On 5 and 6 December 2019, the Faculty of Law at the National University of Singapore ("NUS Law") hosted about 100 participants at the 8th Asian Privacy Scholars Network ("APSN") Conference at its Bukit Timah Campus, convened by Professor David Tan. The conference was jointly presented by the EW Barker Centre for Law & Business and the Centre for Technology, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & the Law ("TRAIL")—both research centres at NUS Law. TRAIL was also launched by Mr Edwin Tong, Senior Minister of State for Law and Health, on the first day of the conference.

Inherent in any public housing system which seeks to provide subsidised housing for sale is the need to impose restrictions on ownership and alienation in order to prevent abuse by those who would seek to exploit those subsidies for profit. In Singapore, section 51(10) of the Housing and Development Act restricts the operation of resulting and constructive trusts over property sold by the Housing and Development Board ("HDB"). It has been accepted since the 2009 decision of Tan Chui Lian v Neo Liew Eng that under this provision, a person "ineligible" to acquire an interest in a HDB flat may not become entitled to a flat under a resulting or constructive trust. However, recent cases have questioned the focus on eligibility and cast doubt on the effect of section 51(10) on the underlying trust. This article examines these developments and proposes a framework for the reconciliation of common law equitable doctrines with the provisions of the Housing and Development Act.

In recent years, there has been a proliferation of international consumer, employment and ‘gig’ economy contracts, many of which come with arbitration agreements. Although arbitration agree- ments are generally given legal effect, courts often refuse to enforce them on the basis of unconscio- nability if they are particularly disadvantageous to the consumer or worker. After surveying the state of the law of unconscionability in the United Kingdom (under English law), Singapore, Canada, Australia and the United States, we identify problems with the doctrine in the context of arbitration agreements, namely that its vague and confusing nature has the potential to undermine the doctrine of competence-competence, the predictability of arbitration agreements and ultimately the parties’ freedom of contract. As we suggest, these problems could, without legislative intervention, mark the end of arbitration in the context of consumer, employment and ‘gig’ economy contracts. We propose two ways in which courts could make the doctrine of unconscionability more manageable and less problematic: by requiring that the victim have an identifiable frailty and by clarifying that independent advice for the victim usually assuages inequalities. We conclude by arguing that each of these reforms is consistent with the five most prominent theoretical justifications that have been offered for the doctrine of unconscionability.

Since the crypto winter began in early 2022, several market crashes and institutional collapses have ravaged the innovative financial ecosystem. Among global regulators, the major discourse is no longer the full prohibition of crypto-related activities but the protection of traditional financial systems from a “great” crypto crisis capable of disrupting financial stability. However, existing regulatory frameworks lack clarity on major aspects of the crypto ecosystem, especially relating to new associational risks and its potential to drive systemic risks among crypto conglomerates. This article examines the anatomy of recent crypto crashes and highlights the limitations of existing global regulatory developments toward preventing these threats from potentially spreading to traditional financial systems. To these emerging concerns, the article argues for the adoption of an entity-based approach to crypto regulations. Specifically, it proposes the application of adjusted prudential regulations to a new category of systemically important crypto intermediaries (SICIs) like traditional systemic institutions.

The various tests for determining whether matter is defamatory are discussed, with the writer pointing out that the "ridiculous light" test has the potential to stifle caricature and satirical writing. The writer then argues that the standard by which the defamatory quality of matter is judged in culturally diverse countries should not be that of the community as a whole, but could equally be that of a respectable minority. Finally, the writer discuses the shift in community attitudes towards sexist advertising, extra-marital relationships, homosexuality and lesbianism, abortion and communism, and the consequences of any such shift for the law of defamation.

This article constitutes a general introduction to this special feature on anti-terrorism legislation, consisting of nine contributions covering developments in Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. It identifies six main themes covered in these contributions: the apparent overbreadth and redundancy of the legislation; the suppression of the financing of terrorists; various criminal law problems, such as the lack of adequate mens rea components; tensions between anti-terrorism measures, including internal security legislation, and constitutional safeguards; the concentration of powers in the executive; and the relationship between domestic and international law.

Back in 1996, a Sub-Committee of the Singapore Academy of Law recommended comprehensive reform of the law of security interests.1 The suggested model for reform was Article 9 of the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code as refined in other common law jurisdictions.2 New Zealand enacted similar reforms in 1999 with the new legislation coming into force in 2002.3 2002 also saw the publication of a report by the Law Commission in England which advocated Article 9 type legislation in England.4 The question arises whether the 1996 report by the Singapore Academy Sub-Committee should be dusted down and whether the law should proceed along the reform path. This paper will consider the arguments for and against reform as well as some of the potential pitfalls in enacting reforming legislation.

The Penal Code has served Singapore well for more than a century but it has become antiquated and is in need of major repair. A General Part is required to enable the criminal law to become precise, comprehensible, democratically-made and accessible-the hallmarks of a good Penal Code. The paper concludes by outlining a strategy for implementation and a call for the government to fully support this much-needed exercise.

This Paper considers two fields of trade mark law which have expanded in recent years. Unconventional trade marks involving sounds, smells and shapes have started appearing on trade mark registries in Europe and the United States. The owners of well-known marks like Coca-Cola, which has long been firmly protected against imitators and "free riders", have also not been content with the protection they receive under national laws and have managed apparently to secure even more advantages from national legislatures and internal fora. The United States - Singapore Free Trade Agreement of 2003 compelled Singapore to strengthen its trade mark laws to encompass these developments. This paper examines unconventional and well-known marks from a comparative, primarily European law, perspective. It argues that the expanded protection accorded to these marks is not self-evidently a good thing in public policy terms. It concludes that re-forming the law is not the same as reforming it.

The English position with respect to duty of care in the context of recovery for pure economic loss is clear and is firmly set against recovery, as stated in the leading decision of the House of Lords in Murphy v. Brentwood District Council. The decisions of the House have long had an important-even decisive-impact on the common law landscape across the Commonwealth. However, this is one of the rare situations where there have been departures in the Commonwealth from the established English position. These departures have, nevertheless, been by no means uniform.Yet, one common theme that unifies these approaches is the commitment to the former English position as embodied in the propositions laid down by LordWilberforce in the House of Lords decision in Anns v. Merton_x000D_ London Borough Council. The Anns approach has, however, been rejected in England. This paper therefore seeks to demonstrate that the propositions laid down by Lord Wilberforce in Anns were entirely correct and workable and that all the subsequent formulations (in the main, those emanating from the House of Lords) effectively-and simply-restate the Anns formulation.