|
''Public Prosecutor v. Taw Cheng Kong'' is a landmark case decided in 1998 by the Court of Appeal of Singapore which shaped the landscape of Singapore's constitutional law. The earlier High Court decision, ''Taw Cheng Kong v. Public Prosecutor'', was the first instance in Singapore's history that a statutory provision was struck down as unconstitutional. The matter subsequently reached the Court of Appeal when the Public Prosecutor applied for a criminal reference for two questions to be considered. The questions were: #whether section 37(1) of the ("PCA") was ''ultra vires'' the powers of the legislature on the ground that the legislature had, under section 6(3) of the , been divested of the power to legislate extraterritorially; and #whether section 37(1) of the PCA was discriminatory against Singapore citizens and hence inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the (now the ). In answering both questions in the negative, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's finding that the statute was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal further clarified Singapore's stance on legislative plenary power and expounded upon Article 12(1) of the Constitution, explaining that the promise of equality does not mean that all persons are to be treated equally, but simply that all persons in like situations will be treated alike. Drawing on foreign case law, the Court of Appeal further outlined the test to determine if a differentiating law falls foul of Article 12. ==Facts== Eddie Taw Cheng Kong ("Taw") is a Singapore citizen, and was the Regional Manager (Asia Pacific) of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation Pte. Ltd. ("GIC"). Based in Hong Kong, he had charge of equity portfolios in Hong Kong and the Philippines, and had authority to decide which companies to invest in on behalf of GIC.〔''Taw Cheng Kong v. Public Prosecutor'' () 1 S.L.R.(R.) (Law Reports (Reissue)'' ) 78 at 85, para. 1, High Court (Singapore) ("''Taw Cheng Kong'' (H.C.)").〕 Taw was charged with corruption in deals involving GIC and Rockefeller & Co. Inc. It was alleged that Taw, at the instigation of Kevin Lee, Managing Director of Rockefeller's Far East operations, had orchestrated the purchase by GIC of the Pioneer Hong Kong Fund, which was managed by Rockefeller. For each transaction, Lee was alleged to have paid Taw a sum of money.〔''Taw Cheng Kong'' (H.C.), pp. 85–86, paras. 2 and 4.〕 Taw was tried and convicted〔''Taw Cheng Kong'' (H.C.), p. 87, para. 9.〕 in the District Court of eight charges of corruption under section 6(a)〔''Taw Cheng Kong'' (H.C.), p. 85, para. 3.〕 read with section 37(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ("PCA").〔 ("PCA").〕 Section 6(a) of the PCA provides as follows: Section 37(1) of the PCA states: Taw appealed to the High Court against his conviction on two main grounds. The first involved the admissibility of evidence for his corruption, and, additionally, inconsistencies of such evidence.〔''Taw Cheng Kong'' (H.C.), p. 87, para. 10.〕 The second concerned constitutional issues. With regard to the evidential issue, the Court held that the trial judge made an error in accepting GIC's statements as admissible, and thus ordered Taw's convictions to be set aside. 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「Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|