|
''Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General'' is the name of two cases of the Singapore courts, a High Court decision delivered in 2008 and the 2009 judgment by the Court of Appeal. The main issue raised by the case was whether the Collector of Land Revenue had treated the plaintiffs (later appellants), who were devotees of the Jin Long Si Temple, unequally by compulsorily acquiring for public purposes the land on which the temple stood but not the lands of a Hindu mission and a Christian church nearby. It was alleged that the authorities had acted in violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, which guarantees the rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law. The High Court held that the plaintiffs lacked ''locus standi'' to bring the action as they were not the temple's legal owners. In any case, as there was evidence that the authorities had rational reasons for treating the temple property differently from the property of the Mission and the Church, the High Court found that there had been no breach of Article 12(1). Furthermore, the Court determined that the plaintiffs were guilty of inordinate delay in bringing the action. On appeal, this decision was upheld in part by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the plaintiffs (appellants) had ''locus standi'' to bring the action as they were members of a Buddhist association, for whose benefit the temple property was held by its trustees. In addition, the Court found that the plaintiffs had not been guilty of inordinate delay in commencing the suit. However, the Court agreed with the trial judge that the Collector had not acted in violation of Article 12(1). In determining this issue, the Court held that the test to be applied is "whether there is a reasonable nexus between the state action taken and the object of the law". Such a nexus will be absent if the action amounts to "intentional and arbitrary discrimination" or intentional systematic discrimination. It is insufficient if any inequality is due to "inadvertence or inefficiency", unless this occurs on a very substantial scale. In addition, inequalities arising from a reasonable administrative policy or which are mere errors of judgment are insufficient to constitute a violation of Article 12(1). ==Background== The plaintiffs in this case were devotees of the Jin Long Si Temple,〔 ("''Eng Foong Ho'' (C.A.)"), summarized in , and also briefly described in . See also ; .〕 which was a temple in the Serangoon area of Singapore espousing Buddhist, Confucian and Taoist teachings. The temple property, which was located near the site of the Bartley Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Station, was compulsorily acquired pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act.〔.〕 The ''Government Gazette'' notification relating to the acquisition published on 20 January 2003 specified that the temple property (together with another piece of land nearby) had been acquired for the construction and comprehensive redevelopment of the Mass Rapid Transit's Circle Line.〔''Eng Foong Ho'' (C.A.), p. 545, paras. 6–7.〕 The trustees of the temple property noted that the nearby Ramakrishna Mission ("the Mission") and the Bartley Christian Church ("the Church") were not similarly acquired, and proceeded to appeal against the acquisition through various avenues, including an appeal to the Prime Minister. Their attempts were unsuccessful.〔''Eng Foong Ho'' (C.A.), p. 545, para. 8.〕 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「Eng Foong Ho v Attorney-General」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|