Talk:Illegality in Singapore administrative law/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 22:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll add comments below as I go through the article.
 * The first section, "Introduction", dives straight into a discussion of a case from English law. I think it would be best to have an introductory remark explaining that Singapore law was inherited from English law.  In this case an additional explanatory comment might be needed since 1983 postdates Singaporean independence.  Similarly, in the "Simple ultra vires" section, it's not immediately clear to the reader why the first two cases discussed are English.
 * . — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see the fix -- as far as I can see the only change there was a wording tweak to the note on the GCHQ case. Here's a suggested solution: add a footnote after the first sentence of the introduction that reads "Note that Singapore inherited English administrative law at independence in 1965, and the courts continue to pay close attention to English cases." Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The main text now points out that in a 1988 case the Singapore Court of Appeal expressly adopted the position stated in the UK case. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I think a reader (who may not have read any of the related articles) will want to know why UK law is relevant to Singapore law at all; a footnote or a parenthetical comment, as was done for the other articles, would suffice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "It appears that the Singapore courts adopt the same position": "appears" is an odd word to see in this context. Can't anything more definite be said?
 * Unfortunately, it's a bit tricky to be more definite because the UK case ex parte Page has not been expressly approved by any Singapore case, nor has any Singapore case explicitly made a pronouncement along the lines of Page. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That explains it. How about modifying that sentence to read "No case in Singapore has produced a similar opinion, but it appears that ...", or some variation of that?  The fact that there's no relevant case seems worth mentioning as the cause of the uncertain language. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "The case of Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs (1988) is the leading local authority for": what does "leading local authority for" mean? Does "local" refer to Singapore law?
 * Comment: Yes, it refers to Singapore law. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I've reworded it slightly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble with the phrase "If the discretion falls outside the precedent fact category". The preceding discussion makes me think the issue is whether the exercise of discretion was based on errors in precedent facts; but what does it mean to say that the discretion itself, rather than any errors, fall "outside the precedent fact category"?
 * The term "precedent fact category" is actually one used in both the UK and Singapore case law. Some (but not all) types of statutory discretion can only be exercised if certain precedent facts are proved to exist or not exist, depending on how the statute is drafted. As was stated in the previous paragraph in the article, "If, say, the statute requires that a particular precedent fact must exist before the decision-maker may exercise the power conferred on it by the legislature, in the absence of the fact there can be no lawful exercise of the power." Those types of discretions are therefore in the "precedent fact category". If a particular discretion is not dependent on any precedent fact before it can be exercised, then it is not within the precedent fact category. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that's very helpful. I can see now that the text as it stands is consistent and accurate, but if I was confused others may be too.  How about changing the last sentence of the previous paragraph to read 'This is a specific type of simple ultra vires, and the discretion involved can be described as being in the "precedent fact category?
 * Why the qualifier "It is said" in "It is said, in the UK context, that bad faith is seldom relied on as a ground of review as it is absent in most cases, or difficult to prove"? If the source is sufficiently authoritative, I think this could be dropped; if not, perhaps the source cited should be named so as to let the reader know that whose opinion is being given.
 * . — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Nonetheless, it is only where the outcome of the decision is so affected by the lack of evidence that the court is willing to exercise its power of judicial review and intervene on this ground": what does "so" mean here?
 * "Paul Craig has taken the view": the link is helpful, but I think it would kind to the reader to give Craig's position, and hence the reason why his opinion is relevant, in the text. The same comment applies to Thio Li-ann.
 * Comment: Since the names are already linked to other Wikipedia articles, is it really necessary to explain who they are? It seems a little odd to have to keep repeating a phrase like "Public law scholar Thio Li-ann is of the view ...". It also does not seem like a good idea to state information such as the institutions at which the scholars are based, because this information will go out of date if they move to other institutions. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the institution isn't really necessary; as you say, that may change. It's also not necessary to repeat the qualification ("public law scholar", or whatever it might be) each time a name is mentioned.  On first use, however, I think it's helpful to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Made a slight tweak to the change made by Hildanknight to remove the names of the universities at which the professors are currently at, since this information is subject to change. "Law professor" should be sufficiently explanatory, I think. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "The applicant subsequently applied for and obtained leave to apply for an order of certiorari": can you clarify? They applied for an order of certiorari, and also obtained leave to apply for an order of certiorari?
 * Comment: Applying for certiorari is a two-step process. One first needs to seek leave to apply for the order. Once the court has granted leave, then the applicant can go ahead and actually apply for the order. See "Remedies in Singapore administrative law". — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Category (b) involves procedural legitimate expectations, and so are not discussed here": to someone ignorant of the law, such as myself that "so" is not very helpful -- could a brief explanation be inserted, or perhaps added as a footnote?
 * . — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

-- That's everything I can see. I'll place this on hold to allow time to respond. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now looks good; I'm passing this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)