Advertisement

‘The Notion of a Subjective or Unfettered Discretion is Contrary to the Rule of Law’: Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Singapore

  • Eugene K. B. TanEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law book series (GSCL, volume 39)

Abstract

This chapter examines the state of judicial deference in Singapore. For much of Singapore’s independent history, Singapore courts did not substantively engage with the issue of deference—until about a decade ago. While there is yet to be a general doctrine of deference in Singapore, the contours of the courts’ broad approach to deference can be discerned, which tends towards erring on the side of prudence and caution in the fair and just protection of governmental autonomy. In the last few years, rights protection has, arguably, been enhanced in judicial review. The courts have articulated a more robust approach towards curial deference and justiciability. Recent jurisprudence point to the courts seeking an even-handed approach towards the separation of powers and the fundamental purpose and objective of judicial review. Singapore’s jurisprudence points to the imperative for judicial review reflect the socio-political culture, norms and values of the community. Regardless, the bottom line in judicial review in Singapore is that “the notion of a subjective or unfettered discretion is contrary to the rule of law. All power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power”.

References

  1. Allan TRS (2006) Human rights and judicial review: a critique of ‘due deference’. Camb Law J 65(3):671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chan SK (2010a) Judicial review – from angst to empathy. SAcLJ 22:469Google Scholar
  3. Chan SK (2010b) Securing and maintaining the independence of the court in judicial proceedings. SAcLJ 22:229Google Scholar
  4. Craig P (2010) Proportionality, rationality and review. N Z Law Rev:265Google Scholar
  5. Daly P (2011) Deference on questions of law. Mod Law Rev 74:694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diplock L (1979) Judicial control of government. [1979] MLJ cxlGoogle Scholar
  7. Dworkin R (1992) Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Dyzenhaus D (1997) The politics of deference: judicial review and democracy. In: Taggart M (ed) The province of administrative law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Elliot M (2010) Proportionality and deference: the importance of a structured approach. In: Forsyth C et al (eds) Effective judicial review: a cornerstone of good governance. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Eskridge WN Jr, Baer LE (2008) The continuum of deference: supreme court treatment of agency statutory interpretations from Chevron to Hamdan. Geo LJ 96:1083Google Scholar
  11. Fuller L (1978–1979) The forms and limits of adjudication. Harv Law Rev 92:353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harlow C, Rawlings R (2009) Law and administration, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hirschl R (2007) Towards juristocracy: the origins and consequences of the new constitutionalism. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Kavanagh A (2010) Defending deference in public law and constitutional theory. Law Q Rev 126:222Google Scholar
  15. King JA (2008) The pervasiveness of polycentricity. Public Law:101Google Scholar
  16. Le Seur A (2005) The rise and ruin of unreasonableness. Judicial Rev 10:32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Menon S (2016) The rule of law: the path to exceptionalism. SAcLJ 28:413Google Scholar
  18. Mureinik E (1994) A bridge to where? Introducing the interim bill of rights. S Afr J Hum Rights 10:31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Neo JL (ed) (2017) Constitutional interpretation in Singapore: theory and practice. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Osorio A, O’Leary R (2017) The impact of courts on public management: new insights from the legal literature. Adm Soc 49:658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rajah VK (2016) Judicial review – politics, policy and the separation of powers (guest lecture at the Singapore Management University Constitutional and Administrative Law course), 24 March 2016Google Scholar
  22. Scalia A (1989) Judicial deference to administrative interpretations of law. Duke Law J 3:511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singapore, Shared Values (White Paper, Cm 1, 1991)Google Scholar
  24. Sumption J (2011) Judicial and political decision-making: the uncertain boundary. Judicial Rev:301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tan EKB (2000) Laws and values in governance: The Singapore Way. Hong Kong LJ 30:92Google Scholar
  26. Tan EKB (2013) Autochthonous constitutional design in post-colonial Singapore: intimations of Confucianism and the Leviathan in Entrenching Dominant Government. Yonsei LJ 4:273Google Scholar
  27. Tan EKB (2015) The legislature. In: Chan GKY, Lee JTT (eds) The legal system of Singapore: institutions, principles and practices. LexisNexis, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  28. Thio LA (2011) The theory and practice of judicial review of administrative action in Singapore: trends and perspectives. In: Yeo TM, Tjio H, Tang HW (gen eds) SAL conference 2011 - developments in Singapore law between 2006 and 2010: trends and perspectivesGoogle Scholar
  29. Thio LA, Chong DGS (2012) The Chan court and constitutional adjudication – ‘A sea change into something rich and strange?’. In: Chao HT et al (eds) The law in his hands: a tribute to Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong. Academy Publishing, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  30. Thio LA, Tan KYL (eds) (2009) Evolution of a revolution: forty years of the Singapore. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law, Singapore Management UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations