The
legal system of Singapore is based on the
English common law system. Major
areas of law – particularly
administrative law,
contract law,
equity
and
trust law,
property law and
tort law –
are largely
judge-made, though
certain aspects have now been modified to some extent by statutes.
However, other areas of law, such as
criminal law,
company law and
family law, are almost completely
statutory in
nature.
Apart from referring to relevant Singaporean cases, judges continue
to refer to English
case law where the
issues pertain to a traditional common-law area of law, or involve
the interpretation of Singaporean statutes based on English
enactments or English statutes applicable in Singapore. These days,
there is also a greater tendency to consider decisions of important
Commonwealth jurisdictions
such as
Australia and
Canada, particularly if they take a different
approach from
English law.
Certain Singapore statutes are not based on English enactments but
on legislation from other jurisdictions. In such situations, court
decisions from those jurisdictions on the original legislation are
often examined. Thus,
Indian law is
sometimes consulted in the interpretation of the Evidence Act and
the
Penal Code, which were
based on Indian statutes.
On the other hand, where the interpretation of the
Constitution of Singapore is
concerned, courts remain reluctant to take into account foreign
legal materials on the basis that a constitution should primarily
be interpreted within its own four walls rather than in the light
of analogies from other jurisdictions; and because economic,
political, social and other conditions in foreign countries are
perceived to be different.
Certain laws such as the
Internal Security Act
(which authorizes detention without trial in certain circumstances)
and the Societies Act (which regulates the formation of
associations) that were enacted during British rule in Singapore
remain in the statute book, and both
corporal and
capital punishment are still
in use.
History
Before 1826
Modern
Singapore was founded on 6 February 1819 by Sir Stamford Raffles, an officer of the
British East India
Company and Lieutenant-Governor of Bencoolen
, in an attempt to counter Dutch domination of trade
in the East. Permission for the East India Company to set up
a "factory" on the island was obtained from the
Sultan of Johor and
Temenggung of Johor on that date, and outright
cession of Singapore took place in 1824. It
has been suggested that prior to British acquisition of the island,
the
Malay chief in charge of Singapore
was the Temenggung of Johor. The
Johor
Sultanate was the successor of the
Malacca Sultanate, both of which had their
own codes of law. It is also possible that
adat
law, often inadequately translated as "customary law", governed
the inhabitants of the island prior to its acquisition by the
British. However, little, if anything, is known about the laws that
were actually applicable. The British have always assumed that no
law prevailed on the island of Singapore when it was
acquired.
In 1823 Raffles promulgated "Regulations" for the administration of
the island. Regulation III of 20 January 1823 established a
magistracy which had jurisdiction over
"all descriptions of persons resorting under the British flag". The
magistrates were enjoined to "follow the course of the British
magistracy, as far as local circumstances permit, avoiding
technicalities and unnecessary forms as much as possible, and
executing the duties of their office with temper and discretion,
according to the best of their judgment and conscience and the
principles of substantial justice". Raffles' Regulations were most
likely illegal as he was acting beyond the scope of his legal
powers in making them – although he had power to place the factory
at Singapore under the jurisdiction of Bencoolen, he was not vested
with power to place the entire island under Bencoolen's control. In
this respect, he had treated Singapore as if the entire island had
been ceded to the British when the Treaty with the Sultan and the
Temenggung had only permitted the establishment of a trading
factory.
The same year, Raffles appointed
John
Crawfurd as
Resident of
Singapore. Crawfurd doubted the legitimacy of the judicial system
set up by Raffles, and annulled proceedings in which magistrates
had ordered the flogging of gamblers and the seizure of their
properties. He eventually abolished the magistracy, replacing it
with a
Court of Requests overseen
by an Assistant Resident which dealt with minor civil cases, and a
Resident's Court hearing all other cases which he himself presided
over. Crawfurd had no authoritative guide to the applicable law, so
he decided cases on "general principles of English law", taking
into account so far as he could the "character and manners of the
different classes" of local inhabitants. Unfortunately, Crawfurd's
courts also lacked legal foundation, and he had no legal powers
over Europeans in Singapore. Serious cases involving British
subjects had to be referred to Calcutta; otherwise, all he could do
was to banish them from the island.
Despite the dubious legal status of the courts established in
Singapore by Raffles and Crawfurd, they indicate that the
de
facto position was that between 1819 and 1826 English legal
principles applied to Singapore.
On 24 June 1824 Singapore and Malacca were formally transferred to
the East India Company's administration by the Transfer of
Singapore to East India Company, etc. Act 1824.
By virtue of the Fort
Marlborough in India Act 1802 both territories, together with
others in the region ceded to Britain by the Netherlands
, became subordinate to the Presidency of Fort
William
in Bengal
, and under
the Government of India Act 1800 these territories became subject
to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Fort William.
The Indian
Salaries and Pensions Act 1825 authorized the East India Company to
place Singapore and Malacca under the administration of Prince of
Wales' Island (now Penang
).
The
Company did so, thus creating the Straits Settlements
.
1826–1867: The "Indian period"
The statute 6 Geo. IV c. 85 empowered the
British Crown to issue
letters patent providing for the
administration of justice in the Straits Settlements. The East
India Company petitioned the Crown for the grant of such letters
patent establishing "such Courts and Judicatures for the due
administration of Justice and the security of the persons rights
and property of the Inhabitants and the Public Revenue of and the
Trial and Punishment of Capital and other Offences committed and
the repression of vice within the said Settlement of Prince of
Wales’ Island Singapore and Malacca…"
Granting the petition, the Crown issued the
Second Charter of Justice on 27
November 1826. The Charter established the Court of Judicature of
Prince of Wales' Island, Singapore and Malacca, which was conferred
"full Power and Authority… to give and pass Judgment and Sentence
according to Justice and Right". This key clause was later
judicially interpreted to have introduced English law into the
Straits Settlements. The present understanding of this clause is
that it made all English statutes and principles of English
common law and equity in force as at 27
November 1826 applicable in the Straits Settlements (including
Singapore), unless they were both unsuitable to local conditions
and could not be modified to avoid causing injustice or
oppression.
The Charter provided that the Court of Judicature was to be
presided over by the
Governor of the
Straits Settlements and
Resident
Councillor of the settlement where the court was to be held,
and another judge called the
Recorder. Problems occurred with the first
Recorder, Sir
John Thomas
Claridge. He complained that the Governor and Resident
Councillors had refused to take any judicial business, and so
responded by also refusing to take on the full business of the
Court. He also bemoaned the lack of a "full, efficient and
respectable court establishment of clerks, interpreters. etc."
Although expected to travel from his base at Prince of Wales'
Island to Singapore and Malacca, due to disputes over travelling
expenses and arrangements, Claridge refused to do so. Thus, on 22
May 1828 the Governor
Robert
Fullerton, together with the Resident Councillor
Kenneth
Murchison, were obliged to hold the first
assizes in Singapore by themselves. Claridge was
eventually recalled to the UK in
1829.
The title page of the Second Charter
of Justice of 27 November 1826, from the edition published in
London by J.L.
This copy of the Charter was originally owned by the Supreme
Court of the Straits Settlements, and a photocopy of it is
presently in the collection of the Library of the Supreme Court of
Singapore.
The Charter conferred no legislative power on the Governor and
Council of Prince of Wales' Island or, indeed, on any other
individual or institution. The general power to make laws was
vested with the Supreme Government of India and the British
Parliament. By the East India Company Act 1813 (also known as the
Charter Act
1813), Prince of Wales' Island itself had been conferred an
extremely limited power to issue regulations relating to duties and
taxes it was empowered to levy; pursuant to this power, it issued
nine regulations that applied to the Straits Settlements. However,
on 20 June 1830 the East India Company reduced the status of Prince
of Wales' Island from a Presidency to a Residency. The island thus
lost power to legislate for the Straits Settlements, which power
was assumed by the
Governor
General of Bengal. He issued four such regulations applicable
to the Straits Settlements.
Upon the downgrading of the Straits Settlements, the offices of
Governor and Resident Councillors were abolished. This led Governor
Fullerton to conclude that neither he nor the Resident Councillors
were empowered any longer to administer justice under the Second
Charter. In late 1830, Fullerton closed the courts and dismissed
the judicial establishment before leaving for England. This led to
legal chaos. Members of the mercantile community were in an uproar
as they felt the ensuing confusion and inconvenience of having no
local courts would disrupt commercial activity. In Singapore the
Deputy Resident Murchison felt compelled to convene a court.
However, the Acting Registrar James Loch took the view that the
court was illegal, and it was soon closed again. In September 1831
merchants of the Straits Settlements appealed to the British
Parliament. By then, the East India Company had already decided
that Fullerton had been mistaken. It decided to restore the titles
of Governor and Resident Councillor so that these officers could
continue to administer justice pursuant to the Charter. On 9 June
1832 the Court of Judicature reopened at Prince of Wales' Island,
and disposed of many outstanding cases that had amassed during the
two years when the courts were closed.
In 1833, the Government of India Act 1833 (also known as the
Charter Act
1833) was passed by the British Parliament for the better
government of the East India Company's possessions. Sole
legislative power was transferred to the
Governor General of India in
Council, thus inaugurating the period of Straits Settlements
history known as the period of the "Indian Acts".
The Court of Judicature was reorganized by the
Third Charter of Justice of 12
August 1855. The Straits Settlements now had two Recorders, one for
Prince of Wales' Island, the other for Singapore and Malacca.
In 1858 the East India Company was abolished, and territories
formerly administered by the Company were transferred to the Crown
acting through the recently-appointed
Secretary of State for India.
This was effected by the Government of India Act 1858. There was no
change to the structure of the legal system – the Governor General
of India continued to legislate for the Straits Settlements.
Unfortunately, many Acts passed by the Governor General during this
period were not relevant to the Straits Settlements, and it was
difficult to determine which were applicable. The situation was
remedied by the passing of the Statute Law Revision Ordinance 1889
(No. 8 of 1889) (Ind.), which appointed commissioners to enquire
into the matter and empowered them to publish a volume containing
the text of any Indian Acts regarded as being in force. Any Acts
not included ceased to be applicable forthwith.
1867–1942: The Straits Settlements as a Crown colony
On 1 April 1867, the Straits Settlements were detached from India
and constituted as a separate
Crown colony by way of the
Straits Settlements Act 1866. A separate
Legislative
Council with the authority to make laws was set up for the
Straits Settlements. Pieces of legislation passed by the
Legislative Council were known as "ordinances".
By the Supreme Court Ordinance 1868 (S.S.), the Court of Judicature
of the Straits Settlements was abolished, and in its place the
Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements was established. The
Governor and Resident Councillors ceased to be judges of the
Court.
In 1873, the Supreme Court was reconstituted to consist of the
Chief Justice and the Judge at Penang
as well as a Senior and a Junior
Puisne
Judge. There were two divisions of the court, one at Singapore
and Malacca and the other at Penang. As Singapore had become the
Straits Settlements' centre of government and trade, the Chief
Justice and Senior Puisne Judge were required to reside in
Singapore, while the Judge of Penang and the Junior Puisne Judge
resided in Penang. The Supreme Court was also conferred with
jurisdiction to sit as a
Court of
Appeal in
civil matters.
Following changes in the court structure in England, in 1878 the
jurisdiction and residence of judges was made more flexible, thus
impliedly abolishing the geographical division of the Supreme
Court. The first hierarchy of courts was also established,
consisting of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements, Courts
of Request, Courts of Two Magistrates, Magistrates' Courts,
Coroners' Courts and Justices of the Peace.
Appeals from decisions
of the Supreme Court lay in the first instance to the Court of
Appeal, and then to Her Majesty in Council, the latter appeals
being heard by the Judicial
Committee of Her Britannic Majesty's Privy Council
.
Also in 1878, a provision later known as section 5 of the Civil Law
Act was introduced into Straits Settlements law. The provision
stated that if a question or issue arose locally with respect to
certain named categories of law or with respect to
mercantile law generally, the law to be
administered was to be the same as that administered in England at
the corresponding period, unless other provision had been made by
any law having force locally. It was felt the provision was needed
because the Straits Settlements Supreme Court had a tendency to
follow English case law premised on the existence of statutes that
were not in force in the Colony. There was also a general sentiment
that the common law should be common to the whole Empire. However,
the manner in which section 5 was worded created much difficulty in
determining whether particular English statutes applied locally.
Despite major amendments to the provision in 1979, the problems
with it were not resolved until it was finally repealed in 1993
(
see
below).
Under the Courts Ordinance Amendment 1885 (S.S.), the set-up of the
Supreme Court was again altered so that it now consisted of the
Chief Justice and three puisne judges. In 1907 the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court was given a major overhaul. The Court was split
into two divisions – a Civil Division and a Criminal Division, each
with both
original and
appellate jurisdiction.
District Courts and Police Courts, which replaced the Magistrates'
Courts, were also established. The Court of Requests, the
jurisdiction of which had been drastically reduced in the
intervening years, was abolished. The last major changes in the
court system before World War II took place in 1934 when a Court of
Criminal Appeal, essentially an extension of the Supreme Court's
jurisdiction, was created, and in 1936 when it was declared that
the Supreme Court would consist of a High Court and Court of
Appeal.
1942–1946: Singapore under Japanese and British Military
Administration
During
World War II, Singapore fell
under Japanese Military Administration on 15 February 1942. There
is much confusion as to where legislative authority lay, as there
were several government or military bodies which had the power to
make laws. These were, in order of descending authority, the
Supreme Command of the Southern Army Headquarters, the 25th Army
Headquarters, the Military Administration Department, the Malay
(Malayan) Military Administration Headquarters, and the City
Government of Tokubetu-si. Numerous regulations, laws and notices
were issued by all these bodies through the Tokubetu-si without
adhering to the normal chain of command. Although these laws were
often contradictory, the body higher in the hierarchy always
prevailed.
When the
Japanese
occupation of Singapore began, all existing courts ceased to
function. By a decree of 7 April 1942, a Military Court of Justice
of the Nippon Army was established, and the civil courts were
reopened by a proclamation dated
27 May. This
Proclamation made all former British laws applicable so long as
they did not interfere with the Military Administration. The
highest court was the Syonan Koto-Hoin (Syonan Supreme Court) which
was opened on
29 May. Although a court of
appeal was constituted, it never sat.
There is some disagreement as to the status of judgments handed
down by courts during the Japanese Occupation. The view has been
taken by some post-Occupation courts that decisions by Japanese
tribunals applying the law were valid. Others have held that since
the Japanese administration did not set up tribunals in compliance
with the requirements of Straits Settlements law, while the law
continued to apply there were no proper courts in existence to
enforce it.
The Japanese surrendered on 12 September 1945. By Proclamation No.
1 (1945), the
Supreme Allied
Commander South East
Asia established the
British Military
Administration which assumed full judicial, legislative,
executive and administrative powers and responsibilities and
conclusive jurisdiction over all persons and property throughout
such areas of Malaya as were at any given time under the control of
forces under his command. The Proclamation also declared that all
laws and customs existing immediately prior to the Japanese
Occupation would be respected, except that such of the existing law
as the Chief Civil Affairs Officer considered practicable to
administer during the period of military administration. Otherwise,
all proclamations and legislative enactments of whatever kind
issued by or under the authority of the Japanese Military
Administration ceased to have effect.
By Proclamation No. 23 (1945), the Deputy Chief Civil Affairs
Officer for the Singapore Division provided that every conviction
of any offence by a tribunal established by the Japanese Military
Administration was quashed, and any judgment convicting or
purporting to convict any person or any offence was set aside.
Civil proceedings were dealt with by the Japanese Judgments and
Civil Proceedings Ordinance 1946 (No. 3 of 1946), which had the
effect of permitting post-Occupation courts to review the decrees
of Japanese tribunals and to confirm, modify or reverse them.
1946–1963: The end of the Straits Settlements: Singapore as a
separate colony and self-governing state
The British Military Administration was terminated by Proclamation
No. 77 (1946) dated 18 March 1946, and with effect from
1 April the Straits Settlements were disbanded by
the Straits Settlements (Repeal) Act 1946. By the Singapore Colony
Order in Council 1946, Singapore was constituted as a new colony
under the British Settlements Acts 1887. A Singapore Legislative
Council was created with power to legislate for the peace, order
and good government of the Colony. The High Court and Court of
Appeal of the Straits Settlements became the Colony of Singapore
High Court and Court of Appeal.
In 1958 Singapore was granted internal self-government and became
the State of Singapore. This change was put into place by the
Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council 1958 made under powers
conferred by the State of Singapore Act 1958. The Legislative
Council was transformed into a Legislative Assembly consisting
mainly of elected members.
During this period, the basic structure of the courts remained much
as it had been in the pre-war colonial era, with only minor changes
being made such as the redesignation of the Police Courts as
Magistrates' Courts in 1955.
A national ceremony celebrates the
formation of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963.
1963–1965: Independence from the British Empire and merger with
Malaysia
Singapore
joined the Federation of
Malaysia
on 16 September 1963, and thus ceased to be a
colony of the British empire. The legal arrangements were
effected by the enactment of the Malaysia Act 1963, the Sabah,
Sarawak and Singapore (State Constitutions) Order in Council 1963
and the Malaysia Act 1963. The 1963 Order in Council provided that
all laws in force in Singapore continued to apply subject to
modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions that
might be necessary to bring them into conformity with its new
Constitution and the Malaysia Act. With Singapore now a state in a
larger federation, the Singapore Legislative Assembly was
transformed into the Legislature of Singapore with power to make
laws only regarding certain matters set out in the
Malaysian Federal Constitution.
Article 75 of the Federal Constitution also stated: "If any state
law is inconsistent with a federal law, the federal law shall
prevail and the state law shall, to the extent of the
inconsistency, be void."
During
this period, a substantial number of Malaysian laws, including
Federated Malay
States
Enactments and Malayan Union
and Federation of Malaya
Ordinances, were extended to Singapore. Some
of these statutes continue to apply, often in modified form, in
Singapore today.
Under the Malaysia Act 1963, the judicial power of Malaysia was
vested in a
Federal
Court, a
High
Court in Malaya, a High Court in Borneo and a High Court in
Singapore. This new structure was formalized with effect from 16
March 1964 through the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (M'sia), which
replaced the Supreme Court of the Colony of Singapore with the High
Court of Malaysia in Singapore. The jurisdiction of the High Court
in Singapore was limited to all territory in the State of
Singapore.
1965 to the present: Singapore as a fully-independent
nation
Merger with Malaysia did not last: within two years, on 9 August
1965, Singapore left the Federation and became a fully-independent
republic. This was effected by the signing
of the Independence of Singapore Agreement of 7 August 1965 by
Singapore and Malaysia, and the changes consequent to the Agreement
were implemented by two Malaysian Acts, the Constitution and
Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act 1965 and the Constitution
(Amendment) Act 1966; and by two Singapore Acts, the Constitution
(Amendment) Act 1965 and the Republic of Singapore Independence Act
1965. Section 5 of the latter Act provided that the legislative
powers of the
Yang di-Pertuan
Agong, the supreme ruler of Malaysia, ceased to extend to
Singapore, and vested instead in the Head of State (that is, the
President of Singapore) and
the Legislature of Singapore. Again, all laws were expressed to
continue in force with such modifications, adaptations,
qualifications and exceptions as might be necessary to bring them
into conformity with the independent status of Singapore upon
separation from Malaysia. Today, the
Parliament of Singapore is an organ
of state with
plenary power to enact
legislation for Singapore.
At the time of independence, the Singapore Parliament did not make
any changes to the judicial system. Thus, for an anomalous
four-year period, the High Court in Singapore remained part of the
Malaysian court structure. This was remedied in 1969. The
Constitution was also amended to reconstitute the Privy Council as
Singapore's court of final appeal, and the highest appellate court
within Singapore was organized into two divisions, the Court of
Appeal and the Court of Criminal Appeal, which respectively dealt
with civil and criminal matters.
In 1970 the subordinate courts were reorganized. Since that time,
the Subordinate Courts of Singapore have consisted of the District
Courts, the Magistrates' Courts, the Juvenile Courts and the
Coroners' Courts.
Steps to restrict appeals to the Privy Council were first taken in
1989. In that year, the law was changed such that appeals to the
Privy Council would only be permitted in a civil case if all the
parties agreed to such an appeal prior to the hearing of the case
by the Court of Appeal. In criminal cases, an appeal to the Privy
Council could only be taken if the death penalty was involved and
if the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal were not unanimous in
their decision. These changes came shortly after the Privy Council
restored a prominent opposition Member of Parliament
Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam to the
roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore
after he had been struck off for a criminal conviction for making
false statements in a
statutory
declaration; the court described the conviction as "a grievous
injustice". In 1993, the previous set-up of a separate Court of
Appeal and Court of Criminal Appeal was done away with, and in
their place a unified Court of Appeal was constituted for both
civil and criminal appeals. Judges of Appeal appointed to the Court
of Appeal were no longer required to engage in High Court work. The
Chief Justice sat as the President of the Court of Appeal. The
establishment of the permanent Court of Appeal paved the way for
the abolition of all appeals to the Privy Council with effect from
8 April 1994. Following this, the Court of Appeal issued a Practice
Statement dated 11 July 1994, stating that while the Court would
treat its own prior decisions and those of the Privy Council as
normally binding, where it appeared that adherence to such
decisions "would cause injustice in a particular case or constrain
the development of the law in conformity with the circumstances of
Singapore" it would regard itself as free to depart from such
decisions. It added that this power would be exercised sparingly,
bearing in mind the danger of retrospectively disturbing
contractual, proprietary and other legal rights. Today the
Singapore Court of Appeal is
the highest court in the land.
The independent status of Singapore's legal system was underlined
by the repeal of section 5 of the Civil Law Act (
see
above) on 12 November 1993 by the Application of English Law
Act 1993. The Act aims to clarify the extent of the application of
English law in Singapore. It states that the common law of England
(including the principles and rules of equity), so far as it was
part of the law of Singapore immediately before the commencement of
the Act, continues to be part of Singapore law so far as it is
applicable to the circumstances of Singapore and its inhabitants
and subject to such modifications as those circumstances may
require. As for English statutes, only those that are listed in the
Schedules to the Act apply or continue to apply in Singapore; no
other English enactment is part of Singapore law.
Sources of law
The Statutes of the Republic of
Singapore, a series that consists of all Acts of the Singapore
Parliament and English statutes that are currently in force in
Singapore.
There are generally regarded to be three sources of law in
Singapore:
legislation,
judicial precedents (
case
law) and
custom.
Legislation
Legislation, or
statutory law, can be
divided into statutes and subsidiary legislation.
Statutes are written laws enacted by the Singapore
Parliament, as well as by other bodies such as the British
Parliament, Governor-General of India in Council and Legislative
Council of the Straits Settlements which had power to pass laws for
Singapore in the past. Statutes enacted by these other bodies may
still be in force if they have not been
repealed. One particularly important statute is the
Constitution of the Republic
of Singapore, which is the supreme law of Singapore – any law
enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of the
Constitution which is inconsistent with it is, to the extent of the
inconsistency, void. Statutes of the Singapore Parliament, as well
as English statutes in force in Singapore by virtue of the
Application of English Law Act 1993 (
see
above), are published in looseleaf form in a series called the
Statutes of the Republic of Singapore which is gathered in
red binders, and are also accessible on-line from
Singapore Statutes
Online, a free service provided by the Attorney-General's
Chambers of Singapore.
Subsidiary legislation, also
known as "delegated legislation" or "subordinate legislation", is
written law made by ministers or other administrative agencies such
as government departments and
statutory
boards under the authority of a statute (often called its
"parent Act") or other lawful authority, and not directly by
Parliament. Subsidiary legislation currently in force in Singapore
is published in looseleaf form in a series called the
Subsidiary Legislation of the Republic of Singapore which
is gathered in black binders. New subsidiary legislation published
in the
Gazette may be viewed for free on-line for five
days on the
Electronic Gazette website.
The
Singapore Law Reports,
first published by the Singapore Academy of Law in 1992, contain
reports of significant judgments handed down by the High Court,
Court of Appeal and Constitutional Tribunal of Singapore.
Judicial precedents
As Singapore is a
common law
jurisdiction, judgments handed down by
the courts are considered a source of law. Judgments may interpret
statutes or subsidiary legislation, or develop principles of common
law and
equity which have been laid
down, not by the legislature, but by previous generations of
judges. Major portions of Singapore law, particularly
contract law, equity and
trust law,
property law and
tort law,
are largely judge-made, though certain aspects have now been
modified to some extent by statutes. Since 1992, judgments of the
High Court, Court of Appeal and Constitutional Tribunal of
Singapore have appeared in the
Singapore Law Reports (SLR),
which is published by the
Singapore Academy of Law under an
exclusive licence from the
Supreme Court of Singapore. The
Academy has also republished cases decided since Singapore's full
independence in 1965 in special volumes of the SLR, and is
currently working on a reissue of this body of case law. Cases
published in the SLR as well as unreported judgments of the Supreme
Court and Subordinate Courts are available on-line from a fee-based
service called
LawNet, which is also managed by the Academy.
Custom
A
custom is an established practice or
course of behaviour that is regarded by the persons engaged in the
practice as law. Customs do not have the force of law unless they
are recognized in a case. "Legal" or "trade" customs are not given
recognition as law unless they are certain and not unreasonable or
illegal. In Singapore, custom is a minor source of law as not many
customs have been given judicial recognition.
Criminal law
The criminal law of Singapore is largely
statutory in nature. The general principles of
criminal law, as well as the elements and penalties of common
criminal offences such as homicide, theft and cheating, are set out
in the
Penal Code. Other
important offences are created by statutes such as the Arms
Offences Act, Kidnapping Act,
Misuse of Drugs Act and
Vandalism Act.
In addition, Singapore society is highly regulated through the
criminalization of many activities which are considered as fairly
harmless in other countries. These include failing to flush toilets
after use,
littering,
jaywalking, the possession of
pornography, the sale of
chewing gum, and sexual
activity such as
oral and
anal sex between men. Nonetheless, Singapore is one
of the countries with the least crime in the world, with a low
incidence of violent crimes.
Singapore retains both
corporal
punishment (in the form of
caning) and
capital punishment (by
hanging) as punishments for
serious offences. For certain offences, the imposition of these
penalties is mandatory.
See also
Notes
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- , cited in .
- Chionh, see above at 97–98.
- .
-
5 Geo. IV c. 108 (UK).
-
42 Geo. III c. 29 (UK).
-
39 & 40 Geo. III c. 79 (UK).
-
6 Geo. IV c. 85 (UK).
- The First Charter of Justice of 1807 applied only to Prince of
Wales' Island (Penang).
- Chionh, see above, at 99–100.
- Bartholomew, see above, at xxxiii.
- Lee, see above, at 11.
-
53 Geo. III c. 155 (UK)
- Bartholomew, see above, at xxxiv.
- Bartholomew, see above, at xxxv.
- Bartholomew, see above, at xxxvii.
- It is not known whether this is the same person as the
James Loch
(1780–1855), a Scottish estate commissioner and a Member of
Parliament, who is the subject of a separate article.
- Chionh, see above, at 100–101.
-
3 & 4 Will. IV, c. 85 (UK).
- Bartholomew, see above, at xxxix.
- Chionh, see above, at 103.
-
21 & 22 Vic. c. 106 (UK).
- Bartholomew, see above, at xlvi.
- Bartholomew, see above, at xl.
-
29 & 30 Vic. c. 115 (UK): Bartholomew, see above, at
xlvi.
- Bartholomew, see above, at xlvii.
- Ordinance No. 5 of 1868 (S.S.).
- By the Judicial Duties Act (No. 3 of 1867) (S.S.).
- By the Supreme Court Ordinance 1868 (No. 5 of 1868)
(S.S.).
- Lee, see above, at 18.
- The 1878 reforms were effected by the Courts Ordinance 1878
(No. 3 of 1878) (S.S.).
- Civil Law Act (Cap. 43, 1985 Rev. Ed.).
- By the Civil Law Ordinance 1878 (No. 4 of 1878) (S.S.).
- .
- See, generally, Woon, see above, at 142–153; and
- By the Civil Law (Amendment No. 2) Act 1979 (No. 24 of
1979).
- Ordinance No. 15 of 1885 (S.S.)
- Chionh, see above, at 104–106.
- By the Courts Ordinance 1907 (No. 30 of 1907) (S.S.).
- Chionh, see above, at 106–107.
- By way of the Court of Criminal Appeal Ordinance 1931 (No. 5 of
1931) (S.S.): Lee, see above, at 19.
- By the Courts Ordinance (Cap. 10, 1936 Rev. Ed.) (S.S.).
- Lee, see above, at 20.
- Bartholomew, see above, at lxviii–lxix.
- Bartholomew, see above, at lxix.
- Bartholomew, see above, at lxx.
- Bartholomew, see above, at lxxi.
-
9 & 10 Geo. VI c. 37 (UK).
- S.R. & O. 1946 No. 464 (UK)
-
50 & 51 Vic. c. 54 (UK).
- Bartholomew, see above, at lxxxi–lxxxii.
- S.I.
1958 No. 1946 (UK).
-
6 & 7 Eliz. II c. 59 (UK): Bartholomew, see above, at
lxxiv.
- By way of the Courts Ordinance 1955 (No. 14 of 1955, later Cap.
3, 1955 Rev. Ed.): Chionh, see above, at 113.
-
c. 35 (UK).
- S.I.
1963 No. 1493 (UK).
- No. 26 of 1963 (M'sia): Bartholomew, see above, at lxxvi.
- See above, at lxxvii.
- Bartholomew, see above, at lxxix.
- No. 7 of 1964 (M'sia), reprinted as Act No. 6 of 1966 in the
Singapore Reprints Supplement (Acts).
- Lee, see above, at 30.
- Chionh, see above, at 113.
- No. 31 of 1965 (M'sia).
- No. 59 of 1966 (M'sia)
- No. 8 of 1965 (S'pore).
- No. 9 of 1965 (S'pore).
- Bartholomew, see above, at lxxix–lxxx.
- By the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1969 (No. 19 of 1969): Lee,
see above, at 30 and 32.
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (No. 24 of 1969), now
.
- By the Subordinate Courts Act 1970 (No. 19 of 1970), now .
- Chionh, see above, at 114–115.
- By the Judicial Committee (Amendment) Act 1989 (No. 21 of
1989).
- Jeyaretnam v. Law Society of Singapore [1988] 3 M.L.J.
425, [1989] A.C. 608 at 631, Privy Council (on appeal from
Singapore); see also .
- By the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act 1993 (No. 16
of 1993).
- The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act
1994 (No. 5 of 1994) repealed Art. 100 of the Constitution, which
had provided that the President could make arrangements with Her
Majesty for reference to the Privy Council of appeals from the
Supreme Court. The Judicial Committee Act 1966 (No. 37 of 1966,
later , which regulated the procedure for such appeals, was
repealed by the Judicial Committee (Repeal) Act 1994 (No. 2 of
1994).
- Chionh, see above, at 116–117.
- No. 35 of 1993, now .
- Application of English Law Act, s. 3.
- Application of English Law Act, ss. 4 and 5. See, generally,
Phang, above, at 37–49.
- See, generally, ch. 6 of
- The current version is the 1999 Reprint.
- Id., Art. 4.
- .
- Para. [10.020] in vol. 1 of
- Chan, see above, at 122.
- .
- .
- .
- .
- .
- Environmental Public Health (Public Cleansing) Regulations
(Cap. 95, Rg. 3, 2000 Rev. Ed.), rg. 16.
- Environmental Public Health Act ( , 2002 Rev. Ed.), s.
17(1).
- Road Traffic (Pedestrian Crossings) Rules (Cap. 276, R
24).
- Penal Code, see above, s. 292(a) (possessing any obscene book,
pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or figure, or
any other obscene object).
- Sale of Food (Prohibition of Chewing Gum) Regulations (Cap.
283, Rg. 2, 2004 Rev. Ed.).
- Penal Code, see above, s. 377A.
Further reading
External links
Singapore law
Government ministries and agencies
Parliament
Courts
Alternative dispute resolution
Legal education
Legal associations and organisations
Wikis
Quiz
Map
Search