This article relies on structural arguments derived from the criminal breach of trust provisions of the Penal Code, comparisons with the Larceny Acts and common law offences such as misconduct in public office and conspiracy to defraud, as well as the principle of equitable construction, to reach conclusions on the meaning of two important modalities of entrustment. These are entrustment "in such capacity [as servant]" and "in his capacity of a public servant" which are the bases for greater punishment under section 408 and section 409 respectively. The conclusions on the public servant modality are at variance with judicial interpretations of the Indian courts.

Judicial decision-making should proceed according to abstract rules that define categories of similar cases. Rules provide a reasonable assurance that different judges will decide similar cases in a similar way. The notion that equitable remedies are at the discretion of the court, albeit a "weak" discretion, does not provide the same degree of assurance. An insistence upon rules need not be inconsistent with a separation of remedy questions from liability questions. A category of cases that attracts equitable intervention on a particular ground may embrace a number of discrete (but imperfectly defined) remedy categories, which correspond to different remedial requirements. What is often identified as discretion should be understood as an interpretative exercise whereby the boundaries between those categories (and, hence, the rules governing selection of remedy) are given a more precise definition.

The issue of the limits of the court's inherent jurisdiction and inherent powers has always been an important one. For a long time the courts have been satisfied with broad tests based on "need" or the "justice of the case" to set such limits. These tests are highly useful by being flexible, but that flexibility is also a source of uncertainty. This article suggests a new way of understanding the limits of the Singapore courts' inherent jurisdiction and inherent powers. It does this with a three-step approach. First, it argues for a new approach towards terminology and explains why this is important. From a study of all reported Singapore cases between independence and mid-2010 that contain the expression "inherent jurisdiction" or "inherent power(s)", it will be seen that the Singapore courts have meant different things even when the same expression is being used. It is thus necessary to be clear about what is actually meant by the expressions "inherent jurisdiction" and "inherent power(s)". Second, utilising the suggested approach towards terminology, this article shows that it is possible to separate three distinct categories of the courts' inherent jurisdiction and_x000D_ inherent powers. Third, and finally, this article argues that the limits to be placed on each category ought to be distinct. Thus, a test based on "need" or "justice of the case" may be more strictly (or liberally) applied in one category than in another. The underlying consideration is that of legislative exclusion; and, where this is not express, it may be possible to imply this based on a sliding scale according to the three categories of inherent jurisdiction and inherent powers suggested in this article.

The author discusses the problem of trafficking in persons, its presence in Singapore and critically analyses relevant Singapore legislation with reference to several thematic critiques on international, supranational and national legal treatments of the problem. An omnibus anti-trafficking legislation for Singapore that takes into account some of those critiques will be proposed.

The Companies (Amendment) Act 38/1998, passed on 12 October 1998, introduced new provisions permitting companies to buy-back their shares. The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore and the Securities Industry Council subsequently issued directions and policy statements relating to share buy-backs. This article examines some of the policy and legal issues arising from the rules governing share buy-backs. Amongst these are : the concept of 'ordinary shares', whether the safeguards under the different methods of share buy-backs adequately protect the interests of the shareholders, the tax treatment of proceeds received in a share buy-back and the implications for directors' duties. The new Practice Note 13 to the Singapore Code on Take-overs and mergers will also be examined briefly