This article seeks to argue for the inclusion of constructive trusts as a statutory exception to indefeasibility in the LTA given the persistent uncertainty surrounding this issue. Among others, it is argued that constructive trusts are already recognised in the LTA, albeit indirectly. In addition, the Court of Appeal in Bebe may not be right in its consideration of section 47(3) of the LTA and the earlier Court of Appeal decision in Betsy Lim which applied the constructive trust. In any event, recognising constructive trusts as a statutory exception does not go against the policy objectives of the Singapore Torrens system as embodied in the LTA.

Singapore competition law prohibits agreements that have as their object the restriction of competition. Recent developments, both in Singapore and abroad, have had a significant impact on this aspect of competition law. This article discusses the law on object restrictions in Singapore in light of these recent developments, and offers three recommendations on the same.

Criminal Law in Myanmar deserves a far wider audience than its title suggests. The authors propose an ambitious reform of the Penal Code (The Myanmar Code,Volume VIII, Part IX) [Myanmar Penal Code], which is a copy with minor variations of the Penal Code 1860 (Act No 45 of 1860, India) [Indian Penal Code]. Myanmar, Burma as it was then, inherited the Indian Penal Code in 1886 together with the Code of Penal Procedure 1861 (Act No 24 of 1861, India) and the Evidence Act 1872 (Act No 1 of 1872, India). The Indian Penal Code was based on Thomas Macaulay's draft Penal Code of 1837 which, after long delay and revision by the Indian Law Commission, became law in India in 1860. The Indian Penal Code has been retained, its fundamental structure unchanged, in post-colonial Asian nations. The authors' proposals for reform are offered accordingly as a model for renovation of the Penal Codes of India, Malaysia and Singapore as well as Myanmar.

The Unfair Contract Terms Act and s 3 of the Misrepresentation Act were formally adopted from the UK into Singapore in November 1993. The Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act followed about ten years later. This article discusses how these statutes have operated, primarily by examining how they have been applied in the case law, and reflects on their modus operandi and capacity to promote contractual fairness.

Effectiveness in crime control has been a dominant concern in regulating police interrogation and the admissibility of statements obtained from suspects in Singapore. This will be illustrated by an examination of three main topics in this area: (i) the suspect's right of silence and privilege against self-incrimination; (ii) the tests for the admissibility of his statements to the police; and (iii) the judicial discretion to exclude statements obtained wrongfully from him by the police. Crime control ideology has been used by officials to justify erosion or weak enforcement of the suspect's rights and is manifested in judicial sensitivity towards compromising the efficacy of police investigation. But the interest in crime control and the interest in due process are not as diametrical as they are often made out to be. Informed evaluation of the official discourse requires recognition of the complexity of the choices that have to be made.

A Singapore District Court recently considered certain key provisions of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act, before acquitting a local trading company charged with importing approximately 30,000 rosewood logs into Singapore. This article examines the decision, and argues for a purposive construction of these provisions that furthers Singapore's implementation of its obligations as a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species ofWild Fauna and Flora. This is particularly pertinent considering Singapore's role as a significant transhipment hub for endangered species in combatting the illegal wildlife trade. The article also argues for greater international cooperation and coordination between CITES Parties in the design and implementation of their respective national legal frameworks.

This article considers the dilemma that constitutional judicial review presents to the most wellmeaning of judges—that of navigating the narrow and difficult road between parliamentary supremacy and judicial oligarchy. It examines the Singapore Court of Appeal's delineation of legal and extra-legal considerations in view of Ronald Dworkin's theory of adjudication in determining the constitutionality of s 377A of the Penal Code in Lim Meng Suang v Attorney-General [2015] 1 SLR 26 (CA). It proposes an alternative natural law approach to constitutional judicial review based on Radbruch's formula, which helps courts to avoid the pitfalls of judicial idiosyncrasies and usurpation of legislative mandate while staying true to constitutionalism.

Yung Kee Restaurant on Wellington Street in Hong Kong is justly famous for the delicious goose it serves to hungry diners beating a path to its doors. In Re Yung Kee Holdings Ltd (CFA), the family which founded Yung Kee Restaurant and has operated the restaurant for three generations served up a seminal case involving how a court should approach a petition to wind up an unregistered foreign company on the just and equitable ground. Petitions to wind up such foreign companies tend to be creditor petitions on the ground that a company has not been able to pay its debts. Yung Kee Holdings Ltd ("the Company") was an ultimate holding company, and was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands ("BVI"). The famous restaurant, various properties and other business interests were held by Hong Kong entities, and were indirectly held by the subject company through another intermediary BVI company, Long Yau Ltd. In granting the petition to wind up the Company, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal signed the order for the present restaurateurs to sing their swan song.

In Ridzuan, two co-accused were charged with and convicted of drug trafficking, yet only one received a certificate of substantive assistance under s 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act. This commentary examines the novel questions on the right to equality with respect to the granting of certificates of substantive assistance as raised in the Court of Appeal's decision. This commentary also addresses the broader question of how the presumption of constitutionality should apply in various contexts. Finally, it proposes a legislative mechanism to improve the institutional safeguards in place for the granting of these certificates.

For more than a decade in Singapore, it was unclear whether the previous conviction of a third party can be admitted as evidence not only in civil, but also in criminal proceedings. The Singapore Court of Appeal in the recent criminal reference case of Chua Boon Chye determinatively answered the question in the positive. This clarification is very much welcomed.