Author: Lawyer Zhang Jingxinyue, PRC-qualified Lawyer | Singapore Registered Foreign Lawyer
On October 27, on the first day of the Sino-Singapore Legal Insight Singapore Foreign-Related Legal Practice Study Programme, our participants visited the Supreme Court of Singapore—a landmark building that integrates law and art. Starting from this building, one can directly appreciate the refinement and logic of Singapore's rule-of-law system.
To help more colleagues understand at an institutional level the operating logic of Singapore's rule of law, we are republishing this article—"A Clear Explanation of the Differences Between the Singapore and Chinese Court Systems"—and have added reflections and extensions drawn from the study programme.
Photo: The Supreme Court building of Singapore, which entered into service on June 20, 2005.
We all know that China adopts a civil law system and relies on written statutory law. Singapore, as a former British colony, naturally inherited many common law traditions in its legal system, such as the use of case law.
Singapore's legal system is interesting. While it follows common law traditions, its judicial process has sought a practical path suited to its own circumstances. On the one hand, it retains "caning" as a form of punishment. Western human rights organisations have long criticised this, but Singapore has been willing to say no and uphold its own judicial system (see Why Does Singapore Still Have Caning as a Punishment? | Sino-Singapore Legal Insight). On the other hand, Singapore abolished the jury system, which is the most distinctive feature of the common law system. Why? Singapore's rationale is that this seemingly democratic and fair system is in fact highly dangerous. In the 1960s and 1970s, when the public was not highly educated, Singaporeans believed it was very rash to hand over the life, liberty, and property of a person awaiting trial to a group of people who did not understand the law. The law pursues substantive justice and cannot sacrifice justice merely for the sake of superficial gimmickry. Therefore, after debate and a vote in Singapore's Parliament, the jury system was eventually abolished by legislation. Since then, cases have been tried by professional judges, who decide whether a suspect is guilty of a crime and what penalty should be imposed based on the basic facts of the case, the evidence, and the arguments.
This article introduces the similarities and differences between the court systems of China and Singapore through aspects such as court hierarchy and functions, so that we can better understand the characteristics of the court systems in two countries with different legal traditions.
Photo: Zhang Jun, Chief Justice and President of the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China, and Sundaresh Menon, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Singapore.
01 China's Court System
1. Establishment of the People's Courts
Article 123 of China's Constitution provides that "the people's courts of the People's Republic of China are the judicial organs of the state", clarifying the nature of the people's courts as the organs exercising the state's judicial function. Judicial power is exercised exclusively by the people's courts, and no other state organ may share it. The Constitution also provides that the Supreme People's Court is created by the National People's Congress, is responsible to the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee, and is subject to their supervision. Local people's courts at all levels are created by the people's congresses at the corresponding levels, are responsible to those people's congresses and their standing committees, and are subject to their supervision.
Under China's Constitution and the Organic Law of the People's Courts, among other provisions, local people's courts at all levels are established according to administrative divisions, while special people's courts are established according to specific organisational systems or the actual needs of particular types of cases. China's court system is composed of the Supreme People's Court, local people's courts at all levels, and special people's courts.
Local people's courts at all levels include:
- Basic-level people's courts, located in counties, autonomous counties (banners), cities not divided into districts, and municipal districts;
- Intermediate people's courts, located in prefectures of provinces and autonomous regions, cities under the jurisdiction of provinces and autonomous regions, autonomous prefectures (leagues), and municipalities directly under the Central Government;
- High people's courts, located in provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government.
Special people's courts include military courts, maritime courts, and others.
Military courts are also divided into three levels: basic courts, including military courts of army-level units, military courts of corps-level units, and military courts of units directly subordinate to the Central Military Commission in Beijing; military courts of the major military regions and the various service branches; and the Military Court of the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Maritime courts are located in large and medium-sized coastal cities and major cities in the Yangtze River basin.
People's courts at all levels establish judicial committees to summarise trial experience and discuss major or difficult cases and other issues concerning judicial work.
People's courts may establish criminal tribunals, civil tribunals, and administrative tribunals. People's courts at or above the intermediate level may also establish other tribunals as needed. People's courts at all levels have enforcement organs responsible for enforcing judgments and rulings in civil and economic cases that are to be enforced by the people's courts.
The Supreme People's Court supervises the judicial work of local people's courts at all levels and special people's courts, and people's courts at higher levels supervise the judicial work of people's courts at lower levels.
Photo: The main building of the Supreme People's Court. When the building was constructed, this old tree was preserved above and to the right of the steps, integrated into the building. Every time this editor passes by, I marvel that this "stubborn holdout" is so well loved.
2. Tasks and Jurisdiction of the People's Courts
The task of the people's courts is to try criminal, civil, and administrative cases and, through adjudication, punish offenders, resolve civil disputes, protect citizens' lawful rights and interests, uphold the socialist legal system, maintain social and economic order, and safeguard the smooth progress of socialist modernisation.
According to law, judicial power is exercised by people's courts at all levels respectively as provided by law:
(1) Basic-level people's courts hear first-instance criminal, civil, and administrative cases within their jurisdiction, unless otherwise provided by law, handle civil disputes and minor criminal cases that do not require court proceedings, and guide the mediation work of people's mediation committees.
(2) Intermediate people's courts hear the following cases:
- First-instance cases over which jurisdiction is vested in them by law;
- First-instance cases submitted by basic-level people's courts for trial;
- First-instance cases designated by a people's court at a higher level;
- Appeal and procuratorial protest cases against judgments and rulings of basic-level people's courts;
- Retrial cases brought under trial supervision procedures.
(3) High people's courts hear the following cases:
- First-instance cases over which jurisdiction is vested in them by law;
- First-instance cases submitted by lower people's courts for trial;
- First-instance cases designated by the Supreme People's Court;
- Appeal and procuratorial protest cases against judgments and rulings of intermediate people's courts;
- Retrial cases brought under trial supervision procedures;
- Death penalty cases submitted by intermediate people's courts for review.
(4) The Supreme People's Court, as the highest judicial organ of the state, hears the following cases:
- First-instance cases over which jurisdiction is vested in it by law and cases it deems should be tried by itself;
- Appeals, procuratorial protests, applications for retrial, and complaints against judgments and rulings of high people's courts and special people's courts;
- Procuratorial protest cases brought by the Supreme People's Procuratorate under trial supervision procedures;
- Death penalty cases other than those adjudicated by the Supreme People's Court itself, for approval;
- State compensation cases in accordance with law and decisions on state compensation;
- Cases involving the imposition of penalties below the statutory range, for approval.
The Supreme People's Court may interpret issues concerning the specific application of law in judicial work and may issue guiding cases.
02 Singapore's Court System
As a common law country, Singapore's judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, comprising the Court of Appeal and the High Court, and the subordinate courts. The structure and functions of the courts at each level are as follows:
1. The Supreme Court of Singapore
The Supreme Court consists of the Court of Appeal and the High Court and hears civil and criminal cases. Its judges are led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and comprise Judges of Appeal, Judges of the High Court, and Judicial Commissioners.
1. Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal is the highest court in Singapore. It hears civil and criminal appeals from the High Court and the District Courts. A significant milestone in Singapore's legal history is that appeals to the English Privy Council were abolished in 1994. On July 11, 1994, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Singapore declared that decisions of the English Privy Council and its prior precedents would no longer be binding on the Court of Appeal.
2. High Court
The High Court has jurisdiction to try all criminal offences in Singapore and may in certain circumstances try offences committed outside Singapore. Criminal cases heard by the High Court generally involve the death penalty or imprisonment of more than ten years. Generally, unless the subject matter of a grant of probate exceeds US$250,000, civil proceedings must be commenced in the High Court. Probate matters may be dealt with in the High Court only where the value of the deceased's estate exceeds US$5 million or the case involves resealing a foreign grant. In addition, the High Court hears ancillary matters in family proceedings involving assets of S$1.5 million or more.
High Court judges hold office on a permanent tenure basis, while Judicial Commissioners are appointed on short-term contracts. Judges and Judicial Commissioners enjoy the same judicial powers and immunities, and their powers include general and appellate jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases. Some recently appointed High Court judges specialise in arbitration matters, strengthening the existing specialist courts—the Admiralty Court and the Intellectual Property Court.
Since 2002, in response to the increasing complexity of commercial cases before the judiciary, the Supreme Court has also established various specialist courts, including the Admiralty Court, Intellectual Property Court, and Arbitration Court. The establishment of specialist commercial courts highlights the Supreme Court's expertise and experience in these fields and positions Singapore as a leading dispute resolution hub and a preferred jurisdiction for both domestic and international dispute resolution. For more information, the Supreme Court website may be visited.
3. Constitutional Tribunal
The Supreme Court has also established a special Constitutional Tribunal to hear questions referred by the President concerning the effect of provisions of the Constitution.
4. Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC)
The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) is a division of the Singapore High Court. It provides a court-based dispute resolution mechanism for international and commercial disputes, even where the dispute has no connection to Singapore and is not governed by Singapore law.
The SICC builds on Singapore's reputation for a world-class judiciary known for its efficiency, competence, and integrity, and is designed to provide parties with a premier destination for resolving international commercial disputes. The SICC offers an efficient dispute resolution process before a panel of experienced judges, comprising specialist commercial judges from Singapore as well as international judges from both civil law and common law traditions.
2. Subordinate Court (Renamed State Courts in 2014)
Singapore's subordinate courts consist of the District Courts, Magistrates' Courts, Juvenile Courts, Coroner's Courts, and Small Claims Tribunals. They are structured as a first-instance court system to safeguard judicial fairness. As commerce, trade, and commercial law have become increasingly complex, civil and commercial courts and district criminal courts have been created within Singapore's subordinate court system to handle more difficult cases.
District Courts and Magistrates' Courts: District Courts and Magistrates' Courts have the same powers in claims arising from contract or tort. However, their monetary jurisdiction in civil cases differs. District Courts have jurisdiction of S$60,000, while Magistrates' Courts have jurisdiction of S$250,000. In addition, their criminal sentencing powers differ. A Magistrate's Court may impose imprisonment of up to two years, while a District Court may impose imprisonment of up to seven years.
The Small Claims Tribunal is a more efficient, cost-saving, and accessible way of resolving disputes for claims of up to S$20,000 when the parties indicate their written consent.
The Family Court resolves divorce, child maintenance, spousal maintenance, custody, and adoption matters.
3. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
The State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution (SCCDR) was established in March 2015. It handles civil disputes in the State Courts, including motor accident and personal injury disputes, private criminal proceedings filed before magistrates, and other related cases such as claims under the Protection from Harassment Act. These cases were previously handled by different institutions, but the establishment of a specialist body became necessary because of the different areas of law involved and the overlap between civil and criminal issues in many cases. At the same time, the centre strengthens cooperation with alternative dispute resolution institutions, bar associations, and universities. In the State Courts of Singapore's 2016 work plan, the establishment of the dispute resolution centre was recognised as an important milestone in the development of the State Courts, marking the Singapore courts' adoption of alternative dispute resolution as a key means of resolving disputes.
4. Community Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
Singapore's courts have established a series of specialist bodies and tribunals to build community dispute resolution mechanisms, so that community disputes can be resolved promptly and efficiently. Singapore has established the Community Justice and Tribunals Division (CJTD) to handle all community justice matters. The division was set up in April 2015 and has specialist judges to handle relevant cases, providing a centralised approach to community cases. The CJTD currently also supervises cases heard by the Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) and the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT). Applications in cases heard by these tribunals should first be filed with the State Courts' community justice review division. The Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal was established under the Community Disputes Resolution Act and began formal operations in October 2015. It mainly hears disputes between neighbours concerning recreational or residential premises and resolves them through mediation or other efficient means. The scope of "neighbour" is defined as people living in the same building or within 100 meters of each other.
5. Court Information Technology Systems
Singapore's courts have long used advanced technology to enhance the execution of their work. For example, the second-generation Subordinate Courts Registry and Information Management System (SCRIMS II) is used from the beginning to the end of criminal and juvenile offence cases and can exchange electronic information with other agencies. The use of advanced technology improves the efficiency of court work and facilitates the work of judges. The Integrated Electronic Litigation System ("i ELS") replaced the old Electronic Litigation System ("ELS"), using a new model to process litigation information and facilitating the reuse of such information. Under this system, information needs to be entered only once and can then be used multiple times, facilitating error checking for filing, reducing filing costs, and strengthening efficient case management.
Photo: The former Supreme Court building of Singapore, adjacent to the former City Hall. In 2015, these two national monuments were restored and converted into the National Gallery Singapore, which is open to the public. The architectural design is exquisite and full of aesthetic appeal. This editor will share more in a later article on the architectural history and hidden corners of this former Supreme Court building.
03 Why Chinese Lawyers Should Visit Singapore's Courts in Person
During this study programme, what impressed participants most was not only the modernity and solemnity of the courts, but also the "institutional precision" behind them. In Singapore, the independence and efficiency of judicial power are regarded as an important component of national competitiveness. The judiciary does not pursue grand "formal justice"; it places greater emphasis on "enforceable fairness." This is why:
- The jury system was abolished and replaced with professional judges instead of "emotional adjudication";
- The case-law system has been highly institutionalised to ensure predictability and consistency;
- The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) is able to attract judges from around the world, achieving genuinely cross-jurisdictional adjudication.
In contrast, the deep hierarchy and organisational characteristics of China's court system give it institutional strengths in "order management" and "comprehensive governance." The two models are not a matter of one being superior to the other; they represent different division-of-labour logics in legal civilisations:
- China's court system reflects the extension of the state's overall governance system;
- Singapore's court system reflects the precision and self-consistency of a market-oriented rule-of-law order.
It is precisely for this reason that Chinese lawyers studying Singapore's legal system is not merely "learning about another country," but also "seeing ourselves more clearly."
Conclusion | The Significance of Institutional Comparison Lies in Cross-Boundary Understanding
As one participant said at the Supreme Court: "We are not tourists; we are peers who will cooperate, argue, and collaborate on the international stage in the future."
This is also the core purpose of the Sino-Singapore Legal Insight Singapore Foreign-Related Legal Practice Study Programme—to enable Chinese lawyers to find, in the depths of institutions, the underlying logic of cross-border services, and to make the comparison of legal systems not merely knowledge but a language of cooperation.
Follow [Sino–Singapore Legal Insight] and join us in seeing the internationalisation path of Chinese lawyers.
Sources for this article:
- Constitution of the People's Republic of China, Organic Law of the People's Courts, and Related Laws
- https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg
If you need to search Singapore statutes and case law, you may wish to try the following search path: Five Ways to Search Singapore Court Judgments | Sino-Singapore Legal Insight
Photo: Overlooking Singapore from the 8th floor of the Supreme Court, with the old building next door and Marina Bay Sands.
Photo: British and American judges' robes and wigs in the display room.
—
This article is for informational reference only and does not constitute formal legal advice.
This article is general information and not legal advice. Specific matters require assessment by appropriately qualified professionals.