration of law “may be unconstitutional if it amounts to intentional and arbitrary discrimination.”[2] Mere existence of inequalities “due to inadvertence or inefficiency”[3] was insufficient, unless it was on a “very substantial scale”.[4]
It appears that the third stage of the rational relation test does not require an establishment of a rational nexus between the object sought to be achieved, and the impugned legislation in question. This would be apparent because the issue is not with the legislation, which is valid, but the exercise of powers conferred by the legislation. Instead, the third stage now involves an inquiry on whether the unequal treatment was "intentional and arbitrary"[5] on a "very substantial scale".[6] The element of arbitrariness, as mentioned in Chng Suan Tze, has become a key factor in determining if the inequality amounts to a violation of Article 12(1).
- ^ Eng Foong Ho, p. ____, para. 26.
- ^ Eng Foong Ho, p. ____, para. 30.
- ^ Eng Foong Ho, p. ____, para. 28, citing Howe Yoon Chong v. Chief Assessor, Singapore [1979-1980] SLR(R) 594, p. ___, p. 13.
- ^ Eng Foong Ho, p. ____, para. 28, citing Howe Yoon Chong v. Chief Assessor, Singapore [1979-1980] SLR(R) 594, p. ___, p. 13.
- ^ Eng Foong Ho, p. ____, para. 30.
- ^ Eng Foong Ho, p. ____, para. 28, citing Howe Yoon Chong v. Chief Assessor, Singapore [1979-1980] SLR(R) 594, p. ___, p. 13.