Description
1500-3000 words
1) understanding and explaining of the law
2) ability to critically evaluatethe law in relation to desire outcome in practise, suggested reforms including originality of thoughts and to do research
3) consciousness, language and organization
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer
Hey! Kindly find the attached answer and in case of any issue, let me know. Thank you and all the best
Running head: ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINGAPORE
Article 9 of the Constitution of Singapore
Student’s Name
Institution
1
ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINGAPORE
2
Introduction
The article 9 of the Constitution of Singapore is about the liberty of an individual when
they are arrested. It constitutes the rights of the police as well as the rights of an arrested
individual at the police station and when making a police statement. An arrest can be a stressful
experience for any individual especially if they are not aware of their legal rights. Most
individuals tend to think their right is similar to those that they see on television not knowing that
the rights are based on the constitution of a country. The article 9 of the Constitution of
Singapore has 7 sections that explain the liberty of an individual. This paper will discuss three
cases in Singapore where the 3 rights above were not guaranteed or were misinterpreted by the
Court and thus was not in accordance with the Constitution of Singapore.
Case 1: Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor
The Plaintiff, in this case, appealed against his sentence to life imprisonment and corporal
punishment for the offense of trafficking of drugs. His argument was that the sentence was not
constitutional since it was regarded as inhumane and was illogical and served no purpose. Article
9(1) of the Constitution of Singapore is against the compulsory penalty of death as this is seen as
a punishment which is inhumane against the accused. In the case of Yong Vui Kong v Public
Prosecutor, the plaintiff debated that the compulsory sentence of death executed breach of the
provision in different ways. One, the argument was that the compulsory nature of the ruling was
inhumane plus it should not be seen as law for the purpose of Article 9(1). Two, it indicates that
the word ‘law’ should be inclusive of accustomed global law which appeared to indicate that the
compulsory penalty of death was an inhumane treatment and thus was against the international
law of human rights (Mcdermott, 2011). The Yong Vui Kong v Public prosecutor case suggested
that the courts in Singapore interpreted “life” narrowly compared to other countries. Chief
ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SINGAPORE
3
Justice Wee recommended that the case was interpreted as an “unambiguous” rejection of Article
13 that ...