CNA Explains: What Happens When the Government Disagrees With the Courts?
Following a recent High Court ruling that overturned deterrent sentences for four young scam mules, the Singapore government announced plans to table new legislation to clarify its policy position. The case has turned public attention toward the constitutional separation of powers and how lawmakers respond when judicial decisions run contrary to government policy expectations.
In September, a three-judge High Court panel—comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Ang Cheng Hock, and Justice Hoo Sheau Peng—allowed appeals for four young individuals convicted of giving scam syndicates access to their bank accounts or Singpass credentials. The court opted for probation and community-based sentences instead of the sterner penalties, such as jail or reformative training, outlined in government sentencing guidelines. Senior Minister and Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam subsequently stated in parliament that the verdict ran contrary to the government's deliberate policy judgment that deterrence and prevention must carry greater weight for scam-related offences.
Legal experts note that while the judiciary independently interprets and applies the law, parliament holds the authority to pass and amend legislation. According to legal professionals, parliament has the last word on the text of the law, while the courts have the last word on what that text means. Consequently, when a divergence arises between judicial rulings and parliamentary intent, the government can introduce legislative amendments to clarify or alter the legal framework for future cases.