Welcome to HHM Land!

I was reading a news article this morning about the impending legislation to be passed in Canada to eradicate the homeless on the streets. This new piece of legislation will help to clean up Vancouver and the surrounding areas of Whistler for the Winter Olympics in 2010.

Interestingly, the constitutional law in Canada do not differ that much from the constitutional law in Singapore, yet this same set of law yield different rights for the countries' citizens. In Canada, Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." This is similar to Section 9(1) of the Singapore Constitution which states that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law."

Section 9 of the Canadian Charter also provides that "Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned." The content of the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned is enacted in Section 9(2), 9(3) and 9(4) of the Singapore Constitution. The articles in Section 9 provides that a citizen cannot be "unlawfully detained" and has a right to be informed of grounds of his arrest.

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter guarantees the equal protection of the law for citizens and is often termed the non-discrimination clause. A similar provision is found in Article 12 of the Singapore Constitution.

Even though the Canadian Charter and the Singapore Constitution contains similar clauses and rights to its citizens, it appears that the people of Canada enjoy far wider rights than the Singapore citizens. In Canada, a legislation to eradicate the homeless from the streets may not
withstand the test of constitutional rights governing fundamental liberties. This is primarily due to the wider construction of Section 1 in the Canadian Charter which "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in [the Charter] subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". The phrase "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" suggests that the Canadian constitutional rights may be moulded and changed according to the contemporary culture and norms of society. This phrase is not included in the Singapore Constitution. Thus, the interpretation of fundamental rights in Singapore is arguably narrower.

In reality, rights for the homeless people in Singapore have never been contested for. Law enforcement agencies in Singapore make quiet sweeps to get the homeless off the streets. The general public in Singapore have no notice of these operations and live their lives oblivious to the homeless.

Despite the broader content of the Canadian right enshrined in Section 1, there is a three staged test that has to be passed before a legislation can be constitutionally enacted. Firstly, the purpose of the legislation must be sufficiently important to society. Secondly, the law must adhere to the proportionality requirement. Thirdly, the law shall not minimally impair the rights guaranteed under the Charter. All in all, these requirements of the law are similar to the common law principles of justice which the Singapore Constitution is subject to. It will take human rights movements to test if the constitutional rights of Singapore citizens are really far narrower than that of the Canadians.