\n<\/p>\n
Discrepancies between judicial rulings and parliamentary intent can arise from several key factors, said law experts.<\/span><\/p>\n For one, SMU law don Eugene Tan said that it boils down to the issue of drafting of the law and the interpretation of it by the courts.<\/span><\/p>\n “Words and phrases in a legislation can be interpreted differently despite the best of legislative drafting,” said the associate professor.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n “Moreover, a legislation may not have succeeded in putting across parliament\u2019s intention with adequate clarity.”<\/span><\/p>\n Ms Stephanie Chew, partner at TSMP Law Corporation, said that when lawmakers craft legislation, they cannot anticipate every scenario that comes before the courts.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cSo it\u2019s parliament that makes the laws, but it’s the courts’ job to interpret those statutes, and apply them to real cases based on the facts,\u201d she said.<\/span><\/p>\n As such, courts take into account both the purpose and wording of the law, she said.<\/span><\/p>\n Agreeing, SMU\u2019s Asst Prof Ong said that in applying the law, the courts would firstly look at the text of the legislation.<\/span><\/p>\n “This is not an exercise in attempting to look into what intention parliament or individual MPs or ministers had at the back of their mind,” he said.<\/span><\/p>\n “The courts will generally not look to other sources, such as the precise words of parliamentary debates, unless the words are ambiguous.”<\/span><\/p>\n Dr Ben Chester Cheong from the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS) said that even when a court identifies the purpose of a legislation, it is not allowed to “rewrite a provision to achieve a preferred policy outcome”.<\/span><\/p>\n In the particular case of Erzan, he notes that the court had explained that parliament must make its intention clear if it wishes to remove particular sentencing options for a certain offence.<\/span><\/p>\n Asst Prof Ong said that there is a difference between interpretation and application of the law, and the scam-related appeal cases allowed by the High Court last month relates to the latter.<\/span><\/p>\n Interpretation is a question of what the words of the law mean, he said, and in this case the words are “not ambiguous”.<\/span><\/p>\n “The meaning of the words is clear: the courts have a range of sentencing options, from probation to imprisonment to caning,” said Asst Prof Ong.<\/span><\/p>\n “Mr Shanmugam\u2019s view relates to the application of the law: in other words, when each option should be used.”<\/span><\/p>\n Whenever judicial decisions highlight an ambiguity in existing statutes, legislators will typically move to address and resolve the perceived gap in the law.<\/span><\/p>\n Asst Prof Ong of SMU said: “If parliament disagrees with what the courts say the legislative text means, parliament is free to amend the text, this time making its preferred interpretation clearer.”<\/span><\/p>\n This has happened several times in the past, with parliament updating legislation after the court identified an ambiguity or a gap in policy.<\/span><\/p>\nWhen does parliament change the law after a court decision?\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n