Claim: The Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong case's appellant insisted that he was already convicted under the section 37(1) of the PCA which relates to the Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
Evidence: Taw was tried and convicted in the District Court of eight charges of corruption under section 6(a) read with section 37(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ("PCA"). Taw appealed to the High Court against his conviction on two main grounds. In addition, Taw (the appellant) argued, first, that section 37(1) of the PCA was unconstitutional, and, secondly, that its enactment was ultra vires the legislative power of Parliament. The appellant hence argued that "Parliament [was] bound by an inherent limitation on its powers so any legislation purporting to have extraterritorial effect must have been ultra vires the Constitution". The appellant further highlighted that section 6 of the Republic of Singapore Independence Act ("RSIA"), which was enacted shortly after Singapore's independence from Malaysia, provides that Part IV of the Constitution of Malaysia ceased to have effect in Singapore. The appellant also contended that he had been convicted under section 37(1) of the PCA which discriminated against him "as a Singapore citizen in derogation of his rights under Art 12 of the Constitution". The appellant's argument rested on the alleged arbitrariness of the ambit of section 37(1), in that it employed citizenship as a criterion. Hence, the appellant argued that since section 37(1) "unfairly discriminates against him on the basis of citizenship", it must contravene Article 12 which provides that all persons, citizens and non-citizens alike, are equal. This rendered section 37(1) void according to Article 4 of the Constitution which provides: It accepted the appellant's assertion that Article 73(a) was an empowering provision. Applying this to the case, the Court held that Parliament had no legislative power to enact section 37(1) of the PCA. Public Prosecutor v. Taw Cheng Kong is a landmark case decided in 1998 by the Court of Appeal of Singapore which shaped the landscape of Singapore's constitutional law. The earlier High Court decision, Taw Cheng Kong v. Public Prosecutor, was the first instance in Singapore's history that a statutory provision was struck down as unconstitutional. The matter subsequently reached the Court of Appeal when the Public Prosecutor applied for a criminal reference for two questions to be considered. whether section 37(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act () ("PCA") was ultra vires the powers of the legislature on the ground that the legislature had, under section 6(3) of the Republic of Singapore Independence Act 1965 (), been divested of the power to legislate extraterritorially; and whether section 37(1) of the PCA was discriminatory against Singapore citizens and hence inconsistent with Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1992 Reprint) (now the Singapore Constitution ()). Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees to all persons equality before the law and equal protection of the law. Section 37(1) of the PCA states: The second concerned constitutional issues. The appellant contended that "any law in Singapore which seeks to have extraterritorial effect is, by that virtue of that alone, unconstitutional".