A Review of Kevin YL. Tan, The Singapore
Legal System
Kevin YL. Tan (ed.), The Singapore Legal System. 2d Edition. Singapore: Sin-
gapore University Press, 1999.
Pp. xxx, 531 [Hardcover US$80, Paperback US$45].
Reviewed by H. Patrick Glenn*
We are now witnessing a proliferation of books on the law of East Asian jurisdic-
tions,’ a reflection of the increasing economic importance of that region (notwith-
standing recent turbulence). This volume is the work of a group of law professors of
the National University of Singapore and is intended both as a student textbook and as
a general introduction to Singaporean legal structures, for general and foreign readers.
The first edition was published some ten years ago and was then (we are now told on
the back cover) the first “holistic” treatment of Singapore’s legal system in over fifty
years. This second edition is almost twice the length of the first, with fourteen chap-
ters overall and entirely new chapters on the “context” of the Singapore legal system,
the constitutional “framework” administrative law, the relations between Singapore
law and international law, legal education, and alternative dispute resolution. Re-
maining chapters deal with legal and constitutional history, Parliamentary law-
making, the applicability of English law, jurisdiction of courts, judicial precedent, the
legal professions (two chapters) and legal aid. There is no discussion, however, of pri-
vate law and footnotes are sadly and unacceptably placed at the end of each chapter.
One of the authors tells us elsewhere, though not here, that the “Chinese-educated
Chinese [in Singapore] have a deeply-rooted distrust of courts and the law” while the
“English-educated Singaporeans (Chinese, Malay, Indian and others) are more
* Peter M. Laing Professor of Law, Faculty of Law and Institute of Comparative Law, McGill Uni-
versity.
McGill Law Journal 2000
Revue de droit de McGill 2000
To be cited as: (2000) 45 McGill LJ. 339
Mode de r6fdrence: (2000) 45 R.D. McGill 339
‘See e.g. in addition to the present volume, ASEAN Legal Systems (Singapore: Butterworths Asia,
1995); A.H. Chen, An Introduction to the Legal System of the People’s Republic of China (Singapore:
Butterworths Asia, 1992); R.H. Folsom, J.H. Minan & L.A. Otto, Lav and Politics in the People’s
Republic of China (St. Paul, MI: West Publishing, 1992); S. Lubman, ed., China’s Legal Reforms
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1996); H. Oda, Japanese Law, 2d ed. (Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1999); P.-L. Tan, Asian Legal Systems (Sydney: Butterworths, 1997); H. von Senger, Ein-
fPihrung in das chinesische Recht (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1994).
MCGILL LAW JOURNAL/REVUE DEDROITDE MCGILL
[Vol. 45
inclined to push for strengthening of institutions … The tension between these two
tendencies will characterise the Singapore legal system for some time to come.”2 So it
is important to realize that this book tells only part of the story of normativity in Sin-
gapore. As in the rest of Asia, the visible Western-style law which is described exists
in an already-crowded normative field. There is a hint of this in Joel Lee Tye Beng’s
chapter on alternative dispute resolution, in which he states that “adjudication may not
necessarily be an appropriate dispute resolution process for Singapore taking into ac-
count our cultural background” though there can be “no turning back” from the proc-
ess of reception of English Common Law.’
The book thus deals with institutions and principles which are familiar to common
law lawyers, since Singapore-unlike Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan or
China-has never known European Civil Law. The interest of the book is in the differ-
ent reading which the common law receives in the Singaporean context. This context
has been described as one of “soft authoritarianism”,’ even as an “illiberal, quick-march
exercise of authority”‘ in which “marshalling rather than limiting state power to promote
development goals has assumed paramountcy.” So the Common Law exists in an es-
sentially one-party political context, and its private law (very loyal to that of England) is
used to augment Singapore’s role as an international financial centre, providing the same
legal background as that of London and Hong Kong.7 What are some of the characteris-
tics of this current and voluntary adherence to increasingly distant tradition?
As stated, the private law has remained essentially in English form. Its content is
thus not detailed, and it is said that although “theoretically” it would be open to a Sin-
gapore court to reject an English case, “[i]n practice … that seldom (if ever) happens.”
Only in 1993, after some three decades of political independence, was the ongoing re-
ception of English statutes brought to a close. Appeals to the Privy Council ceased in
1994. The chapter on legal education is very critical of the consequences of this state
of affairs on legal education, speaking of “an unhealthy obsession with rule-learning
2 W. Woon, “Singapore” in P-L. Tan, supra note 1, 314 at 352 [hereinafter “Singapore”].
J.L.T. Beng, ‘The HDR Movement in Singapore” in K.Y.L. Tan, ed., The Singapore Legal System,
2d ed. (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1999) 414 at 427.
SK.Y.L. Tan, “Economic Development, Legal Reform, and Rights in Singapore and Taiwan” in J.
Bauer & D. Bell, The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999) 264 at 283-84 [hereinafter “Economic Development’], qualifying Singapore’s human
rights record at 267 as “average” among developing countries (no extrajudicial killings or indiscrimi-
nate imprisonment of political dissidents) and stating at 283 that “… there is little impetus for change
emanating from the lower reaches of the political spectrum”).
A. Saint, Review of P. Hall’s Cities in Civilization, Tmes Literary Supplement (9 April 1999) 9 at
10,
T. Li-ann, “The Constitutional Framework of Powers” in K.Y.L. Tan, supra note 3, 67 at 70.
“Economic Development”, supra note 4 at 267.
W. Woon, “The Applicability of English Law in Singapore” in K.YL. Tan, supra note 3, 230 at
238 [hereinafter “Applicability of English Law”].
2000]
H.R GLENN – THE SINGAPORE LEGAL SYSTEM
and precedents” and an “especially virulent form” of legal positivism The court
structure displays a typically common law proliferation of inferior tribunals, with
first-instance, High Court jurisdiction beginning only at $250,000 Singapore dollars
(circa $Can 230,000). The legal professions are not divided, and are now being
opened to foreign competition, though slowly. Judges enjoy security of tenure. It is
said, however that the common law of defamation and contempt of court are used in a
way which seems to “undervalue the community’s interest in free discussion:” Crite-
ria for legal aid are “rather stringent” and subject to a merits test;” criminal legal aid
has been abolished, since the Government did not wish to “both prosecute and defend
the same person,” though this does not prevent the assignment of duty counsel and
15% of lawyers have volunteered for a Criminal Legal Aid Scheme.”
Singapore law is less varied than that of some other East Asian jurisdictions,
however, since the unwritten law of the Malay people (adat) has been formally elimi-
nated, “no indulgence” being given to “the customs of the natives” 3 Still, Islamic law
has proven more resistant and the “Shariah Court” remains competent in regard to
Muslim religious, family, and succession matters.” It is said, however, that Islamic law
“is not a tradition with which the majority of Singaporean jurists are very familiar.””
Kevin Tan and his colleagues are thus to be congratulated on providing an excel-
lent overview of Singapore’s western, written law, as it bears on Singapore’s funda-
mental legal institutions.
9 A.F.H. Loke, ‘Educating the Thinking Lawyer The Past, Present, and Future of University Legal
Education in Singapore” in K.Y.L. Tan, supra note 3, 325 at 352.
‘” T. Li-Ann, supra note 6 at 92; and see “Singapore”, supra note 2 at 321 (‘In practice, Singapor-
eans do not feel entirely free to express views critical of government policy …”).
“Y.H. Ying, “Provision of Legal Aid in Singapore” in K.YL. Tan, supra note 3,446 at 456.
‘2 !i& at 461, citing Parliamentary Debates 1995, at col. 1349.
3 “Applicability of English Law”, supra note 8 at 237, and see n. 22 at 244 asking “Would the Brit-
ish have recognised ‘adat’-inadequately translated as ‘custom’—as law, even if they were aware of
it?”
,4 Y.T. Min, “Jurisdiction of the Singapore Courts” in K.Y.L. Tan, supra note 3, 249 at 278.
” G.F. Bell, “he Singapore Legal System in Context-Whither the Concept of the National Legal
System” in K.Y.L. Tan, supra note 3, 1 at 12, and see n. 70 at 24, listing statute-approved English lan-
guage books on Islamic law.
