| Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong | |
|---|---|
 The Old Supreme Court Building, photographed in April 2007 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Singapore |
| Full case name | Public Prosecutor v. Taw Cheng Kong |
| Decided | 22 May 1998 |
| Citations | [1998] SGCA 37 [1998] 2 S.L.R.(R.) 489 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action | Taw Cheng Kong v. Public Prosecutor [1998] SGHC 10, [1998] 1 S.L.R.(R.) 78, H.C. |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Yong Pung How C.J., L.P. Thean J.A. and Goh Joon Seng J. |
| Case opinions | |
| Section 37(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap. 241, 1993 Rev. Ed.) was validly passed and is not inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution. The concept of equality under Article 12 does not mean that all persons are to be treated equally, but simply that all persons in like situations will be treated alike. | |
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 Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap. 241, 1993 Rev. Ed.) ("PCA") was ultra vires the powers of the legislature on the ground that the legislature had, under section 6(3) of the Republic of Singapore Independence Act 1965 (No. 9 of 1965, 1985 Rev. Ed.), 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 Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1992 Reprint) (now the Singapore Constitution (1999 Reprint)).
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.