Talk:Law of Singapore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Law of Singapore is part of SGpedians' Resources
An attempt to better coordinate and organise articles related to Singapore.
To participate, simply edit this page or visit our noticeboard for more info.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Transfer of 'Commercial law' section to 'Judicial system of Singapore'

I've transferred the contents of the section 'Commercial law' to 'Judicial system of Singapore' under the new heading 'Judicial independence', as it seemed to be more relevant there. Jacklee 08:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Instant death penalty?

"conviction of first-degree murder and drug trafficking cases instantly leads to the death penalty."

This makes it sound as if the convicted felon is lead directly from the courtroom to the scaffold. Is this in fact the case? Or might it be better to change this sentence to "automatically entails the death penalty" or something similar? -- 11 October 2005

Actually either way, not all first-degree murderers and drug trafficking cases leads to a death penalty, "instantly" or otherwise. (Of coz they arent put to death on the spot btw. :D) I dont think the statement is accurate in the first place, but I will find the relevant evidence for it first.--Huaiwei 09:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
If you are found guilty of drug trafficking over a certain amount of particular classes of drugs, it carries with it a mandatory death sentence. Similarly with murder (s 302 of the Penal Code). I think the confusion comes because there is the offence of "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", i.e. manslaughter, which does not carry the death penalty.
Similarly, you're probably thinking of the amount of a class A drug like heroin coming in as part of the offence. If a person is caught with, for example, more than 15 g of diamorphine (measured by the net amount of the pure stuff, not the gross weight of heroin powder), he is presumed to be trafficking unless he can prove otherwise. Theoretically, you can be convicted of trafficking even if you carry a lesser amount, it's just that there's no presumption acting in the prosecution's favour. Usually, if the amount is small, the accused can try to plea bargain the offence down to mere possession of a controlled substance. For heroin, it's death if it's more than 15 g - for other substances, it can vary. See the Second Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act. --09:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes you are spot on. That is precisely what I was thinking of for both cases. :D Besides that, has there been any situation in which exceptions were given? I am not too sure about this, because I tot there is a clause in the death penalty which does not say it will be meted out in all circumstances? A pregnant woman, for eg?--Huaiwei 10:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Not that I recall. It's more policy based - hypothetically, you wouldn't charge a pregnant woman for murder, or you would wait after she gave birth, for example. This is up to the Attorney-General's Chambers. In any case, the President can suspend or commute a sentence under the Criminal Procedure Code (ss 237-238, CPC). You might be thinking of caning, where it is expressedly forbidden for the punishment to be meted out to women, men under the death penalty, or men over 50 (s 231, CPC). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SPH and Mediacorp did not merge

Actually, only "Streats" (free tabloid section of SPH) and Mediaworks (television network belonging to SPH) merged with Mediacorp's "TODAY" and Mediacorp TV respectively.

[edit] assault

ok, its obvious that singapore has stupid laws, but how does singapore view assault. say someone was provoking you at a bar, and you sock the guy in the face. what would happen. are they as strict with assault as they are with things like chewing gum and or watching porn.

It's probably the same as most countries, just a bit stricter. I generally do not study assault cases, anyhow. Ask khaosworks ;-). Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The following is just a recollection, no guaranty that it is accurate. If it is under serious provocation, it would be imprisonment up to 1 month (i.e. maximum) if you are being charged. Without provocation, it will be imprisonment up to 1 year. If it cause blindness (even if one side only), broke a nose, or cause disfigurement, then you will certainly be charged and be prepared for up to 7 years + caning. If that fellow dies, then .... (you know what). A common advice is: try to avoid hitting the nose. --Vsion 06:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Go to http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/ and look under P for Penal Code. The relevant provisions in the Penal Code are Sections 334 and 335 for causing hurt and causing grevious hurt under provocation, respectively. Note that the provocation must be "grave and sudden", which can be a matter of intepretation (so simply, "yo' mama"... probably not). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Riots and Strikes

Please edit the riots and strikes paragraph. Numbers from one to ten (such as six, five, or nine) should be spelled out. In addition, the part about red cars and tatoos sounded very peripheral and unlike an encyclopedia article. Perhaps it should be looked over by someone.
I rewrote the section. The previous version is quite pov. thanks for the notice.--Vsion (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Gun laws?

Singapore is famous for having among the most strict gun bans in the world. Could anyone clarify what the law is there?

Gun ownership is illegal in Singapore, which is similar to other countries with strict gun laws. But in addition, using or attempting to use arms during a crime, like robbery, is a capital offence, see Capital punishment in Singapore for more details. Please understand that Singapore is very densely populated with majority of people living in flats (or apartments in the US, some pictures here). In such an environment, it is not fun to have neighbours playing with firearms. There are however several shooting ranges, for private shooting clubs, schools and of course for the military. --Vsion (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I realized it was sort of "illegal", but then, how are there private clubs with private shooting ranges? Or are these somehow affiliated with the military or police? As for playing with guns in flats... well, having a gun go off in any populated area is dangerous. Any ordinary handgun or rifle bullet will fly through many walls before coming to rest. Shotguns are fairly safe, however. The one argument for gun ownership in a place like Singapore is for militia-style defense, such as what they have in Switzerland. Singapore is always worried about its defense situation, being such a small country surrounded by its neighbors. Anyway, I've been to Singapore and I'm fine with it the way it is. I was mainly just curious.


[edit] Civil rights or liberties?

There are none welcome to a place where the government does not fear the people but the people fear the government with this in place there can be no literal civil rights or liberties other then what the government deams a person can do and they can take it away at anytime..


This line "Civil rights tends not to be an issue except where sexual behaviour is concerned.", seems like it should be civil liberties, not civil rights, but that wouldn't make sense because their seems to be many other civil liberties issues. Civlil rights are things protected by the government, and civil liberties are things the government protects.

[edit] Major revision required

I think this article requires major revision. It currently focuses on certain sensational aspects of Singapore law, especially those which are fascinating from the point of view of non-Singaporeans. While there may be a place for these aspects somewhere lower down in the article, what the article lacks is a proper description of the sources of Singapore law (common law, legislation, custom, etc) and major branches of Singapore law (eg, criminal law, civil (non-criminal) law, family law). Jacklee 00:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

totally agree... Chensiyuan 09:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been working on this article for a few weeks now to improve its content, and it's getting quite long. I think any discussion of major branches of Singapore law should probably be presented as separate articles, eg., 'Criminal Law of Singapore', 'Matrimonial law of Singapore' and so on. Jacklee 08:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging 'Law of Singapore' and 'Law Enforcement in Singapore'

I think that 'Law Enforcement in Singapore' should be merged with 'Singapore Police Force' as it doesn't really add anything more to the latter article. Jacklee 14:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That does appear so in its present state. There is actually much scope for expansion, since the SPF isnt the only law-enforcing agency in Singapore.--Huaiwei 14:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps there are two ways to go about it. One is to have an article called 'Law Enforcement in Singapore' and talk about the Singapore Police Force and other law-enforcement agencies (eg, the Central Narcotics Bureau and Singapore Customs) in it. The other way is to do away with a general article on law enforcement and just have separate articles on the various law enforcement agencies, or reduce the law enforcement article to a page containing links to the other articles. I think the latter option may be preferable. Jacklee 00:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Oppose they are different concepts, so even if they happen to be presented as the same concepts, we should remedy that instead of concur and effect any conflation. Chensiyuan 12:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not clear what you mean. Are you suggesting that 'Law Enforcement in Singapore' should be left as a distinct article and beefed up with more information (ie, the first option I suggested)? Jacklee 21:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
yes Chensiyuan 09:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharia law

Should there be a section on the place of Sharia courts in Singapore? -- Paul 22:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Syariah law -- that is, the family and succession law aspects of it -- does form part of the law in Singapore under the Administration of Muslim Law Act. However, I'm wondering if it is better to have a separate article on that, and perhaps just a brief mention in 'Law of Singapore' and a link to that article. Jacklee 21:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of 'Sexism' section

I've deleted the section entitled 'Sexism' that was recently added. I don't think there's enough evidence to support the statement that "Singapore's laws are among the world's most sexist and discrimantory [sic]". The only evidence provided was that women are not subject to caning as a punishment. Jacklee 23:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smoking Ban in Public Places

Offenders beware: Fines of up to $1,000 or jail up to 6 months or to both fine and jail

  • FAQs on Smoking Ban in Public Places
  • List of Public Places Where Smoking is Banned
  • Details of Smoking Ban in Foodshops and Hawker Centres
  • FAQs on Smoking Ban in Foodshops and Hawker Centres
  • Guidelines For The Handling of Customers Who Smoke In Specified Place or Vehicle

Reference: NEA.GOV.SG Infosheet on Smoking Ban in Singapore Vision3001 05:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed major changes to this article

I've been making major changes to this article to improve its content, and propose to make the following changes:

  • Merging the 'Censorship' section with 'Censorship in Singapore' (and thus deleting it from this article).
  • Creating a new article entitled 'Criminal law in Singapore' (and thus deleting the 'Criminal law' section from this article).

Does anyone have views on this before I go ahead? Jacklee 08:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

what you said makes sense. Chensiyuan 08:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I compared the contents of the 'Censorship' section with the 'Censorship in Singapore' article, and found that the article repeated much of what was in the former in greater detail. I've therefore deleted the 'Censorship' section. I've also created a new article 'Criminal law of Singapore' and transferred the contents of the 'Criminal law' section there. 'Criminal law of Singapore' is currently a stub and needs expansion. Jacklee 10:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Great work in expanding the article. I would like to suggest an organisation of the article. There seems to be a lack of an overview article providing an introduction to the Law or judicial system in Singapore. Such an article would cover major topics of the subject, such as
  • History of Law in Singapore
  • Sources of Law
  • Constitution of Singapore
    • Constitutional Rights
  • Criminal law (or Penal Code)
    • Capital punishment
    • Internal Security Act, etc
  • Other laws
    • Corporate law
    • Family law
    • Tort law (etc.)
  • Judicial system
    • Legal procedure
  • Legal profession
  • Law enforcement
  • Review (comment, criticism, controversy, etc)
In other words, I'm suggesting a Wikipedia:Summary style. In a summary-styled article, each topic is described briefly (about 3-5 paragraphs), and there is a pointer to the main article that describes the topic in greater details. There would be some duplicate content, but the advantage is greater, as this would result in a stable overview article that is more accessible to readers. The creation of daughter articles also facilitates expansion for these more specific topics. The summary-style is popular in wikipedia, especially for articles which are more mature and of general topic. Examples of sg-articles adopting summary-style are Singapore, History of Singapore, Politics of Singapore, Education in Singapore. This article seems to be a suitable candidate for such an overview article, you may want to consider using this approach as you expands the topic further. Thanks for your contribution. --Vsion 05:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. The current article is too heavily weighted in favour of the history of Singapore law and sources of Singapore law, which could be articles of their own. Producing a summary style article will probably take quite a long time – perhaps priority should be given to producing the individual detailed articles that you've proposed, then combining the introductory paragraphs of these articles to create the 'Law of Singapore' summary article. Jacklee 14:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/w/Talk%7ELaw_of_Singapore_e98b.html"