|
Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. Administrative law requires administrators – ministers, civil servants and public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law. Singapore administrative law is largely based on English administrative law, which the nation inherited at independence in 1965. Claims for judicial review of administrative action may generally be brought under three well-established broad headings: illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. Illegality is divided into two categories: those that, if proved, mean that the public authority was not empowered to take action or make the decision it did; and those that relate to whether the authority exercised its discretion properly. Grounds within the first category are simple ''ultra vires'' and errors as to precedent facts; while errors of law on the face of the record, making decisions on the basis of insufficient evidence or errors of material facts, taking into account irrelevant considerations or failing to take into account relevant ones, making decisions for improper purposes, fettering of discretion, and failing to fulfil substantive legitimate expectations are grounds within the second category. Irrationality has been equated with ''Wednesbury'' unreasonableness, which is named after the UK case ''Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation'' (1947). According to ''Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service'' (1983), a public authority's decision may be quashed if it is "so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it". A public authority commits a procedural impropriety when it fails to comply with procedures that are set out in the legislation that empowers it to act, or to observe basic rules of natural justice or otherwise to act in a procedurally fair manner towards a person who will be affected by its decision. The twin elements of natural justice are the rule against bias (''nemo iudex in causa sua'' – "no man a judge in his own cause"), and the requirement of a fair hearing (''audi alteram partem'' – "hear the other side"). ==Introduction== Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. It enjoins administrators – ministers, civil servants or public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law.〔.〕 Administrative law arose as a response to the advent of the administrative state. It is a 20th-century product of English administrative law, which Singapore inherited at independence.〔 Like the English system, Singapore does not have a separate system of specialist administrative courts as is the case in most civil law jurisdictions.〔Thio, p. 165.〕 Singapore courts are generally conservative in their approach towards administrative law, drawing heavily from English case law in some respects but not engaging in innovative elaboration of the existing heads of judicial review.〔Thio, p. 167.〕 In the light of modernization and the resulting necessity for a more interventionist state, administrative law has an increasingly important role to play in Singapore to ensure that the vulnerable individual has protection and practical remedies against abuse of power by the state. This is particularly so in Singapore's hegemonic, Westminster-based form of parliamentary government where the executive dominates the legislative agenda, because the alternate means of political control – holding the executive accountable to the popularly elected legislature – is almost negligible.〔Thio, p. 161.〕 The judiciary thus exists as an independent check on executive power and it fulfils this function through judicial review of administrative action. This review jurisdiction of the High Court is to be contrasted with its appellate jurisdiction: the latter is derived from the statutory framework, while judicial review is a power inherent as part of the court's supervisory jurisdiction.〔This stems from the common law, and was accepted locally in .〕 Both are designed to address different types of wrongs that an administrative decision-maker may commit.〔.〕 Judicial review is available as a means of challenging the legality of decisions of all governmental authorities, though it is regarded as a procedure of last resort that should be used only where the individual has no alternative remedy such as a right of appeal. If a right of appeal exists, it is more favourable for a person to take advantage of it as the appellate court may substitute its decision for that of the original authority and grant a remedy. An appeal may also involve a reconsideration of the merits of the case and not merely its legality, although this depends on the wording of the statute in question.〔.〕 On the other hand, when exercising judicial review, the High Court is almost always limited to examining whether public authorities have acted lawfully, and do not evaluate the substantive merits of decisions taken.〔〔See also ''Leong Kum Fatt v. Attorney-General'' () S.L.R.(R.) 357 at 363, para. 13, H.C. (Singapore), cited in .〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Administrative law in Singapore」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|