This article analyses the Singaporean tradition of relatively low levels of public expenditure on social security and emphasis on family and personal responsibility through mandatory social account' investments and tax incentives to promote savings; and theAustralian tradition of tax-funded, flat-rate and means tested social security payments for most contingencies. It is suggested that both countries have developed their own particular 'twists' on their historic and cultural inheritances (Singapore blending US-style neoliberalism with Confucian reliance on familial self-provision and low tax rates; Australia breaking from a contributory model due to a strong laborist influence). Tentative observations are offered about the degree of path dependence or otherwise of these models and their contribution to debate in countries contemplating 'parameter changes' to welfare to accommodate globalisation or fiscal challenges.

This article examines the recoverability of mistaken payments made by bank transfer in practice in Singapore. It is now clearly established under Singapore law that a mistaken payor has a claim in unjust enrichment to recover his mistaken payment. However, it is not so easy for the mistaken payor to enforce his rights. In Singapore, this problem is particularly acute because of bank privacy laws in Singapore which make it difficult for a mistaken payor to discover the identity of the payee. Yet, without the ability to effectively enforce one's unjust enrichment rights, having those rights themselves is of little practical value. The article then proposes a simple way to make it significantly easier and cheaper for mistaken payors to enforce their unjust enrichment rights: by expanding the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunal to encompass these claims. Doing so would enhance access_x000D_ to justice and should be warmly welcomed.

When I first arrived in Singapore, in 1961, the retail banking world was dominated_x000D_ by British-based banks. The leading players were the Chartered Bank and the Hong_x000D_ Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. The local banks known to me were_x000D_ the Chung Khiaw Bank, the Lee Hwa Bank and the Overseas-Chinese Banking_x000D_ Corporation ("OCBC"). United Overseas Bank - UOB - had not as yet opened its_x000D_ doors. The same applies to OUB - Overseas Union Bank - which much later, in the_x000D_ nineties, merged with UOB.

The legal personality accorded by statute to a company, as distinct from the persons of its members, is probably the most fundamental principle of company law and forms a key building-block of our economic and legal structure. However the principle is not entirely an absolute one: the courts have on occasion asserted their power to disregard that separate personality in order to treat the company as one with its controller. But the rationale and scope of this power have only rarely been articulated in the higher courts. This article focuses on recent judicial analyses of piercing the corporate veil in England, and compares the latest approach of the Singapore courts to the same question.

It is evident in current legal literature that the potentially vital role played by grandparents in the lives of children affected by parental divorce is not given serious consideration in court decisions on the custody, care and control of children since parents are recognized as the only persons with parental authority. The law is slow to intervene with the natural authority accorded to parents over their child. A central issue in this article is this: what place should grandparents occupy when a child is undergoing the trauma of parental divorce? In particular, when a judge adjudicates or conducts mediation in a case where two parents are seeking care and control of a child, should he or she also have regard to, or even seek out more information on the support that the grandparents can give to the child? We present a three-fold argument in this article: (a) the grandparent's role does not inevitably interfere with the rights of natural parents protected by the common law; (b) grandparents can contribute significantly to the well-being of the child when parents face serious crises and/or are unable to perform their normal role obligations; and (c) the court should take on a more inquisitorial role in cases involving children of divorced parents and have regard to the presence of grandparents in determining what is the welfare of the child. We discuss this three-fold argument in the light of findings from studies in several countries with particular attention to the situation in Singapore.

Singapore has never adopted a laissez faire approach towards free speech, which is constitutionally entrenched in article 14 of the Singapore Constitution. Indeed, free speech is a means to various ends; its rationale is grounded in the arguments from truth, self-expression and democracy, which views political speech as the lifeblood of democratic societies. The official government view has been that an excessive focus on political liberties is destabilizing and inimical to economic growth and communitarian ‘Asian values’. Nonetheless, government policy has undergone a minor sea-change in loosening restrictions on political liberties to accommodate the demands of a more educated, affluent citizenry for greater participation in public affairs. This article focuses on two questions. First, what is the evolving government approach towards regulating political speech in the real and virtual realm. There has been a shift from ‘blanket bans’ to a more calibrated approach towards managing free speech issues. Second, what insight does the scope of free speech shed in relation to the type of political community we are, how we value political speech and other social goods. It evaluates law and policy which regulates political speech, as well as judicial approaches towards construing article 14 issues. It offers an in-depth analysis of the only public law case concerning speech in cyberspace, in relation to racist blogs. In particular, it analyses how political digital speech can both promote and undermine democracy in Singapore, measured against the central role free speech plays in promoting truth and solidifying a democratic order.