Law Society represents members of the legal profession in Singapore with the objective of assisting and promoting the

interests of the profession. This section of the website covers various aspects such as guidance on professional and practice

issues, running your practice, membership benefits, and services for members.

The Law Society has now 32 standing committees to consider policies and issues affecting the profession. Chairpersons and

committee members are volunteer members. The Law Society Secretariat provides the necessary support for the

organisation and implementation of the committees’ projects and activities.

To address various needs of its members, the Law Society has established the following schemes to assist and support

members:

 Practice Consult

 PracMentor

 Mentoring Scheme for Small Firms

 LawCare

 Defence Assist

 SCMediate

 Cost Dispute Resolve

 Welfare Fund

 Scholarship

The Law Society encourages its members to serve the community by being involved in the Society’s pro bono schemes. By

volunteering your services in our pro bono schemes, you will be extending help and support to persons in need of legal

advice and/or representation. Read more about how you can be a part of our pro bono schemes.

Law Society was established under the Legal Profession Act in 1967. It carries out various statutory functions, including:

 maintaining and improving the standards of conduct and learning of the legal profession in Singapore;

 facilitating the acquisition of legal knowledge by members of the legal profession ;

 representing, protecting and assisting members of the legal profession in Singapore; promoting in any manner the Society

thinks fit the interests of the legal profession in Singapore; and

 protecting and assisting the public in all matters ancillary or incidental to the law.

Every Singapore lawyer who has in force a practising certificate is automatically a member of the Law Society. Certain

categories of foreign lawyers registered with the Legal Services Regulatory Authority are also automatically members of the

Law Society.

The mission of the Law Society is to serve its members and the public by sustaining an independent bar which upholds the

rule of law and ensures access to justice. As part of its mission in ensuring access to justice for the needy, the Law Society

has established a Pro Bono Services Office.

The Council of the Law Society, which consist of statutory members and elected members, manages the affairs of the Law

Society and ensures the proper performance of its functions under the Act.
Law of Singapore
From Laws of Singapore, the free encyclopedia

The former Supreme Court building, which was in use between 1939 and 2005, as it appeared in September 2009

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 statutoryin 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 (Cap. 97, 1997 Rev. Ed.) and the Penal
Code (Cap. 224, 2008 Rev. Ed.) which were based on Indian statutes.
On the other hand, where the interpretation of the Constitution of the Republic of
Singapore (1985 Rev. Ed., 1999 Reprint) 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 as different.
Certain laws such as the Internal Security Act (Cap. 143) (which authorises detention
without trial in certain circumstances) and the Societies Act (Cap. 311) (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.
Contents
 [hide]

 1History
o 1.1Before 1826
o 1.21826–1867: The "Indian period"
o 1.31867–1942: The Straits Settlements as a Crown colony
o 1.41942–1946: Singapore under Japanese and British Military Administration
o 1.51946–1963: The end of the Straits Settlements: Singapore as a separate colony and self-gov erning state
o 1.61963–1965: Independence from the British Empire and merger with Malaysia
o 1.71965 to the present: Singapore as a f ully independent nation
 2Sources of law
o 2.1Legislation
o 2.2Judicial precedents
o 2.3Custom
 3Criminal law
 4See also
 5Notes
 6Further reading
o 6.1General
o 6.2Commercial law
o 6.3Constitutional law
o 6.4Criminal law
o 6.5Other subjects
 7External links
o 7.1Singapore law
o 7.2Government ministries and agencies
o 7.3Parliament
o 7.4Courts
o 7.5Alternative dispute resolution
o 7.6Legal education
o 7.7Legal associations and organisations

History[Laws of Singapore]
Before 1826[Laws of Singapore]

Sir Thomas Stamfor d Bingley R affles ( 6 Jul y 1781 – 5 Jul y 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
Sultanatewas 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 judgement
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. Unfortunately, Crawfurd's courts also lacked legal
[2]

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. By virtue of the Fort Marlborough in India Act 1802 both territories, together with
[5] [6]

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
[7]

William.
The Indian Salaries and Pensions Act 1825 authorised the East India Company to place
[8]

Singapore and Malacca under the administration of Prince of Wales' Island

(now Penang). The Company did so, thus creating the Straits Settlements. [9]

1826–1867: The "Indian period"[Laws of Singapore]

The East Indi a House, the headquarters of the East India Company, in Leadenhall Street, London, as s een c. 1817; it was demolished in 1869.

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,
[10]

Singapore and Malacca, which was conferred "full Power and Authority… to give and
pass Judgement 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. [11]

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. [12]
The title page of the Second C harter of J ustice of 27 N ovember 1826, from the Laws of Si ngapor eion published in London by J.L. Cox in Februar y 1827.

This copy of the Charter was originally owned by the Supreme C ourt of the Straits Settlements, and a photoc opy of it is pres entl y i n the c ollection 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 [13]

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
[14]

1813), Prince of Wales' Island itself had been conferred an extremely limited power to
[15]

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 [16]

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
[17]

Settlements, which power was assumed by the Governor General of Bengal. He issued
four such regulations applicable to the Straits Settlements. [18]

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
[19]

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. [20]

In 1833, the Government of India Act 1833 (also known as the Charter Act 1833) was [21]

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". [22]

The Court of Judicature was reorganised 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. [23]

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
[24]

of India continued to legislate for the Straits Settlements. [25]

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 inquire into the
matter and empowered them to publish a volume containing the text of any Indian Acts
considered in force. Any Acts not included ceased to be applicable forthwith. [26]

1867–1942: The Straits Settlements as a Crown colony[Laws of

Singapore]
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 [27]
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". [28]

By the Supreme Court Ordinance 1868 (S.S.), the Court of Judicature of the Straits
[29]

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
[30] [31]

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
[32]

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. [33]

Also in 1878, a provision later known as section 5 of the Civil Law Act was introduced
[34]

into Straits Settlements law. The provision stated that if a question or issue arose locally
[35]

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
[36]

section 5 was worded created much difficulty in determining whether particular English
statutes applied locally. Despite major amendments to the provision in 1979, the
[37] [38]

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
[39]

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
[40] [41]

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 [42]

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
[43]

High Court and Court of Appeal. [44]

1942–1946: Singapore under Japanese and British Military

Administration[Laws of Singapore]
Gen. Tomoyuki Yamas hita(seated, l eft of c entre) of the Japanese Imperial Army thumps the table with his fist to emphasis e his terms – unconditi onal

surrender of Singapore. Lt.-Gen. Arthur Perci val, General Officer Commanding (Malaya) of the British Army (right, back to c amera)sits between his officers,

his clenc hed 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. [45]

There is some disagreement as to the status of judgements 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. [46]

The Japanese surrendered on 12 September 1945. By Proclamation No. 1 (1945),

the Supreme Allied Commander South East Asiaestablished 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
[47]

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. [48]

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 judgement convicting or
purporting to convict any person or any offence was set aside. Civil proceedings were [48]

dealt with by the Japanese Judgements 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. [49]
1946–1963: The end of the Straits Settlements: Singapore as a
separate colony and self-governing state[Laws of Singapore]
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
[5 0]

1946, Singapore was constituted as a new colony under the British Settlements Acts
[51]

1887. A Singapore Legislative Council was created with power to legislate for the
[52]

peace, order and good government of the Colony. The High Court and Court of Appeal
[53]

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
[54] [55]

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. [56]

1963–1965: Independence from the British Empire and merger with

Malaysia[Laws of Singapore]
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 (UK), the Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore (State
[57]

Constitutions) Order in Council 1963 and the Malaysia Act 1963 (Malaysia). The 1963
[58] [59]

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
[60]

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. [61]

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 officialised with effect from 16 March 1964 through the Courts of
Judicature Act 1964 (M'sia), which replaced the Supreme Court of the Colony of
[62]

Singapore with the High Court of Malaysia in Singapore. The jurisdiction of the High
[63]

Court in Singapore was limited to all territory in the State of Singapore. [64]

1965 to the present: Singapore as a fully independent nation[Laws of

Singapore]
Parliament H ous e, Si ngapor e, which was officiall y opened on 4 October 1999

Merger with Malaysia did not last: within two years, on 9 August 1965, Singapore was
expelled from 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
[65] [66]

Singapore Acts, the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1965 and the Republic of Singapore [67]

Independence Act 1965. Section 5 of the latter Act provided that the legislative powers
[68]

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
[69]

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, when the
Constitution was amended to establish the Supreme Court of Singapore replacing the
Federal Court of Malaysia with respect to Singapore, while retaining the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council in London as Singapore's court of final appeal. The [70]

Supreme Court was divided into two divisions: the upper division consisted of the Court
of Appeal and the Court of Criminal Appeal, which respectively dealt with civil and
criminal matters; the lower division being the High Court of Singapore. [71]

The Supreme Court Buildi ng, designed by Foster & Partners, which commenc ed operations on 20 J une 2005, as it appeared in Augus t 2006

In 1970 the subordinate courts were re-organised. Since that time, the Subordinate [72]

Courts of Singapore have consisted of the District Courts, the Magistrates' Courts, the
Juvenile Courts and the Coroners' Courts. [73]

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
[74]
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 [75]

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
[76]

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 [77]

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 Court of Appeal of [78]

Singapore 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
[79]

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
[80]

the Schedules to the Act apply or continue to apply in Singapore; no other English
enactment is part of Singapore law. [81]

Sources of law[Laws of Singapore]

The Statutes of the Republic of Si ngapor e, a series that consists of all Ac ts of the Singapore Parliament and English statutes that are c urrentl y in force i n

Singapore
Main article: Sources of Singapore law
Generally, Singapore has three sources of law: legislation, judicial precedents (case law),
and custom. [82]

Legislation[Laws of Singapore]
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
[83]

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
[84]

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
[85]

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 [8 6]

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
online for five days on the Electronic Gazette website.
Judicial precedents[Laws of Singapore]

The Si ngapor e Law Reports, first published by the Singapore Academy of Law in 1992, contain reports of significant j udgements handed down by the High

Court, Court of Appeal and C onstitutional Tribunal of Singapore

As Singapore is a common law jurisdiction, judgements handed down by the courts are
considered a source of law. Judgements 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, judgements 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
judgements 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. Outside
Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei, they are available online from another fee-based
service called Justis.
Custom[Laws of Singapore]
A custom is an established practice or course of behaviour that persons who engaged in
it consider law. Customs do not have the force of law unless recognised in a case.
"Legal" or "trade" customs are not recognised as law unless they are certain and not
unreasonable or illegal. In Singapore, custom is a minor source of law as not many
[87]

customs have judicial recognition.

Criminal law[Laws of Singapore]

A variety of acti vities ranging from s moki ng to c arrying durians is banned on Singapore's Mass Rapid Transit s ystem

Main article: Criminal law of Singapore

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 [88]

are created by statutes such as the Arms Offences Act, Kidnapping Act, Misuse of [89] [90]

Drugs Act and Vandalism Act.

[91] [92]

In addition, Singapore society is highly regulated through the criminalisation 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
[93] [94] [95] [96]

sale of chewing gum, and sexual activity such as oral and anal sex between
[97]

men. Nonetheless, Singapore is one of the countries with the least crime in the world,
[98]

with a low incidence of violent crimes. [99]

Singapore retains both corporal punishment (in the form of caning) and capital
punishment (by hanging) as punishments for serious offences. For some offences, most
notably trafficking in drugs above a certain specified quantity, the imposition of these
penalties is mandatory.

See also [Laws of Singapore]

 Caning in Singapore
 Capital punishment in Singapore
 Constitution of Singapore
 Judicial system of Singapore
 Law enforcement in Singapore
 Lawyers in Singapore
 Parliament of Singapore

Notes[Laws of Singapore]
1. Jump up^ Kevin Y[ew] L[ee] Tan (1989), "A Short Legal and Constitutional History of Singapore", in Walter Woon, The
Singapore Legal System, Singapore: Longman, p. 3 at 8, ISBN 978-9971-89-993-6.
2. Jump up^ L.A. Mills (1960), "British Malaya 1824–1867", Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society,
XXXIII (3), cited in Mavis Chionh (2005), "The Development of the Court System", in Kevin Y[ew] L[ee] Tan, Essays in Singapore
Legal History, Singapore: Singapore Academy of Law; Marshall Cavendish Academic, p. 93 at 99, ISBN 978-981-210-389-5.
3. Jump up^ Chionh, pp. 97–98.
4. Jump up^ Walter Woon (1989), "The Applicability of English Law in Singapore", in Walter Woon, The Singapore Legal
System, Singapore: Longman, p. 107 at 112–113, ISBN 978-9971-89-993-6.
5. Jump up^ 5 Geo. IV c. 108 (UK).
6. Jump up^ 42 Geo. III c. 29 (UK).
7. Jump up^ 39 & 40 Geo. III c. 79 (UK).
8. Jump up^ 6 Geo. IV c. 85 (UK).
9. Jump up^ G[eoffrey] W[ilson] Bartholomew; 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, p. xxvii, ISBN 978-9971-70-053-9.
10. Jump up^ The First Charter of Justice of 1807 applied only to Prince of Wales' Island (Penang).
11. Jump up^ Andrew Phang Boon Leong (2006), From Foundation to Legacy: The Second Charter of Justice, Singapore:
Singapore Academy of Law, pp. 19–23, ISBN 978-981-05-7194-8.
12. Jump up^ Chionh, pp. 99–100.
13. Jump up^ Bartholomew, p. xxxiii.
14. Jump up^ Tan, p. 11.
15. Jump up^ 53 Geo. III c. 155 (UK)
16. Jump up^ Bartholomew, p. xxxiv.
17. Jump up^ Bartholomew, p. xxxv.
18. Jump up^ Bartholomew, p. xxxvii.
19. Jump up^ 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.
20. Jump up^ Chionh, pp. 100–101.
21. Jump up^ 3 & 4 Will. IV, c. 85 (UK).
22. Jump up^ Bartholomew, p. xxxix.
23. Jump up^ Chionh, p. 103.
24. Jump up^ 21 & 22 Vic. c. 106 (UK).
25. Jump up^ Bartholomew, p. xlvi.
26. Jump up^ Bartholomew, p. xl.
27. Jump up^ 29 & 30 Vic. c. 115 (UK): Bartholomew, p. xlvi.
28. Jump up^ Bartholomew, p. xlvii.
29. Jump up^ Ordinance No. 5 of 1868 (S.S.).
30. Jump up^ By the Judicial Duties Act (No. 3 of 1867) (S.S.).
31. Jump up^ By the Supreme Court Ordinance 1868 (No. 5 of 1868) (S.S.).
32. Jump up^ Tan, p. 18.
33. Jump up^ The 1878 ref orms were effected by the Courts Ordinance 1878 (No. 3 of 1878) (S.S.).
34. Jump up^ Civil Law Act (Cap. 43 , 1985 Rev. Ed.).
35. Jump up^ By the Civil Law Ordinance 1878 (No. 4 of 1878) (S.S.).
36. Jump up^ Walter Woon (1989), "The Continuing Reception of English Commercial Law", in Walter Woon, The
Singapore Legal System, Singapore: Longman, p. 139 at 139–141, ISBN 978-9971-89-993-6.
37. Jump up^ See, generally, Woon, pp. 142–153; and Phang, pp. 27–35.
38. Jump up^ By the Civil Law (Amendment No. 2) Act 1979 (No. 24 of 1979).
39. Jump up^ Ordinance No. 15 of 1885 (S.S.)
40. Jump up^ Chionh, pp. 104–106.
41. Jump up^ By the Courts Ordinance 1907 (No. 30 of 1907) (S.S.).
42. Jump up^ Chionh, pp. 106–107.
43. Jump up^ By way of the Court of Criminal Appeal Ordinance 1931 (No. 5 of 1931) (S.S.): Tan, p. 19.
44. Jump up^ By the Courts Ordinance (Cap. 10, 1936 Rev. Ed.) (S.S.).
45. Jump up^ Tan, p. 20.
46. Jump up^ Bartholomew, pp. lxviii–lxix.
47. Jump up^ Bartholomew, p. lxix.
48. ^ Jump up to: a b Bartholomew, p. lxx.
49. Jump up^ Bartholomew, p. lxxi.
50. Jump up^ 9 & 10 Geo. VI c. 37 (UK).
51. Jump up^ S.R. & O. 1946 No. 464 (UK)
52. Jump up^ 50 & 51 Vic. c. 54 (UK).
53. Jump up^ Bartholomew, pp. lxxxi–lxxxii.
54. Jump up^ S.I. 1958 No. 1946 (UK).
55. Jump up^ 6 & 7 Eliz. II c. 59 (UK): Bartholomew, p. lxxiv.
56. Jump up^ By way of the Courts Ordinance 1955 (No. 14 of 1955, later Cap. 3, 1955 Rev. Ed.): Chionh, p. 113.
57. Jump up^ c. 35 (UK).
58. Jump up^ S.I. 1963 No. 1493 (UK).
59. Jump up^ No. 26 of 1963 (M'sia): Bartholomew, p. lxxvi.
60. Jump up^ Bartholomew, p. lxxv ii.
61. Jump up^ Bartholomew, p. lxxix.
62. Jump up^ No. 7 of 1964 (M'sia), reprinted as Act No. 6 of 1966 in the Singapore Reprints Supplement (Acts).
63. Jump up^ Tan, p. 30.
64. Jump up^ Chionh, p. 113.
65. Jump up^ No. 31 of 1965 (M'sia).
66. Jump up^ No. 59 of 1966 (M'sia).
67. Jump up^ No. 8 of 1965 (S'pore).
68. Jump up^ No. 9 of 1965 (S'pore).
69. Jump up^ Bartholomew, pp. lxxix–lxxx.
70. Jump up^ By the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1969 (No. 19 of 1969): Tan, pp. 30 and 32.
71. Jump up^ Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (No. 24 of 1969), now Cap. 322, 1999 Rev. Ed..
72. Jump up^ By the Subordinate Courts Act 1970 (No. 19 of 1970), now Cap. 321, 1999 Rev. Ed..
73. Jump up^ Chionh, pp. 114–115.
74. Jump up^ By the Judicial Committee (Amendment) Act 1989 (No. 21 of 1989).
 75. Jump up^ Jeyaretnam v. Law Society of Singapore [1988] 2 S.L.R.(R.) [Singapore Law Reports (Reissue)] 470 at 489,
para. 59, [1988] UKPC 25, [1989] A.C. 608 at 631, Privy Council (on appeal from Singapore); see also Geoffrey Robertson (7
October 2008), "Joshua Jeyaretnam: Lawyer and activist, he was for many years the only political opposition to Singapore's rulers
[obituary]", The Guardian, London.
76. Jump up^ By the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act 1993 (No. 16 of 1993).
77. Jump up^ 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).
78. Jump up^ Chionh, pp. 116–117.
79. Jump up^ No. 35 of 1993, now Cap. 7A, 1994 Rev. Ed..
80. Jump up^ Application of English Law Act, s. 3.
81. Jump up^ Application of English Law Act, ss. 4 and 5. See, generally, Phang, pp. 37–49.
82. Jump up^ See, generally, ch. 6 of Helena H[ui-]M[eng] Chan (1995), The Legal System of Singapore, Singapore:
Butterworths Asia, pp. 105–112, ISBN 978-0-409-99789-7.
83. Jump up^ The current v ersion is the 1999 Reprint.
84. Jump up^ Constitution, Art. 4.
85. Jump up^ Cap. 7A, 1994 Rev. Ed..
86. Jump up^ Para. 10.020 in vol. 1 of Halsbury's Laws of Singapore, Singapore: Butterworths Asia, 1999, ISBN 978-981-
236-000-7.
87. Jump up^ Chan, p. 122.
88. Jump up^ Penal Code (Cap. 224, 2008 Rev. Ed.).
89. Jump up^ Arms Offences Act (Cap. 14, 1998 Rev. Ed.).
90. Jump up^ Kidnapping Act (Cap. 151, 1999 Rev. Ed.).
91. Jump up^ Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap. 185, 1998 Rev. Ed.).
92. Jump up^ Vandalism Act (Cap. 341, 1985 Rev. Ed.).
93. Jump up^ Environmental Public Health (Public Cleansing) Regulations (Cap. 95, Rg. 3, 2000 Rev. Ed.), rg. 16.
94. Jump up^ Environmental Public Health Act (Cap. 95, 2002 Rev. Ed.), s. 17(1).
95. Jump up^ Road Traffic (Pedestrian Crossings) Rules (Cap. 276, R 24).
96. Jump up^ Penal Code, s. 292(a) (possessing any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or
figure, or any other obscene object).
97. Jump up^ Sale of Food (Prohibition of Chewing Gum) Regulations (Cap. 283, Rg. 2, 2004 Rev. Ed.).
98. Jump up^ Penal Code, s. 377A.
99. Jump up^ Chang Hwee Yin (October 1994), "Crime in Singapore: A Statistical Comparison with Major
Cities", Statistics Singapore Newsletter, 17 (2), archived from the original on 25 January 2008, With the high standard of living,
continued prosperity and increased civic consciousness, Singapore has been a relatively crime-free society by international
standards. The crime rate, which is already low, has declined further in recent years. This paper presents an overview of the crime
situation in Singapore during the last decade and gives a quantitative comparison of Singapore vis-a-vis selected major cities in the
Asia-Pacific region (including North America); In 1991, Singapore's rate of violent crime (murder, rape, robbery and aggravated
assault) is the lowest amongst the cities excluding Tokyo.

Further reading[Laws of Singapore]

General[Laws of Singapore]

 Chan, Helena H[ui-]M[eng] (1995), The Legal System of Singapore,

Singapore: Butterworths Asia, ISBN 978-0-409-99789-7.
 Lim, Min, ed. (2005), Teens and the Law, Singapore: Singapore Association of
Women Lawyers, ISBN 978-981-3065-97-0.
 Myint Soe, U. (2001), Principles of Singapore Law (including Business Law) (4th
ed.), Singapore: Institute of Banking and Finance, ISBN 978-9971-9900-9-1.
 Phang, Andrew Boon Leong (1990), The Development of Singapore Law:
Historical and Socio-Legal Perspectives, Singapore: Butterworths, ISBN 978-0-409-
99588-6.
 Phang, Andrew Boon Leong (2006), From Foundation to Legacy: The Second
Charter of Justice, Singapore: Singapore Academy of Law, ISBN 978-981-05-7194-
8.
 Sheridan, L[ionel] A[stor], ed. (1961), Malaya and Singapore, the Borneo
Territories: The Development of Their Laws and Constitutions, London:
Stevens, OCLC 1838341.
 Tan, Kevin Y[ew] L[ee], ed. (2005), Essays in Singapore Legal History,
Singapore: Singapore Academy of Law; Marshall Cavendish Academic, ISBN 978-
981-210-349-9.
 Tan, Kevin Y[ew] L[ee], ed. (1999), The Singapore Legal System (2nd ed.),
Singapore: Singapore University Press, ISBN 978-9971-69-213-1.
 You & the Law 3 (3rd ed.), Singapore: Singapore Association of Women
Lawyers, 2002, ISBN 978-981-04-5152-3.
Commercial law[Laws of Singapore]
 Phang, Andrew Boon Leong, ed. (2012), The Law of Contract in Singapore,
Singapore: Academy Publishing, ISBN 978-981-08-8692-9.
 Shenoy, George T.L.; Loo, Wee Ling, eds. (2009), Principles of Singapore
Business Law, Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia, ISBN 978-981-425-373-4.
Constitutional law[Laws of Singapore]

 Tan, Kevin Y[ew] L[ee]; Thio, Li-ann (2010), Constitutional Law in Malaysia and
Singapore (3rd ed.), Singapore: LexisNexis, ISBN 978-981-236-795-2.
 Thio, Li-ann; Tan, Kevin Y[ew] L[ee], eds. (2009), Evolution of a Revolution: Forty
Years of the Singapore Constitution, London; New York, N.Y.: Routledge-
Cavendish, ISBN 978-0-415-43862-9.
 Thio, Li-ann (2012), A Treatise on Singapore Constitutional Law,
Singapore: Academy Publishing, ISBN 978-981-07-1516-8.
Criminal law [Laws of Singapore]

 Chan, Wing Cheong; Hor, Michael Yew Meng; Ramraj, Victor V[ridar]
(2005), Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law: Cases and Materials,
Singapore: LexisNexis, ISBN 978-981-236-409-8
 Chan, Wing Cheong; Phang, Andrew (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 978-981-04-3720-6.
 Yeo, Stanley Meng Heong; Chan, Wing Cheong; Morgan, N[eil] A.
(2009), Criminal Law in Malaysia and Singapore: A Casebook Companion,
Singapore: LexisNexis, ISBN 978-981-236-680-1.
Other subjects[Laws of Singapore]

 Chan, Gary Kok Yew; Lee, Pey Woan (2011), The Law of Torts in Singapore,
Singapore: Academy Publishing, ISBN 978-981-08-8691-2.
 Leong, Wai Kum (1997), Principles of Family Law in Singapore, Singapore:
Butterworths Asia, ISBN 978-0-409-99888-7.
 Tan, Sook Yee; Tang, Hang Wu; Low, Kelvin F[att] K[in] (2009), Tan Sook Yee's
Principles of Singapore Land Law (2nd ed.), Singapore: LexisNexis, ISBN 978-981-
236-732-7.

External links [Laws of Singapore]

Singapore law[Laws of Singapore]

 Information on the Singapore legal system from the website of the ASEAN Law
Association
 Law in Singapore – an index by the C.J. Koh Law Library, National University of
Singapore
 LawNet
 Singapore Statutes Online – a service of the Attorney-General's Chambers,
Singapore
 SingaporeLaw – a service managed by the Singapore Academy of Law and
Ministry of Law, Singapore
Government ministries and agencies[Laws of Singapore]

 Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), Singapore

 Ministry of Law
 Departments
 Community Mediation Centre (CMC)
  Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office (IPTO)
 Legal Aid Bureau
 Statutory boards
 Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS)
 Singapore Land Authority (SLA)
 Boards
 Appeals Board (Land Acquisition)
 Copyright Tribunal
 Land Surveyors Board, Singapore
Parliament[Laws of Singapore]

 Parliament of Singapore
Courts[Laws of Singapore]

 Supreme Court of Singapore

 Subordinate Courts of Singapore
 Family Court of Singapore
 Juvenile Court of Singapore
 Small Claims Tribunals
 Syariah Court of Singapore
Alternative dispute resolution [Laws of Singapore]

 Community Mediation Centre (CMC)

 Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)
 Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC)
Legal education[Laws of Singapore]

 Board of Legal Education (BLE)

 IP Academy, Singapore
 Nanyang Technological University (NTU) — College of Business (Nanyang
Business School)
 Division of Business Law
 National University of Singapore (NUS)
 Centre for International Law (CIL)
 Department of Business Policy, NUS Business School
 Faculty of Law
 Asian Law Institute (ASLI)
 Asia-Pacific Centre for Environmental Law (APCEL)
 Centre for Commercial Law Studies (CCLS)
 Singapore Management University (SMU)
 School of Law
 Temasek Polytechnic — Temasek Business School
 Diploma in Law and Management
Legal associations and organisations[Laws of Singapore]

 Law Society of Singapore

 Singapore Academy of Law
 Singapore Corporate Counsel Association
 ASEAN Law Association, Singapore front page