Sedition Immunity in Parliament Official Secrets Contempt of Court Public Morality Defamation Quaere: Do common law rights trump constitutional liberties? X Pte Ltd & Anor v CDE (1992) – High Court held that the law relating to confidence and the tort of conspiracy as restrictions on freedom of speech embodied in the common law had been preserved by the Constitution. Derogable rights that may even be suspended during an Emergency Concentrate on Freedom of Speech Courts’ role is to determine ambit of constitutional protection afforded under Article 14.
(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by clause (1) (c) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.
Īrticle 14 (2) Parliament may by law impose - (a) on the rights conferred by clause (1) (a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence (b) on the right conferred by clause (1) (b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order and (c) on the right conferred by clause (1) (c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality. Article 14 (1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) - (a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression (b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms and (c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.