Advertisement

Legal Pluralism in Centralist Singapore

Conference paper
  • 201 Downloads
Part of the Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law book series (GSCL, volume 41)

Abstract

As a former British colony, Singapore has a legal system that is very much influenced by British common law and constitutional ideas, while operating within a social-political context that is shaped by Islam, which was the majority religion in the region, and a nascent constitutional-legal culture that sits apart from more liberal legal traditions. Within this context, Singapore’s legal system is distinctly and self-avowedly pluralistic, as it seeks to accommodate traditional legal systems in the form of Muslim personal laws, while resisting developments in the common law that are viewed as ‘foreign’.

Notes

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Philip Teh Ahn Ren for his editorial assistance.

References

  1. Abbas AN (2012) The Islamic legal system in Singapore. Pacific Rim Law Policy J 21(1):163–187Google Scholar
  2. Bell G (2012) Religious legal pluralism revisited – the status of the Roman Catholic Church and her Canon Law in Singapore. Asian J Comp Law 7(1):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Denza E (2014) The relationship between international and national law. In: Evans MD (ed) International law, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 412–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ginsburg T (2003) Judicial review in new democracies: constitutional courts in Asian cases. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goh YH, Tan P (2011) An empirical study on the development of Singapore law. Singapore Academy Law J 23:176–226Google Scholar
  6. Griffiths J (1986) What is legal pluralism? J Legal Pluralism Unofficial Law 24:1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harding A (2002) Global doctrine and local knowledge: law in South East Asia. Int Comp Law Q 51:35–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Huscroft G et al (eds) (2014) Proportionality and the rule of law: rights, justification, reasoning. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Jackson V (2005) The Supreme Court, 2004 term – comment: constitutional comparisons: convergence, resistance, engagement. Harv Law Rev 119:109–128Google Scholar
  10. Jhaveri S, Neo JL (2017) The many facets of constitutional dialogue: the case of Singapore. Aust J Asian Law 18(1):1–14Google Scholar
  11. Lee JTT (2014) According to the spirit and not to the letter: proportionality and the Singapore constitution. Vienna J Int Cont Law 8:276–304Google Scholar
  12. Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura, Office of Mufti (2019) Nuzriah in Islam. https://www.muis.gov.sg/officeofthemufti/Irsyad/English-Nuzriah. Accessed 21 Sep 2012
  13. Moller K (2012) Proportionality: challenging the critics. Int J Const Law 10:709–731Google Scholar
  14. Neo JL (2012) Incorporating human rights: mitigated dualism and interpretation in Malaysian courts. Asian Yearb Int Law 18:1–37Google Scholar
  15. Neo JL (2013) Calibrating interpretive incorporation: constitutional interpretation and pregnancy discrimination under CEDAW. Human Rights Q 35:910–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Neo JL (2016) Secular constitutionalism in Singapore: between equality and hierarchy. Oxford J Law Religion 5(3):431–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neo JL (2017) Balancing act. In: Neo JL (ed) Constitutional interpretation in Singapore: theory and practice. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 159–187Google Scholar
  18. Neuman GL (2004) The uses of international law in constitutional interpretation. Am J Int Law 98(1):82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Phang ABL (1986) Of “Cut-Off” dates and domination: some problematic aspects of the reception of English law in Singapore. Malayan Law Rev 28:242–266Google Scholar
  20. Phang ABL (1990) Reception of English Law in Singapore: problems and proposed solutions. Singapore Academy Law J 2:20–40Google Scholar
  21. Stone-Sweet A, Mathews J (2017) Proportionality and rights protection in Asia: Hong Kong, Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan – Whither Singapore? Singapore Academy Law J 29:774–799Google Scholar
  22. Tan EKB (2017a) Much ado about nothing? The enigma of engagement of foreign constitutional law in Singapore. In: Neo JL (ed) Constitutional interpretation in Singapore: theory and practice. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 289–317Google Scholar
  23. Tan KYL (2017b) Into the matrix, constitutional interpretation in Singapore. In: Neo JL (ed) Constitutional interpretation in Singapore: theory and practice. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 50–75Google Scholar
  24. Thio LA, Chong DGS (2012) The Chan Court and constitutional adjudication – a sea change into something rich and strange? In: Chao HT et al (eds) The law in his hands: a tribute to Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong. Academy Publishing, Singapore, pp 87–119Google Scholar
  25. Thurvengadam AK (2017) The continuing resistance to foreign law in constitutional adjudication in Singapore. In: Neo JL (ed) Constitutional interpretation in Singapore: theory and practice. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 318–341Google Scholar
  26. Twining W (2000) Globalisation and legal theory. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Waters MA (2004) Justice Scalia on the use of foreign law in constitutional interpretation: unidirectional monologue or co-constitutive dialogue. Tulsa J Comp Int Law 12(1):149–161Google Scholar
  28. Waters MA (2007) Creeping monism: the judicial trend toward interpretive incorporation of human rights treaties. Columbia Law Rev 107:628–705Google Scholar
  29. Woon WCM (1999) The applicability of English law in Singapore. In: Tan KYL (ed) The Singapore legal system. NUS Press, Singapore, pp 230–248Google Scholar
  30. Yap PJ (2015) Constitutional dialogue in common law Asia. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National University of Singapore, Faculty of LawSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations