Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor that where the fundamental liberties in the Constitution are concerned, the courts are to accord them "a generous interpretation ... suitable to give to individuals the full measure of the fundamental liberties referred to". However, it has been said that the Singapore judiciary has a conservative attitude when interpreting the Constitution as it seems to be "more protective of executive interests than individual freedoms". This is in line with the locally held judicial philosophy which features deference to the Parliament and a strong presumption of constitutional validity. Such conservatism is reflected in the courts construing fundamental liberties narrowly in certain cases. For instance, in Rajeevan Edakalavan v. Public Prosecutor (1998), even though Article 9(3) of the Constitution states that "[w]here a person is arrested, he ... shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice", the High Court declined to hold that there is any constitutional right to be informed of one's right to counsel as the Constitution does not expressly mention such a right. Chief Justice Yong Pung How held: On the other hand, in Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor (2010) decided 12 years later, the Court of Appeal held that colourable legislation which purports to enact a 'law' as generally understood but which is in effect a legislative judgment, and legislation which is "of so absurd or arbitrary a nature that it could not possibly have been contemplated by our constitutional framers as being 'law' when they crafted the constitutional provisions protecting fundamental liberties", would violate Article 9(1), despite the provision not explicitly referring to this. In some cases, the courts have also demonstrated an unwillingness to consult foreign constitutional case law, and have crafted a "local conditions" rationale which prescribes reading the Constitution "within its own four walls and not in the light of analogies drawn from other countries such as Great Britain, the United States of America or Australia". This has been termed a conservative and restrictive approach that seems to undermine the court's duty to generously interpret fundamental liberties. However, it has been noted that this approach to constitutional interpretation was never applied consistently, and that "it appears that the 'four walls' doctrine has quietly fallen out of fashion at least in practice, as courts now regularly consider foreign cases which have only persuasive, not precedential value. ... It is fair to