Law of Singapore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Singapore is a "fine" city. Everything from smoking to durians are banned on Singapore's Mass Rapid Transit.
Enlarge
Singapore is a "fine" city. Everything from smoking to durians are banned on Singapore's Mass Rapid Transit.

The legal system of Singapore is based on the English common law system. It has kept many of the English laws that were subsequently repealed in the United Kingdom and other nations, and added additional laws specific to Singapore. Thus, it is generally strict and aimed at instilling a self-disciplined society with restrictions and harsh punishments, such as using caning and execution. The idea has been poked fun at by its citizens, who remark that "Singapore is a fine city" ("fine" having the double meaning of "well" as well as a monetary fine). Singapore is one of the safest countries in the world, with a low incidence of violent crimes. Both locals and tourists generally feel safe in the country. The catchphrase sometimes used in Police anti-crime campaigns is "Low crime does not mean no crime".

Currently, pornography, oral sex when not a precursor to regular sexual intercourse, and anal sex are illegal in Singapore. Magazines, movies and TV shows have to undergo government classification before being released to the general public and sales of several kinds of newspapers and magazines have been banned or restricted. Various minor offences could lead to heavy fines and caning while first-degree murder and drug trafficking in over 15 net grams of heroin carry a mandatory death penalty. The end result of these policies have been the hanging of more than 400 people in Singapore between 1991 and 2004, mostly for drug trafficking.

As a result, Singapore has one of the highest execution rates in the world relative to population. Science fiction writer William Gibson has described Singapore as "Disneyland with the death penalty" [1] in Wired magazine. Chewing gum for medical purposes have recently been legalized as part of a U.S trade agreement, although sales are limited to pharmacies. Bans on bar top dancing and bungee jumping have also been lifted.


Contents

[edit] History

[edit] Before 1826

Sir Thomas Stamford Bingley Raffles (6 July 1781 – 5 July 1826).
Enlarge
Sir Thomas Stamford Bingley Raffles (6 July 1781 – 5 July 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.[1]

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.[2] 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.[3]

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.[4]

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 (5 Geo. IV c. 108) (U.K.). By virtue of the Fort Marlborough in India Act 1802 (42 Geo. III c. 29) (U.K.) 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 (39 & 40 Geo. III c. 79) (U.K.) these territories became subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Fort William.

The Indian Salaries and Pensions Act 1825 (6 Geo. IV c. 85) (U.K.) 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.[5]

[edit] 1826–1867: The 'Indian period'

The East India House, the headquarters of the East India Company, in Leadenhall Street, London, as seen c. 1817; it was demolished in 1929.
Enlarge
The East India House, the headquarters of the East India Company, in Leadenhall Street, London, as seen c. 1817; it was demolished in 1929.

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.[6] 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.[7]

The Charter provided that the Court of Judicature was to be presided over by the Governor of the Straits Settlements and Resident Counsellor 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 Counsellors 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 Counsellor Kenneth Murchison, were obliged to hold the first assizes in Singapore by themselves. Claridge was eventually recalled to the U.K. in 1829.[8]

The Charter conferred no legislative power on the Governor and Council of Prince of Wales' Island or, indeed, on any other individual or institution.[9] The general power to make laws was vested with the Supreme Government of India and the British Parliament.[10] By the East India Company Act 1813 (also known as the Charter Act 1813) (53 Geo. III c. 155) (U.K.), 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.[11] However, on 20 June 1830 the East India Company reduced the status of Prince of Wales' Island from a Presidency to a Residency.[12] 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.[13]

Upon the downgrading of the Straits Settlements, the offices of Governor and Resident Counsellors were abolished. This led Governor Fullerton to conclude that neither he nor the Resident Counsellors 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[14] 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 Counsellor 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.[15]

In 1833, the Government of India Act 1833 (also known as the Charter Act 1833) (3 & 4 Will. IV, c. 85) (U.K.) 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'.[16]

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.[17]

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 (21 & 22 Vic. c. 106) (U.K.). There was no change to the structure of the legal system – the Governor General of India continued to legislate for the Straits Settlements.[18]

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.[19]

[edit] 1867–1942: The Straits Settlements as a Crown colony

With effect from 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 (29 & 30 Vic. c. 115) (U.K.).[20] 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'.[21]

By the Supreme Court Ordinance 1868 (S.S.),[22] 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[23] and Resident Counsellors[24] 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.[25] 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.[26]

Also in 1878, a provision later known as section 5 of the Civil Law Act (S'pore)[27] was introduced into Straits Settlements law.[28] 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.[29] However, the manner in which section 5 was worded created much difficulty in determining whether particular English statutes applied locally.[30] Despite major amendments to the provision in 1979,[31] the problems with it were not resolved until it was finally repealed in 1993 (see below).

Under the Courts Ordinance Amendment 1885 (S.S.),[32] the set-up of the Supreme Court was again altered so that it now consisted of the Chief Justice and three puisne judges.[33] In 1907 the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was given a major overhaul.[34] 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.[35] 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,[36] and in 1936 when it was declared that the Supreme Court would consist of a High Court and Court of Appeal.[37]

[edit] 1942–1946: Singapore under Japanese and British Military Administration

Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita (seated, left of centre) of the Japanese Imperial Army thumps the table with his fist to emphasize his terms – unconditional surrender of Singapore. Lt.-Gen. Arthur Percival, General Officer Commanding (Malaya) of the British Army (right, back to camera) sits between his officers, his clenched hand to his mouth.
Enlarge
Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita (seated, left of centre) of the Japanese Imperial Army thumps the table with his fist to emphasize his terms – unconditional surrender of Singapore. Lt.-Gen. Arthur Percival, General Officer Commanding (Malaya) of the British Army (right, back to camera) sits between his officers, his clenched hand to his mouth.

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.[38]

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.[39]

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.[40] 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.[41]

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 establshed by the Japanese Military Administration was quashed, and any judgment convicting or purporting to convict any person or any offence was set aside.[42] Civil proceedings were dealt with by the Japanese Judgments and Civil Proceedings Ordinance 1946 (No. 3 of 1946) (S'pore), which had the effect of permitting post-Occupation courts to review the decrees of Japanese tribunals and to confirm, modify or reverse them.[43]

[edit] 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 (9 & 10 Geo. VI c. 37) (U.K.). By the Singapore Colony Order in Council 1946 (S.R. & O. 1946 No. 464) (U.K.), Singapore was constituted as a new colony under the British Settlements Acts 1887 (50 & 51 Vic. c. 54) (U.K.). A Singapore Legislative Council was created with power to legislate for the peace, order and good government of the Colony.[44] 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 (S.I. 1958 No. 1946) (U.K.) made under powers conferred by the State of Singapore Act 1958 (6 & 7 Eliz. II c. 59) (U.K.).[45] 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.[46]

A national ceremony celebrates the formation of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963.
Enlarge
A national ceremony celebrates the formation of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963.

[edit] 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 the Malaysia Act 1963 (c. 35) (U.K.), the Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore (State Constitutions) Order in Council 1963 (S.I. 1963 No. 1493) (U.K.) and the Malaysia Act 1963 (No. 26 of 1963) (M'sia).[47] 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.[48] 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.[49]

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),[50] which replaced the Supreme Court of the Colony of Singapore with the High Court of Malaysia in Singapore.[51] The jurisdiction of the High Court in Singapore was limited to all territory in the State of Singapore.[52]

[edit] 1965 to the present: Singapore as a fully-independent nation

Parliament House, Singapore, which was officially opened on 4 October 1999.
Enlarge
Parliament House, Singapore, which was officially opened on 4 October 1999.

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 (No. 31 of 1965) (M'sia) and the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1966 (No. 59 of 1966) (M'sia); and by two Singapore Acts, the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1965 (No. 8 of 1965) (S'pore) and the Republic of Singapore Independence Act 1965 (No. 9 of 1965) (S'pore). 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 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.[53] 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,[54] 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.[55]

The Supreme Court Building, designed by Foster & Partners, which commenced operations on 20 June 2005, as it appeared in August 2006.
Enlarge
The Supreme Court Building, designed by Foster & Partners, which commenced operations on 20 June 2005, as it appeared in August 2006.

In 1970 the subordinate courts were reorganized.[56] Since that time, the Subordinate Courts of Singapore have consisted of the District Courts, the Magistrates' Courts, the Juvenile Courts and the Coroners' Courts.[57]

Steps to restrict appeals to the Privy Council were first taken in 1989. In that year, the law was changed[58] 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. 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.[59] 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.[60] 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.[61] 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 (S'pore).[62] 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.[63] 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.[64]

[edit] Sources of law

There are generally regarded to be three sources of law in Singapore: legislation, judicial precedents (case law) and custom.[65]

[edit] Legislation

Legislation, or statutory law, can be divided into statutes and subsidiary legislation (also known as 'delegated' or 'subordinate legislation').

[edit] Statutes

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.
Enlarge
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.

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,[66] 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.[67] Statutes of the Singapore Parliament, as well as English statutes in force in Singapore by virtue of the Application of English Law Act 1993 (S'pore),[68] are published in looseleaf form in a series called the Statutes of the Republic of Singapore which are gathered in red binders, and are also accessible on-line from Singapore Statutes Online, a service provided by the Attorney-General's Chambers of Singapore.

A statute of the Singapore Parliament begins its life as a bill, which is usually introduced in Parliament by a government minister.[69] In practice, most legislation is initiated by the Cabinet, either acting on its own or on the advice of senior civil servants. Bills go through the following stages in Parliament:

  1. The introduction and first reading.
  2. The second reading.
  3. The committee stage.
  4. The third reading.

At the first reading, the bill is introduced into Parliament, usually by the responsible minister. No debate on the bill takes place. The bill is then printed and circulated among Members of Parliament (MPs). On the second reading, the minister responsible for moving the bill usually makes a speech explaining the objects and reasons behind the bill. The general merits and principles of the bill are then debated.

The bill then proceeds to the committee stage, where the details of the drafting of the proposed law are examined. Where a bill is relatively uncontroversial, it is referred to a committee of the whole Parliament; in other words, the whole Parliament resolves itself into a committee and discusses the bill clause by clause. Bills which are more controversial, or for which it is desired to obtain the views of interested groups or the public, are often referred to a select committee. This is a committee made up of certain MPs, who then invite interested persons to make representations to the committee. Public hearings to hear submissions on the bill may be held. The select committee then reports its findings, together with any suggested amendments to the bill, to Parliament.

The bill then goes through a third reading. At this stage, only amendments which are not of a material character may be made to the bill. The minister moving the third reading may also make a speech outlining the changes made to the bill. The bill is then put to the vote. In most cases, a simple majority of Parliament is all that is needed for the bill to be approved. However, bills seeking to amend the Constitution must be carried by a special majority: not less than two-thirds of all MPs on the second and third readings.[70]

Once a bill has been passed by Parliament, it must be submitted to a non-elected advisory body called the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR). The PCMR's responsibility is to draw attention to any legislation which, in its opinion, is a "differentiating measure", that is, one which discriminates against any racial or religious community. When the Council makes a favourable report or no report within the time prescribed (in which case the bill is conclusively presumed not to contain any differentiating measures), the bill is presented to the President for assent.

If the PCMR submits an adverse report, Parliament can either make amendments to the bill and resubmit it to the Council for approval, or decide to present the bill for the President's assent nonetheless provided that a Parliamentary motion for such action has been passed by at least two-thirds of all MPs. The PCMR has not rendered any adverse reports since it was set up in 1970.

Upon receiving presidential assent, a bill becomes law and is known as an Act of Parliament. However, the Act only comes into force on the date of its publication in the Government Gazette, or on such other date that is stipulated by the Act or another law, or a notification made under a law.[71]

[edit] Examples of current laws

Here are some examples of laws currently in effect:

  • The sale of chewing gum was forbidden for 12 years until May 2004, where the sale of chewing gum for medical or dental purposes from a pharmacist was approved by the government, although gum sold as candy still remains prohibited. A doctor's prescription is no longer required to purchase nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) - which includes the nicotine gum. These NRTs can be purchased directly through any retail pharmacy.
  • Heavy fines and Corrective Work Order are levied on people who spit or litter in public areas.
  • Eating and drinking on public transit also carry fines of up to S$500.
  • Car ownership is curbed through a government scheme in which car owners must bid for a Certificate of Entitlement (COE).
  • Gun ownership is illegal, as similar to other countries with strict gun control laws. In addition, using or attempting to use arms during a crime, such as a robbery, is a capital offence in Singapore.
  • Kidnapping carries a death sentence.

[edit] Commercial law

Singapore has a reputation for fairness and impartiality in commercial law, and is a popular jurisdiction for arbitration and trial in South-East Asia. However, the presently pending case of Oakwell Engineering v. Enernorth Industries has called into question this impartiality and whether the judgments of Singaporean courts are enforceable outside Singapore.

[edit] Censorship

Main article: Censorship in Singapore

[edit] Broadcasting

Two major companies SPH Holdings and MediaCorp have a virtual monopoly of the media industry. Mediacorp is a state owned company, while SPH is partly owned by Temasek Holdings, government-backed investment company. Private ownership of satellite dishes is banned, though international TV broadcasts (such as CNN, BBC, etc) are available on StarHub's cable TV service.

Because of the Government's policy of promoting Mandarin Chinese, for many years, local television was not allowed to show programmes in Cantonese, meaning that popular TV serials from Hong Kong had to be dubbed into Mandarin. Similarly, local newspapers were not allowed to carry listings for Malaysia's TV3, which showed programmes in Cantonese. However, Hong Kong's TVB, broadcasting in Cantonese, is now available on cable, although TV3 is not.

[edit] Films and videos

Depiction of sex and nudity is restricted at the various mature ratings (NC16, M18 and R21); movies containing graphic nudity, explicit sex or high levels of strong graphic violence are usually categorised as Restricted 21 (R21). Any outright denigration of race or religion, matters that threaten national interest, or depictions of hardcore pornographic, offensive or deviant sexual activities are banned.

A short documentary called A Vision of Persistence on opposition politician J. B. Jeyaretnam was also banned for being a "political film". The makers of the documentary, all lecturers at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic, later submitted written apologies and withdrew it from being screened at the 2001 Singapore International Film Festival in April, having been told they could be charged in court.

In a more recent case, another short documentary called Singapore Rebel by Martyn See Tong Ming, which documented Singapore Democratic Party leader Dr Chee Soon Juan's acts of civil disobedience, was banned from the 2005 Singapore International Film Festival for being a "political film". In contrast, Channel News Asia's five-part documentary series on Singapore's PAP ministers in 2005 were not considered as such.

[edit] Internet

Internet services provided by the three major Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are subject to regulation by the Media Development Authority to block websites containing material that may be a threat to public security, national defense, racial and religious harmony and public morality, and Police are given broad powers to intercept messages online. The Ministry of Education, Singapore blocks access to pornographic and similar objectionable internet sites on its proxy servers, but this practice is common throughout the world's educational establishments.

In September 2005, 3 people were arrested and charged with sedition for posting racist comments on the Internet, of which two have been sentenced to imprisonment. There are growing fears of the chilling effect with the increasing threat of legal action, including a warning by the Teachers' Union to sue students who defame teachers on their blogs.

[edit] Press

  • Pornography is not allowed; e.g. Playboy and certain other 'adult/porn' magazines are not allowed. However other magazines containing "mature content" like Cosmopolitan Magazine are free to be distributed at all stores with a "Parental Warning/not suitable for the young" logo on its covers.
  • Foreign newspapers and magazines may have their sales or circulation restricted. These include the Asian Wall Street Journal and the Far Eastern Economic Review, either only being available in "gazetted" form (photocopied to a limited number of subscribers, with advertising blanked out) or unavailable.
  • The sale of Malaysian newspapers in Singapore is prohibited; a similar ban on the sale of newspapers from Singapore applies in Malaysia.
  • Certain political material is not allowed. (See OB marker)
  • Material which may outrightly disturb religious and racial harmony is not allowed.
  • Reporters without Borders has ranked Singapore as 147th out of 167 surveyed countries in terms of freedom of the press. [2]

[edit] Criminal law

[edit] History

For most of the 19th century the criminal law which was applied in the three Straits Settlements of Singapore, Penang and Malacca was that of the United Kingdom, in so far as local circumstances were permitted. There was little doubt that English common law crimes were recognised in these territories at the time. Certain problems, such as the application of certain Indian Acts, however, arose in 1871 and the Straits Settlements Penal Code was passed. It came into operation on 16 September 1872. The Code is practically a re-enactment of the Indian Penal Code.

The original Code, as amended on numerous occasions, presently states the law of Singapore. The most recent amendment was made by the Penal Code (Amendment) Act 1984 which came into effect on 31 August 1984. The effect of this amendment was that minimum penalties were provided for certain offences. The last major amendment of the Code prior to 1984 took place in 1973 when punishments for certain offences were enhanced.

Prior to 1870 the law relating to Criminal Procedure in force in Singapore was mainly found in the Indian Act XVI of 1852. As a consequence of the passing of the Straits Settlements Penal Code in 1871, the Criminal Procedure Ordinance V of 1870 was passed which replaced the Criminal Procedure Act XVI of 1852 but continued the English system of Criminal Procedure and made it applicable to the Penal Code. This was found impracticable as the Penal Code did away with the division of crimes into felonies and misdemeanours and the Criminal Procedure Ordinance VI of 1873 was passed accordingly. The Ordinance VI of 1873 marked the passage of the English Criminal Law in favour of the Indian. The Ordinance did away with indictments and instituted charges for all criminal offences; it abolished the Grand Jury and Special and Common Juries.

A new Code of Criminal Procedure was enacted in 1902. The present Code was passed by the Legislative Council on 28 January 1955. It repeals and re-enacts with the amendments the previous Code. All offences under the Penal Code are inquired into and tried according to the Criminal Procedure Code. Source: Electric Law Library

[edit] Specific offences

[edit] Drug trafficking

  • Narcotics laws established by the Misuse of Drugs Act are very strict.
    • Anyone caught with more than or equal to 15 g (0.5 ounces) of heroin, 28 g (1 ounce) of morphine or 480 g (17 ounces) of cannabis faces mandatory capital punishment, as they are deemed to be trafficking in these substances. The stated quantities are the nett weight of the substances after they have been isolated by laboratory analysis. From 1991-2004, 400 people have been hanged in Singapore, mostly for drug trafficking, the highest per-capita execution rate in the world. See Singapore Government's response to accusations regarding its use of capital punishment.

[edit] Sexual offences

Sex deemed by the Government to be "against the order of nature", including anal sex and oral sex (except as a precursor to conventional intercourse), is criminalised by section 377 of the Singapore Penal Code, though the latter has only infrequently been enforced and is set to change. In practice, private acts between consenting adults are not the subject matter of prosecution. Homosexuality in Singapore is not illegal, but homosexual acts are considered "against the order of nature" as well. Nevertheless, large-scale outdoor gay parties had been discreetly approved by the authorities from 2001 to 2004. These parties were advertised throughout Southeast Asia and attracted a large audience until a conservative backlash beginning in 2004, attributed to an increase in HIV infection within the gay community, put a stop to their official sanctioning and led to their banning.

Prostitution is tolerated in designated red-light districts, but soliciting for sex in public is illegal. Sexual intercourse with any girl below the age of sixteen years except by way of marriage is an offence (Section 140, Women's Charter); if the girl is below the age of fourteen, it is a statutory rape even with her consent (Section 375, Penal Code). Punishment for statutory rape shall be imprisonment not less than 8 years and not more than 20 years and also punished with caning not less than 12 strokes (Section 376, Penal Code).

Any man who has carnal knowledge of a woman (grand-daughter, daughter, sister, half-sister or mother) with or without the consent or any woman (of age above 16) with or without consent permits a man (grandfather, father, brother, half-brother or son) is said to commit incest (Section 376A (a) and (b), Penal Code). The punishment for incest for males/females shall be imprisonment of a term up to 5 years and if the woman is found to be under the age of fourteen, the imprisonment maybe up to 14 years (Section 376B, Penal Code).

[edit] Public assembly

In Singapore, a police permit is required for holding an assembly in a public place. Any public assembly or procession of five or more persons in any public place without a permit is an offence under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order And Nuisance) (Assemblies and Processions) Rules. [3]

The rationale given for this law is that a large group of people who gather for a peaceful purpose can turn violent. In the 1950s and 1960s, there have been several violent riots in Singapore, the last incident being the 1964 Race Riots which killed 36 people. Since then, there have been only a few minor protests. Nonetheless the authority continues to take a tough stance against unlicensed outdoor protests. On 31 December 2000, fifteen members of Falun Gong consisting of thirteen foreigners and two Singaporeans were arrested at MacRitchie Park for holding an illegal assembly. [4]

[edit] Recent legal developments

In recent years, the Singapore government has relaxed some of the stricter laws. For example, bungee jumping is no longer illegal. There are also several signs that the government is considering relaxing a number of laws concerning oral sex.

It is of note that while some archaic laws do remain from British common law, the Public Prosecutor does not ordinarily enforce these laws. However, in 2004, then-Chief Justice Yong Pung How sentenced a 25-year-old former policeman, Annis Abdullah, to jail for 12 months for receiving oral sex from a teenage girl. In his statement he said that despite growing permissiveness in some countries there were "certain offences that are so repulsive in Asian culture".

The case concerning an American teenager, Michael P. Fay, generated intense media interest in the United States after he was caught in 1994 for vandalising cars and stealing street signs in Singapore and was sentenced to caning. A formal request was made by the American government not to carry out the sentence, but it was rejected by the Singapore government although the number of caning strokes was reduced from 6 to 4.

Film censorship has also been relaxed in Singapore recently. In 1991, the R(A) rating was introduced to allow adult type films that contain sex and violence to be shown for the first time, for those aged 18 years and above. The scheme was later replaced by a set of several ratings for different groups of audience, namely G (General audience), PG (Parental guidance), NC16 (not for children under 16), M18 (matured 18), and R21 (restricted 21).

DVDs and VCDs rated up to M18 are allowed. In addition, the country's only cable TV network, StarHub, is allowed to show a number of previously banned programmes that contain restricted content, such as Sex and the City, under the ratings NC16 and M18 after 10 pm, with some scenes removed.

On 18 April 2005, the government relaxed the ban on casinos and allowed the development of two Integrated Resorts with casinos. Both are expected to open by 2009. However, locals who wish to enter the casinos must pay a daily entry fee of S$100 or an annual entry pass of S$2,000. This is to reduce the negative effect of compulsive gambling in the society. The entry fees will be used to educate and counsel Singaporeans that have gambling habits. The government hopes that by having casinos, it will boost the tourism industry, which has been declining in recent years.

In the last few years, the government has taken a much tougher stand on Internet-related matters (including Internet censorship as above-mentioned). Several arrests and seizures have been made on those who breach the Copyright Law, including three home users who have been downloading music online. On November 2006, a 17 year old has been arrested for simply tapping into his neighour's wireless Internet connection and faces up to 3 years' imprisonment and a fine under the Computer Misuse Act.[72]

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Kevin Tan Yew Lee, "A Short Legal and Constitutional History of Singapore" in Woon, Walter (ed.) (1989). The Singapore Legal System. Singapore: Longman. ISBN 9971-89-993-0 (pbk.)., p. 3 at p. 8.
  2. ^ L.A. Mills, "British Malaya 1824–1867" (1960) XXXIII Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Part 3, cited in Mavis Chionh, "The Development of the Court System" in Tan, Kevin Y.L. (Yew Lee) (ed.) (2005). Essays in Singapore Legal History. Singapore: Singapore Academy of Law; Marshall Cavendish Academic. ISBN 981-210-389-9 (hbk.); ISBN 981-210-349-X (pbk.)., p. 93 at p. 99.
  3. ^ Chionh, id. at pp. 97–98.
  4. ^ Walter Woon, "The Applicability of English Law in Singapore" in Woon, The Singapore Legal System, op. cit., p. 107 at pp. 112-113.
  5. ^ Bartholomew, G.W. (Geoffrey Wilson), Elizabeth Srinivasagam & Pascal Baylon Netto (1987). Sesquicentennial Chronological Tables of the Written Laws of the Republic of Singapore 1834-1984. Singapore: Malaya Law Review, Malayan Law Journal. ISBN 9971700530. at p. xxvii.
  6. ^ The First Charter of Justice of 1807 applied only to Prince of Wales' Island (Penang).
  7. ^ Phang, Andrew Boon Leong (2006). From Foundation to Legacy : The Second Charter of Justice. Singapore: Singapore Academy of Law. ISBN 981-05-7194-1. at pp. 19–23.
  8. ^ Chionh, op. cit. at pp. 99–100.
  9. ^ Bartholomew, op. cit. at p. xxxiii.
  10. ^ Lee, op. cit. at p. 11.
  11. ^ Bartholomew, op. cit. at p. xxxiv.
  12. ^ Id. at p. xxxv.
  13. ^ Id. at p. xxxvii.
  14. ^ It is not known whether this is the same person as the James Loch who is the subject of a separate Wikipedia article.
  15. ^ Chionh, op. cit. at pp. 100–101.
  16. ^ Bartholomew, op. cit. at p. xxxix.
  17. ^ Chionh, op. cit. at p. 103.
  18. ^ Bartholomew, op. cit. at p. xlvi.
  19. ^ Id. at p. xl.
  20. ^ Id. at p. xlvi.
  21. ^ Id. at p. xlvii.
  22. ^ Ordinance No. 5 of 1868 (S.S.).
  23. ^ By the Judicial Duties Act (No. 3 of 1867) (S.S.).
  24. ^ By the Supreme Court Ordinance 1868 (No. 5 of 1868) (S.S.).
  25. ^ Lee, op. cit. at p. 18.
  26. ^ The 1878 reforms were effected by the Courts Ordinance 1878 (No. 3 of 1878) (S.S.).
  27. ^ Cap. 43, 1985 Rev. Ed. (S'pore).
  28. ^ By the Civil Law Ordinance 1878 (No. 4 of 1878) (S.S.).
  29. ^ Walter Woon, "The Continuing Reception of English Commercial Law" in Woon, The Singapore Legal System, op. cit., p. 139 at pp. 139–141.
  30. ^ See, generally, Woon, id. at pp. 142–153; and Phang, Andrew Boon Leong (2006). From Foundation to Legacy : The Second Charter of Justice. Singapore: Singapore Academy of Law. ISBN 981-05-7194-1. at pp. 27–35.
  31. ^ By the Civil Law (Amendment No. 2) Act 1979 (No. 24 of 1979) (S'pore).
  32. ^ Ordinance No. 15 of 1885 (S.S.)
  33. ^ Chionh, op. cit. at pp. 104–106.
  34. ^ By the Courts Ordinance 1907 (No. 30 of 1907) (S.S.).
  35. ^ Chionh, op. cit. at pp. 106–107.
  36. ^ By way of the Court of Criminal Appeal Ordinance 1931 (No. 5 of 1931) (S.S.): Lee, op. cit. at p. 19.
  37. ^ By the Courts Ordinance (Cap. 10, 1936 Rev. Ed.) (S.S.).
  38. ^ Id. at p. 20.
  39. ^ Bartholomew, op. cit. at pp. lxviii–lxix.
  40. ^ Id. at p. lxix.
  41. ^ Id. at p. lxx.
  42. ^ Ibid.
  43. ^ Id. at p. lxxi.
  44. ^ Id. at pp. lxxxi–lxxxii.
  45. ^ Id. at p. lxxiv.
  46. ^ By way of the Courts Ordinance 1955 (No. 14 of 1955, later Cap. 3, 1955 Rev. Ed.) (S'pore): Chionh, op. cit. at p. 113.
  47. ^ Bartholomew, op. cit. at p. lxxvi.
  48. ^ Id. at p. lxxvii.
  49. ^ Id. at p. lxxix.
  50. ^ No. 7 of 1964 (M'sia), reprinted as Act No. 6 of 1966 (S'pore) in the Singapore Reprints Supplement (Acts).
  51. ^ Lee, op. cit. at p. 30.
  52. ^ Chionh, op. cit. at p. 113.
  53. ^ Bartholomew, op. cit. at pp. lxxix–lxxx.
  54. ^ By the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1969 (No. 19 of 1969) (S'pore): Lee, op. cit. at pp. 30 and 32.
  55. ^ Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (No. 24 of 1969) (S'pore), now Cap. 322, 1999 Rev. Ed., available from Singapore Statutes Online.
  56. ^ By the Subordinate Courts Act 1970 (No. 19 of 1970) (S'pore), now Cap. 321, 1999 Rev. Ed., available from Singapore Statutes Online.
  57. ^ Chionh, op. cit. at pp. 114–115.
  58. ^ By the Judicial Committee (Amendment) Act 1989 (No. 21 of 1989) (S'pore).
  59. ^ By the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act 1993 (No. 16 of 1993) (S'pore).
  60. ^ 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 Cap. 148, 1985 Rev. Ed.), which regulated the procedure for such appeals, was repealed by the Judicial Committee (Repeal) Act 1994 (No. 2 of 1994) (S'pore).
  61. ^ Chionh, op. cit. at pp. 116–117.
  62. ^ No. 35 of 1993, now Cap. 7A, 1994 Rev. Ed. (S'pore), available from Singapore Statutes Online.
  63. ^ Id., s. 3.
  64. ^ Id., ss. 4 and 5. See, generally, Phang, op. cit. at pp. 37–49.
  65. ^ See, generally, Chan, Helena H.M. (Hui-meng) (1995). The Legal System of Singapore. Singapore: Butterworths Asia. ISBN 0409997897 (pbk.)., ch. 6, pp. 105–112.
  66. ^ The current version is the 1999 Reprint.
  67. ^ Id., Art. 4.
  68. ^ Cap. 7A, 1994 Rev. Ed. (S'pore).
  69. ^ Bills may also be introduced by private Members of Parliament, although this rarely occurs.
  70. ^ Singapore Constitution, Art. 5(2).
  71. ^ Chan, op. cit. at pp. 36–39, 107.
  72. ^ "http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/11/asia/AS_GEN_Singapore_Internet_Charges.php Singapore teen faces 3 years' jail for tapping into another's wireless Internet, International Herald Tribune, November 10, 2006

[edit] References

  • Chan, Helena H.M. (Hui-meng) (1995). The Legal System of Singapore. Singapore: Butterworths Asia. ISBN 0409997897 (pbk.).
  • Chan, Wing Cheong, Andrew Phang (2001). The Development of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore. ISBN 981043720X.
  • Chan, Wing Cheong, Michael Hor Yew Meng & Victor V. (Vridar) Ramraj (2005). Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law : Cases and Materials. Singapore: LexisNexis. ISBN 9812364099 (pbk.).
  • Lim, Min (ed.) (2005). Teens and the Law. Singapore: Singapore Association of Women Lawyers. ISBN 9813065974.
  • Myint Soe, U. (2001). Principles of Singapore Law (including Business Law), 4th ed., Singapore: Institute of Banking and Finance. ISBN 9971990091 (hbk.).
  • Phang, Andrew (gen. ed.) (2004). Basic Principles of Singapore Business Law. Singapore: Thomson Learning. ISBN 9812434356.
  • Phang, Andrew Boon Leong (1990). The Development of Singapore Law : Historical and Socio-Legal Perspectives. Singapore: Butterworths. ISBN 0409995886.
  • Phang, Andrew Boon Leong (2006). From Foundation to Legacy : The Second Charter of Justice. Singapore: Singapore Academy of Law. ISBN 981-05-7194-1.
  • Sheridan, L.A. (Lionel Astor) (ed.), with special contributors (1961). Malaya and Singapore, the Borneo Territories : The Development of Its Laws and Constitution. London: Stevens.
  • Tan, Kevin Y.L. (Yew Lee) (ed.) (2005). Essays in Singapore Legal History. Singapore: Singapore Academy of Law; Marshall Cavendish Academic. ISBN 9812103899 (hbk.), ISBN 981210349X (pbk.).
  • Tan, Kevin Y.L. (Yew Lee) (ed.) (1999). The Singapore Legal System, 2nd ed., Singapore: Singapore University Press. ISBN 9971692120 (hbk.), ISBN 9971692139 (pbk.).
  • (2002) You & the Law 3, 3rd ed., Singapore: Singapore Association of Women Lawyers. ISBN 9810451520 (pbk.).

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Singapore law

[edit] Government ministries and agencies

[edit] Courts

[edit] Alternative dispute resolution

[edit] Legal education

[edit] Legal associations and organisations


v • d • e
Law of Asia

Afghanistan · Armenia · Azerbaijan · Bahrain · Bangladesh · Bhutan · Brunei · Cambodia · China (People's Republic of China (Hong Kong · Macau) · Republic of China (Taiwan)) · Cyprus · East Timor · Georgia · India · Indonesia · Iran · Iraq · Israel (See also Palestinian territories) · Japan · Jordan · Kazakhstan · Korea (North Korea · South Korea) · Kuwait · Kyrgyzstan · Laos · Lebanon · Malaysia · Maldives · Mongolia · Myanmar · Nepal · Oman · Pakistan · Philippines · Qatar · Russia · Saudi Arabia · Singapore · Sri Lanka · Syria · Tajikistan · Thailand · Turkey · Turkmenistan · United Arab Emirates · Uzbekistan · Vietnam · Yemen

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/w/Law_of_Singapore_ac42.html"