{"id":34299,"date":"2024-07-18T06:53:21","date_gmt":"2024-07-18T06:53:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/?page_id=34299"},"modified":"2026-05-04T01:21:53","modified_gmt":"2026-05-04T01:21:53","slug":"current-issue","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/current-issue\/","title":{"rendered":"Current Issue"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\t\t\t\t<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/14\/2024\/07\/SJLS-logo-2.png\" alt=\"SJLS-logo-2\" itemprop=\"image\" title=\"SJLS-logo-2\" onerror=\"this.style.display='none'\"  \/>\n<h2>\n\t\tSINGAPORE JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES\n\t<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\t<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/14\/2024\/07\/transparent.png\" alt=\"transparent\" itemprop=\"image\" title=\"transparent\" onerror=\"this.style.display='none'\"  \/>\n\t\t\t\t<img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/14\/2024\/07\/transparent.png\" alt=\"transparent\" itemprop=\"image\" title=\"transparent\" onerror=\"this.style.display='none'\"  \/>\n\t<div id=\"\" class=\"ws-law-journal-form-container  \"><form id=\"ws-law-journal-form\" name=\"ws-law-journal-form\" method=\"get\" class=\"ws-law-journal-form\" action=\"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/journal-result\"><div class=\"form-column-1\"><div class=\"form-search-field form-field\"><label for=\"ws-law-journal-form-search\">Keywords<\/label><input type=\"text\" name=\"search\" id=\"ws-law-journal-form-search\" value=\"\" \/><\/div><div class=\"form-search-type-field form-field\"><input name=\"search_type\" id=\"ws-law-journal-search-type-all\" class=\"ws-law-journal-search-type\" type=\"radio\" value=\"all\"  checked='checked' \/><label for=\"ws-law-journal-search-type-all\" class=\"ws-news-search-type-text\">All Keywords<\/label><input name=\"search_type\" id=\"ws-law-journal-search-type-any\" class=\"ws-law-journal-search-type\" type=\"radio\" value=\"any\"  \/><label for=\"ws-law-journal-search-type-any\" class=\"ws-news-search-type-text\">Any Keywords<\/label><input name=\"search_type\" id=\"ws-law-journal-search-type-exact\" class=\"ws-law-journal-search-type\" type=\"radio\" value=\"exact\"  \/><label for=\"ws-law-journal-search-type-exact\" class=\"ws-news-search-type-text\">Exact Phrase<\/label><\/div><\/div><div class=\"form-search-by-field form-field\"><label for=\"ws-law-journal-search-by-year\">Search By<\/label><select name=\"search_by\" id=\"ws-law-journal-search-by-year\"><option value=\"title\" >Title<\/option><option value=\"authors\" >Author<\/option><option value=\"pdf\" >PDF<\/option><\/select><\/div><div class=\"form-from-year-field form-field\"><label for=\"ws-law-journal-select-from-year\">Search From<\/label><select name=\"from_year\" id=\"ws-law-journal-select-from-year\"><option value=\"\">Year<\/option><option value=\"2026\" >2026<\/option><option value=\"2025\" >2025<\/option><option value=\"2024\" >2024<\/option><option value=\"2023\" >2023<\/option><option value=\"2022\" >2022<\/option><option value=\"2021\" >2021<\/option><option value=\"2020\" >2020<\/option><option value=\"2019\" >2019<\/option><option value=\"2018\" >2018<\/option><option value=\"2017\" >2017<\/option><option value=\"2016\" >2016<\/option><option value=\"2015\" >2015<\/option><option value=\"2014\" >2014<\/option><option value=\"2013\" >2013<\/option><option value=\"2012\" >2012<\/option><option value=\"2011\" >2011<\/option><option value=\"2010\" >2010<\/option><option value=\"2009\" >2009<\/option><option value=\"2008\" >2008<\/option><option value=\"2007\" >2007<\/option><option value=\"2006\" >2006<\/option><option value=\"2005\" >2005<\/option><option value=\"2004\" >2004<\/option><option value=\"2003\" >2003<\/option><option value=\"2002\" >2002<\/option><option value=\"2001\" >2001<\/option><option value=\"2000\" >2000<\/option><option value=\"1999\" >1999<\/option><option value=\"1998\" >1998<\/option><option value=\"1997\" >1997<\/option><option value=\"1996\" >1996<\/option><option value=\"1995\" >1995<\/option><option value=\"1994\" >1994<\/option><option value=\"1993\" >1993<\/option><option value=\"1992\" >1992<\/option><option value=\"1991\" >1991<\/option><option value=\"1990\" >1990<\/option><option value=\"1989\" >1989<\/option><option value=\"1988\" >1988<\/option><option value=\"1987\" >1987<\/option><option value=\"1986\" >1986<\/option><option value=\"1985\" >1985<\/option><option value=\"1984\" >1984<\/option><option value=\"1983\" >1983<\/option><option value=\"1982\" >1982<\/option><option value=\"1981\" >1981<\/option><option value=\"1980\" >1980<\/option><option value=\"1979\" >1979<\/option><option value=\"1978\" >1978<\/option><option value=\"1977\" >1977<\/option><option value=\"1976\" >1976<\/option><option value=\"1975\" >1975<\/option><option value=\"1974\" >1974<\/option><option value=\"1973\" >1973<\/option><option value=\"1972\" >1972<\/option><option value=\"1971\" >1971<\/option><option value=\"1970\" >1970<\/option><option value=\"1969\" >1969<\/option><option value=\"1968\" >1968<\/option><option value=\"1967\" >1967<\/option><option value=\"1966\" >1966<\/option><option value=\"1965\" >1965<\/option><option value=\"1964\" >1964<\/option><option value=\"1963\" >1963<\/option><option value=\"1962\" >1962<\/option><option value=\"1961\" >1961<\/option><option value=\"1960\" >1960<\/option><option value=\"1959\" >1959<\/option><\/select><\/div><div class=\"form-to-year-field form-field\"><label for=\"ws-law-journal-select-to-year\">To<\/label><select name=\"to_year\" id=\"ws-law-journal-select-to-year\"><option value=\"\">Year<\/option><option value=\"2026\" >2026<\/option><option value=\"2025\" >2025<\/option><option value=\"2024\" >2024<\/option><option value=\"2023\" >2023<\/option><option value=\"2022\" >2022<\/option><option value=\"2021\" >2021<\/option><option value=\"2020\" >2020<\/option><option value=\"2019\" >2019<\/option><option value=\"2018\" >2018<\/option><option value=\"2017\" >2017<\/option><option value=\"2016\" >2016<\/option><option value=\"2015\" >2015<\/option><option value=\"2014\" >2014<\/option><option value=\"2013\" >2013<\/option><option value=\"2012\" >2012<\/option><option value=\"2011\" >2011<\/option><option value=\"2010\" >2010<\/option><option value=\"2009\" >2009<\/option><option value=\"2008\" >2008<\/option><option value=\"2007\" >2007<\/option><option value=\"2006\" >2006<\/option><option value=\"2005\" >2005<\/option><option value=\"2004\" >2004<\/option><option value=\"2003\" >2003<\/option><option value=\"2002\" >2002<\/option><option value=\"2001\" >2001<\/option><option value=\"2000\" >2000<\/option><option value=\"1999\" >1999<\/option><option value=\"1998\" >1998<\/option><option value=\"1997\" >1997<\/option><option value=\"1996\" >1996<\/option><option value=\"1995\" >1995<\/option><option value=\"1994\" >1994<\/option><option value=\"1993\" >1993<\/option><option value=\"1992\" >1992<\/option><option value=\"1991\" >1991<\/option><option value=\"1990\" >1990<\/option><option value=\"1989\" >1989<\/option><option value=\"1988\" >1988<\/option><option value=\"1987\" >1987<\/option><option value=\"1986\" >1986<\/option><option value=\"1985\" >1985<\/option><option value=\"1984\" >1984<\/option><option value=\"1983\" >1983<\/option><option value=\"1982\" >1982<\/option><option value=\"1981\" >1981<\/option><option value=\"1980\" >1980<\/option><option value=\"1979\" >1979<\/option><option value=\"1978\" >1978<\/option><option value=\"1977\" >1977<\/option><option value=\"1976\" >1976<\/option><option value=\"1975\" >1975<\/option><option value=\"1974\" >1974<\/option><option value=\"1973\" >1973<\/option><option value=\"1972\" >1972<\/option><option value=\"1971\" >1971<\/option><option value=\"1970\" >1970<\/option><option value=\"1969\" >1969<\/option><option value=\"1968\" >1968<\/option><option value=\"1967\" >1967<\/option><option value=\"1966\" >1966<\/option><option value=\"1965\" >1965<\/option><option value=\"1964\" >1964<\/option><option value=\"1963\" >1963<\/option><option value=\"1962\" >1962<\/option><option value=\"1961\" >1961<\/option><option value=\"1960\" >1960<\/option><option value=\"1959\" >1959<\/option><\/select><\/div><div class=\"form-input-submit form-input\"><input type=\"hidden\" name=\"from_month\" value=\"\" \/><input type=\"hidden\" name=\"to_month\" value=\"\" \/><input type=\"submit\" name=\"btn-submit\" id=\"ws-law-journal-btn-submit\" value=\"Search\" \/><\/div><\/form><\/div>\n\t<div class=\"custom-breadcrumbs\"><ul><li class=\"item-home\"><i class=\"fas fa-home\"><\/i><a class=\"bread-link bread-home\" href=\"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\" title=\"\"><\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>\n\t<p><div id=\"\" class=\"ws-law-journal-title-container \"><div id=\"ws-law-journal-title\" class=\"ws-law-journal-title\"><h2>Current Issue - March 2026<\/h2><\/div><\/div><div id=\"\" class=\"ws-law-journal-type-container \"><div class=\"ws-law-journal-pretext\">By Type:<\/div><div id=\"ws-law-journal-type\" class=\"ws-law-journal-type\"><a href=\" https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/current-issue\/?publication_type=1-article\" class=\"journal-type-link \" id=\"journal-type-1-article\">Article<\/a><a href=\" https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/current-issue\/?publication_type=3-book-review\" class=\"journal-type-link \" id=\"journal-type-3-book-review\">Book Review<\/a><a href=\" https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/current-issue\/?publication_type=2-case-and-legislation-notes\" class=\"journal-type-link \" id=\"journal-type-2-case-and-legislation-notes\">Case and Legislation Notes<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/p>\n\t<div class=\"ws-journal-list-container \"><ul class=\"ws-journal-list\"><li><div class=\"ws-journal-content\"><div class=\"content-container\"><div class=\"content-type\"><span class=\"content-type-link\">Article<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-title\"><h3>Special Feature: Intellectual Property and Technology in the 21st Century: Part 1 &#8211; Preface<\/h3><\/div><div class=\"content-authors\"><span class=\"content-author-text\">David Tan<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-citation\"><span class=\"content-citation-text\">Citation: [2026] Sing JLS 1-4<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-first-view\"><span class=\"content-first-view-text\">First view: [Mar 2026 Online] Sing JLS 1-4<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-abstract\"><button class=\"button-abstract\">Abstract <span class=\"button-abstract-icon\"><\/span><\/button><div class=\"abstract\">In August 2025, two research centres from the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore \u2013 the Centre for Technology, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & the Law (\u201cTRAIL\u201d) and the EW Barker Centre for Law & Business \u2013 partnered with research centres from Columbia, Oxford and Tsinghua to co\u2011organise a truly transnational two\u2011day conference marking the first\u2011ever academic collaboration of its kind across these leading global institutions. Titled \u201cIntellectual Property and Technology in the 21st Century: Challenges in the Next Decade\u201d, the conference discussed how intellectual property (\u201cIP\u201d) laws can better deal with disruptive technology trends. The conference was also supported by partners such as Google, ByteDance, the Singapore Academy of Law and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (\u201cIPOS\u201d).<\/div><\/div><div class=\"content-pdf\"><a class=\"button-pdf-link\" href=\"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/14\/2025\/10\/sjls_mar_2026_1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"button-pdf-icon\"><\/span> PDF<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/li><li><div class=\"ws-journal-content\"><div class=\"content-container\"><div class=\"content-type\"><span class=\"content-type-link\">Article<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-title\"><h3>Special Feature: Intellectual Property and Technology in the 21st Century: Part 1 &#8211; Introduction<\/h3><\/div><div class=\"content-authors\"><span class=\"content-author-text\">Daren Tang<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-citation\"><span class=\"content-citation-text\">Citation: [2026] Sing JLS 5-10<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-first-view\"><span class=\"content-first-view-text\">First view: [Mar 2026 Online] Sing JLS 1-6<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-abstract\"><button class=\"button-abstract\">Abstract <span class=\"button-abstract-icon\"><\/span><\/button><div class=\"abstract\">One of the biggest lessons I learnt in law school was that the law never happens in a vacuum, and in these times of geopolitical tension, economic uncertainty, societal stress and technological acceleration, context matters more than ever. Therefore, I hope in this keynote to provide some context to the discussions that will take place over the next two days.<\/div><\/div><div class=\"content-pdf\"><a class=\"button-pdf-link\" href=\"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/14\/2025\/10\/sjls_mar_2026_5.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"button-pdf-icon\"><\/span> PDF<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/li><li><div class=\"ws-journal-content\"><div class=\"content-container\"><div class=\"content-type\"><span class=\"content-type-link\">Article<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-title\"><h3>Special Feature: Intellectual Property and Technology in the 21st Century: Part 1 &#8211; The Surprising Virtues of Heterogeneity: Legal Pluralism and the Governance of Generative AI\u2002<\/h3><\/div><div class=\"content-authors\"><span class=\"content-author-text\">Daryl Lim<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-citation\"><span class=\"content-citation-text\">Citation: [2026] Sing JLS 11-45<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-first-view\"><span class=\"content-first-view-text\">First view: [Mar 2026 Online] Sing JLS 1-35<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-abstract\"><button class=\"button-abstract\">Abstract <span class=\"button-abstract-icon\"><\/span><\/button><div class=\"abstract\">This Article argues that the United States\u2019 fragmented approach to generative AI regulation is a strategic strength rather than a flaw. In place of a single federal regime, privacy law, the right of publicity, and copyright offer overlapping tools to address identity-linked harms, each grounded in distinct theories of harm and institutional traditions. This pluralism promotes experimentation, learning, and well-reasoned development rather than confusion. Heterogeneous governance helps courts and lawmakers adapt incrementally to fast-moving technologies, avoid premature lock-in, and coordinate protections across legal silos. To build on these advantages, the Article proposes a narrowly tailored data right focused on high-fidelity, identity-linked uses of data. Functioning as an opt-in, transparency-driven supplement to existing doctrines, this right would close gaps while preserving innovation and doctrinal diversity. The result is a principled, pragmatic approach that safeguards individual agency and leverages the adaptive strengths of US federalism.<\/div><\/div><div class=\"content-pdf\"><a class=\"button-pdf-link\" href=\"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/14\/2025\/10\/sjls_mar_2026_11.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"button-pdf-icon\"><\/span> PDF<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/li><li><div class=\"ws-journal-content\"><div class=\"content-container\"><div class=\"content-type\"><span class=\"content-type-link\">Article<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-title\"><h3>Special Feature: Intellectual Property and Technology in the 21st Century: Part 1 &#8211; Vocal Identity Under Siege by AI Voice Cloning Technologies<\/h3><\/div><div class=\"content-authors\"><span class=\"content-author-text\">Jyn-An Lee<\/span> <span class=\"content-author-text\">Xuan Sun<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-citation\"><span class=\"content-citation-text\">Citation: [2026] Sing JLS 46-76<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-first-view\"><span class=\"content-first-view-text\">First view: [Mar 2026 Online] Sing JLS 1-31<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-abstract\"><button class=\"button-abstract\">Abstract <span class=\"button-abstract-icon\"><\/span><\/button><div class=\"abstract\">The advent of sophisticated AI-driven voice cloning has brought to the fore critical legal and ethical challenges regarding the protection of vocal identity. Prompted by recent controversies \u2013 including the striking resemblance between OpenAI\u2019s ChatGPT-4o voice and that of Scarlett Johansson \u2013 this article examines how generative AI technologies undermine the unique value of the human voice and further complicate the legal questions surrounding personal identity. Through a comparative analysis, the paper evaluates three principal legal frameworks: the right of publicity, personality rights, and the personal data protection right. Each framework \u2013 rooted in different legal traditions \u2013 offers distinct strengths and limitations in addressing the threats posed by AI-generated voice cloning. By analysing these doctrines\u2019 scope, remedies, and posthumous protections, the study offers a foundation for understanding how existing legal approaches may be applied to the evolving challenges of vocal identity in the era of generative AI.<\/div><\/div><div class=\"content-pdf\"><a class=\"button-pdf-link\" href=\"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/14\/2025\/10\/sjls_mar_2026_46.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"button-pdf-icon\"><\/span> PDF<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/li><li><div class=\"ws-journal-content\"><div class=\"content-container\"><div class=\"content-type\"><span class=\"content-type-link\">Article<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-title\"><h3>Special Feature: Intellectual Property and Technology in the 21st Century: Part 1 &#8211; Three Obstacles to AI-Generated Content Copyrightability<\/h3><\/div><div class=\"content-authors\"><span class=\"content-author-text\">Tianxiang He<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-citation\"><span class=\"content-citation-text\">Citation: [2026] Sing JLS 77-106<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-first-view\"><span class=\"content-first-view-text\">First view: [Mar 2026 Online] Sing JLS 1-30<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-abstract\"><button class=\"button-abstract\">Abstract <span class=\"button-abstract-icon\"><\/span><\/button><div class=\"abstract\">Prompt-based AI creativity is redefining how expressive works are produced, posing novel challenges for copyright law. This article identifies three major obstacles standing in the way of AI copyrightability. First, the lack of meaningful human control in prompt-based AI creation undercuts the traditional requirement of human authorship. The cross-categorical nature of generative AI outputs also exposes a fundamental mismatch with copyright\u2019s theoretical design. Second, recognising copyright in machine-created outputs risks creating unjustified windfalls for users who claim authorship without true creative contribution, undermining copyright\u2019s incentive structure. Third, protecting AI outputs under copyright without distinction has broader creative and social consequences, including cognitive offloading, reduced authenticity, and stagnation in artistic diversity, which could erode the value of human creativity. This article recommends that future regulation preserve human-centred authorship in copyright law, implement transparency mechanisms for AI-assisted creations, and avoid overextending copyright in ways that erode the value of human creativity.<\/div><\/div><div class=\"content-pdf\"><a class=\"button-pdf-link\" href=\"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/14\/2025\/10\/sjls_mar_2026_77.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"button-pdf-icon\"><\/span> PDF<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/li><li><div class=\"ws-journal-content\"><div class=\"content-container\"><div class=\"content-type\"><span class=\"content-type-link\">Article<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-title\"><h3>Special Feature: Intellectual Property and Technology in the 21st Century: Part 1 &#8211; Against Trade Secrets Protection for \u201cSemi-Public\u201d Databases<\/h3><\/div><div class=\"content-authors\"><span class=\"content-author-text\">Yang Chen<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-citation\"><span class=\"content-citation-text\">Citation: [2026] Sing JLS 107-128<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-first-view\"><span class=\"content-first-view-text\">First view: [Mar 2026 Online] Sing JLS 1-22<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-abstract\"><button class=\"button-abstract\">Abstract <span class=\"button-abstract-icon\"><\/span><\/button><div class=\"abstract\">This article examines whether trade secrets law should be applied to protect \u201csemi-public\u201d databases with frontend data access that is open to the public. It argues that the incentive-based justification, whether grounded in the traditional rationale or reframed through an investment lens, does not provide a compelling basis for extending protection. The business efficiency rationale may arguably support trade secrets protection only where frontend access is restricted to a clearly defined and limited group of users. By contrast, when access is open to an indefinite public, ambiguous legal standards fail to mitigate inefficiencies and may even intensify the technological arms race between data holders and scrapers. Although deterrence could theoretically yield efficiency benefits, such an effect rests on a flawed assumption and risks suppressing activities that serve the public interest. Moreover, given the powerful and arguably overprotective alternatives already available to database holders, introducing trade secrets protection in this context risks further distorting the balance between private and public interests.<\/div><\/div><div class=\"content-pdf\"><a class=\"button-pdf-link\" href=\"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/14\/2025\/10\/sjls_mar_2026_107.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"button-pdf-icon\"><\/span> PDF<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/li><li><div class=\"ws-journal-content\"><div class=\"content-container\"><div class=\"content-type\"><span class=\"content-type-link\">Article<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-title\"><h3>Closing the Gap: A Timely Call for Singapore to Consider Regulating Inside Information in Sports Betting<\/h3><\/div><div class=\"content-authors\"><span class=\"content-author-text\">Jun Ming Mervyn Cheong<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-citation\"><span class=\"content-citation-text\">Citation: [2026] Sing JLS 129-156<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-first-view\"><span class=\"content-first-view-text\">First view: [Mar 2026 Online] Sing JLS 1-28<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-abstract\"><button class=\"button-abstract\">Abstract <span class=\"button-abstract-icon\"><\/span><\/button><div class=\"abstract\">Although Singapore has legalised sports betting since 1999 and the sector involves billions of dollars, it lacks specific legislation regulating the misuse of inside information in sports betting, one of the two most common forms of match manipulation observed internationally and a recognised money laundering risk. This regulatory gap could be exploited, especially as developments in other jurisdictions reveal emerging legal and policy challenges that Singapore\u2019s existing anti-corruption laws cannot fully address. These implications remain unexamined in the Singapore context and this article seeks to fill that gap by examining these challenges, identifying existing regulatory approaches, and proposing a Hybrid Information-Connected Approach, inspired by Singapore\u2019s financial insider trading laws, for Singapore to consider adopting. By identifying and defining this hybrid approach, this article aims to contribute a framework for future regulatory development in sports betting and support Singapore\u2019s efforts to uphold sports integrity and strengthen its anti-money laundering regime.<\/div><\/div><div class=\"content-pdf\"><a class=\"button-pdf-link\" href=\"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/14\/2025\/10\/sjls_mar_2026_129.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"button-pdf-icon\"><\/span> PDF<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/li><li><div class=\"ws-journal-content\"><div class=\"content-container\"><div class=\"content-type\"><span class=\"content-type-link\">Case and Legislation Notes<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-title\"><h3>The Promise and Pitfalls of the Workplace Fairness Act 2025<\/h3><\/div><div class=\"content-authors\"><span class=\"content-author-text\">Selene Tanne<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-citation\"><span class=\"content-citation-text\">Citation: [2026] Sing JLS 157-170<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-first-view\"><span class=\"content-first-view-text\">First view: [Mar 2026 Online] Sing JLS 1-14<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-abstract\"><button class=\"button-abstract\">Abstract <span class=\"button-abstract-icon\"><\/span><\/button><div class=\"abstract\">On 8 February 2025, the Singapore Parliament enacted the Workplace Fairness Act 2025, which is the first legal framework against workplace discrimination in Singapore. This comment builds on existing scholarship by focusing on the social implications that might result from three legal characteristics of the WFA: (a) the lack of provisions against conduct that would amount to indirect discrimination in other jurisdictions; (b) that sexual orientation and gender identity are not listed as protected characteristics; and (c) the explicit legalisation of discrimination against relatives and associates. Overall, I argue that while the WFA is a valuable addition to the employment law regime in Singapore, the law needs to be more sensitive to the socio-political consequences that could result from its legal operation.<\/div><\/div><div class=\"content-pdf\"><a class=\"button-pdf-link\" href=\"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/14\/2025\/10\/sjls_mar_2026_157.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"button-pdf-icon\"><\/span> PDF<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/li><li><div class=\"ws-journal-content\"><div class=\"content-container\"><div class=\"content-type\"><span class=\"content-type-link\">Case and Legislation Notes<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-title\"><h3>The Role of Intention in Cost of Cure Damages Revisited: <i>TERRENUS ENERGY SL2 PTE LTD V ATTIKA INTERIOR + MEP PTE LTD<\/i> [2025] SGHC(A) 4<\/h3><\/div><div class=\"content-authors\"><span class=\"content-author-text\">Alexander Georgiou<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-citation\"><span class=\"content-citation-text\">Citation: [2026] Sing JLS 171-183<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-first-view\"><span class=\"content-first-view-text\">First view: [Mar 2026 Online] Sing JLS 1-13<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-abstract\"><button class=\"button-abstract\">Abstract <span class=\"button-abstract-icon\"><\/span><\/button><div class=\"abstract\">It is an oft-repeated truism that damages are compensatory. Errant doctrines which recognise the possibility of monetary recovery in excess of loss, such as punitive damages, are marginalised as anomalies. Others, such as negotiating damages, are uncomfortably shoehorned into the Procrustean bed of compensation.\r\n\r\nCost-of-cure damages have likewise become a casualty of the law\u2019s apparent fixation on compensation. Despite suggestions to the contrary, these damages are often treated as simply one measure of loss. That approach has thrown up difficult questions about the dual roles of the claimant\u2019s intention to effect cure and the reasonableness of curing. In Terrenus Energy SL2 Pre Ltd v Attika Interior + MEP Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC(A) 4, the Appellate Division of the High Court was called on to revisit these questions, which had previously been confronted in JSD Corporation Pte Ltd v Tri-Line Express Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 227.<\/div><\/div><div class=\"content-pdf\"><a class=\"button-pdf-link\" href=\"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/14\/2025\/10\/sjls_mar_2026_171.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"button-pdf-icon\"><\/span> PDF<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/li><li><div class=\"ws-journal-content\"><div class=\"content-container\"><div class=\"content-type\"><span class=\"content-type-link\">Case and Legislation Notes<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-title\"><h3>Compensation for victims of crimes: should victims\u2019 financial means and insurance coverage matter? Criminal Procedure Code 2010, s 359(1); <i>PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v ONG ENG SIEW<\/i> [2025] SGHC 55<\/h3><\/div><div class=\"content-authors\"><span class=\"content-author-text\">Benjamin Joshua Ong<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-citation\"><span class=\"content-citation-text\">Citation: [2026] Sing JLS 184-194<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-first-view\"><span class=\"content-first-view-text\">First view: [Mar 2026 Online] Sing JLS 1-11<\/span><\/div><div class=\"content-abstract\"><button class=\"button-abstract\">Abstract <span class=\"button-abstract-icon\"><\/span><\/button><div class=\"abstract\">Under s 359(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, the court can order an offender to compensate the victim with a sum which the victim would have been able to recover in a civil claim in tort against the offender. The courts have used this useful power extensively, though problems remain. One such problem is seen in Ong Eng Siew, where the court declined to make a compensation order. Given the purpose of the compensation system, the court was not correct to hold \u2013 in effect \u2013 that the purpose of s 359(1) is to benefit only impecunious victims, and that the Prosecution bears the burden of proving that the victim is impecunious. Further, the compensation order should have covered not only medical expenses paid by the victim in cash, but also those paid using Central Provident Fund savings and MediShield Life insurance payouts. This comment also calls for further study of the compensation regime in practice and possible procedural reforms to make it easier for victims to have prosecutors present evidence relevant to the issue of compensation.<\/div><\/div><div class=\"content-pdf\"><a class=\"button-pdf-link\" href=\"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/14\/2025\/10\/sjls_mar_2026_184.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><span class=\"button-pdf-icon\"><\/span> PDF<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/li><\/ul><div class=\"ws-listing-pagination-cont\"><div class=\"ws-listing-pagination\"><span class=\"pagination first-paging\">First<\/span><span class=\"pagination prev-paging\"><i class=\"dashicons dashicons-arrow-left-alt2\"><\/i><\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/current-issue\/?paged=1\" class=\"pagination num-paging current-paging\">1<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/current-issue\/?paged=2\" class=\"pagination num-paging \">2<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/current-issue\/?paged=2\" class=\"pagination next-paging\"><i class=\"dashicons dashicons-arrow-right-alt2\"><\/i><\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/current-issue\/?paged=2\" class=\"pagination last-paging\">Last<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"site-sidebar-layout":"no-sidebar","site-content-layout":"page-builder","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"disabled","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"disabled","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-34299","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/34299"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34299"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/34299\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":35101,"href":"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/34299\/revisions\/35101"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.nus.edu.sg\/sjls\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}