Ambiguity in Singapore’s extradition act?

Question

I refer to the intepretation part of Singapore’s extradition act:

Does the foreign state here mean just “any foreign state” or “any foreign state between which and Singapore an extradition treaty is in force”?

Answer 1

The full definition:

“foreign State”, in relation to —
  (a)   an extradition request made to Singapore, means —
         (i)    any foreign State; or
         (ii)   any territory specified in the Third Schedule,
        between which and Singapore an extradition treaty is in force; and
  (b)   an extradition request made by Singapore, means —
        (i) any foreign State; or
        (ii)    any territory specified in the Third Schedule;

The qualifier "between which and Singapore an extradition treaty is in force; and" is aligned with the content of subsection (a) and is not the continuation of the sentence in (ii), which means that it applies to the whole subsection (a).

The difference between (i) and (ii) is that "any foreign State" doesn't need to be explicitly listed, while "any territory" does and is so listed "in the Third Schedule", but the requirement of extradition treaty applies to both of them.

You can see the contrast between the requirement to be listed in the Third Schedule, which only applies to item (ii), and the requirement of the treaty which applies to the whole subsection.

You can also see the contrast between subsection (a) which requires a treaty when extradition request is made to Singapore, and (b) which doesn't require such a treaty when the request is made by Singapore. Notice that both (i) and (ii) are written identically in both subsections.

---

This section is complicated to read because it is drafted as a "clause sandwich": introductory text, several sub-clauses, followed by some more text that modifies what came before it. For readability, this approach is discouraged in modern legislative drafting.