Singapore's legal system has always made provision for dealing with terrorism directed at Singapore - this is its historical heritage. The centre-piece is the Internal Security Act which confers the power of indefinite detention without trial. Singapore was traditionally indifferent towards terrorism targeted outside of Singapore. This stemmed from the principle of territoriality. Things changed with the enactment of the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism) Regulations 2001 - a legislation which creates extra-territorial crimes for the funding and assisting of terrorist activities outside of Singapore. This discussion considers and compares both the old and the new.

It is unknown how often patients sue their doctors for negligence in Singapore and Malaysia. Whatever the current number may be, these actions are likely to increase with the growing public reliance on health care services and the corresponding increase in the number of hospitals and clinics in these countries. One important legal consequence of this will be the development of the law on medical negligence, particularly the standard of care owed by doctors to their patients. The local courts have looked to English decisions for guidance on this issue and it is probable that this trend will continue. Accordingly, this article will discuss the standard of care expected of doctors in the light of both local and English decisions and, where instructive, some of the more recent Canadian cases as well.

A trilogy of landmark Singapore Court of Appeal decisions has defined the landscape of constitutional equal protection doctrine in Singapore: Lim Meng Suang, Syed Suhail and Tan Seng Kee. While this trio of cases has laid the doctrinal foundation for the constitutional right to equality in Singapore, three loose ends remain for clarification. First, what is the relationship between the legal tests articulated in Syed Suhail and Lim Meng Suang? Second, what is the relationship between both steps in the Syed Suhail test? Third, what is the distinction between the Syed Suhail test and the common law judicial review ground of irrationality? This paper will seek to study how these loose ends may be best tied up through a close analysis of the decisions which the Singapore courts have handed down since the landmark trilogy was decided.

This article discusses s. 106 of Singapore's Women's Charter which gives the courts power to order the division of matrimonial assets when granting a decree of divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage. The legislative history of this provision is traced and the language analysed with a view to discovering some guidelines for the exercise of the judicial discretion under the section. The existing case law is reviewed and the article concludes with a discussion of the possibility of replacing the discretionary scheme of s. 106 with more detailed provisions setting out with precision the principles to be applied to the distribution of property on divorce.

This paper engages with fundamental questions about the categorisation of the insanity defence in relation to other defences and about the moral and legal significance of satisfying its requirements. Firstly, it defends Simester’s account of insanity as an exemption from moral assessment against Marcia Baron’s argument that insanity is really an excuse. Secondly, it argues that we must distinguish conceptually between cases of insanity based on involuntariness, and cases of insanity where the defendant’s conduct was not involuntary. It tentatively suggests that certain defendants who, under Singapore’s revised insanity defence, successfully plead that they have no “power to control” their actions, should be treated as failing to satisfy the criminal law’s underlying voluntariness requirement.

Fintech is now defined by a long-term, global process of digitisation of finance, increasingly combined with datafication and new technologies including cloud computing, blockchain, Big Data and artificial intelligence. Cybersecurity and technological risks are thus evolving into major threats to financial stability and national security. This trend has been magnified by the COVID-19 crisis which has heightened dependence on digital technologies and seen substantial parts of the population working from home through systems of questionable security. Additionally, the entry of BigTech firms brings two new issues. The first arises with new forms of potentially systemically important infrastructure. The second arises because data—like finance—benefits from economies of scope and scale and from network effects and—even more than finance—tends towards monopolistic or oligopolistic outcomes. This leads to potential systematic risk from new forms of “Too Big to Fail" and “Too Connected to Fail" phenomena. We suggest some basic principles about how to address this entire range of risks.