Eng Foong Ho v Attorney-General: Constitutional Challenge to Temple Land Acquisition
Ms. Eng Foong Ho, Mr. Hue Guan Koon, and Ms. Ang Beng Woon, devotees of Jin Long Si Temple, sought a declaration in the High Court of Singapore that the acquisition of the temple property by the Collector of Land Revenue violated Article 12 of the Constitution, arguing a breach of equal protection. Tan Lee Meng J dismissed the application, finding the plaintiffs lacked locus standi and that the acquisition did not violate constitutional rights, as the government's decision was for comprehensive redevelopment and did not discriminate against religious groups.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Constitutional
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Devotees challenged the acquisition of Jin Long Si Temple, arguing it violated constitutional rights. The court dismissed the application, finding no breach of equal protection.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Defendant | Government Agency | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Eric Chin of Attorney-General’s Chambers Janice Wong of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Eng Foong Ho | Plaintiff | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Hue Guan Koon | Plaintiff | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Ang Beng Woon | Plaintiff | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Eric Chin | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Janice Wong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Vikram Nair | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Ang Cheng Hock | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
4. Facts
- The plaintiffs are devotees of the Jin Long Si Temple.
- The Collector of Land Revenue acquired the temple property for the construction of Circle Line stage 3 & comprehensive redevelopment.
- The temple trustees appealed against the acquisition, noting that nearby religious organizations' lands were not acquired.
- The Singapore Land Authority stated the acquisition was to allow better optimization of land use.
- The temple property was zoned for residential use in the Master Plan.
- The trustees were given until 31 January 2008 to hand over the property.
- The trustees accepted an alternative site for the temple at Tai Seng Avenue.
5. Formal Citations
- Eng Foong Ho and Others v Attorney-General, OS 79/2008, [2008] SGHC 69
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Trust for religious purposes created for the temple property. | |
| Collector informed trustees of acquisition of temple property. | |
| Gazette notification published for acquisition of temple property. | |
| Temple trustee appealed against the acquisition. | |
| Appeal made to the Prime Minister regarding the acquisition. | |
| Singapore Land Authority replied to the appeal. | |
| Temple trustees appealed again to the Prime Minister. | |
| Permanent Secretaries replied to the temple trustees. | |
| Temple property representatives met with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for National Development. | |
| Singapore Land Authority forwarded write-up on similar cases to temple property representatives. | |
| Plaintiffs filed originating summons. | |
| Decision date of the judgment. |
7. Legal Issues
- Equal protection of the law
- Outcome: The court held that the acquisition of the temple property did not violate Article 12 of the Constitution.
- Category: Constitutional
- Related Cases:
- [1981] AC 648
- Freedom of religion
- Outcome: The court held that acquiring a place of worship for public purposes does not limit a person's right to profess, practise and propagate his religion.
- Category: Constitutional
- Compulsory acquisition of land
- Outcome: The court acknowledged that the notification of acquisition in the Gazette is conclusive evidence that the temple property is required for the purpose specified therein.
- Category: Substantive
- Locus standi
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs, as temple devotees, lacked locus standi to challenge the acquisition of the temple property.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 1 SLR 112
- [1978] AC 435
- [1996] 1 SLR 609
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the acquisition of the temple property violated Article 12 of the Constitution
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Article 12 of the Constitution
10. Practice Areas
- Constitutional Litigation
- Land Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR 112 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff must assert the recognition of a right that is personal to him to have the necessary standing for an action for a declaration. |
| Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers | N/A | Yes | [1978] AC 435 | N/A | Cited for the principle that courts are concerned with legal rights only when invoked by a party claiming a right against another party. |
| Chan Hiang Leng Colin & Ors v Minister for Information and the Arts | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a citizen can complain to the courts if there is a violation of their constitutional right to profess, practise and propagate his religion. |
| Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1981] AC 648 | N/A | Cited for the principle that equality before the law and equal protection of the law require that like should be compared with like. |
| Galstaun and Anor v AG | N/A | Yes | [1980-81] SLR 345 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Government is the proper authority for deciding what a public purpose is. |
| Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue | N/A | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR 507 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the relevant government authority is in the best position to determine whether land is required for the purposes set out in s 5(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. |
| Haji Hussin bin Haji Ali & Ors v Datuk Haji Mohamed bin Yaacob | Malaysian Federal Court | Yes | [1983] 2 MLJ 227 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that delay in instituting proceedings for a discretionary remedy is a factor which may be taken into account when deciding whether or not to grant the declaration sought. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Article 12 Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Section 5 Land Acquisition Act (Cap 152, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Land acquisition
- Equal protection
- Religious freedom
- Constitutional rights
- Locus standi
- Comprehensive redevelopment
- Master Plan
- Gazette notification
- Public purpose
- Jin Long Si Temple
15.2 Keywords
- Land Acquisition
- Constitutional Law
- Equal Protection
- Religious Freedom
- Singapore
- Temple
- Article 12
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Law | 90 |
| Land Law | 80 |
| Compulsory Acquisition | 75 |
| Property Law | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Constitutional Law
- Land Law
- Compulsory Acquisition