Serious Vietbu Whore

[Pinkieslut]

Judge declines to void alleged sham marriage in S’pore, says it is for Parliament to decide​

Theresa Tan
Fri, 11 July 2025 at 5:40 pm SGT·5-min read

The High Court judge said that while the marriage appeared to be one of convenience, there was no legal basis to void it.
SINGAPORE - A man has failed in his appeal to the High Court to void his late father’s marriage to a Vietnamese woman on the basis that it was a sham, with a judge ruling that such a matter is for Parliament, and not the courts, to decide.

In a written judgment issued on July 1, Justice Valerie Thean said that while the marriage appeared to be one of convenience, there was no legal basis to void it, as it was registered before Singapore’s laws against sham marriages took effect.

A sham marriage, or a marriage of convenience, is typically one where the marriage is registered to help one spouse get an immigration advantage, and the other gets paid for it.

Justice Thean said that any public policy to prevent abuse of the institution of marriage should not be determined by “judicial fiat”, or a formal order issued by a judge.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The articulation, delineation and enactment of such public policy is the proper remit of Parliament, and it is not for the courts to determine what is an actionable abuse,” she said. “In the absence of specific laws prescribing that sham marriages are void, there would be no basis to do so.”

The marriage in question took place in January 2011, when Mr Cheng Meng Koon, a Singaporean, wed Vietnamese national Dang Lan Anh. Mr Cheng died a year later, at the age of 59.

They tied the knot before Section 11A of the Women’s Charter took effect – it provides for the nullity of marriages of convenience for marriages solemnised on or after Oct 1, 2016.

Mr Cheng Tze Tzuen, his son from his first marriage, and other family members only learnt about the late Mr Cheng’s second marriage after his death.

This was after the Insolvency and Public Trustee’s Office told Mr Cheng Tze Tzuen’s family that Ms Anh was entitled to a share of his father’s CPF money.

ADVERTISEMENT

Mr Cheng Meng Koon was heavily in debt before his marriage to Ms Anh, but his financial woes appeared to have been resolved around the time of his second marriage.

The authorities also told them that Ms Anh was deported for vice and immigration offences in 2011.

In 2024, Mr Cheng Tze Tzuen asked the High Court to declare his father’s marriage to Ms Anh void.

He also asked for his father’s assets to be distributed among the immediate family members, excluding Ms Anh.

The late Mr Cheng has a 14 per cent share in an HDB flat that he owned with his sister.

Mr Cheng Meng Koon’s and Ms Anh’s ages and occupations were not stated in the judgment, but The Straits Times got his age from his son’s lawyer Samantha Ong. Ms Ong, who is from law firm WNLEX, does not know Ms Anh’s age.

Judge disagrees with earlier judgments on sham marriages​

While Justice Thean made no order on Mr Cheng Tze Tzuen’s application, she did not dismiss it outright. She asked him to apply to the Family Justice Courts for letters of administration, which are legal documents appointing someone to manage a dead person’s estate when the person did not make a will, to distribute his father’s assets.

ADVERTISEMENT

Mr Cheng Tze Tzuen has filed an appeal to the Appellate Division of the High Court, Ms Ong told The Straits Times on July 10.

Commenting on the case, lawyer Dorothy Tan, who is not involved in it, said that the court has chosen not to intervene in this case by making no order.

Ms Tan, a senior associate director of the family law and probate department at PKWA Law Practice, said this does not mean that the court has ruled against Mr Cheng Tze Tzuen’s appeal entirely.

Making no order is different from a dismissal, which would be an outright rejection of the claim, she added.

In her judgment, Justice Thean stressed that Section 11A of the Women’s Charter, which provides for the nullity of sham marriages, applies only to marriages registered on or after Oct 1, 2016.

She pointed out that the court had previously accepted that Section 11A is not retrospective.

ADVERTISEMENT

She also argued that the laws regulating marriage in Singapore would be “impaired” if a couple’s intention for marrying is relevant to the validity of marriage.

Justice Thean disagreed with some earlier judgments on sham marriages, where the court found ways to declare marriages registered before Oct 1, 2016, void under Section 105 of the Women’s Charter. Section 105 lists the grounds for declaring a marriage void, including bigamy and if the couple is not of the opposite sex.

Some of these judgments argued that if a couple lied to the Registrar of Marriages about the reason for their marriage, this is considered a “lawful impediment” to the marriage. And because of this legal impediment, the marriage certificate is not valid, and so the marriage is void.

Justice Thean said that while concerns about sham marriages and the potential abuse of the State’s institutions and benefits are valid, it is not for her to decide whether public policy can be taken into account to determine if the late Mr Cheng’s marriage to Ms Anh is void. This is because Parliament has made clear the time period when sham marriages are to be considered void.

Besides, Parliament has not left the courts with any discretion to declare a marriage void, except on the grounds stipulated in Section 105 of the Women’s Charter, she added.

Professor Chan Wing Cheong of the Yong Pung How School of Law at Singapore Management University said the case presents legal arguments that show both sides of the issue, adding that this has to be resolved by the Court of Appeal.

PKWA Law Practice’s Ms Tan added: “This judgment illustrates the delicate balance between obtaining practical justice and maintaining parliamentary authority, and how Parliament and the judiciary are inextricably intertwined in addressing real-life issues.”