SINGAPORE — The High Court has dismissed an opposition politician’s application to declare that he is eligible to contest in the upcoming General Election, after he was fined S$5,000 for contempt of court earlier this year. 

John Tan, the vice-chairman of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), had sought a declaration in July from the courts following his conviction. 

Under Article 45(1)(e) of the Constitution, anyone “convicted of an offence by a court of law in Singapore or Malaysia and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year, or to a fine of not less than $2,000 and has not received a free pardon” cannot contest in the General Election or become a Member of Parliament.

The next General Election has to take place before April 2021.

THE COURT’S DECISION

In his written judgment released on Wednesday (Nov 6), Justice Aedit Abdullah dismissed Tan’s application, saying he was disqualified from standing in elections under the “plain words” of the Article.

While Tan’s lawyer M Ravi had argued that the Article only applied to criminal offences, not quasi-criminal ones like criminal contempt, the High Court judge disagreed with that.

The term “offence” in the Constitution covers quasi-criminal offences and is broad enough to cover contempt of court, Justice Aedit ruled.

Mr Ravi had also referred to a past incident during the 1988 general elections as a precedent, arguing that SDP’s candidate Jufrie Mahmood was allowed to run in the elections even though he had been found guilty of contempt of court and fined S$3,000 earlier that year.

Mr Jufrie, a former SDP chairman, was fined for a statement he made at a party forum that questioned the independence of the judiciary.

Mr Ravi pointed out that the Returning Officer at the time had told The Straits Times that Mr Jufrie's nomination paper would not be rejected. 

The lawyer argued that the Government was bound by the position that the Returning Officer took then.

Justice Aedit dismissed the argument, saying that there were “several difficulties” in relying on the case. 

There were no details of the Reporting Officer’s reasoning in the newspaper report and no official record was tendered, he added. 

Furthermore, even if it was accurately reported, “this does not mean that the Government remains bound by this position some 31 years later”.

Mr Ravi told TODAY that his client “expresses his utter disappointment” and that their legal team is studying the decision on the prospects of appealing against it.

Mr Ravi also said that the decision was “deeply disturbing”, as “people who are not convicted of a criminal offence can now be disqualified from standing for elections”.

“It becomes a mystery as non-criminal offences are not specified clearly, unlike the unambiguity of a criminal offence. The court also observed that the right to vote is not a fundamental right under the Constitution,” Mr Ravi added.

THE CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE

In April, Tan and activist Jolovan Wham were fined S$5,000 each for contempt of court.

Last year in April, Wham published a Facebook post alleging that Malaysia's judges were more independent than Singapore's in cases with political implications.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers initiated a contempt of court case against him. Less than a month later, Tan said on Facebook that the AGC's actions confirmed the truth of Wham's comment.

This prompted the Attorney General to similarly charge Tan with contempt of court.