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
Understanding the Need to Evaluate and Recognise Law Research in Singapore Based on Different Metrics from STEM Fields Research
[2025] Sing JLS 318First view: [Sep 2025 Online] Sing JLS 1-25Last year, the then-Minister for Education intimated that in Singapore, research by university researchers in the fields of social science and humanities should not be evaluated and recognised based on the same metrics as for research in the STEM fields. This article seeks to expand on the Minister’s points by focusing on the specific context of research in the field of law by: firstly, explaining what is so different between the nature of law research (generally, and specifically in Singapore) and the nature of STEM research; secondly, elaborating on why we should not evaluate and recognise law research by Singapore law academics generally based on the same metrics as for STEM research; finally, offering some modest suggestions on how we might better assess whether a piece of law research from a Singapore law academic is good research and whether it translates into tangible outcomes for the good of Singaporeans. ...Read more Show less - Article
Contouring Reasonableness Amidst Uncertainty: Non-Competition Clauses in the Singapore Employment Contract
[2025] Sing JLS 343First view: [Sep 2025 Online] Sing JLS 1-21In Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29 and MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94, the Singapore High Court struck down two non-competition clauses for being unreasonably wide, once again casting the enforceability of non-competition clauses into the legal limelight. This paper reviews the relevant case law since the seminal case of Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd v Wong Bark Chuan David [2008] 1 SLR(R) 663 to clarify the ambit of an enforceable non-competition clause, as well as highlight several uncertainties regarding the restraint of trade doctrine in the employment context. In particular, this paper points out that: (a) it is unclear whether an employer is required to protect its interest in maintaining a stable and trained workforce exclusively via a non-solicitation clause; and (b) it is unclear whether the narrower scope of a broader clause may be pleaded and enforced. ...Read more Show less
- Article
A Competition Policy Analysis of Copyright Protection in Gen AI
[2025] Sing JLS 271First view: [Sep 2025 Online] Sing JLS 1-21The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked significant debate, particularly regarding the relationship between generative AI (GenAI) and copyright. Indeed, GenAI appears to challenge every layer of copyright protection. Our analysis focuses on the tensions surrounding the use of copyrighted works to train AI models. Since AI training relies on vast amounts of data, two conflicting interests emerge. On one hand, copyright can act as a major barrier to entry, potentially stifling the next wave of technological innovation. On the other hand, GenAI systems may pose an existential threat to creative industries by replicating human creativity and producing literary and artistic works faster and at lower costs. Against this backdrop, policymakers worldwide are striving to balance these seemingly opposing interests. While most discussions focus on why and how copyright holders should be compensated, this article examines when compensation is appropriate. To this end, it advocates for a competition-based approach in assessing the application of copyright limitations and exceptions. Specifically, it argues that antitrust tools can help courts and policymakers determine when creators suffer commercial harm and when AI-generated content may be considered a substitute for human creations. ...Read more Show less - Article
The Obiter in Nagaenthran
[2025] Sing JLS 292First view: [Sep 2025 Online] Sing JLS 1-26In Nagaenthran, the Court of Appeal reasoned in obiter that legislation ousting judicial review on grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety will ordinarily be unconstitutional. The precise logic employed here is unclear. Four interpretations have been offered, but they either do not reflect the court’s actual remarks, or complicate other aspects of administrative law doctrine. This article offers a fifth interpretation, which largely avoids these difficulties. Ouster clauses are ordinarily unconstitutional because they usually extend power-conferring provisions beyond the purposes Parliament intended them to serve. ...Read more Show less
- Article
An Empirical Evaluation of Informal Debt Collection Regulation in Singapore
[2025] Sing JLS 364First view: [Sep 2025 Online] Sing JLS 1-40Singapore’s Debt Collection Act 2022 (DCA) and Debt Collection Regulations 2023 (DCR) mark a significant shift in the governance of informal debt collection, introducing licensing and conduct requirements to a previously unregulated industry. While existing laws – such as the Moneylenders Act and Protection from Harassment Act – already addressed abusive practices, the DCA primarily seeks to professionalise debt collection rather than establish substantive consumer protections. This article critically evaluates whether the new framework enhances regulatory coherence or exacerbates fragmentation, drawing on doctrinal analysis, case law, and empirical insights. Findings reveal a persistent reliance on criminal deterrence, enforcement gaps, and regulatory blind spots, questioning the DCA’s effectiveness in curbing abuse. By situating Singapore’s model within global regulatory trends, this study highlights the tensions between industry legitimacy, legal oversight, and debtor protection, offering reflections on future policy directions. ...Read more Show less - Article
Government Vicarious Liability and the Concept of Deemed Equality with Private Persons
[2025] Sing JLS 243First view: [Sep 2025 Online] Sing JLS 1-28The immunity against Crown liability was abolished in the United Kingdom in 1948 based on the Diceyan notion of rule of law and deemed equality under the law between public officials and private persons. This paper analyses government vicarious liability in respect of the acts and omissions of public officers under the Singapore Government Proceedings Act with reference to the concept of deemed equality. We will discuss the scope of the statute in light of recent common law developments in vicarious liability, statutory exceptions to government vicarious liability that may be justified by the functions of the government in the discharge of military and judicial duties, the case of police duties, and whether government vicarious liability should be exempted in cases involving the exercise of public duties and prosecutorial responsibilities. ...Read more Show less
The journal can also be accessed electronically through the following channels:
