Tang Huixian & 19 Ors v Soka Gakkai Singapore

Facts

Soka Gakkai Singapore (SGS) is a Buddhist society practising Nichiren Buddhism. Its constitution lets its Management Committee expel a member who has acted against the interests or harmony of the association, but only after an inquiry at which the member is given full opportunity to defend himself. The twenty claimants took part in the Solidarity of Genuine Sensei's Disciples (SGSD), which they described as an informal study group meeting monthly over Zoom; it had also pooled funds for study materials and a mobile application.

After a member revealed SGSD's existence in August 2022, SGS leaders held training sessions in February 2023, where SGSD was described as a faction disrupting the harmony of the Buddhist Order, and invited the claimants to dialogue sessions urging them to stop associating with it. Disciplinary committee hearings were then fixed. The claimants asked for more particulars; SGS sent documents, statutory declarations from the informant and bundles of messages. None of the claimants attended. After they refused to resign, SGS issued notices of expulsion in March 2024. The claimants applied in HC/OA 981/2024 for declarations that the expulsions were void for breach of natural justice or irrationality.

Issues

1. Whether and how the rules of natural justice and the requirement of rationality apply to expulsions by a religious association
2. Whether the disciplinary decisions were tainted by apparent bias or prejudgment arising from statements by SGS leaders
3. Whether the claimants were denied a fair opportunity to be heard, and whether the expulsions were irrational

Holding

The High Court dismissed the application, upholding the decisions to expel the claimants and awarding costs to SGS, to be agreed or fixed by the court. The judge noted that the claimants remained free to practise their faith outside SGS membership.

Reasoning

The judge first held that recordings of the training sessions were not hearsay, as they were relied on only to show that the statements were made, which SGS did not dispute. On jurisdiction, the relationship between a voluntary association and its members is contractual, and natural justice is an implied term. Where the constitution confers a discretion, as Art 7(b) does, it must also be exercised in good faith and not arbitrarily, capriciously or irrationally. A religious character does not displace these rules, though the court will not review the merits of the decision or adjudicate religious doctrine. English and Canadian cases such as Wachmann and Highwood turned on public law review and did not bar a contractual claim. Although no economic loss was involved, expulsion could be stigmatising, so natural justice applied with neither special rigour nor special deference.

On apparent bias, viewed as a whole the sessions were good faith attempts by the leadership to look into SGSD and bring the claimants back into the fold. The strong language reflected SGS's core principle of unity. Leaders had largely formed the view that SGSD was incompatible with SGS's harmony, but moving from a general concern to specific disciplinary proceedings did not mean the committees approached the hearings with closed minds. The judge observed that the claimants had secretly recorded the sessions, which suggested they were not seeking compromise.

On the right to be heard, the statutory declarations told the claimants exactly what they had to answer, including that SGSD was led by an expelled former member and raised funds for an unauthorised project. Denying legal representation and a second hearing before the Management Committee were not flaws. The claimants' coordinated choice not to attend was deliberate. Finally, given the evidence, the expulsions were not so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached them.

From the judgment