The theoretical foundation of judicial review of administrative action has been the subject of fierce debate among English scholars, which is also the source jurisdiction of much of public law in Singapore. In contrast, there is comparatively little attention paid to the question of the particular theoretical foundations of judicial review in Singapore. Indeed, there is an inclination in Singapore case law and academia towards importing English theories of judicial review. Accordingly, this paper aims to contribute to the formulation of a proper theoretical foundation for judicial review in Singapore. It argues that with a proper understanding of the competing English theories of judicial review, it will be apparent that they are not readily transplantable to Singapore. As such, a unique theory of judicial review stands to be formulated in Singapore. A proper articulation of judicial review theory can have significant consequences for judicial review doctrine; this paper uses case law relating to ouster clauses to exemplify this point.

This article explores the impact of the Singapore Court of Appeal's landmark decision in BOM v BOK, where a full panel of five Supreme Court judges re-examined the status and scope of several closely-related doctrines of “unfairness" recognised under Singapore's contract law. The apex court formally articulated a three-pronged test for an unconscionability doctrine, taking pains to emphasise that Singapore should only recognise a “narrow doctrine" of unconscionability, while dismissing the possibility of an “umbrella doctrine" that merges the doctrines of duress, undue influence and unconscionability despite the court's view that there were “close linkages" between them. The breadth_x000D_ of the obiter dicta found in the decision, along with its 22-paragraph coda, agitated the doctrinal waters surrounding these vitiating factors and triggered a spirited riposte from a contributor to the March 2019 edition of this journal in which a detailed critique of the decision was canvassed. This article seeks to do three things. Firstly, it explains why the Court of Appeal's decision to adopt a narrow formulation of the doctrine of unconscionability for Singapore was the sensible thing to do. Secondly, it examines some of the conceptual difficulties associated with the equivocal statements made by the Court of Appeal in relation to the doctrinal overlaps between these adjacent vitiating factors. Thirdly, it proposes an organisational framework, consistent with BOM v BOK's rejection of an all-encompassing umbrella doctrine of unconscionability, for the Singapore courts to visualise the relationship between these vitiating factors so that future judicial developments of these doctrines_x000D_ bring greater clarity and coherence to this dynamic frontier of contract law.

Under general law, when a tenancy is determined, the landlord is entitled to recover possession of the premises from his tenant. However, under all rent control legislation, persons who are contractual tenants are allowed by the legislature, after the expiration of their term, to stay on in their premises against the will of their landlords. The privilege of irremovability conferred by the Legislature on tenants of rent control premises, has resulted in a new class of tenants viz. statutory tenants. Although statutory tenants are a creature of the Legislature, “... it is pretty evident that the Legislature never considered as a whole the effect on the statutory tenancy of such ordinary incidents as death, bankruptcy, voluntary assignment, either inter vivos or by will, a total or partial subletting... [or] how the legal interest they were granting was affected by those probable events.” Consequently, when each of these events has happened the courts have been perplexed by the problem, because the language of the legislation has afforded very little guidance for its solution. As a result, there is much uncertainty in the law. It is proposed in this article to deal with the nature of a statutory tenancy and the rights and obligations of a statutory tenant.

What is plain English? What are its advantages in commercial contracts? What are the objections to its use? Are those objections valid? How difficult is it to draft in Plain English? Whither Plain English?

This article examines the English and local cases dealing with the jurisdiction agreements that point non-exclusively to a particular forum. It considers the effect the law has accorded, and should accord, to such agreements in two main contexts: the granting of leave for service out of jurisdiction or the stay of proceedings commenced in the local forum, as the case may be, and the granting of anti-suit injunctions to restrain parties from commencing or continuing with foreign proceedings in non-contractual fora. It argues that an approach sensitive to the parties' intention for having such agreements, the inference of which depends on the finding of particular factors in each case, would perhaps provide the best guide for the effect the law should accord to such agreements.

This article aims to assess the role played by the rule of law in discourse by critics of the Singapore_x000D_ Government's policies and in the Government's responses to such criticisms. It argues that in the past the two narratives clashed over conceptions of the rule of law, but there is now evidence of convergence of thinking as regards the need to protect human rights, though not necessarily as to how the balance between rights and other public interests should be truck. The article also examines why the rule of law must be regarded as a constitutional doctrine in Singapore, the legal implications of this fact, and how useful the doctrine is in fostering greater solicitude for human rights.