SINGAPORE - A man’s appeal to declare his late father’s marriage to a Vietnamese woman void on the basis that it was a sham has failed, with a High Court judge ruling that it is up to Parliament, and not the courts, to decide when such marriages should be made void.

In a written judgment issued on July 1, Justice Valerie Thean said that while the marriage appeared to be one of convenience, there was no legal basis to void it, as it was registered before Singapore’s laws against sham marriages took effect.

A sham marriage, or a marriage of convenience, is typically one where the marriage is registered to help one spouse get an immigration advantage, and the other gets paid for marrying the other person.

Justice Thean said that any public policy to prevent abuse of the institution of marriage should not be determined by “judicial fiat”, or a formal order issued by a judge.

She said: “The articulation, delineation and enactment of such public policy is the proper remit of Parliament, and it is not for the Courts to determine what is an actionable abuse.

“In the absence of specific laws prescribing that sham marriages are void, there would be no basis to do so.”

The marriage in question took place in January 2011, when Mr Cheng Meng Koon, a Singaporean, wed Vietnamese national Dang Lan Anh. Mr Cheng died a year later, at the age of 59.

They tied the knot before Section 11A of the Women’s Charter, which provides for the nullity of marriages of convenience for marriages solemnised on or after 1 October 2016, took effect.

Mr Cheng Tze Tzuen, his son from his first marriage, and other family members only learnt about the late Mr Cheng’s second marriage after his death. 

This was after the Insolvency and Public Trustee’s Office told Mr Cheng’s family that Ms Dang was entitled to a share of the late Mr Cheng’s CPF money.

The late Mr Cheng was heavily in debt before his marriage to Ms Dang, but his financial woes appeared to have been resolved around the time of his second marriage.

The authorities also told them that Ms Dang was deported for vice and immigration offences in 2011.

In 2024, Mr Cheng asked the High Court to declare his father’s marriage to Ms Dang void. 

He also asked for his father’s assets to be distributed among the immediate family members, excluding Ms Dang.

The late Mr Cheng has a 14 per cent share in an HDB flat that he owned with his sister.

The couple’s ages and occupations were not stated in the judgement, but The Straits Times asked Mr Cheng Tze Tzuen’s lawyer Samantha Ong for the late Mr Cheng’s age.

Ms Ong, who is from law firm WNLEX, does not know Ms Dang’s age.

Judge disagrees with earlier judgments on sham marriages

However, Justice Thean made no order on Mr Cheng’s application, though she did not dismiss it outright.

She asked Mr Cheng to apply to the Family Justice Courts for letters of administration, which are legal documents appointing someone to manage a dead person’s estate when the person did not make a will, to distribute his father’s assets.

Mr Cheng has filed an appeal to the Appellate Division of the High Court, his lawyer Ms Ong told The Straits Times on July 10.

More on this topic

Commenting on the case , lawyer Dorothy Tan, who is not involved in it, said that the Court chose not to intervene in this case by making no order.

Ms Tan, a Senior Associate Director, Family Law and Probate Department at PKWA Law Practice, said this does not mean that the Court rules against Mr Cheng’s appeal entirely.

Making no order is different from a dismissal, which would be an outright rejection of the claim, she added.

In her judgment, Justice Thean stressed that Section 11A of the Women’s Charter, which provides for the nullity of sham marriages, applies only to marriages registered on or after 1 October 2016.

She also pointed out that the Court had previously accepted that Section 11A is not retrospective.

She also argued that the laws regulating marriage in Singapore would be “impaired” if the couple’s intention for marrying is relevant to the validity of marriage.

Justice Thean also disagreed with some earlier judgments on sham marriages, where the Court found ways to declare marriages registered before 1 October 2016 void under Section 105 of the Women’s Charter. 

Section 105 lists the grounds for declaring a marriage void, including reasons such as bigamy and if the couple is not of the opposite sex.

Some of these judgments argued that if a couple lies to the Registrar of Marriages about the reason for their marriage, this is considered a “lawful impediment” to the marriage.

And because of this legal impediment, the marriage certificate is not valid, and so the marriage is void.

More on this topic

Justice Thean said that while concerns about sham marriages and the potential abuse of the State’s institutions and benefits are valid, it is not for her to decide whether public policy can be taken into account to determine if the late Mr Cheng’s marriage to Ms Dang is void.

This is because Parliament has made clear the time period when sham marriages are to be considered void. 

Besides, Parliament has not left the Courts with any discretion to declare a marriage void, except on the grounds stipulated in Section 105 of the Women’s Charter, she added.

Professor Chan Wing Cheong of the Yong Pung How School of Law at the Singapore Management University said the case presents legal arguments that show both sides of the issue, adding that this has to be resolved by the Court of Appeal.

PKWA Law Practice’s Ms Tan added: “This judgment illustrates the delicate balance between obtaining practical justice and maintaining Parliamentary authority, and how Parliament and the judiciary are inextricably intertwined in addressing real-life issues.”