The recent enforcement action taken by the Monetary Authority of Singapore ("MAS") against three employees of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation ("GIC") is the first publicized case in Singapore involving cross border insider trading under the Securities and Futures Act. The present article looks at the impact of the new insider trading provisions on enforcement across borders, and more substantially, the apparent Singapore legal position on corporate liability for insider trading by corporate agents. While the three GIC employees were made to pay civil penalties, the MAS took the position that GIC itself was not liable because its senior executives were unaware of the transactions. One implication is that a corporation is legally entitled to keep the fruits of its agents' unlawful activity. Such a result was, fortunately, avoided in the GIC case by the corporation volunteering to turn over its gains to the MAS. The author argues that a more purposive and holistic reading of the statutory provisions permits a wider interpretation, one that would result in a more coherent law on insider trading. Even if the narrow position is the right one to adopt, the untenable consequence prompts legislative amendments to reverse the position. The author argues first for necessary clarification in the law on corporate liability for insider trading. Second, he argues for rules to conduce corporations toward taking robust safeguards against insider trading by its employees. Third, he argues for a distinct rule to deprive corporations of the fruits of unlawful activity, this notwithstanding the fact that the employee was on a frolic of his won and that the corporation is not blameworthy.

Takaful, like conventional insurance, involves the allocation and spreading of risk, and is becoming an increasingly important part of our professional and personal lives. This article seeks to set the stage by clarifying the position of takaful within the Malaysian secular common law system with respect to the applicability of Syariah law. In doing so, a comparative analysis will be made of the situation in other Islamic jurisdictions like the Middle East, Pakistan and Indonesia. The latter part of the article will then examine the legal framework regulating takaful in Malaysia, with the aim of suggesting much needed reform, especially with respect to the Takaful Act 1984, so as to support and further boost the growth of takaful in Malaysia, in line with the Malaysian government’s aspirations of establishing Malaysia as an international Islamic financial centre.

In the context of intelligent finance, the traditional legal framework targeting financial professionals is impractical and ineffective for robo-advisors do not possess independent legal personality, thereby leading to problems of empty enforcement, confusion concerning the identity of obligors and the failure of the existing system of duties. To deal with this dilemma, lawmakers need to restructure the obligor's identification mechanism and the system of duties. The substance of duties for the mode of robo-advisor needs to penetrate the complex veil and keep up with the algorithmic level to reflect their essential characteristics. The principles for the new regulatory paradigm are to avoid the evasion of accountabilities and responsibilities caused by dodging and relaxing the duties with the excuse of algorithm black box, as well as to avoid overburdening obligors by fully embracing the new development of artificial intelligence.

Modern technology may be used to do goodbut it can also do harm. Biotechnology perhaps poses the greatest challenge to ethical decision-making as it touches everyone's lives especially in the areas of artificial reproductive technology, gene technology and organ transplantation and erodes traditional ethical conceptions. This overview addresses itself to some of the challenges to ethical decision-making in these and other areas.

This article considers selected aspects of legal professional privilege; its role in the context of garnishee proceedings; the scope of the "communication" that falls within its protection; and the requirement of confidentiality in the communication that is sought to be protected. These issues were raised recently in Chua Su Yin & Co. v Ng Sung Yee & Anor.