No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 December 2021
Associate Professor of Law and Executive Director, Centre for Comparative and Transnational Law, The Chinese University of Hong.
1 Yvonne Tew, Constitutional Statecraft in Asian Courts (Oxford University Press 2020) ch 1.
2 ibid 22–23.
3 ibid 24–28.
4 ibid 22–24.
5 ibid 4–5.
6 ibid 5–6.
7 ibid 5; Po Jen Yap, Courts and Democracies in Asia (Cambridge University Press 2017) pt I.
8 Tew (n 1) 8–12.
9 ibid 86; Yong Vui Wong v Public Prosecutor [2010] 3 SLR 489 (CA).
10 Tew (n 1) 64–65.
11 [1988] 2 SLR(R) 525.
12 Tew (n 1) 60.
13 [2016] 1 SLR 779.
14 Tew (n 1) 64.
15 [2010] MLJ 333.
16 ibid paras 3, 19; Tew (n 1) 62.
17 Tew (n 1) 62–64.
18 [2017] 3 MLJ 561.
19 Indira Gandhi [2018] 1 MLJ 545 (FC).
20 ibid para 42; Semenyih Jaya (n 18) para 76; Roznai, Yaniv, ‘Constitutional Amendability and Unamendability in South-East Asia’ (2019) 14 The Journal of Comparative Law 188Google Scholar.
21 Tew (n 1) 131.
22 Landau, David, ‘Abusive Constitutionalism’ (2013) 47 University of California Davis Law Review 189Google Scholar.
23 Tew (n 1) 132.
24 See eg, Chan Sek Keong, ‘The Courts and the “Rule of Law” in Singapore’ [2012] Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 209, 223–224; Jaclyn Neo, ‘Towards a “Thin” Basic Structure Doctrine in Singapore’ (ICONnect Blog, 17 Jan 2018) <http://www.iconnectblog.com/2018/01/towards-a-thin-basic-structure-doctrine-in-singapore-i-connect-column/> accessed 8 Sep 2021.
25 Tew (n 1) 215.
26 Tew (n 1) 136.
27 ibid.
28 Yap, Po Jen & Abeyratne, Rehan, ‘Judicial Self-Dealing and Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments in South Asia (2021) 19 International Journal of Constitutional Law 127CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
29 (2016) 4 SCC 1. See also Abeyratne, Rehan, ‘Upholding Judicial Supremacy in India: The NJAC Judgment in Comparative Perspective’ (2017) 49 George Washington International Law Review 569Google Scholar.
30 Tew (n 1) 132.
31 ibid 149–150; Sweet, Alec Stone & Mathews, Jud, ‘Proportionality, Balancing and Global Constitutionalism’ (2008) 47 Colombia Journal of Transnational Law 72Google Scholar; Po Jen Yap (ed), Proportionality in Asia (Cambridge University Press 2020).
32 See eg, Jackson, Vicki, ‘Constitutional Law in an Age of Proportionality’ (2015) 123 Yale Law Journal 3094Google Scholar; Jamal Greene, How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession with Rights is Tearing America Apart (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt 2021).
33 Tew (n 1) chs 7–8.
34 ibid 151; [2019] 5 CLJ 780.
35 Tew (n 1) 151.
36 ibid 152.
37 ibid. See also Yap (n 31).
38 [2020] SGCA 111.
39 ibid paras 30–32.
40 Tew (n 1) 152.
41 Hysan Development Co Ltd v Town Planning Board [2016] 19 HKCFAR 37.
42 Rehan Abeyratne, ‘More Structure, More Deference: Proportionality in Hong Kong’, in Po Jen Yap (ed), Proportionality in Asia (Cambridge University Press 2020) 33–34, 57–59; Sweet, Alec Stone, ‘The Necessity of Balancing: Hong Kong's Flawed Approach to Proportionality, and Why It Matters’ (2020) 50 Hong Kong Law Journal 541Google Scholar.
43 Mark Tushnet, ‘Is there a Doctrine of Proportionality in Asia (or Anywhere)?’, in Po Jen Yap (ed), Proportionality in Asia (Cambridge University Press 2020) 271.
44 ibid 271–274.
45 ibid 274–275.
46 Tew (n 1) 219.