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

The privilege against self-incrimination is a common law right of respectable antiquity. Recent attempts to water down the right by creating "exceptions" have not been successful. However, statutory intervention to modify or remove the privilege is as old as the right itself. In Hong Kong, as in other common law jurisdictions, there are statutes which impinge upon the right in one way or another. The advent of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights may have further implications, as statutory provisions inconsistent with the Bill are deemed to be repealed. This article traces the development of the privilege in the common law and discusses the possible impact of Art 11(2)(g) of the Bill on certain statutory provisions in Hong Kong.

Cases all around the world have had to deal with statutory changes that have diluted capital maintenance rules. The duty on directors to act in the best interest of the company has had to fill the gap in situations in which returns to shareholders (even where enlightened) are no longer the only concern. Recent decisions on creditor interests in the vicinity of insolvency in the UK and Singapore are contrasted. The suggestion is that any indirect “creditor duty” is hard to specify and enforce given the continued focus on the company and its shareholders. Instead, the focus should shift from the company’s interest to the proper exercise of powers by directors viewed against the various statutory obligations of companies (that remain) in or around insolvency.

In Foo Fio Na v. Dr. Soo Fook Mun [2007] 1 M.L.J. 593 ('Foo Fio Na'), the Federal Court of_x000D_ Malaysia rejected the Bolam test in duty of disclosure of risks cases and endorsed the patient-centered approach in Rogers v. Whitaker (1992) 175 C.L.R. 479 ('Rogers'). This article examines the common law developments in England and Australia as well as recent developments in Malaysia in relation to this duty and argues that the decision in Foo Fio Na falls short of its apparent promise of a patient-centred approach. The author proposes that a more appropriate framework to safeguard patient autonomy in Malaysia is required - one that allows for the convergence of the legal and ethical principles relating to a patient's right to know about material risks and one that recognises this right as an extension of the right to life guaranteed by the Malaysian Federal Constitution.

It has always been acknowledged that the duty of disclosure has suffered from an uneven development. Although the duty of utmost good faith has been recognised as a reciprocal one owed by both parties to an insurance contract, it is only in recent years that the duty as owed to the insured has seen any real development. However, although the Skandia litigation did result in a certain degree of clarification, it raised more questions than it answered. This paper will seek to examine some of the uncertainties brought about by the resurrection of this duty. It will further re-examine the issue of damages as a remedy for the breach of the duty, scrutinising in particular the reasons given by the Court of Appeal for rejecting such a remedy.