In this paper I will argue that no such legislative amendment is necessary, at least in respect of initial decisions to detain. I accept without reservation the implication that in this fundamental area of personal liberty the judiciary should have an important reviewing role over administrative acts, but I contend that this may be done quite adequately in proceedings on applications for writs of habeas corpus. This contention is, however, dependent upon the satisfaction of an essential condition—that in performing their functions in habeas corpus applications, the courts exhibit a willingness to utilise the powers available to them to the full. As I will hope to demonstrate, the courts in both Singapore and Malaysia have adopted an unduly restrictive approach to their reviewing role when applications for habeas corpus in respect of preventive detention have been made. This restrictive approach is unjustified, for the authorities which are said to support it can no longer do so, even if they ever could (which in some cases is very doubtful). It is still open to the courts to adopt a more generous attitude—at is only if they refuse to do so that further consideration would need to be given to the Mission’s recommendation.

The enactment of section 67A to the Companies Act of Malaysia allows its publicly listed companies to buy-back their own shares. This was seen as necessary to provide for a stabilization of the supply and demand, as well as the price, of shares that are listed on both the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange and the Malaysian Exchange of Securities Dealing and Automated Quotation. However, although apparently simple in its presentation, section 67A contains a number of unresolved enigmas. This article examines the regulatory framework with respect to share repurchases by listed companies in Malaysia. It commences with an overview of the legal and economic rationale for share buy-backs before proceeding to discuss the pertinent features of the current framework and drawing comparisons with other jurisdictions. The article thereafter elaborates upon specific proposals that are necessary to address the shortcomings that are identified. It concludes with a summary of the principal recommendations which will simultaneously simplify the existing framework as well as enhance the protection of shareholders and creditors of the company.

The article is concerned with the application of trusts law in disputes between home-sharers who are cohabitants in England and Wales. It considers the criticisms made of trusts law in dealing with such disputes, and the proposals of the Law Commission for England and Wales in its 2007 Cohabitation Report. However, as plans to introduce any new legislation have been shelved by the British government, cohabitants must continue to rely on trusts law. In the light of these developments, the aim of the article is to critique Equity's response in disputes over the shared home and, more particularly, whether the remedial approach evinced in recent cases will enable trusts law to respond in a fairer manner in these disputes. The article will, however, argue that trusts law remains gender_x000D_ biased because of its continued emphasis on financial contributions, and will thus discriminate disproportionately against female cohabitants.

This report gives an outline of the more important recent developments in Indonesia, covering primarily the period from August 1991 to December 1991. The topics covered are bilateral agreements and international conventions, regulations issued by the Indonesian Government, special regulations on offshore commercial loans, energy conservation, trade matters, capital market taxation, case law, seminars and workshops and publications.

The doctrine of statutory illegality as it has been traditionally and widely understood is designed to identify, so to speak, contracts which are void because they are either expressly prohibited by statute or prohibited by necessary implication. The question which is addressed in this article is whether the doctrine of statutory illegality can ever operate so as to make a contract void, but not by the guilty party.

Takaful (Islamic insurance) is a form of cooperative insurance involving the allocation and spreading of risk. Its phenomenal growth in Malaysia, Pakistan and the Gulf States and its untapped potential in Indonesia, China and India have resulted in global insurance markets like the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia positioning themselves as leading conventional and Islamic financial centres. This article examines the takaful regulations in Muslim-majority jurisdictions where takaful is offered on a large scale, such as Malaysia, Bahrain, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Indonesia, Egypt, Brunei, Sudan and Iran, with respect to the core takaful principles of good faith, disclosure, non-misrepresentation, insurable interest, reciprocity in claims handling and the ensuing remedies. This, along with an analysis of the international takaful standards set by the_x000D_ Islamic Financial Services Board, will be benchmarked against Australia's and the UK's progressive_x000D_ insurance provisions in assessing the viability of harmonising takaful regulations amongst Muslimmajority_x000D_ jurisdictions.

The Singapore Civil Law (Amendment) Act, effective 1 March 2009, lowered the age of full contractual capacity from 21 to 18 with the sole aim of encouraging entrepreneurship among the young. This article examines if currently available scientific evidence and practical considerations indicate:_x000D_ (i) whether there is utility in using an age-based criterion for conferring full contractual capacity and thus denying legal protection in contracting in light of the need to balance protection of minors in contracting against encouraging youthful entrepreneurship; (ii) even if useful, whether full contractual capacity should be conferred from age 18 in the Singapore context; and (iii) if extra measures ought to have accompanied the lowering of the age of full contractual capacity to mitigate potential problems affecting consumer-minors and entrepreneur-minors who are now deprived of previously available legal protection under contract law.