CNA Menjelaskan: Apa yang terjadi ketika pemerintah tidak setuju dengan pengadilan?

A recent High Court ruling that overturned deterrent sentences for four young scam mules prompted the government to propose changes to the law. CNA looks at similar past cases, how lawmakers responded and the constitutional limits involved.

The Supreme Court (left) and the Parliament House. (Photos: CNA/Ili Mansor)

SINGAPORE: When the High Court overturned deterrent sentences for four young scam mules in September, opting instead for probation and community sentences, Senior Minister K Shanmugam said to parliament of the decision: “This is not the time to go soft.”

On Oct 6, Mr Shanmugam, who is also Coordinating Minister for National Security, noted that the verdict by a three-judge panel ran contrary to sentencing guidelines by the government calling for sterner penalties such as jail or reformative training.

The cases in question refer to the appeals made to the High Court by Mohamed Erzan Taib Zohri and six separate other scam-related offenders, six of whom were under the age of 21.

The three-judge coram, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justice Ang Cheng Hock and Justice Hoo Sheau Peng, allowed the appeals for four cases and meted out probation and community-based sentences to them, and dismissed the remaining three.

To this end, Senior Minister Shanmugam, who is also Minister for Home Affairs, said his ministry will be tabling new legislation in parliament to give effect to its policy position on deterrent sentences for scam-related offenders, including youths.

The legislation will be "quite express" and make clear that the court's position in the September case is not to be followed, said Mr Shanmugam.

CNA looks at past instances where lawmakers stepped in after court decisions, and asks legal experts how the balance of power works in practice.

Why did the court depart from sentencing guidelines in this case?

The three-judge High Court coram in September heard the appeals of seven individuals convicted of giving scam syndicates access to their bank accounts or Singpass credentials.

In its judgment of Mohamed Erzan Taib Zohri v Public Prosecutor, the court states that "sentencing guidelines suggested by the SAP (sentencing advisory panel) are not binding on the court but are intended to offer some assistance in the sentencing process".

Among other things, the judgment also stated that it was "too blunt" to assume custodial sentence and reformative training as default for young offenders in such cases.

The parliament should also make clear if its intention was to take away particular sentencing options for an offence, the court noted.

Speaking in parliament earlier this month in response to a parliamentary question, Mr Shanmugam said that the government had made a deliberate policy judgment that deterrence and prevention must carry far greater weight when sentencing offenders.

Mr Shanmugam added that the court did not have before it "policy perspectives" nor "data on the scale of the problem of scams and scammers".

"We wanted this message to go out that every offender, young or old, will be very seriously dealt with. If a number of cases are dealt with in this way, seriously, many other would-be offenders would take reference,” said Mr Shanmugam.

The senior minister added: "The High Court said the legislation must be clear. We had proceeded on the basis that the legislation was clear. The guidelines were also clear. They are clear.

"However, the court has expressed a different view on the legislation. We respect the court's views."

What are the roles of the courts and parliament?

Experts pointed out that the ability of the government to announce plans for legislative amendments following a judicial ruling stems directly from the constitutional separation of powers.

"Parliament’s primary role is to debate and pass legislation, while the court’s role is to independently interpret and apply the law to resolve legal disputes," said Mr Faraaz Amzar, director at law firm Eugene Thuraisingam Asia LLC.

In drafting laws, the parliament specifies the range of possible punishments for certain offences, said the experts.

Among other ways, parliament can do so through sentencing advisory panel guidelines, which serve to provide greater clarity about possible sentencing outcomes and the relevant sentencing factors.

The guidelines are not legally binding on any court.

Referring to the sentencing guidelines in the Erzan case, Assistant Professor Benjamin Joshua Ong from the Singapore Management University (SMU) said the guidelines "provide for flexibility” by setting out that fines, probation and community sentences are "generally" not appropriate.

"The courts’ duty when a person is found guilty of the offence is to choose an appropriate sentence from within the range based on the specific facts of the individual case before it," said Asst Prof Ong.

"Parliament has the last word on what the text of legislation is. The courts have the last word on what that text means.

"This means that the courts have the power to authoritatively interpret legislation passed by parliament."

Why can court decisions differ from parliament's intention?

Discrepancies between judicial rulings and parliamentary intent can arise from several key factors, said law experts.

For one, SMU law don Eugene Tan said that it boils down to the issue of drafting of the law and the interpretation of it by the courts.

"Words and phrases in a legislation can be interpreted differently despite the best of legislative drafting," said the associate professor.

"Moreover, a legislation may not have succeeded in putting across parliament’s intention with adequate clarity."

Ms Stephanie Chew, partner at TSMP Law Corporation, said that when lawmakers craft legislation, they cannot anticipate every scenario that comes before the courts.

“So it’s parliament that makes the laws, but it's the courts' job to interpret those statutes, and apply them to real cases based on the facts,” she said.

As such, courts take into account both the purpose and wording of the law, she said.

Agreeing, SMU’s Asst Prof Ong said that in applying the law, the courts would firstly look at the text of the legislation.

"This is not an exercise in attempting to look into what intention parliament or individual MPs or ministers had at the back of their mind," he said.

"The courts will generally not look to other sources, such as the precise words of parliamentary debates, unless the words are ambiguous."

Dr Ben Chester Cheong from the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) said that even when a court identifies the purpose of a legislation, it is not allowed to "rewrite a provision to achieve a preferred policy outcome".

In the particular case of Erzan, he notes that the court had explained that parliament must make its intention clear if it wishes to remove particular sentencing options for a certain offence.

Asst Prof Ong said that there is a difference between interpretation and application of the law, and the scam-related appeal cases allowed by the High Court last month relates to the latter.

Interpretation is a question of what the words of the law mean, he said, and in this case the words are "not ambiguous".

"The meaning of the words is clear: the courts have a range of sentencing options, from probation to imprisonment to caning," said Asst Prof Ong.

"Mr Shanmugam’s view relates to the application of the law: in other words, when each option should be used."

When does parliament change the law after a court decision?

Whenever judicial decisions highlight an ambiguity in existing statutes, legislators will typically move to address and resolve the perceived gap in the law.

Asst Prof Ong of SMU said: "If parliament disagrees with what the courts say the legislative text means, parliament is free to amend the text, this time making its preferred interpretation clearer."

This has happened several times in the past, with parliament updating legislation after the court identified an ambiguity or a gap in policy.

This was the case for the 2023 repeal of Section 377A which had criminalised sex between men.

Following the Court of Appeal decision in 2022 that dismissed challenges to the law, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that the Minister for Law and the Attorney-General have advised of "a significant risk" of the law being struck down in a future court challenge.

Parliament subsequently repealed the law.

In this case, parliament was seen to be “resolving a wider policy issue against the background of litigation", said Dr Cheong from SUSS.

In 2013, match-fixing syndicate leader Tan Seet Eng, also known as Dan Tan, was handed a detention order under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA).

Following an appeal, the apex court in 2015 ruled Tan's detention as "unlawful" as the grounds for locking him up did not sufficiently show how his activities threatened public safety and order in Singapore.

A week later, Tan was detained again under a new order that “expressly sets out the grounds which show the extent of Tan’s match-fixing activities from and within Singapore”, and why the detention order is necessary, said MHA at the time.

In 2018, parliament approved amendments to the CLTPA, explicitly setting out the list of criminal activities for which a person can be detained under the law.

Dr Cheong describes this as a "legislative codification and clarification following a judgment".

What happens when parliament or the government disagrees with the court's interpretation?

Should parliament disagree with how the law has been applied, the House can also move to amend the text such that the court will not interpret the case in the same way again.

Experts cited the Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung case of 2018, in relation to the misuse of church building funds by the City Harvest Church leaders, as an example.

In this case, the Court of Appeal had upheld the reduced sentences of six former City Harvest Church leaders found guilty of criminal breach of trust.

"The Court of Appeal held that the 'agent' limb of the then Section 409 (of the Penal Code) concerned professional agents, rather than directors merely acting as agents of their organisations," said Dr Cheong.

This means that the “agent” limb did not apply to the six church leaders.

Under the law then, an agent convicted of the crime may face up to life imprisonment, while a normal conviction of criminal breach of trust comes with a maximum jail term of only seven years.

"It expressly recognised a gap concerning enhanced punishment, while concluding that reform should be left to parliament," Dr Cheong noted of the court's decision then.

Asst Prof Ong from SMU also added how the courts back then "described Section 409 as 'increasingly inadequate' and that a 'review is not only essential but it is also long overdue', and that parliament should undertake this review and further reform".

Following the appeal outcome, Mr Shanmugam, who was then Law and Home Affairs Minister, stated in parliament the government's disagreement with the court's decision.

“There can really be no question about this… The government believes that the sentences are too low,” he said then.

Section 409 was later broadened through the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019 to expressly cover directors, officers, partners, key executives and fiduciaries, he added.

Another noteworthy case is the detention of Chng Suan Tze and three others in 1987 under the Internal Security Act.

In 1988, the Court of Appeal released the detainees on appeal, based on the "technical" ground that the affidavit should have been signed by a minister or a cabinet secretary and not by a permanent secretary.

The court determined that the minister’s power to make a detention order depends on whether the President is satisfied that the order is necessary to stop actions prejudicial to national security.

The court said the affidavit by the permanent secretary constituted hearsay evidence of the President’s satisfaction, and was therefore insufficient.

Following this, the government re-detained Chng and the three others on the same day under fresh detention orders, noting that the court did not question the merits of the decision to detain them.

The following year, parliament approved changes to the Constitution and the ISA which, among other things, stated that the court can only review whether procedures under the ISA have been followed.

Assoc Prof Tan from SMU said: "(This) is one clear example of the political branches disagreeing with the judiciary and finding it necessary to legislatively overrule the apex court’s interpretation of certain provisions in the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA)".

What can parliament do – and not do – when changing the law?

In summary, parliament may draft new legislation or amend existing statutes to eliminate ambiguity and align the law with intended public policy, provided all changes remain within constitutional boundaries.

Assoc Prof Tan said: "Legislative overruling is within the constitutional power of parliament, and this is done by enacting a new law or by amending the existing law to nullify, modify, or reverse the legal effect of the judicial decision in question."

However, he added that the parliament "cannot overturn a court's specific ruling regarding the parties in a specific case", adding that the legislative overruling usually has a prospective effect in criminal cases.

In other words, while parliament has the power to change the law for future cases, it cannot overturn a specific ruling for a concluded case. Offenders can only be sentenced according to the law that was in force when the crime was committed.

This is also prescribed in the Constitution, said SUSS’ Dr Cheong.

"In criminal matters, (the Constitution) protects against retrospective criminalisation and punishment greater than that prescribed when the offence was committed," he notes.

Want an issue or topic explained? Email us at digitalnews [at] mediacorp.com.sg. Your question might become a story on our site.

Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox

Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories

Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app

We know it's a hassle to switch browsers but we want your experience with CNA to be fast, secure and the best it can possibly be.

To continue, upgrade to a supported browser or, for the finest experience, download the mobile app.

Upgraded but still having issues? Contact us

Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi baru-baru ini yang membatalkan hukuman pencegahan terhadap empat remaja pembawa wang penipuan mencetuskan cadangan kerajaan untuk meminda undang-undang. CNA meneliti kes-kes lampau yang serupa, bagaimana penggubal undang-undang bertindak balas dan had perlembagaan yang terlibat.

Mahkamah Agung (kiri) dan Bangunan Parlimen. (Foto: CNA/Ili Mansor)

SINGAPURA: Apabila Mahkamah Tinggi membatalkan hukuman pencegahan terhadap empat remaja pembawa wang penipuan pada September, memilih sebaliknya hukuman percubaan dan hukuman komuniti, Menteri Kanan K Shanmugam berkata kepada parlimen mengenai keputusan itu: "Ini bukan masanya untuk bersikap lembut."

Pada 6 Okt, Encik Shanmugam, yang juga Menteri Penyelaras bagi Keselamatan Negara, menyatakan bahawa keputusan panel tiga hakim itu bercanggah dengan garis panduan hukuman kerajaan yang menyeru hukuman lebih tegas seperti penjara atau latihan pemulihan.

Kes-kes berkenaan merujuk kepada rayuan yang dibuat kepada Mahkamah Tinggi oleh Mohamed Erzan Taib Zohri dan enam lagi pesalah berkaitan penipuan yang berasingan, enam daripadanya berusia bawah 21 tahun.

Koram tiga hakim itu, yang terdiri daripada Ketua Hakim Sundaresh Menon serta Hakim Ang Cheng Hock dan Hakim Hoo Sheau Peng, membenarkan rayuan bagi empat kes dan menjatuhkan hukuman percubaan serta hukuman berasaskan komuniti kepada mereka, dan menolak tiga lagi.

Sehubungan itu, Menteri Kanan Shanmugam, yang juga Menteri Dalam Negeri, berkata kementeriannya akan membentangkan perundangan baharu di parlimen untuk melaksanakan pendirian dasarnya mengenai hukuman pencegahan terhadap pesalah berkaitan penipuan, termasuk golongan muda.

Perundangan itu akan "agak jelas" dan memperjelas bahawa pendirian mahkamah dalam kes September itu tidak boleh diikuti, kata Encik Shanmugam.

CNA meneliti contoh lampau di mana penggubal undang-undang campur tangan selepas keputusan mahkamah, dan bertanya kepada pakar undang-undang bagaimana keseimbangan kuasa berfungsi dalam amalan.

Mengapa mahkamah menyimpang daripada garis panduan hukuman dalam kes ini?

Koram tiga hakim Mahkamah Tinggi pada September mendengar rayuan tujuh individu yang disabitkan kerana memberi sindiket penipuan akses kepada akaun bank atau kelayakan Singpass mereka.

Dalam penghakimannya bagi Mohamed Erzan Taib Zohri lwn Pendakwa Raya, mahkamah menyatakan bahawa "garis panduan hukuman yang dicadangkan oleh SAP (panel penasihat hukuman) tidak mengikat mahkamah tetapi bertujuan menawarkan sedikit bantuan dalam proses penghukuman".

Antara lain, penghakiman itu juga menyatakan bahawa adalah "terlalu tumpul" untuk menganggap hukuman penjara dan latihan pemulihan sebagai lalai bagi pesalah muda dalam kes sedemikian.

Parlimen juga harus memperjelas jika niatnya adalah untuk menyingkirkan pilihan hukuman tertentu bagi sesuatu kesalahan, catat mahkamah.

Bercakap di parlimen awal bulan ini sebagai respons kepada soalan parlimen, Encik Shanmugam berkata kerajaan telah membuat pertimbangan dasar secara sengaja bahawa pencegahan dan pencegahan awal harus membawa wajaran yang jauh lebih besar ketika menghukum pesalah.

Encik Shanmugam menambah bahawa mahkamah tidak mempunyai "perspektif dasar" mahupun "data mengenai skala masalah penipuan dan penipu" di hadapannya.

"Kami mahu mesej ini disampaikan bahawa setiap pesalah, muda atau tua, akan ditangani dengan sangat serius. Jika beberapa kes ditangani dengan cara ini, secara serius, ramai bakal pesalah lain akan mengambil rujukan," kata Encik Shanmugam.

Menteri kanan itu menambah: "Mahkamah Tinggi berkata perundangan itu harus jelas. Kami telah meneruskan atas dasar bahawa perundangan itu jelas. Garis panduan itu juga jelas. Ia jelas.

"Namun, mahkamah telah menyatakan pandangan berbeza mengenai perundangan itu. Kami menghormati pandangan mahkamah."

Apakah peranan mahkamah dan parlimen?

Pakar menegaskan bahawa keupayaan kerajaan untuk mengumumkan rancangan pindaan perundangan selepas keputusan kehakiman berpunca secara langsung daripada pengasingan kuasa perlembagaan.

"Peranan utama parlimen adalah untuk membahaskan dan meluluskan perundangan, manakala peranan mahkamah adalah untuk mentafsir dan menggunakan undang-undang secara bebas bagi menyelesaikan pertikaian undang-undang," kata Encik Faraaz Amzar, pengarah di firma guaman Eugene Thuraisingam Asia LLC.

Dalam merangka undang-undang, parlimen menetapkan julat kemungkinan hukuman bagi kesalahan tertentu, kata pakar.

Antara cara lain, parlimen boleh berbuat demikian melalui garis panduan panel penasihat hukuman, yang berfungsi memberikan kejelasan lebih besar tentang kemungkinan hasil penghukuman dan faktor penghukuman yang berkaitan.

Garis panduan itu tidak mengikat secara sah kepada mana-mana mahkamah.

Merujuk kepada garis panduan hukuman dalam kes Erzan, Penolong Profesor Benjamin Joshua Ong dari Universiti Pengurusan Singapura (SMU) berkata garis panduan itu "menyediakan fleksibiliti" dengan menetapkan bahawa denda, percubaan dan hukuman komuniti "secara amnya" tidak sesuai.

"Tugas mahkamah apabila seseorang didapati bersalah atas kesalahan itu adalah untuk memilih hukuman yang sesuai dalam julat berdasarkan fakta khusus kes individu di hadapannya," kata Penolong Prof Ong.

"Parlimen mempunyai kata putus tentang apa teks perundangan itu. Mahkamah mempunyai kata putus tentang apa maksud teks itu.

"Ini bermakna mahkamah mempunyai kuasa untuk mentafsir secara berwibawa perundangan yang diluluskan oleh parlimen."

Mengapa keputusan mahkamah boleh berbeza daripada niat parlimen?

Percanggahan antara keputusan kehakiman dan niat parlimen boleh timbul daripada beberapa faktor utama, kata pakar undang-undang.

Pertama, dekan undang-undang SMU Eugene Tan berkata ia berpunca daripada isu penggubalan undang-undang dan tafsirannya oleh mahkamah.

"Perkataan dan frasa dalam sesuatu perundangan boleh ditafsir berbeza walaupun penggubalan perundangan terbaik," kata profesor madya itu.

"Tambahan pula, sesuatu perundangan mungkin tidak berjaya menyampaikan niat parlimen dengan kejelasan yang mencukupi."

Cik Stephanie Chew, rakan kongsi di TSMP Law Corporation, berkata apabila penggubal undang-undang merangka perundangan, mereka tidak boleh menjangka setiap senario yang datang ke mahkamah.

"Jadi parlimen yang membuat undang-undang, tetapi tugas mahkamah adalah mentafsir statut tersebut, dan menggunakannya kepada kes sebenar berdasarkan fakta," katanya.

Sehubungan itu, mahkamah mengambil kira kedua-dua tujuan dan perkataan undang-undang, katanya.

Bersetuju, Penolong Prof Ong dari SMU berkata dalam menggunakan undang-undang, mahkamah akan terlebih dahulu melihat teks perundangan itu.

"Ini bukan latihan cuba meneliti apa niat parlimen atau ahli parlimen atau menteri individu di belakang fikiran mereka," katanya.

"Mahkamah secara amnya tidak akan merujuk sumber lain, seperti perkataan tepat perbahasan parlimen, melainkan perkataan itu kabur."

Dr Ben Chester Cheong dari Universiti Sains Sosial Singapura (SUSS) berkata walaupun mahkamah mengenal pasti tujuan sesuatu perundangan, ia tidak dibenarkan "menulis semula peruntukan untuk mencapai hasil dasar yang disukai".

Dalam kes khusus Erzan, beliau menyatakan mahkamah telah menjelaskan bahawa parlimen harus memperjelas niatnya jika ia ingin menyingkirkan pilihan hukuman tertentu bagi kesalahan tertentu.

Penolong Prof Ong berkata terdapat perbezaan antara tafsiran dan penggunaan undang-undang, dan kes rayuan berkaitan penipuan yang dibenarkan Mahkamah Tinggi bulan lalu berkaitan dengan yang kedua.

Tafsiran adalah persoalan apa maksud perkataan undang-undang itu, katanya, dan dalam kes ini perkataan itu "tidak kabur".

"Maksud perkataan itu jelas: mahkamah mempunyai julat pilihan hukuman, daripada percubaan kepada penjara kepada sebatan," kata Penolong Prof Ong.

"Pandangan Encik Shanmugam berkaitan penggunaan undang-undang: dengan kata lain, bila setiap pilihan harus digunakan."

Bilakah parlimen mengubah undang-undang selepas keputusan mahkamah?

Setiap kali keputusan kehakiman menyerlahkan kekaburan dalam statut sedia ada, penggubal undang-undang biasanya akan bertindak untuk menangani dan menyelesaikan jurang yang dilihat dalam undang-undang.

Penolong Prof Ong dari SMU berkata: "Jika parlimen tidak bersetuju dengan apa yang mahkamah katakan tentang maksud teks perundangan, parlimen bebas meminda teks itu, kali ini memperjelas tafsiran pilihannya."

Ini telah berlaku beberapa kali pada masa lalu, dengan parlimen mengemas kini perundangan selepas mahkamah mengenal pasti kekaburan atau jurang dalam dasar.

Ini adalah kes bagi pemansuhan Seksyen 377A pada 2023 yang telah mengkriminalkan hubungan seks antara lelaki.

Berikutan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan pada 2022 yang menolak cabaran terhadap undang-undang itu, Perdana Menteri ketika itu Lee Hsien Loong berkata Menteri Undang-Undang dan Peguam Negara telah menasihati tentang "risiko signifikan" undang-undang itu dibatalkan dalam cabaran mahkamah pada masa hadapan.

Parlimen kemudiannya memansuhkan undang-undang itu.

Dalam kes ini, parlimen dilihat "menyelesaikan isu dasar yang lebih luas dalam latar belakang litigasi", kata Dr Cheong dari SUSS.

Pada 2013, ketua sindiket pengaturan perlawanan Tan Seet Eng, juga dikenali sebagai Dan Tan, telah diberikan perintah tahanan di bawah Akta Undang-Undang Jenayah (Peruntukan Sementara) (CLTPA).

Berikutan rayuan, mahkamah tertinggi pada 2015 memutuskan tahanan Tan sebagai "tidak sah" kerana alasan untuk memenjarakannya tidak cukup menunjukkan bagaimana aktivitinya mengancam keselamatan dan ketenteraman awam di Singapura.

Seminggu kemudian, Tan ditahan semula di bawah perintah baharu yang "secara nyata menetapkan alasan yang menunjukkan tahap aktiviti pengaturan perlawanan Tan dari dan dalam Singapura", dan mengapa perintah tahanan itu perlu, kata MHA ketika itu.

Pada 2018, parlimen meluluskan pindaan kepada CLTPA, secara nyata menetapkan senarai aktiviti jenayah yang mana seseorang boleh ditahan di bawah undang-undang itu.

Dr Cheong menggambarkan ini sebagai "pengkodifikasian perundangan dan penjelasan berikutan sesuatu penghakiman".

Apa yang berlaku apabila parlimen atau kerajaan tidak bersetuju dengan tafsiran mahkamah?

Sekiranya parlimen tidak bersetuju dengan bagaimana undang-undang telah digunakan, Dewan juga boleh bertindak meminda teks itu supaya mahkamah tidak akan mentafsir kes itu dengan cara yang sama lagi.

Pakar menyebut kes Public Prosecutor lwn Lam Leng Hung pada 2018, berkaitan penyalahgunaan dana bangunan gereja oleh pemimpin City Harvest Church, sebagai contoh.

Dalam kes ini, Mahkamah Rayuan telah mengekalkan hukuman yang dikurangkan terhadap enam bekas pemimpin City Harvest Church yang didapati bersalah atas pecah amanah jenayah.

"Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan bahawa anggota 'ejen' dalam Seksyen 409 (Kanun Keseksaan) ketika itu berkaitan ejen profesional, bukannya pengarah yang hanya bertindak sebagai ejen organisasi mereka," kata Dr Cheong.

Ini bermakna anggota "ejen" itu tidak terpakai kepada enam pemimpin gereja itu.

Di bawah undang-undang ketika itu, ejen yang disabitkan atas jenayah itu boleh menghadapi hukuman penjara sehingga seumur hidup, manakala sabitan biasa bagi pecah amanah jenayah hanya membawa hukuman penjara maksimum tujuh tahun.

"Ia secara nyata mengiktiraf jurang berkenaan hukuman yang dipertingkatkan, sambil menyimpulkan bahawa pembaharuan harus diserahkan kepada parlimen," catat Dr Cheong mengenai keputusan mahkamah ketika itu.

Penolong Prof Ong dari SMU juga menambah bagaimana mahkamah ketika itu "menggambarkan Seksyen 409 sebagai 'semakin tidak mencukupi' dan bahawa 'semakan bukan sahaja penting tetapi juga sudah lama tertunggak', dan parlimen harus menjalankan semakan dan pembaharuan selanjutnya".

Berikutan hasil rayuan itu, Encik Shanmugam, yang ketika itu Menteri Undang-Undang dan Dalam Negeri, menyatakan di parlimen ketidaksetujuan kerajaan dengan keputusan mahkamah.

"Tiada keraguan tentang ini... Kerajaan percaya hukuman itu terlalu rendah," katanya ketika itu.

Seksyen 409 kemudiannya diperluas melalui Akta Pembaharuan Undang-Undang Jenayah 2019 untuk secara nyata meliputi pengarah, pegawai, rakan kongsi, eksekutif utama dan pemegang amanah, tambahnya.

Satu lagi kes yang patut diberi perhatian ialah tahanan Chng Suan Tze dan tiga orang lain pada 1987 di bawah Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri.

Pada 1988, Mahkamah Rayuan membebaskan tahanan itu atas rayuan, berdasarkan alasan "teknikal" bahawa afidavit itu sepatutnya ditandatangani oleh menteri atau setiausaha kabinet dan bukan oleh setiausaha tetap.

Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa kuasa menteri untuk membuat perintah tahanan bergantung kepada sama ada Presiden berpuas hati bahawa perintah itu perlu untuk menghentikan tindakan yang memudaratkan keselamatan negara.

Mahkamah berkata afidavit oleh setiausaha tetap itu merupakan keterangan dengar cakap tentang kepuasan Presiden, dan oleh itu tidak mencukupi.

Berikutan ini, kerajaan menahan semula Chng dan tiga orang lain pada hari yang sama di bawah perintah tahanan baharu, sambil menyatakan bahawa mahkamah tidak mempersoalkan merit keputusan untuk menahan mereka.

Pada tahun berikutnya, parlimen meluluskan pindaan kepada Perlembagaan dan ISA yang, antara lain, menyatakan bahawa mahkamah hanya boleh menyemak sama ada prosedur di bawah ISA telah diikuti.

Prof Madya Tan dari SMU berkata: "(Ini) adalah satu contoh jelas cabang politik tidak bersetuju dengan kehakiman dan mendapati perlu untuk membatalkan secara perundangan tafsiran mahkamah tertinggi terhadap peruntukan tertentu dalam Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri 1960 (ISA)".

Apa yang boleh dan tidak boleh dilakukan parlimen ketika mengubah undang-undang?

Secara ringkasnya, parlimen boleh merangka perundangan baharu atau meminda statut sedia ada untuk menghapuskan kekaburan dan menyelaraskan undang-undang dengan dasar awam yang dimaksudkan, dengan syarat semua perubahan kekal dalam sempadan perlembagaan.

Prof Madya Tan berkata: "Pembatalan perundangan adalah dalam kuasa perlembagaan parlimen, dan ini dilakukan dengan menggubal undang-undang baharu atau meminda undang-undang sedia ada untuk membatalkan, mengubah suai, atau membalikkan kesan undang-undang keputusan kehakiman berkenaan."

Namun, beliau menambah bahawa parlimen "tidak boleh membatalkan keputusan khusus mahkamah mengenai pihak-pihak dalam kes tertentu", sambil menambah bahawa pembatalan perundangan biasanya mempunyai kesan prospektif dalam kes jenayah.

Dengan kata lain, walaupun parlimen mempunyai kuasa untuk mengubah undang-undang bagi kes masa hadapan, ia tidak boleh membatalkan keputusan khusus bagi kes yang telah selesai. Pesalah hanya boleh dihukum mengikut undang-undang yang berkuat kuasa ketika jenayah itu dilakukan.

Ini juga termaktub dalam Perlembagaan, kata Dr Cheong dari SUSS.

"Dalam perkara jenayah, (Perlembagaan) melindungi daripada pengkriminalan retrospektif dan hukuman lebih besar daripada yang ditetapkan ketika kesalahan itu dilakukan," catatnya.

Ingin suatu isu atau topik dijelaskan? Email kami di digitalnews [at] mediacorp.com.sg. Pertanyaan Anda bisa menjadi berita di situs kami.

Dapatkan pilihan berita utama dan artikel yang menggugah pikiran di kotak masuk Anda

Tetap diperbarui dengan notifikasi untuk berita terkini dan berita terbaik kami

Bergabunglah dengan saluran kami untuk bacaan terbaik hari ini di aplikasi obrolan pilihan Anda

Kami tahu merepotkan untuk mengganti browser, tetapi kami ingin pengalaman Anda dengan CNA cepat, aman, dan sebaik mungkin.

Untuk melanjutkan, tingkatkan ke browser yang didukung atau, untuk pengalaman terbaik, unduh aplikasi seluler.

Sudah ditingkatkan tetapi masih mengalami masalah? Hubungi kami