Tan Cheng Bock’s appeal on presidential election dismissed

SINGAPORE — Whether or not a President was voted into office by citizens was irrelevant in calculating the five-term trigger for a reserved election, ruled the Court of Appeal, dismissing Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s challenge — a decision that the former presidential hopeful said he accepted, although with “a heavy heart”.

In a 68-page written judgment released on Wednesday (Aug 23), the panel of five judges, including Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, said Dr Tan’s contention that the Government should have started the count from the first Elected President, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, could not stand.

This was because the constitutional amendments passed in 2016 to make sure members of minority communities would occupy the highest office of the land from time to time had left it to Parliament to decide. In other words, Parliament was free to choose from any of the five most recent presidential terms as the start of the 30-year-hiatus-triggered model, the Apex Court ruled.

“There is simply nothing that could reasonably lead us to a different view,” it added.

In a Facebook post hours after the court’s verdict was issued, Dr Tan expressed his disappointment with his failed legal bid to overturn the decision to reserve the Presidential Election, to be held next month for Malay candidates.

“Now that the Court of Appeal has had the final say, I accept the verdict — but with a heavy heart,” he said. “My team and I will now rest, regroup and re-energise ourselves. I promise you, I will always speak up for Singaporeans and do my very best for our country.”

If the court had ruled in Dr Tan’s favour, it would have made it four terms since the Republic has had a Malay President, and the upcoming election an open one.

But the appellate court, which reserved its judgment after hearing the matter on July 31, said the recent legislative amendments had not stipulated that only Presidents who have been popularly elected could figure in triggering a reserved election. 

Neither was it stated that only full terms counted, noted the judges, which also included Judges of Appeal Judith Prakash and Steven Chong, as well as Justices Chua Lee Ming and Kannan Ramesh.

The article amended in the Constitution to legislate for a reserved election “speaks not of a President who was elected to the office but of one who has held the office”, they noted.

There was thus nothing improper with Parliament starting the clock with Dr Wee Kim Wee, who was the sitting President when laws on the Elected Presidency scheme were enacted in 1991.

The judges added: “Even though it is true that the office changed quite dramatically in the midst of his last term, there is simply no doubt at all that he continued to hold the office with the enhanced powers and functions under the framework of the Elected Presidency introduced by the 1991 Amendment.”

Another point of contention Dr Tan had raised in challenging the basis and timing of the reserved election was that the Government acted wrongly on the advice of the Attorney-General (AG) to start counting the five terms from Dr Wee’s presidency.

The court said, however, that since Parliament was free to pick any of the five most recent presidential terms to start the count, the nature of the AG’s advice was a moot argument in the case.

In his post, Dr Tan also explained why he had launched the legal challenge that some had felt was “a fool’s errand”.

He said he felt the need to do so because he felt it was “wrong” for the Government to ask Workers’ Party Sylvia Lim to go to court for an answer, when she questioned in Parliament the decision to start the count with Dr Wee.

Dr Tan also “(wished) the participants of the coming reserved (presidential election) all the best, and to do your very best for our country”.