Article 9 of the constitution of singapore. Attach file for reference

User Generated

Nlrcsbk

Business Finance

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

tull 75% 18:50 Individual Project...Oct2018_CPLE(1) - Read-only o o Read Only - You can't save changes to this f... 8. For any clarification or consultation during the assignment, please contact Jonathan Tan at 67806983 or email to jonsltan@tp.edu.sg. ALL THE BEST!! ESSAY QUESTION Article 9 of the Constitution of Singapore states that: An arrested person has the following rights guaranteed under the Constitution: (1) to be deprived of his life or liberty only if according to law; (2) if the detention is unlawful, to apply to the High Court to secure release; (3) to be informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as may be; (4) to be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice; (5) if he is not released, he must without unreasonable delay and in any case within 48 hours (excluding the time for any necessary journey) be produced before a Magistrate who shall decide if he should be further detained. List 3 examples of case laws in Singapore (one case for each particular right) or any existing Statutes (laws passed by Parliament) where it appears that such 3 rights were not guaranteed as stated in the Constitution. What (if any) recommendations would you make with regard to legal reform (i.e. making the law more just and fair)? าน 누 Ç ESSAY QUESTION Article 9 of the Constitution of Singapore states that: An arrested person has the following rights guaranteed under the Constitution: (1) to be deprived of his life or liberty only if according to law; (2) if the detention is unlawful, to apply to the High Court to secure release; (3) to be informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as may be; (4) to be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice; (5) if he is not released, he must without unreasonable delay and in any case within 48 hours (excluding the time for any necessary journey) be produced before a Magistrate who shall decide if he should be further detained. List 3 examples of case laws in Singapore (one case for each particular right) or any existing Statutes (laws passed by Parliament) where it appears that such 3 rights were not guaranteed as stated in the Constitution. What (if any) recommendations would you make with regard to legal reform (i.e. making the law more just and fair)?
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

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 ...


Anonymous
Awesome! Perfect study aid.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags