简体 繁體 日本語 한국어 English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português

Statutory interpretation

Read the PDF edition (1 page)

Section 9A(1) of the Interpretation Act 1965 directs that an interpretation which would promote the purpose or object underlying a written law is to be preferred to one that would not. The Court of Appeal in Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General [2017] SGCA 50 set out a three-step method: ascertain the possible interpretations of the text, ascertain the legislative purpose from the text and from admissible extrinsic material, then compare the interpretations against that purpose.12 Extrinsic material includes the Explanatory Statement to the Bill and the Minister's second reading speech in Parliament. For the Payment Services Act 2019 that speech, delivered on 14 January 2019, is the single most useful document for understanding the Act's design. It explains why the Act regulates digital payment token services for money-laundering and terrorism-financing risk and why it stopped short of regulating them for investor protection at that stage.3

The purposive method cuts both ways for the crypto industry. It allowed MAS to argue, with the 2021 amendments confirming the point, that "facilitating the exchange of digital payment tokens" catches a non-custodial matching engine even though the operator never touches the tokens. It also allows a licensee to argue that an activity falls outside the perimeter when regulating it would serve none of the Act's stated purposes. Swiss readers accustomed to the Federal Supreme Court's pluralism of methods, with the grammatical, systematic, historical and teleological elements weighed together, will find the Singapore method narrower in theory and similar in result.

Notes

  1. Interpretation Act 1965, s. 9A(1), text as published on Singapore Statutes Online. ↩
  2. Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General, Court of Appeal, 2017 SGCA 50, at paras 37–54 (three-step framework for purposive interpretation). ↩
  3. Payment Services Bill, Second Reading, Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (14 January 2019), speech of Mr Ong Ye Kung, Minister for Education, on behalf of the Minister in charge of MAS. ↩

For general information only. This article does not constitute legal or tax advice, does not replace advice on an individual case and creates no lawyer-client relationship. It reflects the legal position as of October 2026.

Setting up or expanding in Singapore?

SingaporeIQ is edited by Dr Alexander Ressos, an international business lawyer with more than 15 years of local experience in Singapore as a permanent resident, a Singapore registered foreign lawyer and managing partner of a Singapore foreign law practice. In addition to significant experience in cross-border investments and transactions, UHNWI private client work and sanctions/export controls, Dr Ressos has extensive experience in cross-border business and in crypto and digital-asset projects in Singapore, drawn from more than 700 projects since 2017.

If you are planning a company incorporation, an investment, a holding structure or a market entry through Singapore, you can reach Dr Ressos directly at [email protected]. Singapore law advice is provided by KGP Legal LLC, a licensed firm of Singapore advocates and solicitors. Dr Ressos and his team facilitate the full range of Singapore legal, compliance and company administration services, including company incorporation, corporate transactions, commercial contracts, crypto and digital assets, financial regulatory work and dispute resolution, including litigation in the Singapore courts. For Hong Kong, our parallel site HongkongIQ.com offers the same practical guidance. For crypto and digital assets, dltreg.com covers legal, tax and fiduciary services. For legal, tax and fiduciary services in Switzerland, see helveticaregister.com.