Section 9A of the Interpretation Act which falls under PART II: GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING WRITTEN LAW: Purposive interpretation of written law and use of extrinsic materials states:
9A.—(1) In the interpretation of a provision of a written law, an interpretation that would promote the purpose or object underlying the written law (whether that purpose or object is expressly stated in the written law or not) shall be preferred to an interpretation that would not promote that purpose or object.
[11/93]
(2) Subject to subsection (4), in the interpretation of a provision of a written law, if any material not forming part of the written law is capable of assisting in the ascertainment of the meaning of the provision, consideration may be given to that material —
(a) to confirm that the meaning of the provision is the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision taking into account its context in the written law and the purpose or object underlying the written law; or
(b) to ascertain the meaning of the provision when —
(i) the provision is ambiguous or obscure; or
(ii) the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision taking into account its context in the written law and the purpose or object underlying the written law leads to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.
[11/93]
(3) Without limiting the generality of subsection (2), the material that may be considered in accordance with that subsection in the interpretation of a provision of a written law shall include —
(a) all matters not forming part of the written law that are set out in the document containing the text of the written law as printed by the Government Printer;
(b) any explanatory statement relating to the Bill containing the provision;
(c) the speech made in Parliament by a Minister on the occasion of the moving by that Minister of a motion that the Bill containing the provision be read a second time in Parliament;
(d) any relevant material in any official record of debates in Parliament;
(e) any treaty or other international agreement that is referred to in the written law; and
(f) any document that is declared by the written law to be a relevant document for the purposes of this section.
[11/93]
(4) In determining whether consideration should be given to any material in accordance with subsection (2), or in determining the weight to be given to any such material, regard shall be had, in addition to any other relevant matters, to —
(a) the desirability of persons being able to rely on the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision taking into account its context in the written law and the purpose or object underlying the written law; and
(b) the need to avoid prolonging legal or other proceedings without compensating advantage.
Relation to Section 377A of the Penal Code[edit | edit source]
Section 9A (1) of the Interpretation Act mandates that statutes are to be interpreted purposively. It states that “in the interpretation of a provision of a written law, an interpretation that would promote the purpose or object underlying the written law (whether that purpose or object is expressly stated in the written law or not) shall be preferred to an interpretation that would not promote that purpose or object.”
This means that the judiciary is required to interpret a written law in a way that would promote the purpose or object underlying that written law. Parliament's intention or purpose is almost always taken to mean its intention or purpose at the time the law was enacted.
Parliament's undertaking during the Penal Code review of 2007 not to proactively enforce Section 377A would lead to the courts being unable to perform the duties required of them as specified by Section 9A (1) of the Interpretation Act.
Sections 9A(2) and (3) of the Act expressly allow certain extrinsic materials to help ascertain the meaning of a provision. These include (i) the explanatory statement to a Bill, (ii) the Minister's speech at the second reading of the Bill in Parliament, and (iii) the official reports of the Parliamentary debates of the Bill.
See also[edit | edit source]
References[edit | edit source]
Acknowledgements[edit | edit source]
This article was written by Roy Tan.