But when it comes to laws that discriminate on the basis of race, the Court has applied a much higher "strict scrutiny" standard.

On the other hand, the anxious scrutiny standard has not been applied thus far in Singapore.

Under an intermediate scrutiny standard, a law is upheld if the act:

That framework, and the "strict scrutiny" standard it provided, worked well (although not perfectly) to protect the right to choose from state interference.

Applying the heightened scrutiny standard to the ordinance, the court held it was unconstitutional on its face and as applied.

There do not appear to be any Singapore cases adopting an "anxious scrutiny" standard.

The anxious scrutiny standard has not been applied thus far in Singapore.

As such, the court applied an intermediate scrutiny standard in evaluating the restriction of speech in this case.

Most statutes reviewed under the very stringent strict scrutiny standard are found to be unconstitutional.

The Court invalidated the law on the basis of equal protection using a strict scrutiny standard of review.