Legal Pluralism in Centralist Singapore

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


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’.



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


  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. 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