Despite more than ten years since Competition Law was first introduced in Singapore, a clear consensus on its underlying objectives remains elusive. In this article, we put forth a normative case for why Singapore's competition authorities should prioritise the promotion of economic welfare, as opposed to a more pluralistic approach that pursues competing objectives of equal standing. We argue that the normative bases for many of the rules in EU Competition Law are inconsistent with Singapore's Competition regime, and that such rules are not suitable for direct importation into Singapore. In particular, we illustrate how an overt reliance on EU case law as persuasive authority has resulted in a "formalistic" approach to Competition Law, where presumptions of law allow competition authorities to infer liability upon proof of certain conduct. Henceforth, we suggest that competition authorities in Singapore should exercise considerable caution in their application of EU law in individual cases.

This paper examines the system of environmental management and governance in the tiny but prosperous city-state of Singapore. Commencing from the early years of self government, environmental management policies were integrated with economic policies, in order to woo investors. Singapore pursued a policy of rapid industrialisation while cleaning up and greening its environment, moving from a “Garden City” to a “City in a Garden”. Through the years, it has put in place an effective legal and administrative system to deal with the implementation and enforcement of laws relating to land–use planning, pollution, public health, and nature conservation. But are there inadequacies? To what extent has Singapore succeeded in taking care of its environment? This paper focuses on Singapore’s environmental management with particular emphasis on pollution control, water conservation and the conservation of nature. It examines the work of the National Environment Agency, the Public Utilities Board and the National Parks Board. It discusses the laws and their implementation in the context of pollution control, as well as in the conservation of wild flora and fauna. It highlights the inadequacies in the laws, particularly the lack of laws for the separation of wastes, and for the conservation of marine biological diversity and ecological systems. It emphasizes the need for enhanced land stewardship, for greater public participation and for laws that provide for mandatory environmental impact assessments.

With the progressive transformation of the Internet from a romanticised instrument of freedom and self-expression into a commercial platform for digital distribution, most websites must be recognised as access interfaces to a wide range of content and services. This paper examines the contracts purportedly governing the use of such content and services. It explores the difficulties of establishing legal intention in a context that is not unambiguously commercial or transactional and contrasts popular beliefs with the basic principles of contract law. It draws a clear distinction between contracts governing traditional e-commerce exchanges, such as buying books on Amazon.com, and contracts governing the very use of websites. In the latter instance, the website (ie the resources made available_x000D_ thereon) constitutes the subject matter of the transaction. Equal importance must be attributed to the fact that such contracts are formed on websites and to the fact that they govern their use. The website user will question the existence of a contract on the basis that he did not have an intention to be legally bound, or had no awareness that a transaction was taking place. The website operator will argue that, objectively, all prerequisites of a legally enforceable agreement have been met. The outcome of the discussion will, to a large extent, depend on whether the user's beliefs and expectations can be regarded as reasonable and on whether it is the user or the operator who deserves the protection of the objective theory of contract.

Treaty obligations, including any obligation imposed by the Security Council under the United Nations Charter, are not automatically a part of Singapore law. In response to September 11, Singapore was therefore required to devise a flexible legal mechanism by which further and better domestic legal standards could be set in a timely fashion should the Security Council so require. The United Nations Act is that mechanism. A principal difficulty is that, in its drafting language, the Act is not confined to Security Council decisions to combat terrorism. Instead, whenever the Security Council of the United Nations calls upon the Government to apply any measure to give effect to any decision of the Council taken under Article 41 of the United Nations Charter, the Minister may, if he considers it necessary or expedient, issue regulations under the Act in order to apply those measures. In addition, Article 41 in itself is a potentially far-reaching provision. It authorises any measure short of armed force which the Council may consider appropriate in the face of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. The Act therefore raises domestic questions about the extent and scope of the Minister's powers, about whether the courts may review the Minister's decisions, and if so what standard(s) of review may be applied by the courts. At common law in Singapore, even where the Minister characterises his decision as one involving "national security", that characterisation may be challenged on grounds of legal irrationality. Furthermore, on the proper construction of this Act, the Minister's decisions, it would seem, must also be based on the existence, and proper construction, of a binding Security Council obligation. Yet whether a Security Council resolution imposes binding legal obligations can sometimes present "mixed" legal and foreign policy questions. This may be reason enough for the courts in Singapore to exercise restraint when called upon to review the Minister's decisions taken under the Act.