A striking example of the function of law in modern society, of reconciling the conflict of individual, public and social interests, is provided by the legal principles governing the exclusion of evidence on the ground of jeopardy to the State interest. The cardinal aspects of public policy which come into conflict in this area are (a) the public interest that harm should not be done to the nation or to the public service; and (b) the public interest that the administration of justice should not be frustrated by the withholding of documents which must be produced if justice is to be done. The body of evidentiary law which has been evolved in this regard by the Anglo-American legal tradition is founded on a compromise between divergent objectives of social policy. The purpose of this article is to offer a critical analysis of the foundations on which the prevailing doctrines and attitudes in Commonwealth jurisdictions are based.

A Singapore District Court recently considered certain key provisions of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act, before acquitting a local trading company charged with importing approximately 30,000 rosewood logs into Singapore. This article examines the decision, and argues for a purposive construction of these provisions that furthers Singapore's implementation of its obligations as a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species ofWild Fauna and Flora. This is particularly pertinent considering Singapore's role as a significant transhipment hub for endangered species in combatting the illegal wildlife trade. The article also argues for greater international cooperation and coordination between CITES Parties in the design and implementation_x000D_ of their respective national legal frameworks.

This report highlights the salient features of the new Securities and Exchange Act which is considered a significant development of the law relating to the Thai capital market. Among the features highlighted are the powers of the Securities and Exchange Supervision Commission, public offering, mutual fund, private fund management and criminal liabilities for the offences committed under the Act.

The public interest is a common, but rarely discussed, feature in insolvency processes. It features in both winding up and judicial management in Singapore, with statutory provisions that stipulate the public interest as a ground for invoking these processes. However, it is unclear from the legislative deliberations what specific purpose was envisaged by the public interest exception to the typical requirements for making a judicial management order. This article reviews the concept of the public interest in the context of insolvency law in general, and corporate rescue in particular. In the light of the objectives and principles of insolvency law, and the role of the public interest, it argues for a revised, more robust understanding of the public interest in judicial management and its interaction with receivership.

The Rules of Court, which came into effect in May 1996, combine the rules of the Supreme Court and the subordinate courts for the very first time. This article considers how this re-constitution was achieved, the consequences of this development, and the substantive changes which have been introduced in the context of the ongoing process of reform.