The Privy Council's decision in Haw Tua Tau v PP restated the burden of proof at the close of the prosecution's case from that enunciated previously in the Singapore and Malaysian Courts and, in so doing, created a controversy which has not yet been put to rest even after the recent decision of the Singapore Court Of Criminal Appeal in Abdul Ghani v PP. This article attempts to discuss the inherent problems in these cases and the difficulties faced by the judge, counsel and accused at the close of the prosecution case.

This article contains a comparative study of the use of the doctrine of common intention to secure the conviction of joint offenders for murder where an homicide is committed in furtherance of their common intention. The cases appear to be in conflict but the conflicts can be explained on the basis of the policy objectives courts seek to achieve.

In this article I adopt a comparative law approach to illustrate the coexistence of various models governing the sale of goods, and their classification on the basis of two main characteristics: the transfer of property and the opposition certainty/flexibility. I use this approach to analyse the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.1 Then I examine how the CISG influenced several national systems and can influence future attempts at regional harmonisation. I conclude with the reasons that in my opinion make the CISG a good model for the sale of goods (prestige, equilibrium and derogability), and with the desirable future developments.

In BOM v BOK, the Singapore Court of Appeal settled a three-pronged test for unconscionable transactions: (1) plaintiff "infirmity", (2) defendant "exploitation" of plaintiff infirmity, and (3) evidential burden on defendant to show the challenged transaction to be "fair, just and reasonable". This formulation is intended to represent a "middle-ground" doctrine of unconscionability, in the sense that it is broader than the original "narrow doctrine" of unconscionability from such cases as Fry v Lane and Cresswell v Potter in England, but "much narrower" than the "broad doctrine" of unconscionability in such cases as Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio in Australia. The Court rejected for Singapore the so-called "broad doctrine" on the ground that it is too unruly to function as a legal doctrine. To the extent that the Court saw the Amadio formulation as representing the spurned "broad doctrine", this article is an attempt to defend that formulation against a charge of hopeless uncertainty. In significant respects, it is argued, the Court's "middle-ground" doctrine is itself potentially broader than the Amadio-style approach to unconscionability.

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.

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.

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.