High Court rules Govt does not need President's approval to give loan
THE High Court has dismissed with costs an application by opposition politician Kenneth Jeyaretnam to stop the Government from giving a loan of US$4 billion (S$4.9 billion) to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Mr Jeyaretnam, secretary-general of the Reform Party, had argued that the loan commitment had not been approved by the President.
But yesterday, Justice Tan Lee Meng ruled that the Government does not need approval from the President to give a loan.
Central to his ruling is the interpretation of Article 144 of the Constitution.
Mr Jeyaretnam had brought the case to the courts in July after the Monetary Authority of Singapore announced in April that it had pledged US$4 billion to the IMF.
He charged that the pledge, made without the approval of Parliament or the President, contravened Article 144. The Article states that "no guarantee or loan shall be given or raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs".
But in his ruling, Justice Tan said Article 144 did not concern the giving of loans by the Government.
The provision, he said, had to be read by applying each verb to its appropriate subject.
This would mean the rule should be understood that "no guarantee shall be given and no loan shall be raised by the Government".
Hence, Justice Tan said: "This constitutional provision is only engaged when the Government raises a loan or gives a guarantee, and not when it gives a loan."
By raising a loan, the Government would be doing the opposite of giving a loan. It would be borrowing instead of lending money.
Another point Justice Tan made in his ruling was that Mr Jeyaretnam did not have the standing to make the application because he had not suffered special damage as a result of the loan commitment. Neither did he have a genuine private interest to protect or further.
The Attorney-General's Chambers, in a statement last night, noted among other things that "the Court found that the plaintiff was not personally affected by the giving of the loan".
When contacted, Mr Jeyaretnam said he would be consulting his lawyers.
But last month, while the ruling was still pending, he had told reporters: "As a citizen and a taxpayer, I am concerned about our monies and accountability... If we are not allowed to question any of the decisions, who is to question them?"
Yesterday's judgment was based on the High Court's study of the history of Article 144, other legislation and a 1998 opinion by then Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong, who is now the Chief Justice.
The 1998 opinion had been distributed in Parliament after Mr Jeyaretnam's father, then Non-Constituency MP J. B. Jeyaretnam, raised objections in the House to a US$5 billion loan offer to Indonesia. The late Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam had also cited Article 144.
The Attorney-General then had made a similar explanation - that the provision must be read by applying each verb to its appropriate subject. His opinion had been that the Government was subject to parliamentary and presidential scrutiny only when borrowing money.
[email protected]
http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw...03&utm_source=web subscription&utm_medium=web
THE High Court has dismissed with costs an application by opposition politician Kenneth Jeyaretnam to stop the Government from giving a loan of US$4 billion (S$4.9 billion) to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Mr Jeyaretnam, secretary-general of the Reform Party, had argued that the loan commitment had not been approved by the President.
But yesterday, Justice Tan Lee Meng ruled that the Government does not need approval from the President to give a loan.
Central to his ruling is the interpretation of Article 144 of the Constitution.
Mr Jeyaretnam had brought the case to the courts in July after the Monetary Authority of Singapore announced in April that it had pledged US$4 billion to the IMF.
He charged that the pledge, made without the approval of Parliament or the President, contravened Article 144. The Article states that "no guarantee or loan shall be given or raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs".
But in his ruling, Justice Tan said Article 144 did not concern the giving of loans by the Government.
The provision, he said, had to be read by applying each verb to its appropriate subject.
This would mean the rule should be understood that "no guarantee shall be given and no loan shall be raised by the Government".
Hence, Justice Tan said: "This constitutional provision is only engaged when the Government raises a loan or gives a guarantee, and not when it gives a loan."
By raising a loan, the Government would be doing the opposite of giving a loan. It would be borrowing instead of lending money.
Another point Justice Tan made in his ruling was that Mr Jeyaretnam did not have the standing to make the application because he had not suffered special damage as a result of the loan commitment. Neither did he have a genuine private interest to protect or further.
The Attorney-General's Chambers, in a statement last night, noted among other things that "the Court found that the plaintiff was not personally affected by the giving of the loan".
When contacted, Mr Jeyaretnam said he would be consulting his lawyers.
But last month, while the ruling was still pending, he had told reporters: "As a citizen and a taxpayer, I am concerned about our monies and accountability... If we are not allowed to question any of the decisions, who is to question them?"
Yesterday's judgment was based on the High Court's study of the history of Article 144, other legislation and a 1998 opinion by then Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong, who is now the Chief Justice.
The 1998 opinion had been distributed in Parliament after Mr Jeyaretnam's father, then Non-Constituency MP J. B. Jeyaretnam, raised objections in the House to a US$5 billion loan offer to Indonesia. The late Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam had also cited Article 144.
The Attorney-General then had made a similar explanation - that the provision must be read by applying each verb to its appropriate subject. His opinion had been that the Government was subject to parliamentary and presidential scrutiny only when borrowing money.
[email protected]
http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw...03&utm_source=web subscription&utm_medium=web
