Over the years, there have been many debates on what the Rule of Law actually means, and what it should include. Whether the Rule of Law should be "thick" or "thin". The differences between "Rule of Law" and "Rule by Law".

Unlike rights in personam, which are held against a limited number of people (paradigmatically, one), rights in rem are held against everyone else in the world. Among other things, “everyone” denotes a dynamic collection of persons. However, in Wesley Hohfeld’s analysis of rights, every right is a relation between exactly two people. For Hohfeld, a right in rem must therefore be analysed as an aggregate of rights, where each relation in the aggregate features the right-holder at one pole and one other person in the world at the other. Even for aficionados, this is one of the oddest aspects of Hohfeld’s account — which he crowns with a curious label to boot, “multital” right — and critics have had a field day with it. For example, Penner (2020) criticises Hohfeld’s multital analysis on the grounds that its information costs are too high. In this paper, I show how Hohfeld’s treatment of rights in rem can be amended to avoid Penner’s critique.

This article considers three possible directions for the development of equitable accessorial and recipient liability in Singapore. These are suggested by leading cases in Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia concerning recipient liability. The first direction is closest to the status quo. It involves a contextual inquiry into dishonesty or unconscionability and exceptionally allows constructive notice to suffice for recipient liability. The second possibility is to treat the two forms of liability as involving the same participatory liability for breach of trust or fiduciary duty. The third possible direction is to maintain a distinction between the two forms of liability and to minimise the operation of recipient liability where there is a concurrent common lawclaim. The final part of the article considers whether it is possible to achieve autochthony in this area of law, given the various non-legal considerations_x000D_ that may influence the direction taken.

Asian countries increasingly see the need for uniform or harmonised law at least in commercial matters, but the adoption of international uniform laws has nonetheless often been slow in many parts of Asia. How should Asia harmonise its laws? Should there be an Asian harmonisation or should Asian nations simply adopt internationally negotiated uniform law? Do the internationally negotiated laws sufficiently take into account the legal traditions of Asia or are they simply compromises between the main Western legal traditions (civil and common law)? Using the CISG as an example, the author readily concedes that it does not take into account non-Western legal traditions but argues that Asian nations should nonetheless adopt such international instruments. First, for better or for worse, either Asian Western civil law or Western common law is the formal law in force in commercial matters in most Asian countries and therefore any harmonisations of these formals laws would be useful in Asia. Furthermore, the adoption of these formal international instruments in Asia would allow Asians to (more informally) influence their interpretation and make sure that they are applied taking into account Asian experiences and values.

The tort of breach of statutory duty is currently in a somewhat precarious state. In England, the courts in recent years have shown a tendency to refuse claims for breach of statutory duty in almost all cases other than those involving issues of industrial safety. In Singapore, decisions have been reached in which it is doubtful whether the tort has been considered or applied at all. _x000D_ This article discusses the traditional approaches to the tort of breach of statutory duty, considers its present (and arguably unsatisfactory) position in the law, and examines the prospects for its future as a tort of diminished status and limited application.

This is the second part of the special symposium section of the Singapore Journal of Legal Studies; the first was published in September 2019. The two symposia issues bring together a collection of papers that look at contemporary issues relating to public law and litigation in Singapore. Despite the flourishing of research in the area in the recent decade, there are a number of areas of public law that remain under-explored. As highlighted in the Introduction to the September 2019 symposium section, not only has there been an increase in the number of applications for judicial review, there has also been an increasing diversity in the issues mooted in courts in recent years. Since the last symposium issue was published, applicants have continued to bring important public law issues to court. The courts have had to consider the effect of ouster clauses in legislation, whether and when courts can adopt a rectifying construction of legislation, the constitutionality of holding general elections in 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic implicating once more the_x000D_ 'right to vote' in the courts, the constitutionality of the mode of carrying out the death penalty, challenges of correction directions issued pursuant to the new Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 and further challenges to section 377A of the Penal Code. The courts have also recently looked at applying a proportionality-style of analysis to the review of the constitutionality of legislation.

Singapore’s Debt Collection Act 2022 (DCA) and Debt Collection Regulations 2023 (DCR) mark a significant shift in the governance of informal debt collection, introducing licensing and conduct requirements to a previously unregulated industry. While existing laws – such as the Moneylenders Act and Protection from Harassment Act – already addressed abusive practices, the DCA primarily seeks to professionalise debt collection rather than establish substantive consumer protections. This article critically evaluates whether the new framework enhances regulatory coherence or exacerbates fragmentation, drawing on doctrinal analysis, case law, and empirical insights. Findings reveal a persistent reliance on criminal deterrence, enforcement gaps, and regulatory blind spots, questioning the DCA’s effectiveness in curbing abuse. By situating Singapore’s model within global regulatory trends, this study highlights the tensions between industry legitimacy, legal oversight, and debtor protection, offering reflections on future policy directions.