The 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.

Singapore’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.

The 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.

Last 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.