## Facts

- The appellants were members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Singapore.
- The Government deregistered the Singapore Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses under the Societies Act and imposed a blanket ban on publications of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society under the Undesirable Publications Act.
- The Government treated Jehovah’s Witnesses’ refusal to perform compulsory national service as contrary to public peace, welfare, and good order, and as a risk to national security and cohesion.
- The appellants were found in possession of publications covered by the ban and were convicted in the District Court for offences relating to possession of prohibited publications.
- The appellants appealed, arguing that the enforcement of the ministerial orders violated the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion (including the rights to profess, practise, and propagate religion).

## Issues

1. Whether deregistration of the religious society and the blanket ban on its publications unlawfully infringed the constitutional right to freedom of religion.
2. Whether the challenged measures were justified as “law relating to public order” within the constitutional limitation on religious freedom.
3. Whether the court should scrutinize the executive’s public order assessment, and which party bore the burden to show unconstitutionality or ultra vires action.

## Decision

- The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the appellants’ convictions.
- The court held the deregistration order and the publications ban were not unconstitutional and not ultra vires.
- The court found the measures fell within the Constitution’s public order limitation on religious freedom.
- The court applied a presumption of constitutionality and placed the burden on the appellants to prove invalidity.
- The court declined to question the executive’s assessment that the relevant beliefs and practices posed a public order risk.
- The court held the blanket publications ban was reasonable, including on administrative practicability grounds, and was not irrational or disproportionate.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional and statutory measures are presumed valid; challengers bear the burden of proving unconstitutionality or ultra vires action.
- Freedom of religion is not absolute and may be restricted by laws relating to public order, including where national security and social cohesion are implicated.
- Courts will generally refrain from substituting their views for the executive’s assessment of public order risks in areas framed as involving security and national interests.
- Constitutional interpretation may be conducted primarily by reference to local constitutional text, structure, history, and conditions rather than foreign rights jurisprudence.
- A broad, prophylactic restriction (including a blanket ban) may be upheld where the state shows a rational public order basis and where narrower regulation is considered impracticable to administer.

## Conclusion

The High Court upheld ministerial deregistration of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ society and a blanket ban on associated publications, holding that the resulting prosecutions did not violate constitutional religious freedom because the measures were treated as laws relating to public order and were presumed valid absent proof to the contrary.


Chan Hiang Leng Colin & Ors. v. Pub. Prosecutor, [1994] 3 S.L.R. 662 (Sing. 1994)