Template:Did you know nominations/Remedies in Singapore constitutional law
The following is an archived discussion of Remedies in Singapore constitutional law's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC).
Remedies in Singapore constitutional law
[edit]
- ... that the Singapore High Court (pictured) can grant the remedy of declaring void a law inconsistent with the Constitution enacted before its commencement even though Article 4 seems to say otherwise?
- Reviewed: Hubert Le Blon
- Comment: The article was created by moving it from a sandbox on 10 February 2013. The hook is referenced by footnotes 66 and 79–81.
Created by Jiahui.tan (talk), Leewingkansally (talk), Yuklun (talk). Nominated by Smuconlaw (talk) at 14:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Date, size, neutrality are fine. I am a bit confused by the part of the hook that states "even though Article 4 seems to say otherwise." I am not seeing that stated clearly in the article. Granted, there is lot of legalese that I am not inclined to reread over and over. If the hook is fine, I'd ask the nom to cite here parts that directly support it, and I'll look over them again and check the refs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK, here goes:
- Text referenced by footnote 66: "Article 4 of the Constitution affirms that it is the supreme law of Singapore and that 'any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void'. The date of the Constitution's commencement is defined as 9 August 1965, the date of Singapore's independence."
- Text referenced by footnotes 79–81: "In Tan Eng Hong v. Attorney-General (2012), it [the Court of Appeal of Singapore] took the view that ... a purposive reading of Articles 4 and 162 indicates that pre-commencement laws can be declared void under Article 4, even though that Article only refers specifically to laws enacted after the Constitution's commencement."
- — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
All right. I do strongly suggest you clarify the original text, by adding a paragraph or a footnote describing exactly what you said above. It was not clear in the main text from a casual read. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
