SINGAPORE JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES
ISSN: 0218-2173 (Print)
ISSN: 3029-1216 (Digital/Websites)
The Singapore Journal of Legal Studies is an open access journal on a CC BY-NC-ND basis. See further: https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/.
Selected articles and notes published by the journal are available as podcasts which have been generated using AI tools.
Editors: Sandra Annette BOOYSEN National University of Singapore and Christian WITTING National University of Singapore
The Singapore Journal of Legal Studies has been in continuous publication since 1959 when it first appeared as the University of Malaya Law Review. Institutional changes made it necessary for the Journal to be re-named twice, first as the Malaya Law Review and then the Singapore Journal of Legal Studies. Together with its predecessor journals (the University of Malaya Law Review and the Malaya Law Review), the Journal is one of the oldest legal journals in the British Commonwealth. As the first and leading legal journal in Singapore, it has witnessed the legal, political and social development of Singapore as it progressed from being a Third World country to a First World country. The Journal has traced the development of common law in Asia, particularly, Singapore and Malaysia. >> Read More
Featured Content
- Article
Special Feature: Criminal Law’s Fundamentals – Preface
[2025] Sing JLS 1First view: [Mar 2025 Online] Sing JLS 1-4Fundamentals of Criminal Law (“Fundamentals”) was completed in Singapore during lockdown in 2020. But it will never really be finished. The project that it undertakes is sufficiently wide-ranging that there will always be opportunities for disagreement and refinement. Even if one accepts its core informing principles, eg that D should not be convicted of a criminal wrong unless D is culpable for that wrong, one might well harbour doubts about how those principles apply in the context of particular doctrines. Can inadvertent negligence be culpable, for instance, in the way that many legal systems assume it is? In his essay for this symposium, James Manwaring does not deny that it can: “Sometimes inattention and forgetfulness evidence insufficient care for others.” But he denies that the evidential link is a robust one. Drawing on recent studies in the psychological literature, he concludes that such failings of attention or memory, relative to an average person, do not supply robust evidence of a moral failing on D’s part. More specifically, they do not offer sufficiently reliable evidence of D’s culpability to warrant the kind of condemnatory and punitive response that is inflicted by criminal law. “From the fact that the defendant failed to do what the reasonable person would do, it requires a fragile inference to reach the conclusion that they evinced insufficient care [for the interests of those they harmed].” Yet Manwaring accepts that the inference may be strengthened by relativising the so-called “reasonable person” to more of the defendant’s own attributes. He does not offer an account of how that might be done; such an account would be well beyond the scope of a single essay. What he does show, however, is that the existing literature is incomplete. There is more work to be done. ...Read more Show less - Article
Contractariansim and Wrongs in Minority Oppression
[2025] Sing JLS 161First view: [Mar 2025 Online] Sing JLS 1-21The two principal remedies in corporate law against abusive conduct toward minorities are the derivative action and the oppression action. The former allows a proper complainant to seek relief on behalf of the company while the latter provides non-controlling shareholders with various personal remedies where they establish oppressive conduct. The courts have recently proposed a distinction between an “essentially corporate wrong” (which members may purportedly only rectify under the derivative action) and a “personal wrong” (which is purportedly the only valid basis for the oppression action). It is suggested that focusing on the nature of the wrong is untenable given commercial realities that a wrong to a company can also readily prejudice members’ rights. Instead, the emphasis should be on the agreement or understanding of the parties and the specific reliefs being sought. ...Read more Show less
- Article
The ‘Creditor Duty’ and Other Rules
[2025] Sing JLS 182First view: [Mar 2025 Online] Sing JLS 1-17Cases all around the world have had to deal with statutory changes that have diluted capital maintenance rules. The duty on directors to act in the best interest of the company has had to fill the gap in situations in which returns to shareholders (even where enlightened) are no longer the only concern. Recent decisions on creditor interests in the vicinity of insolvency in the UK and Singapore are contrasted. The suggestion is that any indirect “creditor duty” is hard to specify and enforce given the continued focus on the company and its shareholders. Instead, the focus should shift from the company’s interest to the proper exercise of powers by directors viewed against the various statutory obligations of companies (that remain) in or around insolvency. ...Read more Show less - Article
Defining a Caveatable Interest under Section 115(3)(A) of the Land Titles Act
[2025] Sing JLS 128First view: [Mar 2025 Online] Sing JLS 1-11This study examines the extent to which “an interest in the proceeds of sale of land” is able to be protected by a caveat, under s 115(3)(a) of the LTA. To this end, the history of the LTA and case law are studied to identify the legislative intent behind s 115(3)(a). Various issues such as the scope of a caveatable interest and lack of definitions in the LTA, among other challenges, are identified and consolidated. This study then proposes the use of the “definite entitlement” test as an extension of the statue for greater clarity. ...Read more Show less
- Article
Community Legal Clinics and Clinical Legal Education in Singapore
[2025] Sing JLS 139First view: [Mar 2025 Online] Sing JLS 1-22A common thread underlying many clinical legal education initiatives – to support access-to-justice imperatives – is interwoven with broader policy initiatives within a legal system to develop its pro bono legal service channels for the benefit of the wider community. The former can make meaningful contributions towards the pursuit of the latter, while the flourishing of the latter can create valuable opportunities for the growth of the former. This article explores the potential for a closer alignment between the pro bono activities of Community Legal Clinics and the development of clinical legal education initiatives within Singapore’s law schools, analysing empirical data from the author’s experience volunteering at a legal clinic alongside undergraduate law students to formulate recommendations that may generate desired outcomes on both fronts. ...Read more Show less
The journal can also be accessed electronically through the following channels:
