Article 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, specifically Article 9(1), guarantees the right to life and the right to personal liberty. The Court of Appeal has called the right to life the most basic of human rights, but has yet to fully define the term in the Constitution. Contrary to the broad position taken in jurisdictions such as Malaysia and the United States, the High Court of Singapore has said that personal liberty only refers to freedom from unlawful incarceration or detention.

Article 9(1) states that persons may be deprived of life or personal liberty "in accordance with law". In Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor (1980), an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from Singapore, it was held that the term law means more than just legislation validly enacted by Parliament, and includes fundamental rules of natural justice. Subsequently, in Yong Vui Kong v. Attorney-General (2011), the Court of Appeal held that such fundamental rules of natural justice embodied in the Constitution are the same in nature and function as common law rules of natural justice in administrative law, except that they operate at different levels of the legal order. A related decision, Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor (2010), apparently rejected the contention that Article 9(1) entitles courts to examine the substantive fairness of legislation, though it asserted a judicial discretion to reject bills of attainder and absurd or arbitrary legislation. In the same case, the Court of Appeal held that law in Article 9(1) does not include rules of customary international law.

Other subsections of Article 9 enshrine rights accorded to persons who have been arrested, namely, the right to apply to the High Court to challenge the legality of their detention, the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, the right to counsel, and the right to be produced before a magistrate within 48 hours of arrest. These rights do not apply to enemy aliens or to persons arrested for contempt of Parliament. The Constitution also specifically exempts the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (), the Internal Security Act (), and Part IV of the Misuse of Drugs Act () from having to comply with Article 9.

Text of Article 9 Article 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. guarantees to all persons the right to life and right to personal liberty. It states:

Article 9(1) embodies the concept of the rule of law, an early expression of which was the 39th article of Magna Carta: "No freeman shall be taken captive or imprisoned, or deprived of his lands, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we go with force against him nor send forces against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."The version in force in the UK is Article 29 of the Magna Carta reissued by Edward I of England in 1297, which reads: "No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.": Magna Carta 1297 (1297 c. 9). Article 9(1) is similar, but by no means identical, to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits any state from denying "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", and to Article 21 of the Constitution of India which states: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Article 5(1) of the Constitution of Malaysia and Singapore's Article 9(1) are worded the same way as the latter was adopted in 1965 from the former following Singapore's independence from Malaysia., s. 6(1).

Rights to life and personal liberty

Meaning of life

In Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor (2010),Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor 3 S.L.R. [Singapore Law Reports] 489, Court of Appeal (Singapore). the Court of Appeal of Singapore called the right to life "the most basic of human rights".Yong Vui Kong, p. 528, para. 84. This case is elaborated upon in the "Meaning of save in accordance with law" section below. However, the courts have not yet had the opportunity to define the term life in Article 9(1).

Jurisdictions such as India, Malaysia and the United States interpret the same term in their respective constitutions broadly. In the United States Supreme Court case Munn v. Illinois (1877),Munn v. Illinois , Supreme Court (United States). Justice Stephen Johnson Field stated that the term life means more than mere animal existence. Rather, the definition extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. His rationale was that the term should not be "construed in any narrow or restricted sense".Munn, p. 142. Indian courts have likewise adopted a broad interpretation of life in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to mean more than mere existence – instead, it includes the right to livelihoodOlga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp. A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 180, Supreme Court (India); and Delhi Transport Corp. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 101, S.C. (India). and the right to a healthy environment. Subsequently, in Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997),Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3297, S.C. (India). the meaning of life was expanded to include the right to live with human dignity; and to the provision of minimum sustenance, shelter, and those other rights and aspects of life that make life meaningful and worth living. Similarly, Justice Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati held in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 802, S.C. (India). that the expression life included the right to be free from exploitation, and to the basic essentials of life included in the Directive Principles of State Policy that appear in the Indian Constitution.Bandhua Mukti Morcha, pp. 811–812.

In the Malaysian case Tan Tek Seng v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan (1996),Tan Tek Seng v. Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan 1 M.L.J. 261, Court of Appeal (Malaysia). the appellant had appealed against his wrongful dismissal from employment on the grounds of procedural unfairness. One of the issues brought up was whether an unfair procedure meant that he had been deprived of his constitutional right to life or liberty protected by Article 5(1) of the Malaysian Constitution, which is identical to Singapore's Article 9(1). Judge of the Court of Appeal Gopal Sri Ram held that the courts should take into consideration the unique characteristics and situation of the country, and must not be blind to the realities of life.Tan Tek Seng, p. 288. He went on to suggest that a liberal approach be adopted to grasp the intention of the framers of the Constitution by giving life a broad and liberal meaning. He opined that such an interpretation would include elements that form the quality of life, namely the right to seek and be engaged in lawful and gainful employment,The court in Tan Tek Seng cited Chief Justice Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud in Olga Tellis who stated at p. 193: "An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation." See Tan Tek Seng, p. 289. and the right to live in a reasonably healthy and pollution-free environment. He also noted that life cannot be extinguished or taken away except according to procedure established by law.Tan Tek Seng, p. 289.

The Yong Vui Kong case suggests that Singapore courts may interpret the word life more narrowly than the Indian and Malaysian courts when called upon to do so. The Court of Appeal stated that the scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution had been expanded by the Indian courts to include "numerous rights relating to life, such as the right to education, the right to health and medical care and the right to freedom from noise pollution", attributing this to the "pro-active approach of the Indian Supreme Court in matters relating to the social and economic conditions of the people of India".Yong Vui Kong (2010), p. 528, para. 83. The Court declined to apply Mithu v. State of Punjab,Mithu v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 473, S.C. (India). in which the mandatory death penalty had been found unconstitutional, stating it was "not possible" to interpret Singapore's Article 9(1) in the way that the Indian Supreme Court had interpreted Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Meaning of personal liberty Lo Pui Sang v. Mamata Kapildev Dave (2008)Lo Pui Sang v. Mamata Kapildev Dave 4 S.L.R.(R.) [Singapore Law Reports (Reissue)] 754, High Court (Singapore). took a narrow approach to the reading of personal liberty in Article 9(1). The High Court of Singapore held that personal liberty only refers to freedom from unlawful incarceration or detention, and does not include a liberty to contract. Although it was suggested this had always been the understanding of the term, no authority was cited.Lo Pui Sang, p. 760, para. 6.

The approach taken in Lo Pui Sang can be compared to the more liberal interpretation of liberty in the United States and Malaysia. In the US Supreme Court case of Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897),Allgeyer v. Louisiana , S.C. (United States). where a Louisiana statute was struck down on the ground that it violated an individual's right to contract, it was held that liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution meant not only the right of the citizen to be free from any physical restraint of his person, but also the right to freely enjoy all his faculties – that is, to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts that may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out those purposes.Allgeyer, p. 589. Liberty was accorded the same broad reading in the subsequent case Meyer v. Nebraska (1923),Meyer v. Nebraska , S.C. (United States). in which the Supreme Court held that a state statute mandating that English be the only language used in schools was unconstitutional as it infringed on the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court stated that liberty