Law of Singapore
The legal system of Singapore is based on the
Apart from referring to relevant
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.
History
Before 1826
Modern Singapore was founded on 6 February 1819 by Sir
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
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
The Indian Salaries and Pensions Act 1825[6] authorised 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.[7]
1826–1867: The "Indian period"
The statute 6 Geo. 4 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.[8] 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 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.[9]
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.[10]
The Charter conferred no legislative power on the Governor and Council of Prince of Wales' Island or, indeed, on any other individual or institution.
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[16] took the view that the court was illegal, and it was soon closed again. In September 1831 merchants of the Straits Settlements appealed to the British Parliament. By then, the East India Company had already decided that Fullerton had been mistaken. It decided to restore the titles of Governor and Resident Councillor so that these officers could continue to administer justice pursuant to the Charter. On 9 June 1832 the Court of Judicature reopened at Prince of Wales' Island, and disposed of many outstanding cases that had amassed during the two years when the courts were closed.[17]
In 1833, the
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.[19]
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
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.[21]
1867–1942: The Straits Settlements as a Crown colony
On 1 April 1867, the
By the Supreme Court Ordinance 1868 (S.S.),[24] 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[25] and Resident Councillors[26] ceased to be judges of the Court.
In 1873, the Supreme Court was reconstituted to consist of the
Also in 1878, a provision later known as section 5 of the Civil Law Act
Under the Courts Ordinance Amendment 1885 (S.S.),
1942–1946: Singapore under Japanese and British Military Administration
During World War II, Singapore fell under Japanese Military Administration on 15 February 1942. There is much confusion as to where legislative authority lay, as there were several government or military bodies which had the power to make laws. These were, in order of descending authority, the Supreme Command of the Southern Army Headquarters, the 25th Army Headquarters, the Military Administration Department, the Malay (Malayan) Military Administration Headquarters, and the City Government of Tokubetu-si. Numerous regulations, laws and notices were issued by all these bodies through the Tokubetu-si without adhering to the normal chain of command. Although these laws were often contradictory, the body higher in the hierarchy always prevailed.
When the Japanese occupation of Singapore began, all existing courts ceased to function. By a decree of 7 April 1942, a Military Court of Justice of the Nippon Army was established, and the civil courts were reopened by a proclamation dated 27 May. This Proclamation made all former British laws applicable so long as they did not interfere with the Military Administration. The highest court was the Syonan Koto-Hoin (Syonan Supreme Court) which was opened on 29 May. Although a court of appeal was constituted, it never sat.[40]
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.[41]
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.[42] 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.[43]
By Proclamation No. 23 (1945), the Deputy Chief Civil Affairs Officer for the Singapore Division provided that every conviction of any offence by a tribunal established by the Japanese Military Administration was quashed, and any judgment convicting or purporting to convict any person or any offence was set aside.[43] Civil proceedings were 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.[44]
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
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
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.[49]
1963–1965: Independence from the British Empire and merger with Malaysia
Singapore joined the
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.[53]
Under the Malaysia Act 1963, the judicial power of Malaysia was vested in a
1965 to the present: Singapore as a fully independent nation
Merger with Malaysia did not last: within two years, on 9 August 1965, Singapore was expelled from the Federation and became a fully independent
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.[62] The 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.[63]
In 1970 the subordinate courts were re-organised.[64] Since that time, the Subordinate Courts of Singapore have consisted of the District Courts, the Magistrates' Courts, the Juvenile Courts and the Coroners' Courts.[65] The Subordinate Courts were renamed the State Courts of Singapore on 7 March 2014.
Steps to restrict appeals to the Privy Council were first taken in 1989. In that year, the law was changed
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.[71] 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.[72] 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.[73]
Sources of law
Generally, Singapore has three sources of law:
Legislation
Legislation, or
Judicial precedent
As Singapore is a
Custom
A
Civil Law
Since independence, the civil law of Singapore has developed distinctly from the English common law. Nonetheless, much of the Singaporean law is based upon the English law, and although English decisions made before 1827 are not considered binding, they are still persuasive in the judgments of the Singaporean court.[80]
Contract
The law of contract deals with the rules of contract and dispute resolution pertaining to breaches of contract.
With regard to remedies in contract, the Singapore court has affirmed the English case of Hadley v Baxendale — which establishes two limbs that allow for the establishment of remoteness in cases of breach: natural losses arising from breach, and special knowledge of a plaintiff — in the case of MXM Restaurants v Fish & Co.[81] In doing so, the court rejected Lord Hoffman's requirement of assumption of liability in the English case of Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc.
Tort
Tort law is the branch of law that concerns private wrongs, including negligence, malpractice, and intentional tort.
Whilst the current English paradigm for establishing a duty of care in cases of negligence was established in Caparo v Dickman, which formulated a three-stage test for determining duty of care, the Singaporean Court of Appeal has rejected the Caparo test in favour of their own test in Spandeck v DSTA.[82]
Determining medical malpractice and standards of care have also differed from the English common law. [83][84]
Criminal law
Unlike the common
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,
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
- 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
- ISBN 978-9971-89-993-6.
- ISBN 978-981-210-389-5.
- ^ Chionh, pp. 97–98.
- ISBN 978-9971-89-993-6.
- ^ 39 & 40 Geo. 3 c. 79 (UK)
- ^ 6 Geo. 4 c. 85 (UK).
- ISBN 978-9971-70-053-9.
- ^ The First Charter of Justice of 1807 applied only to Prince of Wales' Island (Penang).
- ISBN 978-981-05-7194-8.
- ^ Chionh, pp. 99–100.
- ^ Bartholomew, p. xxxiii.
- ^ Tan, p. 11.
- ^ Bartholomew, p. xxxiv.
- ^ Bartholomew, p. xxxv.
- ^ Bartholomew, p. xxxvii.
- ^ It is not known whether this is the same person as the James Loch (1780–1855), a Scottish estate commissioner and a Member of Parliament.
- ^ Chionh, pp. 100–101.
- ^ Bartholomew, p. xxxix.
- ^ Chionh, p. 103.
- ^ Bartholomew, p. xlvi.
- ^ Bartholomew, p. xl.
- ^ Bartholomew, p. xlvi.
- ^ Bartholomew, p. xlvii.
- ^ Ordinance No. 5 of 1868 (S.S.).
- ^ By the Judicial Duties Act (No. 3 of 1867) (S.S.).
- ^ By the Supreme Court Ordinance 1868 (No. 5 of 1868) (S.S.).
- ^ Tan, p. 18.
- ^ The 1878 reforms were effected by the Courts Ordinance 1878 (No. 3 of 1878) (S.S.).
- ^ Civil Law Act (Cap. 43 , 1985 Rev. Ed.).
- ^ By the Civil Law Ordinance 1878 (No. 4 of 1878) (S.S.).
- ISBN 978-9971-89-993-6.
- ^ See, generally, Woon, pp. 142–153; and Phang, pp. 27–35.
- ^ By the Civil Law (Amendment No. 2) Act 1979 (No. 24 of 1979).
- ^ Ordinance No. 15 of 1885 (S.S.)
- ^ Chionh, pp. 104–106.
- ^ By the Courts Ordinance 1907 (No. 30 of 1907) (S.S.).
- ^ Chionh, pp. 106–107.
- ^ By way of the Court of Criminal Appeal Ordinance 1931 (No. 5 of 1931) (S.S.): Tan, p. 19.
- ^ By the Courts Ordinance (Cap. 10, 1936 Rev. Ed.) (S.S.).
- ^ Tan, p. 20.
- ^ Bartholomew, pp. lxviii–lxix.
- ^ Bartholomew, p. lxix.
- ^ a b Bartholomew, p. lxx.
- ^ Bartholomew, p. lxxi.
- ^ S.R. & O. 1946 No. 464 (UK)
- ^ Bartholomew, pp. lxxxi–lxxxii.
- S.I. 1958 No. 1946(UK).
- ^ Bartholomew, p. lxxiv.
- ^ By way of the Courts Ordinance 1955 (No. 14 of 1955, later Cap. 3, 1955 Rev. Ed.): Chionh, p. 113.
- S.I. 1963 No. 1493(UK).
- ^ No. 26 of 1963 (M'sia): Bartholomew, p. lxxvi.
- ^ Bartholomew, p. lxxvii.
- ^ Bartholomew, p. lxxix.
- ^ No. 7 of 1964 (M'sia), reprinted as Act No. 6 of 1966 in the Singapore Reprints Supplement (Acts).
- ^ Tan, p. 30.
- ^ Chionh, p. 113.
- ^ No. 31 of 1965 (M'sia).
- ^ No. 59 of 1966 (M'sia).
- ^ No. 8 of 1965 (S'pore).
- ^ No. 9 of 1965 (S'pore).
- ^ Bartholomew, pp. lxxix–lxxx.
- ^ By the Constitution (Amendment) Act 1969 (No. 19 of 1969): Tan, pp. 30 and 32.
- ^ Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (No. 24 of 1969), now Cap. 322, 1999 Rev. Ed..
- ^ By the Subordinate Courts Act 1970 (No. 19 of 1970), now Cap. 321, 1999 Rev. Ed..
- ^ Chionh, pp. 114–115.
- ^ By the Judicial Committee (Amendment) Act 1989 (No. 21 of 1989).
- ^ 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.
- ^ By the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act 1993 (No. 16 of 1993).
- ^ The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Act 1994 (No. 5 of 1994) repealed Art. 100 of the Constitution, which had provided that the President could make arrangements with Her Majesty for reference to the Privy Council of appeals from the Supreme Court. The Judicial Committee Act 1966 (No. 37 of 1966, later 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).
- ^ Chionh, pp. 116–117.
- ^ No. 35 of 1993, now Cap. 7A, 1994 Rev. Ed..
- ^ Application of English Law Act, s. 3.
- ^ Application of English Law Act, ss. 4 and 5. See, generally, Phang, pp. 37–49.
- ISBN 978-0-409-99789-7.
- ^ The current version is the 1999 Reprint.
- ^ Constitution, Art. 4.
- ^ Cap. 7A, 1994 Rev. Ed..
- ISBN 978-981-236-000-7.
- ^ Chan, p. 122.
- ^ "Ch. 08 The Law of Contract". www.singaporelawwatch.sg. Retrieved 3 September 2022.
- ^ "Singapore Court of Appeal Decides On When Damages Are Too Remote To Be Recovered" (PDF). Rajah and Tann.
- ^ "Ch. 20 The Law of Negligence". www.singaporelawwatch.sg. Retrieved 3 September 2022.
- ^ "Medical Negligence - The new legal test in Singapore to determine the standard of a doctor's duty in advising his patient". dentons.rodyk.com. Retrieved 10 September 2022.
- ^ "Singapore codifies the legal test to determine the standard of care for the provision of medical advice". dentons.rodyk.com. Retrieved 10 September 2022.
- ^ Penal Code (Cap. 224, 2008 Rev. Ed.).
- ^ Arms Offences Act (Cap. 14, 1998 Rev. Ed.).
- ^ Kidnapping Act (Cap. 151, 1999 Rev. Ed.).
- ^ Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap. 185, 1998 Rev. Ed.).
- Vandalism Act (Cap. 341, 1985 Rev. Ed.).
- ^ Environmental Public Health (Public Cleansing) Regulations (Cap. 95, Rg. 3, 2000 Rev. Ed.), rg. 16.
- ^ Environmental Public Health Act (Cap. 95, 2002 Rev. Ed.), s. 17(1).
- ^ Road Traffic (Pedestrian Crossings) Rules (Cap. 276, R 24).
- ^ Penal Code, s. 292(a) (possessing any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or figure, or any other obscene object).
- ^ Sale of Food (Prohibition of Chewing Gum) Regulations (Cap. 283, Rg. 2, 2004 Rev. Ed.).
- s. 377A.
- ^
Chang Hwee Yin (October 1994), "Crime in Singapore: A Statistical Comparison with Major Cities", Statistics Singapore Newsletter, 17 (2), archived from the original on 24 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
General
- Chan, Helena H[ui-]M[eng] (1995), The Legal System of Singapore, Singapore: 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.
- ISBN 978-0-409-99588-6.
- Phang, Andrew Boon Leong (2006), From Foundation to Legacy: The Second Charter of Justice, Singapore: 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
- 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
- Tan, Kevin Y[ew] L[ee]; 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.: ISBN 978-0-415-43862-9.
- Thio, Li-ann (2012), A Treatise on Singapore Constitutional Law, Singapore: ISBN 978-981-07-1516-8.
Criminal law
- Chan, Wing Cheong; Hor, Michael Yew Meng; Ramraj, Victor V[ridar] (2005), Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, Singapore: ISBN 978-981-236-409-8
- Chan, Wing Cheong; 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
- 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
Singapore law
Government ministries and agencies
Parliament
Courts
Alternative dispute resolution
- Community Mediation Centre (CMC)
- Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)
- Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC)
Legal education
- National University of Singapore (NUS)
- Singapore Management University (SMU)
- Nanyang Technological University (NTU) — College of Business (Nanyang Business School)
- Temasek Polytechnic — Temasek Business School