Religion is almost universally guaranteed as a fundamental liberty and human right, although the scope of religious freedom and understandings of religious identity within secular democracies are informed by the specific model of constitutional secularism practiced. States often evidence an ambivalent attitude towards religion, treating it as Law's Other, that is, a competing normative system which has regulative force on social behaviour and influences conceptions of citizenship and affective loyalties. This article examines the interpretive method of two secular Asian courts, which are meant to be bastions of impartiality, in negotiating questions of religious identity and religious freedom. It analyses the judicial weighting and balancing of relevant competing factors and considers the varied understanding of what secularity requires and whether the concerns of religious minorities_x000D_ are adequately safeguarded within secular polities where religion remains an important social force.

"In the light of growing awareness of the damaging effects of oil pollution on a national as well as a global scale, and in order to combat this, it is imperative that the courts regard offences of pollution with utmost gravity." per Yong Pung How CJ in Jupiter Shipping v PP.

The rules on standing in Singapore have traditionally restricted the commencement of judicial review proceedings by anyone other than applicants directly and individually affected by either a legislative provision or executive action: there has been little scope for what is known as 'public interest litigation' (in all its various forms). This had been the landscape of public law adjudication in Singapore until recently. However, in the past five years, the courts have had to consider challenges by applicants in the absence of such a direct interest. Thus far, the discussion on these cases has focused on broader issues of constitutional interpretation and what the cases indicate about constitutionalism in Singapore. There has been little discussion on issues of standing and what this implies about the role of public law adjudication in Singapore. This article will show how, while explicitly rejecting the_x000D_ possibility of public interest litigation, the courts have provided some scope for developing a more circumscribed form of 'representative' standing in serious cases of illegality or unconstitutionality with built-in control features to prevent actions by 'busybodies' and ensure that the court does not become involved in free-standing political debate. It will propose how these developments may evolve over time, particularly, in a way that maintains the controls the courts have introduced thus far.

This article focuses on the lack of symbiosis between provisions within the Criminal Procedure Code and between that statute and the Evidence Act concerning the admissibility at trial of statements of witnesses to the police. The subject is of immense importance because the determination of guilt and innocence can often turn on the admissibility of a witness's previous statement. The article will examine the difficulties which arise from the legislation and consider the appropriateness of reform.

The Charity Commission of England and Wales is granted powers under the Charities Act 2011 of decision-making about charitable status and public benefit of entities which were formerly the province of the judiciary. Considering that the incursion of government into charity law has become such a controversial issue, it is remarkable that the intermingling of administrative and judicial power in the Charities Act 2011 has received so little attention. This article explores the constitutional challenges faced by charity law in the UK and reveals what lessons may be learned by Australia and Hong Kong as each jurisdiction prepares to introduce a charity commission. In particular, the article contends that complications concerning the operation of the doctrine of separation of powers remain unresolved in England and Wales and that both Australia and Hong Kong need to give the judiciary a formidable role in adjudication of charitable status, so that the charity commission of each jurisdiction, although an arm of the executive, can be checked in crucial cases.

This article considers the conflict of laws rules determining the applicable law in the transferring of proprietary interests in assets situated in the People's Republic of China when the governing law of the loan contract is New York/English/Hong Kong law. It also discusses the emerging mortgage law of the PRC in the context of its application to petroleum project financing.