Three Legal Systems: Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan
Malaysia and Singapore inherited English common law: their rights are found in statutes and in the reasons of earlier judgments. Taiwan writes its law into codes — a Civil Code in five books, a Criminal Code split into a general and a specific part. That difference explains how the law is written and found. It does not explain most of what a person can do against the state. That depends on three other things: how widely each constitution lets rights be limited, who may take a law or a judgment before a court, and whether anyone can be detained without one. On each, the three differ more than their legal families suggest, and in each the most recent change is still moving.
What Happened
The changes of the last four years, graded by how they are known Statutes and judgments read at their own publication on 15 October 2026; court outcomes reported by more than one newsroom; and the one question still open.
5,681Petitions to Taiwan’s Constitutional Court in its first two years under the new procedure
8 / 15Taiwanese justices in office against seats, when the quorum dispute began
854Malaysian death sentences commuted in the Federal Court’s temporary review, 91% of applicants
17Executions in Singapore in 2025, 15 of them for drug offences
Standing
What
Where it is established
Confirmed
Taiwan: since 4 January 2022 a person who has exhausted appeals may ask the Constitutional Court to declare the final judgment itself unconstitutional, not only the law it applied.
The procedure act, article 59; the court’s statistics
Confirmed
Taiwan: citizen judges — three professional and six lay — try intentional offences causing death from 1 January 2023, and offences carrying a minimum of ten years from 1 January 2026. Juvenile and drug-statute cases are excluded.
The Citizen Judges Act, articles 3, 5 and 113
Confirmed
Taiwan: on 20 September 2024 the court held the death penalty constitutional only for the most serious intentional killings, with a unanimous bench at every level, oral argument at the third instance, and no death sentence for defendants of markedly reduced capacity.
The judgment, 113年憲判字第8號, at the court’s site
Confirmed
Malaysia: mandatory death ended on 4 July 2023; judges may now impose death or 30 to 40 years with at least 12 strokes. From 12 September 2023 the Federal Court resentenced those whose appeals were exhausted.
Acts 846 and 847, as recorded by Amnesty International
Confirmed
Singapore: on 29 November 2022 Parliament repealed section 377A of the Penal Code and added Article 156, which stops laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman being struck down under the fundamental liberties.
Ministry of Home Affairs; Malay Mail
Confirmed
Singapore: detention without trial under the 1955 Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act was extended for a fifteenth time, to 20 October 2029.
Ministry of Home Affairs, 7 March 2024
Confirmed, not verifiable here
Malaysia: the Federal Court struck down 16 provisions of Kelantan’s syariah criminal code on 9 February 2024 (8–1), and held on 19 June 2025 (3–1) that a Selangor fatwa binds individuals but not a company.
The Vibes; Malay Mail; the case record
Confirmed, not verifiable here
Singapore: 17 executions in 2025, 15 for drugs, and at least 16 drug executions in 2026 by 18 August, by the count of UN human-rights experts.
UN News, 18 August 2026
Disputed
Taiwan: a December 2024 amendment required at least ten of the fifteen justices to deliberate and nine to strike a law down, while eight were in office. On 19 December 2025 five justices declared the amendment unconstitutional; the other three said the court was not lawfully constituted and the judgment is void.
The amended act; CNA; PTS
Unconfirmed
Malaysia: whether a bill has followed the February 2025 review of the security-offences act’s 28-day detention and a parliamentary committee’s recommendations of 3 December 2025. None was found in the sources read.
Malaysian Bar; The Star
Settled
The texts: Taiwan’s review of judgments and citizen judges, the conditions on its death penalty, Malaysia’s end of mandatory death, Singapore’s Article 156 and its detention law.
Not settled
Whether Taiwan’s December 2025 judgment stands, and what, if anything, replaces Malaysia’s 28-day detention power.
Timeline
Six decades, most of them in the last four years Each date is the date the document carrying it gives.
1965Malaysia caps what a syariah court may impose: three years, RM5,000 or six strokes, or a combination.
1969Singapore abolishes jury trials.
12 Nov 1993Singapore fixes the English common law it keeps at this date, and keeps English statutes only where it lists them.
1 Jan 1995Malaysia abolishes jury trials.
Jan 2018Malaysia’s Federal Court quashes a child’s conversion made without the other parent’s consent, and holds judicial review part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
2019Taiwan ends the binding force of selected Supreme Court precedents and sets up grand chambers; on 24 May same-sex couples begin registering marriages.
2 Jan 2021Singapore splits its High Court into a General Division and an Appellate Division.
4 Jan 2022Taiwan’s new constitutional procedure takes effect, opening review of court judgments to individuals.
29 Nov 2022Singapore repeals section 377A and adds Article 156; the constitutional vote is 85 to 2.
1 Jan 2023Taiwan’s citizen-judge courts begin. In their first year they receive 108 cases and decide 16.
16 May 2023Taiwan’s legislature lets married same-sex couples jointly adopt children not related to either.
4 Jul 2023Malaysia’s mandatory death penalty ends.
12 Sep 2023Malaysia’s Federal Court gains power to resentence those already on death row.
9 Feb 2024Nik Elin: 16 Kelantan syariah offences are void because the subjects belong to Parliament.
3 Apr 2024Singapore’s Parliament extends detention without trial for five more years.
19 Sep 2024Taiwan lets cross-strait same-sex couples married in a third place register their marriage.
20 Sep 2024Taiwan’s death-penalty judgment.
29 Oct 2024Malaysia’s Federal Court finishes resentencing, after reviewing 936 people.
20 Dec 2024Taiwan’s legislature raises the Constitutional Court’s quorum to ten and its threshold to nine.
16 Jan 2025Taiwan carries out an execution, its first since the 2024 judgment and after almost five years without one.
22 Jan 2025Malaysia’s death row stands at 140, against 1,337 before the reform (official figures).
Feb 2025Malaysia’s Prime Minister orders a review of the security-offences act.
19 Jun 2025SIS Forum: a fatwa can bind individuals, not a company.
14 Aug 2025Singapore’s President grants clemency to a man sentenced to death for drug trafficking.
3 Dec 2025A Malaysian parliamentary committee recommends reviewing the 28-day detention and restoring the courts’ discretion over remand and bail.
19 Dec 2025Five Taiwanese justices strike down the quorum amendment; three call the judgment void.
1 Jan 2026Taiwan’s citizen judges begin hearing offences with a ten-year minimum.
18 Aug 2026UN experts call Singapore’s mandatory drug death penalty an arbitrary deprivation of life.
Sep 202634 people are awaiting execution in Taiwan.
Three things cannot be placed. Taiwan opened same-sex registration to couples where the foreign partner’s country does not recognise such marriages, except for mainland Chinese partners, but the government page that states the rule does not date it. Whether a bill to amend Malaysia’s 28-day detention has been tabled could not be established. And the outcome of Taiwan’s quorum dispute has no date because it has no outcome yet.
The Argument
What each state says its rules are for, and who disagrees Each position is attributed to the body that published it.
Taiwan
A court that could not sit, and a judgment about whether it could
CNA and PTS, 19 December 2025
The five justices: the amendment’s procedure was gravely defective and it breached the separation of powers; with no date in sight for filling seven vacancies, the three who refused to deliberate were taken out of the count.
The three justices: the law in force required ten; the court was not lawfully constituted and its judgment is void from the start. Opposition legislators said the same.
Scholars quoted by PTS: the way out is to fill the vacancies by the constitutional procedure.
Singapore
Parliament decides, and says so
Ministry of Home Affairs; UN News
The government on Article 156: it does not write the definition of marriage into the Constitution; it protects the laws and policies built on that definition from challenge, after the risk that courts would strike down section 377A.
The government on detention without trial: it is for gangs and syndicates where witnesses will not testify for fear of reprisal, and every order is reviewed by a committee chaired by a Supreme Court judge.
UN experts: drug offences are not among the “most serious crimes”, and the mandatory sentence with its statutory presumptions is an arbitrary deprivation of life.
Malaysia
A line between legislatures, argued as a line about religion
The Federal Court, as reported; the syariah judiciary; the Malaysian Bar
The Chief Justice in Nik Elin: the case is not about the position of Islamic law or the syariah courts, but about which legislature may enact these offences. The syariah judiciary department agreed: the conduct is still an offence, tried in the civil courts.
The dissent in SIS Forum: the fatwa can bind the company and the dispute belongs in the syariah court. The state Islamic council agreed with the dissent; the Sultan of Selangor expressed disappointment.
The Malaysian Bar: a review of the security-offences act is not enough; it should be repealed outright.
Our reading: the legal family is not where the difference lies
This is an inference from the texts above, not a finding any one source states. Code against precedent decides how law is written and found. What a person can do against the state is decided by how far rights may be limited, who can bring a law or a judgment before a court, and whether detention can happen without one.
Our reading: three different deciders
Also an inference. In Taiwan an individual can put a judgment itself before the Constitutional Court, and that route is the one now disputed. In Singapore contested rights questions have been settled by Parliament, as with Article 156. In Malaysia the Federal Court has drawn the federal–state line in religious matters on grounds of competence, while religion still decides which family law and which court apply.
What Others Add
The machinery underneath Read in the statutes, the courts’ own pages and the reference works named on the source line.
How law is written
Malaysia
Singapore
Taiwan
Family
Common law, alongside Islamic law and native customary law
Common law, with Muslim personal law
Civil law, built on codes
English law
Received as it stood on 7 April 1956 in West Malaysia, and from earlier ordinances of 1951 in Sabah and 1949 in Sarawak
Common law as it stood on 12 November 1993; English statutes only where listed, and a local Act prevails
Not received
Civil law
No civil code; contract law on an Indian model; land under the 1965 National Land Code, a Torrens register
No civil code; precedent plus statutes
Civil Code in five books, articles 1–1225; majority at 18
Criminal law
Penal Code, criminal procedure and evidence on Indian models
A Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code 2010
General part to article 99, specific offences from article 100
Precedent
Binding; the Federal Court calls it a cornerstone
Binding; two-tier appeals since 2021
Selected precedents lost binding force in 2019; grand chambers resolve conflicts
Courts and review
Malaysia
Singapore
Taiwan
Review
Ordinary courts, the Federal Court at the top; a claim that a legislature lacked power needs a Federal Court judge’s leave
Ordinary courts, the Court of Appeal at the top; the High Court has rejected the basic-structure doctrine
A single Constitutional Court of fifteen seats; individuals may challenge a final judgment itself
Amendment
Two-thirds of Parliament
Two-thirds of MPs; a few articles need a referendum
A legislative proposal, then a referendum approved by more than half of all voters
Limits on speech
Citizens only; Parliament may restrict
Citizens only; Parliament may restrict as it “considers necessary or expedient”
Only by law, and only where necessary
Lay judges
None since juries ended on 1 January 1995
None since juries ended in 1969
Citizen judges since 2023; 108 cases in the first year
Religious and native courts
State syariah courts, including criminal jurisdiction capped at three years, RM5,000 or six strokes; native courts in Sabah and Sarawak
A Syariah Court for Muslim family matters
None
Detention and punishment
Malaysia
Singapore
Taiwan
Without a court
Up to 28 days under the security-offences act before seeing a magistrate; review ordered, no bill found
Ministerial detention orders of up to 12 months, renewable; 100 detained at the end of 2024
The Constitution requires an arrested person to be brought to a court within 24 hours
Death penalty
Discretionary since 2023; 140 on death row in January 2025
Mandatory for trafficking above set amounts, such as 15 g of diamorphine or 500 g of cannabis, unless a courier also holds a prosecution certificate
Retained for the most serious intentional killings only; 34 awaiting execution in September 2026
Caning
Yes; not for women or men over 50
Yes; not for women, men over 50, or men under sentence of death
Not among the Criminal Code’s principal punishments
Family and religion
Malaysia
Singapore
Taiwan
Who decides
Islamic family law is for the states; religion decides which law and which court apply
Parliament, for everyone; Muslim law for Muslims, the Women’s Charter for others
One Civil Code for everyone
Children’s religion
Both parents must consent to a minor’s conversion (Federal Court, 2018)
Not covered here
Not covered here
Same-sex couples
Not covered here
Sex between men decriminalised in 2022; laws defining marriage as a man and a woman shielded by Article 156
Marriage since 2019; joint adoption since 2023
Divorce
Separate regimes for Muslims and non-Muslims
Divorce by mutual agreement became a sixth ground on 1 July 2024
One regime under the Civil Code
Conclusion
Not a ranking: what each system is built to do, and where it is under strain Which one suits a reader depends on the question being asked of it.
Taiwan
The widest individual routes, and the one now jammed
Built for: a person who wants a law or a judgment tested against the Constitution, a lay voice in serious criminal trials, and one civil law for everyone.
Under strain: most petitions are dismissed (83.8% of cases ended in 2024), and the court’s quorum is disputed between its own justices.
Singapore
One legislature, and decisions that stay decided
Built for: a single body of statute and precedent with no states, where Parliament settles contested questions and courts apply the result.
Under strain: UN experts and Human Rights Watch contest the mandatory drug death penalty, and detention without trial has been renewed since 1955.
Malaysia
A federation with three court systems, and the largest recent reform
Built for: a plural society in which the states legislate for Muslims and native courts serve Sabah and Sarawak, under a Federal Court that polices the line.
Under strain: 43 death sentences affirmed on review show the penalty remains, and the 28-day detention power is under review with no bill yet seen.
Hold loosely
Malaysia’s commutation counts come from court registries via Amnesty International, and Singapore’s execution counts from UN experts; neither government publishes the same series. Taiwan’s 2024 dismissal rate is computed here from the court’s own counts. The quorum dispute and the Malaysian detention review were both unresolved when this was written.
For Taiwan, start with the code and the Constitutional Court’s judgments: the national law database and the court’s own site carry both.
For Singapore, read the statute at Singapore Statutes Online and then the appellate judgments that apply it.
For Malaysia, first establish the person’s religion and state, Sabah and Sarawak especially: they decide which law and which court apply before any statute does.
Quick notes
Copied to the clipboard.
Comparative law · law as read 15 October 2026
Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan: three legal systems
How the law is built, which courts apply it, and what a person can do with it against the state.
Malaysia: common law, Islamic law and native custom, in a federation · Singapore: common law, one legislature · Taiwan: civil-law codes, a single constitutional court. A comparison, not legal advice on any case.1 / 34
Summary
Three conclusions
Legal family
It decides how the law looks
Taiwan: a Civil Code in five books and a Criminal Code with a general and a specific part.
Malaysia and Singapore: no civil code; precedent plus statutes, and criminal codes on Indian models.
Routes
Rights depend on who can get to a court
Taiwan: a person can challenge a final judgment itself; citizen judges; arrest to court within 24 hours.
Singapore: mandatory death for drug trafficking above set amounts, caning, detention without trial.
Malaysia: religion decides which family law and which court apply.
Reforms
Each is moving, in its own direction
Taiwan: review of judgments (2022), citizen judges (2023), the death-penalty judgment (2024).
Singapore: section 377A repealed and Article 156 added (2022).
Malaysia: mandatory death ended (2023); Nik Elin (2024); SIS Forum (2025).
Not a ranking: the three are not moving along one scale2 / 34
Malaysia: federalism, Islamic and civil courts, native courts
Singapore: one legislature, localised common law, the Syariah Court
Civil law: a code against precedent and statutes
Criminal law: codes, the death penalty, detention
Rights in practice: limits, review, defendants, family, religion
Side by side: two summary tables
Conclusion, and what could not be checked
3 / 34
1 · Overview
Where each legal system comes from
Malaysia
Common law, with limits
The Civil Law Act 1956 applies English common law and equity as they stood on 7 April 1956 in West Malaysia; Sabah and Sarawak received English law by ordinances of 1951 and 1949.
Islamic law and native custom apply in their own fields.
Singapore
Common law, made local
The Application of English Law Act keeps the common law that was part of Singapore law before 12 November 1993, as local circumstances allow.
English statutes apply only if listed in its First Schedule; a local Act prevails over an inconsistent one.
Taiwan
Civil law, in codes
The law is found first in codes: the Civil Code, the Criminal Code and the two procedure codes.
English law was never received.
4 / 34
1 · Overview
Constitutions and who reviews laws against them
Item
Malaysia
Singapore
Taiwan
Reviewing court
Ordinary courts; the Federal Court at the top
Ordinary courts; the Court of Appeal at the top
One Constitutional Court; fifteen seats
How a person raises it
In a case; a claim that a legislature lacked power needs a Federal Court judge’s leave
In a case or by judicial review
After exhausting appeals, against the final judgment or the law it applied, within six months
Basic structure
Accepted: judicial review cannot be amended away (2018)
Rejected by the High Court
Not covered here
Amendment
Two-thirds of Parliament
Two-thirds of MPs; a few articles by referendum
Legislative proposal, then a referendum passed by more than half of all voters
5 / 34
1 · Overview · Taiwan
The route is open, and most who take it are turned away
5,681New petitions, 4 Jan 2022 to the end of 2023
11.18%Petition acceptance ratio in 2023, the court’s own measure; 9.66% for individuals
83.8%Cases ended in 2024 that were dismissed as inadmissible: 1,031 of 1,231 (91.82% in 2023)
What changed
Interpretations became judgments, and a person may now argue that a court’s final judgment itself is unconstitutional. Filing needs no lawyer; an oral hearing does.
The 2024–25 dispute
An amendment passed on 20 December 2024 required ten justices to deliberate and nine to strike a law down; eight were in office, and PTS reports no judgment for more than 400 days. On 19 December 2025 five justices struck the amendment down; three called that judgment void.
The 11.18% and the 91.82% are not complements: one divides by petitions, the other by cases ended6 / 34
1 · Overview
Court systems
Malaysia
One federal judiciary, two parallel ones
Magistrates’ and Sessions Courts; two High Courts; the Court of Appeal; the Federal Court.
State syariah courts, for Muslims only.
Native courts in Sabah and Sarawak.
Singapore
Restructured in 2021
From 2 January 2021 the High Court has a General Division, which includes the international commercial court, and an Appellate Division.
A further appeal from the Appellate Division needs the Court of Appeal’s leave; all criminal appeals from the General Division go to the Court of Appeal.
A Syariah Court for Muslim family matters.
Taiwan
Several separate court systems
Ordinary courts: district, high and supreme, in principle three instances.
Separate administrative courts.
The Constitutional Court.
7 / 34
1 · Overview
Precedent, and who sits in judgment
Precedent
Binding in two, advisory in one
Malaysia and Singapore: higher courts bind lower ones; the reasons of a judgment are law.
Taiwan: selected Supreme Court precedents lost their binding force in 2019 and now weigh as any other Supreme Court judgment; grand chambers settle conflicting views.
Lay judges
Only Taiwan puts citizens on the bench
Malaysia ended jury trials on 1 January 1995; Singapore in 1969.
Taiwan: three judges and six citizen judges since 1 January 2023 for intentional offences causing death; from 1 January 2026 also offences with a ten-year minimum. Juvenile and drug-statute cases excluded.
First year: 108 cases received, 16 decided, 15 returned to ordinary procedure, 77 still pending.
8 / 34
2 · Malaysia
Federalism and the division of legislative power
Ninth Schedule
Who legislates
What it covers
Federal List
Parliament
Including criminal law
State List
State assemblies
Islamic law and the personal and family law of Muslims, including offences against Islam, but not matters on the Federal List
Concurrent List
Both
Federal law prevails where the two conflict (Article 75)
Thirteen states and three federal territories9 / 34
2 · Malaysia
Islamic courts and civil courts
2018Indira Gandhi: a child’s conversion without both parents’ consent is quashed; judicial review is part of the basic structure.
9 Feb 2024Nik Elin (8–1): 16 Kelantan provisions, among them incest and sexual harassment, are void as matters for Parliament; two survive.
19 Jun 2025SIS Forum (3–1): Selangor’s 2014 fatwa binds individuals, not a company, which cannot profess a religion.
The limits
Syariah courts have jurisdiction over Muslims only, and their criminal penalties are capped at three years, RM5,000 or six strokes. The Federal Court has framed its rulings as questions of which legislature may act, not of Islamic doctrine.
The boundary is still moving: the reactions to both rulings are on the rights slides10 / 34
2 · Malaysia
Native courts in Sabah and Sarawak
Sabah
Native Courts Enactment 1992
Three levels: Native Court, District Native Court, Native Court of Appeal.
Section 9: no jurisdiction in anything within the syariah courts’ or the civil courts’ jurisdiction.
Sarawak
Native Courts Ordinance 1992
Cases on native law and custom, and disputes over native customary rights to land.
Does not apply to natives professing Islam, except in cases on Malay custom and some listed matters.
So Malaysia runs three court systems side by side: civil, syariah and native11 / 34
3 · Singapore
One legislature, a local common law, and a Syariah Court
Parliament
No states
All legislative power sits with Parliament.
The Constitution is the supreme law; most of it amends with two-thirds of MPs.
Common law
Cut loose in 1993
English common law is kept as it stood before 12 November 1993; later English developments are not automatic.
Syariah Court
Personal law only
Muslim marriage and divorce under the Administration of Muslim Law Act; no criminal jurisdiction; made by Parliament, not by states.
12 / 34
4 · Civil law · Taiwan
The Civil Code in five books
Book
Articles
What it holds
General Principles
1–152
Persons, things, juristic acts, time limits; majority at 18
Obligations
153–756-9
Contract, tort, unjust enrichment, and the named contracts
Rights in rem
757–966
Ownership, security interests, possession
Family
967–1137
Marriage, parents and children, guardianship, support
Succession
1138–1225
Heirs, wills, and the reserved share
General rules first, specific ones after: the general part applies to every book13 / 34
4 · Civil law · Taiwan
Statutes beside the code
Consumers
Consumer Protection Act
A business answers for unsafe goods or services; showing it was not at fault only lets the court reduce the damages.
Punitive damages up to five times the loss for intentional harm.
The state
State Compensation Act
The state pays for officials’ unlawful acts done intentionally or negligently, and for defects in public facilities.
Marriage
The J.Y. 748 Implementation Act
Same-sex marriage since 2019, inside the civil-law system rather than as an amendment to the code.
14 / 34
4 · Civil law · Malaysia and Singapore
No civil code: precedent, plus selected statutes
Area
Malaysia
Singapore
Gap-filler
English common law and equity as at 7 April 1956 (West Malaysia)
English common law as at 12 November 1993, adapted locally
Contract
A contract statute on the Indian model, with the common law behind it
Common law, with English statutes kept only where listed
Land
National Land Code 1965 in West Malaysia, a Torrens register; land is a state matter
Not covered here
Family
State Islamic family law for Muslims; a civil regime for others
Muslim law for Muslims; the Women’s Charter for others, with divorce by mutual agreement since 1 July 2024
Further civil-law detail for the two is not covered here: it could not be traced to a source15 / 34
4 · Civil law
Two ways to find a right
Taiwan
System first, cases after
The code is the starting point; rights are read from its articles.
One civil law for everyone; family and succession do not split by religion.
Malaysia and Singapore
Rules built case by case
Rights are spread across judgments and statutes, and often need case research to pin down.
Family and succession split by religion.
16 / 34
5 · Criminal law · Taiwan
The Criminal Code, and the rights of the accused
General part
Articles 1–99
The rules every offence shares: intent and negligence, attempt, accomplices, sentencing.
Principal punishments: death, life, a fixed term, short detention, a fine.
Specific part
Articles 100–363
Offences grouped by the interest they protect, each defined in the abstract with its range of punishment.
Procedure
Code of Criminal Procedure
The accused must be told they may stay silent; they are presumed innocent until convicted.
A defence lawyer may be present at questioning; pre-trial detention is two months at a time.
17 / 34
5 · Criminal law · Taiwan
The death penalty: kept, and fenced in
20 September 2024: constitutional only for the most serious intentional killings, with direct, general or alternative intent, completed.
A unanimous bench at every level; oral argument and a defence lawyer at the third instance; a lawyer present at questioning.
No death sentence for a defendant whose capacity was markedly reduced at the time, or who cannot defend themselves at trial; no execution of someone lacking the capacity to undergo it.
The 1999 text of article 348(1), which made death the only penalty for killing a kidnap victim, is unconstitutional; the current text already allows life.
1Execution in 2025, the first after the judgment, on 16 January
34Awaiting execution, September 2026
18 / 34
5 · Criminal law · Malaysia
The end of mandatory death, and what it did
1,337 → 140On death row before the reform, and on 22 January 2025 (official figures)
854Commuted in the temporary review: 761 men and 93 women, 91% of applicants
43Death sentences the Federal Court affirmed on that review, all men; none for drugs at the time
From 4 July 2023: death or 30 to 40 years with at least 12 strokes, at the judge’s discretion; death removed for some offences not causing death.
The Federal Court ended its temporary review on 29 October 2024 after 936 people; with the Court of Appeal, at least 1,016 sentences were commuted.
Civil courts may order whipping, but not for women or men over 50.
Before the reform: 11 or 12 mandatory-death offences, by different government counts. Commutation figures come from court registries via Amnesty International19 / 34
5 · Criminal law · Malaysia
Preventive detention: a power under review
The Act
Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012
Section 4(5): a senior police officer may extend detention to 28 days without bringing the suspect before a magistrate.
Section 13: no bail for some offences.
The review
Ordered, recommended, not yet legislated
February 2025: the Prime Minister orders a review.
3 December 2025: a parliamentary committee recommends reviewing the 28 days and the definitions of offences, and restoring courts’ discretion over remand, bail and trial.
The human-rights commission proposed seven days, extendable only by a court; the Malaysian Bar wants repeal.
No amending bill was found in the sources read20 / 34
5 · Criminal law · Singapore
The mandatory death penalty and caning remain central
17Executions in 2025, 15 for drug offences
16+Executions for drug offences in 2026, to 18 August
Trafficking more than 15 g of diamorphine, 250 g of methamphetamine or 500 g of cannabis may carry the mandatory death penalty.
A judge may choose life with caning only if the accused was merely a courier and the prosecution certifies substantive assistance.
On 14 August 2025 the President granted clemency to a man sentenced to death for drug trafficking.
Caning: not for women, men over 50, or men under sentence of death.
Execution counts are those of UN human-rights experts21 / 34
5 · Criminal law · Singapore
Detention without trial, protected by the Constitution
CLTPA
Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act
Enacted 1955; extended for the fifteenth time, to 20 October 2029.
Ministerial orders of up to 12 months, extendable by the President; for secret societies and criminal syndicates.
Each order goes to an advisory committee chaired by a Supreme Court judge; detainees may have lawyers; a third committee reviews detention beyond ten years.
100 detained at the end of 2024, 99 of them linked to secret societies.
The Constitution
Articles 9(6) and 149
Article 9(6) keeps a pre-Constitution detention law valid despite the liberty guarantees; Article 149 does the same for the Internal Security Act.
The government: needed where witnesses fear reprisal. Critics in Parliament asked whether it still is22 / 34
5 · Criminal law
How the penal codes are laid out
Aspect
Malaysia and Singapore
Taiwan
Origin
Indian models from British rule
Continental codes
Structure
Chapters in sequence, general explanations and exceptions near the front
A general part (articles 1–99) and a specific part (100–363)
Punishments
Death, imprisonment, caning, fines
Death, life, a fixed term, short detention, fines; no caning
How the two older codes illustrate their sections is not covered: no source read describes it23 / 34
6 · Rights in practice
What the constitutions guarantee, and how they allow limits
Right
Malaysia
Singapore
Taiwan
Liberty
Article 149 allows special laws against subversion and threats to public order
Article 9(6) and Article 149 save detention laws from the liberty guarantees
Article 8: to a court within 24 hours; limits only by law and only where necessary (article 23)
Speech
Article 10: citizens only; Parliament may restrict
Article 14: citizens only; restrictions Parliament “considers necessary or expedient”
Limits must pass the necessity test of article 23
Religion of a child
Article 12(4) read in 2018 to require both parents’ consent
Not covered here
Not covered here
Marriage
Not covered here
Article 156 shields laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman
Same-sex marriage by statute since 2019
Two of the three let Parliament decide how far a right may be limited; the third asks whether the limit is necessary24 / 34
6 · Rights in practice
Can a person bring a law, or a judgment, before the Constitution?
Taiwan
Directly
After exhausting appeals, against the final judgment or the law it applied.
Most are dismissed: 83.8% of cases ended in 2024; and the court’s quorum is disputed.
Malaysia
Inside a case
Raised in litigation or judicial review; a claim that a legislature lacked power needs a Federal Court judge’s leave, the route Nik Elin took.
Religious cases first meet the line between civil and syariah courts.
Singapore
Parliament has the last word
Raised in litigation or judicial review, with sufficient interest.
Section 377A was repealed by Parliament, which amended the Constitution in the same sitting to shield the definition of marriage.
25 / 34
6 · Rights in practice
Defendants’ rights
Right
Malaysia
Singapore
Taiwan
Before a judge
24 hours ordinarily; up to 28 days under the security-offences act
Ministerial detention without trial under the CLTPA
Within 24 hours (Constitution, article 8)
Silence and a lawyer
Not covered here
Not covered here
Told of the right to silence; a lawyer may attend questioning
Presumption of innocence
Not covered here
Statutory presumptions in drug cases, which UN experts criticise
Written into the Code of Criminal Procedure
Lay judges
None since 1995
None since 1969
Citizen judges since 2023
Punishment
Discretionary death; caning
Mandatory death for drug trafficking above set amounts; caning
Death fenced in by the 2024 judgment; no caning
A cell no source read supports is marked, not filled26 / 34
6 · Rights in practice
Marriage and family
Taiwan
The widest recognition of the three
Same-sex marriage registered since 24 May 2019.
Joint adoption of unrelated children passed on 16 May 2023.
Partners from countries that do not recognise it may register, except mainland Chinese partners; since 19 September 2024 cross-strait couples married in a third place may register.
Singapore
Decriminalised, and the definition shielded
Section 377A repealed on 29 November 2022.
Article 156: Parliament may define and protect marriage; laws defining it as a man and a woman cannot be struck down under Part 4.
The government: the article does not write the definition into the Constitution.
Malaysia
Split by religion
Muslims under state Islamic family law and syariah courts; others under a civil regime.
A minor’s conversion needs both parents’ consent (Federal Court, 2018).
27 / 34
6 · Rights in practice · Malaysia
How religion decides legal position
Which family and succession law, and which court, applies.
Whether state Islamic offences apply at all: syariah courts try Muslims only.
Whether a fatwa binds: individuals yes, a company no (SIS Forum, 2025).
Two published positions
The Chief Justice in Nik Elin: the case was about which legislature may act, not the position of Islamic law. The SIS Forum dissent, backed by the state Islamic council: the fatwa can bind the company and the dispute belongs in the syariah court.
28 / 34
6 · Rights in practice
Detention without a court: where the three differ most
Taiwan
A court within 24 hours
The Constitution requires an arrested person to be brought to a court within 24 hours, and lets anyone ask a court to order the person produced.
Singapore
Written into the Constitution
Ministerial detention under the CLTPA, and the Internal Security Act, both saved from the liberty guarantees.
Malaysia
Under review
Up to 28 days without a magistrate under the security-offences act; a review is open and no bill has been seen.
29 / 34
7 · Side by side
Summary one: structure and codes
Item
Malaysia
Singapore
Taiwan
Legal family
Common law + Islamic law + native custom
Common law + Muslim personal law
Civil law
State
Federation: 13 states, 3 federal territories
Unitary
Unitary
Review
Diffuse; Federal Court; basic structure accepted
Diffuse; Court of Appeal; basic structure rejected by the High Court
Centralised; Constitutional Court; review of judgments
Civil code
None
None
Five books
Religious courts
State syariah courts, with criminal jurisdiction
Syariah Court, personal law only
None
Native courts
Sabah and Sarawak
None
None
30 / 34
7 · Side by side
Summary two: rights and remedies
Item
Malaysia
Singapore
Taiwan
Lay judges
None
None
Citizen judges since 2023
Death penalty
Kept; mandatory form ended 2023
Kept; mandatory for drugs above set amounts; 17 executed in 2025
Kept; fenced in 2024; 1 executed in 2025
Caning
Yes
Yes
No
Detention without a court
Up to 28 days; under review
CLTPA and the Internal Security Act
Court within 24 hours
Same-sex couples
Not covered here
Decriminalised 2022; Article 156
Marriage 2019; joint adoption 2023
Family and succession
Split by religion and native status
Split by religion
One Civil Code
31 / 34
7 · Side by side
What the three share
A written constitution declared to be the supreme law.
A death penalty still in the law, narrowed in Malaysia and Taiwan, not in Singapore.
Malaysia and Singapore: common-law method and penal, procedure and evidence codes on Indian models.
32 / 34
8 · Conclusion
Conclusions
The legal family is the starting point, not the whole story. What decides rights is how widely they may be limited, who can bring a case before the Constitution, and how legislature and courts divide the last word.
Taiwan has the most direct individual routes — review of judgments, a necessity test, citizen judges, a court within 24 hours — and the court at their centre has a disputed quorum. Filling the vacancies is the remedy scholars name.
Singapore lets Parliament decide: on the death penalty, caning, detention and marriage, the state’s judgment prevails, and changes come by statute.
Malaysia made the largest recent penal reform of the three and its Federal Court polices the federal–state line; religion still decides family law and the detention review is unfinished.
In practice: for Taiwan read the code and the court’s judgments; for Singapore the statute and the appellate cases; for Malaysia establish religion and state first.
33 / 34
Limits
What could not be checked, and is therefore not claimed
Subject
Why it is absent or qualified
The legal professions
Admission, examinations and senior ranks in all three: no source read, so they are not covered.
Contract, property, succession
Islamic succession shares, will limits and the compensation case: not read, so not covered.
Administrative remedies and legal aid
Only Taiwan’s State Compensation Act was read; it appears with the civil law, and the rest is not covered.
Counts from NGOs and UN experts
Malaysia’s commutations and Singapore’s executions are not published by either government in the same form.
Still moving
Taiwan’s court quorum, Malaysia’s detention review and any new Kelantan legislation were unresolved in October 2026.
Not advice
A comparison of systems, not an opinion on any case.
Official sources: law.moj.gov.tw and cons.judicial.gov.tw for Taiwan; sso.agc.gov.sg for Singapore34 / 34
1 / 34
Taiwan’s national law database (the constitutional procedure act, the Citizen Judges Act, the Civil Code, the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court Organisation Act, the Consumer Protection and State Compensation Acts, the Constitution and its Additional Articles) and the Ministry of Justice’s record of the same-sex marriage act
the Constitutional Court’s judgment 113年憲判字第8號 and its statistical reports for 2022–23 and 2024
CNA, 16 May and 19 Dec 2025
PTS, 10 Sep 2024, 16 Jan 2025 and 19 Dec 2025
PChome, 27 Sep 2026
the Ministry of the Interior, 19 Sep 2024, and the government service page on same-sex registration
the Taiwan Equality Campaign on joint adoption. Singapore Statutes Online (the Application of English Law Act, Criminal Procedure Code s 325, Constitution art 9)
the Supreme Court
Allen & Gledhill, 28 Jan 2021
the Ministry of Home Affairs, 20 Oct 2022 and 7 Mar 2024
the Central Narcotics Bureau, 30 Jul 2024
Mothership, 3 Apr 2024
Malay Mail, 30 Nov 2022 and 26 Mar 2025
UN News, 18 Aug 2026
Human Rights Watch, 15 Apr 2026. Amnesty International, 4 Jul 2025
Malay Mail, 11 Feb 2024 and 20, 21 and 24 Jun 2025
The Star, 16 Feb and 3 Dec 2025
the Malaysian Bar, 20 Feb 2025
LoyarBurok on the jury
and Wikipedia’s articles on Nik Elin v Kelantan, the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023, the constitutions of Malaysia and Singapore, Malaysia’s states, Singapore’s family law and its judicial system. All read 15 Oct 2026.
Versions
This document is rewritten when what it says has to change. Every version stays published at its own address.