Focusing on places of worship in Indonesia, this paper examines whether the right to freedom of religion for religious minorities is protected by recent changes to the law. The paper begins by looking at an Old Decree, which was an attempt by the New Order to control religion and came to be used as justification by radical Islamic groups to close churches. Given a number of key changes in the law since the end of the New Order, this Old Decree became obsolete. The second part of this paper analyses the New Regulation. It does this by charting the debate surrounding the New Regulation, outlining the present framework of the Regulation and then discussing the response of the public since its introduction. The final part reflects on why the New Regulation was passed by the government and suggests options to restore the right to freedom of religion for religious minorities in relation to places of worship.

This paper proposes the way forward in dealing with the unsatisfactory case law involving loss of chance in negligence, particularly medical negligence. It seeks to show that the current approach in England and in Singapore of applying traditional causation rules is arbitrary and inadequate, and fails to meet a deserving loss of chance claim. The authors seek to examine whether loss of chance is better understood as a theory of injury instead of a theory of causation. Inspecting major common law jurisdictions and the key controversies in reconciling the case law, it will be advanced that the best method (in terms of justice and doctrinal fit) for the development in tort jurisprudence lies in recognising and valuing lost chances as a new category of damage. A lost chance should be recognised if it fulfils a twofold precondition, namely that: (i) there was a significant chance about the outcome at the time of the alleged negligence; and (ii) the injury which affected the claimant's prospects lay in the future at the time of the alleged negligence. Once this is met, damages may be awarded accordingly in proportion to the chance lost based on a weighted mean.

The rule relating to the passing of the benefit and burden of restrictive covenants are extremely complicated. In recent years steps have been taken in England to simplify these rules. This article explores the differences between English and Singapore law on this subject and examines the extent to which the Singapore courts too can simplify this area of the law.

In the aftermath following the Asian financial crisis, theWorld Bank prescribed regulatory reforms as a remedy for weak financial fundamentals. These reforms reflect the claims of the strong form legal origins hypothesis that countries with common law legal traditions have stronger investor protection laws and better financial outcomes than countries of civil law origin. This paper seeks to test the legal origins hypothesis through an examination of the evolution of Malaysian shareholder protection from 1965 to 2010. Comparison with six other countries in the time series studies indicates that Malaysia had the highest growth in formal shareholder protection. Persistent borrowing from the regulations of other common law countries suggests that inherited legal tradition has, to an extent, influenced the evolution of Malaysian shareholder protection. The influence of other common law countries' regulations is explained by institutional complementarities, supporting the claims of the weak form legal origins hypothesis.

This article discusses the application of the concept of issue estoppel to consent judgments. Four High Court decisions have reached conflicting conclusions on this topic and created considerable conceptual difficulties. The article discusses the underlying reasons for the differences in these decisions, focusing on the dissonance brought about by the conventional policies underlying issue estoppel and the differing policy concerns applying to consent judgments. The article recommends that the courts take into account the unique nature of consent judgments, and use a modified test of issue estoppel for consent judgments. It also suggests that the extended doctrine of res judicata is much more appropriate for consent orders.

In E C Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd (2010), the Singapore High Court declared that unconscionability as a vitiating factor in contract did not form part of the law of Singapore. That statement was the culmination of growing judicial doubts as to the status of the doctrine of unconscionability in Singapore. However, the signal decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in BOM v BOK (2018) arrested that development and charted a new course for the doctrine. This article examines the current state of the doctrine of unconscionability in Singapore. It traces the rise and fall of judicial scepticism towards unconscionability in Singapore and welcomes the clarity introduced by the restatement of the doctrine in BOM v BOK. It calls on the Singaporean courts to resist the temptation, manifested in BOM v BOK, to accept the view that the doctrine of unconscionability is redundant because its function is now performed by undue influence. The article argues that, contrary to the characterisation in BOM v BOK, the doctrine of unconscionability represented by the earlier English cases is a broad doctrine, not a narrow one. It also contends that it is misleading to suggest that the formulation of the doctrine in the current English cases is, in substance, the same as that of the 'broad' doctrine of unconscionability exemplified by the decision of the High Court of Australia in Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983). The paper scrutinises the reshaped doctrine of unconscionability formulated in BOM v BOK, highlights some potential difficulties in the three-step process of that doctrine and concludes with a call for a reconsideration of some aspects of the doctrine.

This article examines the common law defence of illegality in contract, restitution and trust law. It operates as a bar to claims brought in relation to transactions which contravene the law or are deemed contrary to public policy. The defence frequently produces unjust results, and this has led the courts to intervene to assist claimants. Such assistance takes a number of forms, varying from a generous interpretation of illegality to the development of specific exceptions. However, in consequence, this area of law is characterised by a complex matrix of judicial interpretation and discretion with a number of ill-defined exceptions, which lead to transactional uncertainty. Litigants find it difficult to ascertain, without judicial intervention, whether they may bring an action in contract, restitution or trust law. Whilst the legislators and reformers have maintained the need for an illegality defence, this article examines recent recommendations for reform and questions whether the developing doctrine of restitution (or unjust enrichment) in English law is capable of providing an adequate basis of change. In particular, this article examines the concept of a "structured discretion" forwarded recently by the English Law Commission, and considers whether such a proposal can succeed in providing the reform this area of law badly needs.