ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the constitutional issues extant in Colin Chan, with the case being used as a springboard from which certain wider, related issues are raised. These include: the clash between Caesar and God, the particular clash between military duty and conscientious objectors, the judicial role in mediating such clashes, the mode of constitutional interpretation adopted, particularly the pre-emptive categorisation/local conditions approach and the equating of government policy with constitutional mandate. The judicial reasoning in Chan represents a backward step in relation to the development of a Singapore theory of constitutional interpretation; the methodology employed displays a marked disregard for the importance of an individual civil liberty as well as a misapprehension of the judicial role as Guardian of the Constitution. The chapter examines the principle of secularity in Singapore and the extent to which this is reflected in constitutional mechanisms and government policy.
