This article evaluates recent trends in the development of constitutional jurisprudence in relation to constitutionally safeguarded fundamental liberties. Particular attention is directed towards the methodology employed in constitutional interpretation in the 1995 Court of Appeal decision of Jabar v PP.

The presumption of advancement has been subject to criticisms by the Singapore courts. Judicial attempts have been made to marginalise and relegate it to an evidentiary rule of last resort which is easily rebuttable. However, the latest Court of Appeal decision, which reaffirms its usefulness, appears to have resuscitated the presumption in Singapore. This article—subjecting the Singapore cases to comparative developments in other jurisdictions—seeks to advance a proper understanding of the underlying rationales of the presumption, clarify its function, and propose suggestions for its more consistent application.

It has long been recognised that when expert witnesses disagree on a matter within their expertise, the court is placed in an unsatisfactory situation of having to choose between experts in a matter which is not within the competence of the judge. This article examines some recent cases where the court has had to make such a choice. It will try to pin down exactly how the court made that choice, and to ask it the way in which the judges break the expert deadlock is satisfactory. Some reform proposals are discussed briefly.

This article compares the M'Naghten Rules and some of the principal variations found in the Commonwealth of Nations for the purpose of formulating the best possible provision on the defence of insanity. The discussion is enhanced by evaluations of the concept of diminished responsibility operating in the Commonwealth, and of the provision on insanity in the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

This article deals with some problematic aspects of the general reception of English law in Singapore. It examines, first, the concept of the 'cut-off' date for statutes and the common law. The second substantive part deals with the concepts of suitability and modification, analysing their theoretical cogency as well as their application in the local context. The third and final part of the article examines the relationship between reception and stare decisis, indicating and examining potential contradictions as well as other allied issues.

Crowdfunding - the use of the internet and other social media by entrepreneurs to attract funding for their ideas and projects - holds forth the promise of mitigating the funding gap that entrepreneurs face. While regulators in the US, the UK and Singapore have made adjustments to the securities fundraising rules in response to the demand for a reconsideration on how the regulatory system should respond to the potential benefits proffered by crowdfunding, HK has not carried out such an exercise. This article examines whether the current fundraising rules are more restrictive than those found in the reference jurisdictions, and whether further reforms are necessary. The comparative study reveals the surprising liberality of the existing HK regulatory regime, the current regulatory strategies employed by reference jurisdictions to strike a better balance between access to funding and investor protection, and what lessons HK may derive from them.

Current procedures for the surrender of fugitives to and from Singapore and Malaysia are discussed in some detail, with particular emphasis upon the nature of the evidence required from requesting states, the various restrictions upon the surrender of fugitives and the methods by which the legislation is applied to particular states. The underlying theme is the appropriate balance of functions between the judiciary and the executive in extradition proceedings. Some procedural reforms are also suggested.