Statute Law Review - recent issues

Legislative Stocktaking

2009-06-23

Defining 'Plain English' as an Aid to Legal Drafting

Watson-Brown, A. — 2009-06-23

Universal Design in Legislation: Eliminating Barriers for People with Disabilities

Lepofsky, M. D., Graham, R. N.M. — 2009-06-23

Legislating for Drafting: The Moldavian Experience

Bates, T. St. J. N. — 2009-06-23

Fiduciaries and Limitation, the Courts and the Law Commission

Prime, T., Scanlan, G. — 2009-06-23

EDITORIAL: When Is a Door Closer 'Work Equipment'?

2009-03-12

Open to Interpretation: The Implication of Words into Statutes

Coxon, B. — 2009-03-12

What Judges Want: Judicial Self-interest and Statutory Interpretation

Graham, R. N. M. — 2009-03-12

Was the Death of the Casus Omissus Rule 'Undignified'?

Niranjan, V. — 2009-03-12

Peripheral Carping

2008-12-16

The End of the 'Masculine Rule'? Gender-Neutral Legislative Drafting in the United Kingdom and Ireland

Williams, C. — 2008-12-16

Modernizing Company Law and Regulatory Competition: Some Economic Implications

Ueda, J. — 2008-12-16

Strict Liability: Some Principles for Parliament

Reid, K. — 2008-12-16

A Comparative Account of Statutory Interpretation in Singapore

Yihan, G. — 2008-12-16

In 1993, the Singapore Parliament enacted legislative provisions adapted from Australian legislation directing, inter alia, that the courts apply the purposive approach in statutory interpretation. Those provisions also allowed for the extended use of extrinsic materials in the interpretative process. Fifteen years on, there is now a considerable body of Singapore case law to which a meaningful analysis may be undertaken. Indeed, from an initially cautious application of the enacted legislation, the courts began to read the enactments expansively, eventually providing for a statutory interpretation regime that is largely free of the confines of old. Nonetheless, the Singapore position does lend itself to some unique problems, as there are signs that the courts have in a limited number of cases evinced an intention to reverse the hitherto rather expansive approach. This article provides a brief overview of the evolution of the Singapore position to its present form, before making a brief comparison with parallel developments in Australia, from which Singapore's provisions originated. It will then attempt to explain the present Singapore position in relation to statutory interpretation as distinguished from that taken in Australia. It is hoped that the account provided in this article will be of comparative interest to jurisdictions which have adopted similar legislative reform and, more broadly, to the enduring problem of the proper approach towards statutory interpretation.