Sources of law and legal traditions39

3.1 Common law⁴⁰

The grant of the Second Charter of Justice was significant not only in establishing the Court of Judicature, but also for its implicit importation of English law.

33 Second CharterofJustice, op. cit.

34 JW Norton Kyshe, �A Judicial Historyof the Straits Settlements 1786-1890', MalayaLawReview, vol. 11, 1969, with an introduction byMB Hooker, pp. 104-6.

35 See C M Turnbull (1972), op. cit., pp. 56-8.

36 JWNortonKyshe,op.cit.,p.106.

37 SeeLAMills,op.cit.,p.106.

38 JWNortonKyshe,op.cit.,p.106.

39 See generally G W Bartholomew, �The Sources and Literature of Singapore Law', in G W Bartholomew (ed), Malaya Law Review Legal Essays in Memoriam BashirAhmad Mallal, Malaya Law Review, Singapore, 1975, pp. 314-45.

40 On the reception of English law in Singapore, see W Woon, â€?The Applicability of English Law in Singa­pore', in K Y L Tan (ed), The Singapore Legal System, 2nd ed, Singapore University Press, Singapore, 1999, pp. 230-48; ABL Phang, â€?The Reception ofEnglish Law', inKYL Tan (ed), Essays in SingaporeLegalHistory, Singapore Academy of Law and Marshall Cavendish Academic, Singapore, 2005, pp. 7-26; M F Rutter, â€?The Applicable Law in Singapore and Malaysia: A Guide to Reception, Precedent and the Sources of Law in the Republic of Singapore and the Federation of Malaysia', Malayan Law Journal, Singapore, 1989; M Gopal, â€?English Law in Singapore: The Reception That Never Was', Malayan Law Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, 1983, p. 25; there is no express statement in the Charter that English law was to be applied, the words of the Charter implied as much. Furthermore, the Court of Judicature had held in 1808 that English law had been introduced into Penang by the First Charter of Justice.⁴¹ Key words in the Charter were interpreted to import English law into the Straits Settlements.

[I]n this Colony, so much ofthe law of England as was in existence when it was imported here, and as is of general and not merely local policy, and adapted to the condition and wants of the inhabitants, is the law of the land; and further, that law is subject, in its application to the various alien races established here, to such modifications as are necessary to prevent it from operating unjustly and oppressively on them.⁴⁴

Once brought into Singapore, the common law in Singapore was on its own. English judges do not continue to make law for Singapore and â€?subsequent developments in the common law in the English courts do not automatically apply to Singapore.'⁴⁵ Developments of common law doctrine in England did not directly affect the development of Singapore which continued to develop and flourish on its own, taking into consideration its unique social circumstances and the needs of its population. Post-1826 developments in the common law made by English courts do not apply to Singapore unless it is accepted as part of Singapore's law by a Singapore court.

In 1993 Parliament passed the Application of English LawAct (Cap 7A)⁴⁶ to â€?declare the extent to which English law is applicable in Singapore'. Section 3(1) makes it clear that â€?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 12th November 1993, shall continue to be part of the law of Singapore'. Section 3(2) further provides that â€?[t]he common law shall continue to be in force in Singapore, as provided in subsection (1), so far as it is applicable to the circumstances of Singapore and its inhabitants and subject to such modifications as those circumstances may require.'

ABL Phang, �Of “Cut-Off” Dates and Domination: Some Problematic Aspects of the Reception ofEnglish Law in Singapore', Malaya Law Review, vol.

41 KamoovThomasTurnerBassett (1808) 1 Kyshe 1.

42 Rodyk v Williamson (Unreported, 24 May 1834). The transcript for thejudgment is lost but thejudgment was referred to by Malkin R in In the Goods ofAbdullah (1835) 2 Kyshe Eccles 8.

43 (1858) 3Kyshe16.

44 Chua Choon Neoh v Spottiswoode (1868) 1 Kyshe 216.

45 See W Woon, �The Applicability of English Law in Singapore', op. cit., pp. 230-48, para 237.

46 See generallyAPhang, �Cementing the Foundations: The Singapore ApplicationofEnglishLawAct 1993', UniversityofBritish ColumbiaLawReview, vol. 28, no. 1,1994, p. 205.

3.2 Judicial precedent^[1039]

Like most common law countries, judicial precedents are a major source of law. The decisions of higher courts will bind lower courts if a similar issue of law should arise. This is known as the principle of stare decisis (literally �let the decision stand'), more commonly referred to as the doctrine of binding precedent. However, not everything in any particular decision is binding; only the ratio decidendi - that part of the judgment in which the law is applied to relevant and material facts - is binding. The usefulness of judicial precedent as a source of law is predicated on the existence of a regular and reliable set of law reports and a judicial hierarchy that adheres to the doctrine of binding precedent.

Difficulties to be experienced in tapping this source of law arise from the complex legal history of the courts in Singapore. If decisions of higher courts are to bind those of lower courts, then it is important to determine which higher courts are relevant. In most jurisdictions, this is quite a simple matter, but in Singapore, this is rather more complicated because of its history.

This difficulty was settled in July 1994 when the Court of Appeal issued a Practice Statement on Judicial Precedent that declared that with the abolition of the Privy Council, the Court of Appeal was no longer bound by its previous decisions nor those of the Privy Council:

We recognize the vital role that the doctrine of stare decisis plays in giving certainty to the law and predictability on its application to similar cases. However, we also recognize that the political, social and economic circumstances of Singapore have changed enormously since Singapore became an independent and sovereign republic. The development of our law should reflect these changes and the fundamental values of Singapore society.

Accordingly, it is proper that the Court of Appeal should not hold itself bound by any previous decisions of its own or of the Privy Council, which by the rules of precedent prevailing prior to 8 April 1994 were binding on it, in any case where adherence to such prior decisions would cause injustice in a particular case or constrain the development of the law in conformity with the circumstances of Singapore.

Therefore, whilst this court will continue to treat such prior decisions as normally binding, this court will, whenever it appears right to do so, depart from such prior deci­sions. Bearing in mind the danger of retrospectively disturbing contractual, proprietary and other legal rights, this power will be exercised sparingly.

This statement is not intended to affect the use of precedent in the High Court or in any subordinate courts.⁴⁹

The High Court continues to be bound by the decisions of the Court of Appeal as well as the old Privy Council decisions and herein we encounter another problem. Up until 1994 Singapore did not have a permanent Court of Appeal, even though the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements had sat as a Court of Appeal since the turn of the 20th century. Would the High Court be bound by an old decision of the Straits Settlements Court of Appeal? Moving forward in time, how should the High Court treat the decisions of the courts of appeal of the Malaysian states since Singapore was, for almost two years, a part of the Federation of Malaysia? Theoretically, this could possibly include pre-1946 courts of the former Malayan Union, such as the Court of Appeal of the Federated Malay States, as well as the Courts of Appeal of Johore, Kedah and Trengannu, the Sultan's Court of Kelantan and the Court of the Raja-in-Council of Perlis.⁵⁰ To make matters worse, one might include the Court of Appeal of Sarawak, North Borneo and Brunei after the formation of Malaysia in 1963. Woon suggests that a clean break may be necessary to avert a messy situation: the High Court should only be bound by the superior courts that have exercised jurisdiction in Singapore - the Privy Council, the Court of Appeal of the Straits Settlements, the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Straits Settlements, the Court of Appeal of Singapore and the Court of Criminal Appeal of Singapore, as well as the Federal Court of Malaysia (between 1963 and 1965), and the Federal Court of Malaysia sitting in Singapore (1965-69).5¹

3.3 Law reports⁵²

Reports of judgments occasionally appeared in local newspapers such as The Pinang Gazette, The Straits Times, The Straits Observer and The Singapore Daily News.

49 TheSingaporeCourtofAppeaFsPracticeStatement(JudicialPrecedent) [1994] 2SLR689; [1994] SGCA 148.

50 WWoon, �The ApplicabilityofEnglish Law in Singapore' (1999), op. cit., pp. 310-11.

51 ibid.

52 See generally G W Bartholomew and KYL Tan, â€?A History of Law Reporting', inKYL Tan (ed) (2005), op. cit., pp. 139-60; B A Mallal, â€?Law and Law Reporting in Malaya', University ofMalaya La¹WRe-View, vol. 1, 1959, p. 71; and GWBartholomew, â€?Sources and Literature of Singapore Law' (1975), op. cit.

53 Leicester, who was Chief Clerk to the Magistrate of Police in Penang, published his Straits Law Reports: BeingaReport ofCasesDecided in the Supreme Court ofthe Straits Settlements, Penang, Singapore andMalacca; Also aFewJudgments oftheIndian andEnglish Cases. reporting regime was made when James William Norton Kyshe published his set of reports entitled Cases Heard and Determined in Her Majesty’s Supreme Court in the Straits Settlements 1808-1884 in four volumes. Kyshe's reports instigated the first attempt at regular law reporting in the Straits Settlements. Starting in June 1888, a new series, the Straits Law Journal, commenced publication of judicial decisions on a monthly basis. The series ran from 1888 to 1892. This series was replaced by the Straits Settlements Law Reports which was published �under the direction of the Singapore Bar and with the approval of the Judges of the Supreme Court'. This series commenced publication in 1893 under the edi­torship of Walter John Napier and was published continuously right up to 1942, just before Singapore fell to the Japanese. The series took on an authoritative air in 1927 when it was declared to be �published by Authority'.

The last series of reports whose publication commenced before World War II was the Malayan LawJournal, the publication of which commenced in July 1932. Started by the enterprising Bashir Ahmad Mallal, the MLJ (as it is better known) became the first monthly law reporter since the demise of the Straits LawJournal almost half a century earlier. This monthly publication contained cases from both the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States. The last volume to be issued before the war was the January issue of volume 11 in 1942. It continues to be published today by the LexisNexis publishing group, but since 1989 has focused its reporting on Malaysian cases.

The end of the Japanese Occupation saw the demise of the Straits Settlements. Singapore was now a separate crown colony and it was necessary to create a new set of official law reports. The Singapore Law Reports was â€?published by authority' from 1946 to 1949, after which it merged with the Malayan Law Reports: ContainingReports ofCasesDecided in the Federation ofMalaya and Colony of Singapore, which itself commenced publication with a volume for 1950. The first volume was entitled Law Reports ofthe Federation ofMalaya. This series was originally issued monthly and contained reports from the Federation ofMalaya and the Colony of Singapore. The reporting of Singapore cases in the Malayan Law Reports ceased in 1953, in which year another series of Singapore Law Reports commenced publication but ceased publication in 1957. Thereafter, the reporting of Singapore cases in the Malayan Law Journal resumed and became the sole series reporting Singapore cases until 1991 when it ceased to publish reports of Singapore cases. That year, a new series of Singapore Law Reports commenced publication. This series, published by the Singapore Academy of Law, is the authoritative law report for Singapore cases. In July 2002, at the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Senate of the Singapore Academy of Law, a Council of Law Reporting was established under the chairmanship of then Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong. The Council was established to â€?decide on selection criteria and the policies and strategies for the reporting of Singapore cases' as well as to â€?advise on copyright issues and the arrangements for law reporting.'⁵⁴ One of the first steps the Council adopted as the revision of the

54 See �Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Senate', Inter Se, October 2002, p. 26 best practices in law reporting in Singapore. The 10-year collaboration with Butterworths (by now LexisNexis Butterworths) came to an end, and a new partnership was forged with CCH Asia Pte Ltd for the publication of the new Singapore Law Reports from 1 January 2003.55

In 1984 a project was conceived by the National University of Singapore’s Law Faculty to create a case law database. Going by the acronym CAESAR (Case Electronic Search and Retrieval), the database was put together by a team of academics from the Law Faculty^{[1041] [1042] and launched by Chief Justice Yong Pung How (as he then was) in 1991. Whenitwas first launched, the database contained all reported decisions of the Singapore and Malayan courts from 1893 to 1991. This database was later subsumed in the LawNet[1043] database now managed by the Singapore Academy of Law as part of the �Legal Workbench’ which also contains full texts of unreported judgments.[1044]}

3.4 Custom

Customs are norms of established practice or behaviour but are not laws as such. They only acquire the force of law if they are recognised as customs. Most of the customs that have been claimed in courts pertain to marriage^[1045] and to trade. The Second Charter of Justice provided for application of English law with due regard to the �religions, usages and manners’ of the local population. Prior to the enactment of the Women’s Charter in 1961, the courts recognised the marriage rites and customs of the various ethnic communities, treating them with deference and taking judicial notice of their impact. In Woon Ngee YewvNg Yoon Thai,^[1046] the Court of Appeal of the Federated Malay States pointed out, in relation to Chinese marriage customs:

[D]ealing with Chinese custom... is more in the nature of a trade custom, the recog­nition of the habits of a particular body of people in dealing with particular matters. Where it can be shown that the Chinese follow settled practices the Courts will give effect to those practices where no provision is made in local legislation, so far as these practices are of a character, not being contrary to reason or natural justice, to which effect can be given with propriety.^[1047]

Those asserting the existence of a particular custom must prove it in court. In the case of Plaza Singapura (Pte) Ltd v Cosdel (S) Pte Ltd,^[1048] the respondent asserted the existence of a trade custom called �consignment trade'. Thean J (as he then was), in holding for the appellant, held, quoting Mellish LJ in the English Court of Appeal case of Re Matthews, exparte Powell,^[1049] that:

[I]n order to establish a custom it must be proved to have existed so long, and to have been so extensively acted upon, that [those]... in his trade may be reasonably presumed to have known it.

The recognition of marriage customary rites has been recognised for marriages contracted before 15 September 1961. Section 81(1) of the Women’s Charter provides:

Nothing in this Act shall affect the validity of any marriage solemnized under any law, religion, custom or usage prior to 15th September 1961.

Furthermore, the Women’s Charter also modifies the rules relating to marriage and divorce by exempting their application to Muslim marriages.^[1050] Likewise, s 2 of the Intestate SuccessionAct (Cap 146) provides that the Act shall not �apply to the estate of any Muslim or shall affect any rules of the Muslim law in respect of the distribution of the estate of any such person.'

3.5 The Constitution

The Constitution is the supreme law of Singapore.^[1051] Its evolution can be traced to the end of the Japanese Occupation in 1945 when the British Colonial Office consciously fashioned a Constitution that would eventually guide Singapore to self-government. The first major change in the typical colonial constitutional set-up, under which the Governor was all-powerful, was the introduction of the 1954 Rendel Constitution in which a new 32-member Legislative Assembly was created and voter registration was automatic. Of the 32 seats in the Assembly, 25 would be filled by popular elections. While the 1954 Constitution was a major step towards self-government, it was not sufficiently liberal to accommodate the nationalist cries for greater autonomy. This resulted in a series of constitutional talks that culminated in 1958 in the Constitution ofthe State of Singapore in which local politicians controlled all levers of power except for foreign affairs, defence and internal security. By this time, the Legislative Assembly had grown to 51 seats, and in the 1959 general elections the People's Action Party (PAP) swept into power, winning 43 of the 51 seats. The PAP Government sought merger with the Federation ofMalaya as a matter of urgency to achieve political independence and to guarantee Singapore's economic survival.

UndertheMalaysiaAgreement,^[1052] NorthBorneo, Sarawakand Singaporewere incorporated into the Federation of Malaya to form the Federation of Malaysia. Singapore left control over foreign affairs, defence and internal security to the central government but maintained considerable powers over finance, labour and education. Singapore was allocated 15 of the 127 seats in the new federal legislature and retained its own executive government and legislative assembly. The day-to-day administration of Singapore was the responsibility of the execu­tive government and Singapore was to pay 40 per cent of its income from taxes to the Federal Government. A new State Constitution was granted to Singapore to effect this change in status.^[1053]

Singapore’s tumultuous time in the Federation of Malaysia came to an end on 9 August 1965 when it ceded to form an independent republic.^[1054] Singapore took a practical approach to putting together a working Constitution. Using the 1963 State Constitution as its base document, the Singapore Parliament aug­mented it by passing the Republic of Singapore Independence Act which imported into Singapore fundamental liberties provisions that did not exist in the 1963 State Constitution. From 1965 to 1979, the Constitution of Singapore was to be found in three separate but related documents: the State Constitution of 1963, the Republic of Singapore Independence Act and provisions of the Federation of Malaysia Constitution imported through the Republic of Singapore Independence Act. In 1979 Parliament amended the Constitution to empower the Attorney­General to prepare a consolidated Constitution and publishing it as a reprint. The first Reprint of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore - which featured the first systematic and exhaustive listing of the constitutional provisions - was published in 1980. The last reprint of the Constitution was published in 1999.

3.6 Pre-1826 English statutes

While it was established beyond doubt that English common law had been received into Singapore with the grant of the Second Charter, the question arose as to whether the whole of English law, including statutes passed prior to 1826, was similarly received. This issue came up for consideration in the Privy Council case of Yeap Cheah Neo v Ong Cheng Neo, where it was held:

[S]tatutes relating to matters and exigencies peculiar to the local condition of England, and which are not adapted to the circumstances of a particular colony, do not become part of its law, although the general law of England may be introduced into it.^[1055]

Quite clearly then, pre-1826 English statutes of general application - as opposed to those of a local or parochial character - were brought into Singapore as part of its Iawbyvirtue of the Second Charter. Preciselywhich of these statutes applied to Singapore was never exhaustively determined, even if scholars have attempted to list Acts that have been declared to apply in the Settlements through local case law.^[1056] As Woon wrote in 1989:

[I]t is impossible to say what pre-1826 English Acts are actually in force in Singapore today. One has to examine the cases to determine which English Acts have been applied in Singapore. Thus, one finds that the Statute of Frauds 1677 has been applied in Singapore over and over again. Apart from this, one hardly knows what is law here and what is not. The repeal of such received statutes in England does not affect their application in Singapore. Thus, for instance, the Statute of Frauds continues to apply in Singapore notwithstanding that it is no longer law in England.^[1057]

Even if an exhaustive list could be compiled, the list would be a short one. Few pre-1826 English statutes would continue to apply to Singapore, especially since local legislation has been passed in most of the areas covered by these pre-1826 statutes.

3.7 IndianActs

The grant of the Second Charter of Justice did not settle the problem of local legislation. Some certainty was attained in 1833 with the passage of the Gov­ernment OfIndiaAct^[1058] (also known as the CharterAct). This Act constituted a local Government for the whole of India, consisting of the Governor-General and Councillors - collectively known as the Governor-General of India in Coun­cil - which had explicit power to legislate for the Straits Settlements. From 1833 to 1867 it was the sole source of legislative power in the Straits Settle­ments. This was known as the period of the Indian Acts. The problem with this arrangement was that power was overly centralised and the needs and interests of the outlying domains such as Singapore were sadly neglected. The transfer of the Straits Settlements from the Bengal Presidency to the direct supervision of the Governor-General and the Supreme Government of India in 1851^[1059] made little difference to its administration in practical terms.^[1060]

The 1853 CharterAct which renewed the EIC’s Charter created a new Leg­islative Council in May 1854 which included, in addition to the Chief Justice of Calcutta and one puisne judge, a member from each of the subordinate presi­dencies, although there was no representative from the Straits Settlements. The increasing frustrations of some of the mercantile community led steadily to the growth of a movement aimed at extricating the Straits Settlements from Indian control and placing it under the charge of the Colonial Office in London. Up until 1867 when the transfer was finally effected, a prominent group of individuals, led by William Henry Read and Robert Carr Woods, used their contacts in London and the British Parliament and agitated incessantly for the end of Indian rule.

All the Indian Acts - including those applicable to the Straits Settlements - were published in the Calcutta Gazette, and after 1858 in the Straits Government Gazette. In addition, an annual series of Indian legislation was published by the Superintendent of Government Printing in India. Though the Governor in Council in India passed numerous Acts, not all of them were applicable to the Straits Settlements. Indeed, in 1889 the Straits Settlements Legislative Council passed the Statute Law Revision Ordinance to establish a commission to enquire into which Indian Acts applied to the Straits Settlements. The Commission published a volume entitled IndianActspassed during the period extendingfrom the 22nd day of April 1834 to the 31st day of March 1867 both days inclusive and now in force in the Colonyofthe Straits Settlements as determined by the Commissioners appointed by His Excellency the governor of the Straits Settlements under the Provisions of the Statute Law Revision Ordinance 1889 which listed Acts considered to be in force in the Straits Settlements as of 1890. It is not an exhaustive listing of all Acts that applied to the Settlements from the time of the 1833 CharterAct.^[1061]

3.8 Straits Settlements Acts and Ordinances

In 1858 the EIC was abolished and the Straits Settlements came under control of the new Indian Government.^[1062] The Crown took over the direct administration of the territories formerly administered by the Company but this did not have an immediate effect upon the legal system of the Straits Settlements. In London, Straits leaders and �elder statesmen' such as former Resident John Crawfurd continued to agitate for the end of Indian rule, and after a most protracted and thorough investigation by the Colonial Office, it was finally decided that the Straits Settlements would be transferred to the Colonial Office. On 10 August 1866 the Government of the Straits Settlements Act^[1063] was passed. It came into effect on 1 April 1867.^[1064]

ByLetters Patent dated 4February1867,^[1065] the Straits Settlements was granted a colonial Constitution under which the Legislative Council had

full Power and Authority to establish such Laws, Institutions, and Ordinances, and to constitute such Courts and Officers^[1066]... for the Administration of Justice and for the Raising and Expenditure of the Public Revenue, as might be deemed necessary for... Peace, Order, and good Government... ^[1067]

There were two classes of members in the Council: the Official Members and the Unofficial Members, the latter taking precedence over the former.⁸² The number of the Official Members always exceeded that of the Unofficial Members and gave the Governor, who also possessed a casting vote,⁸³ effective control over the Council. In 1867 the Council consisted of the Governor, the Chief Justice, the Officer Commanding the Troops, the Lieutenant-Governor of Penang, the Colonial Secretary, the Attorney-General, the Colonial Engineer and four unof­ficial Europeans.⁸⁴ By 1871 the Lieutenant-Governor of Malacca, the Judge of Penang, the Treasurer, the Auditor-General and two more unofficial members were added to the Council.⁸⁵

From 1867 to 1942 the Legislative Council was responsible for passing law for the Straits Settlements. These laws were published in the Straits Settlements Gov­ernment Gazette. From 1867 the Government Printer also published an annual volume of Ordinances passed in the preceding year, entitled Ordinances enacted by the Governor ofthe Straits Settlements with the advice and consent ofthe Leg­islative Council thereof during theyear... This series was published until 1935.⁸⁶ The first collected edition of the statutes of the Straits Settlements was compiled by John Augustus Harwood for the Straits Settlements Government in 1886.⁸⁷ This was followed in 1898 by another compilation by Charles Garrard.⁸⁸

The first revised edition of the legislation of the Straits Settlements was issued under the authority of the Statute Laws Ordinance 1917 which gave the Ordi­nance Law Revision Commissioners powers of revision. Five volumes of statutes were published as the first official revised edition in London in 1920.⁸⁹ This was followed by revised editions in 192 5⁹⁰ and 1936.⁹¹ These remain the main sources of written law for the period between 1867 and 1942.

3.9 The Japanese Occupation and its aftermath

During the Japanese Occupation (1942-45), the Legislative Council was abol­ished, to be replaced by Japanese military bodies, including the Supreme Com­mand of the Southern Army Headquarters, the 25th Army Headquarters, the

82 LettersPatent,artVII.

83 Letters Patent, art IX.

84 See R O Winstedt, The Constitution of the Colony of the Straits Settlements and of the Federated and UnfederatedMalayStates, Royal Institute QfInternational Affairs, London, 1931, p. 4.

85 ibid. It is interesting to note that the first non-European Non-Member of the Legislative Council was a prominent Chinese businessman, Hoo Ah Kay, popularly known as Whampoa. He was appointed to the Council in 1869; see O S Song, One Hundred Years’ History ofthe Chinese in Singapore, Oxford University Press, Singapore, 1984, p. 55.

86 See G W Bartholomew, �The Sources and Literature of Singapore Law’ (1975), op. cit., p. 328.

87 JA Harwood (comp), The Acts and Ordinances ofthe Legislative Council ofthe Straits Settlements, from the IstApril 1867 to the IstJune 1886, Togetherwith CertainActs ofParliament, Orders ofHerMajesty in Council, LettersPatentandIndianActs in force in the Colonyofthe StraitsSettlements, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1886.

88 CG Garrard (comp), TheActs and Ordinances oftheLegislative Council ofthe Straits Settlements, From the IstApril 1867to the 7thMarch 1898, Legislative Council, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1898.

89 TheLawsoftheStraitsSettlements1835-1919:Revised Up ToandIncludingthe31stDayofDecember, 1919; ButExclusive ofWarandEmergencyLegislation, Waterlow & Sons Ltd, London, 1920.

90 TheLaws ofthe Straits Settlements, Waterlow & Sons, London, 1926.

91 TheLaws ofthe Straits Settlements, Government Printing Office, Singapore, 1936.

Military Administration Department, the Malai Malayan Military Administra­tion Headquarters, and the City Government of Tokubetu-si. When the British returned in 1945, Singapore was placed under the British Military Administra­tion and was governed under martial law. The Administration issued various Proclamations, Orders and Notices which were published in the British Military Administration, Malaya Gazette, Singapore Division. This situation lasted until April 1946 when Singapore was returned to civilian rule.

After the Japanese Occupation, the Straits Settlements was disbanded. Penang and Malacca were combined with the Federated Malay States and the Unfeder­ated Malay States to form the Malayan Union, while Singapore was governed from London as a separate crown colony. Under the Constitution,⁹² executive authority was vested in the Executive Council, and a new Legislative Council comprising four ex officio members, seven official members, between two and four nominated unofficials, and nine elected members. The number of official members was reduced to five in 1948 when the first Legislative Council elections were held. Laws passed by the postwar Legislative Council were published in the Colony of Singapore Government Gazette.

3.10 SingaporeActsandOrdinances

The Legislative Council functioned more or less like its pre-war predecessor until 1955 when it was transformed into a predominantly elected Legislative Assembly under the Rendel Constitution. Laws passed continued to be published in the Colony ofSingapore Government Gazette. Thatyear, a new set of statutes was prepared as the Revised Edition, 1955. It was the first revised edition to feature laws that applied solely to Singapore and was published in eight volumes.⁹³ Revised editions of the Singapore Statutes were subsequently brought out by the Government in 1970 and 1985 under the Revised Edition of the Laws Act 1983 (Cap 275).

In 1958 Singapore became a self-governing state and the State of Singapore Government Gazette replaced the old Colony of Singapore Government Gazette. When Singapore became independent in 1965, the name of the Gazette was changed to that of the Singapore Government Gazette and then, in December 1965, the Republic of Singapore Government Gazette.

3.11 Legislative reception of English law: Application of English Law Act

Up until 1993 there was much confusion as to whether certain English statutes continued to apply to Singapore. This was because of the fact that various pro­visions in the statutes make reference to English law. For example, s 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides:

92 The Singapore Order-in-Council dated 27 March 1946, StatutoryRules and Orders 1946, no. 462.

93 See E J Davies, C H Butterfield and A H Simpson, The Laws ofthe Colony of Singapore Containing the Ordinances and Selected Imperial Legislation in Force on the 1st day ofMay, 1955, Revised Edition ofthe Laws Ordinance, 1951, GovernmentPrinter, Singapore, 1955.

As regards matters of criminal procedure for which no special provision has been made by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force in Singapore the law relating to criminal procedure for the time being in force in England shall be applied so far as the procedure does not conflict or is not inconsistent with this Code and can be made auxiliary thereto. [emphasis added]

Particularly problematic was s 5 of the Civil LawAct which was repealed following the enactment of the Application of English Law Act in 1993. This landmark legislation makes it clear which English statutes continue to apply in Singapore. Section 5 removes all ambivalence by declaring that except where provided by the Act, �no English enactment shall be part of the law of Singapore'. The list of English statutes and the extent of their application to Singapore is found in Schedule I of the Application of English LawAct.

4