|221. ||JULY 2013 Issue|
|Banking Law and Banking Practice in their Conceptual and Historical Perspectives|
Peter Ellinger  Sing JLS 24 (Jul)
When I first arrived in Singapore, in 1961, the retail banking world was dominated by British-based banks. The leading players were the Chartered Bank and the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. The local banks known to me were the Chung Khiaw Bank, the Lee Hwa Bank and the Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation ("OCBC"). United Overseas Bank - UOB - had not as yet opened its doors. The same applies to OUB - Overseas Union Bank - which much later, in the nineties, merged with UOB.
|222. ||JULY 2013 Issue|
|Prosecutorial Discretion and Prosecution Guidelines|
Kumaralingam Amirthalingam  Sing JLS 50 (Jul)
Prosecutorial discretion is an essential element of our criminal justice. This discretion vests in the Attorney-General as the Public Prosecutor and is constitutionally protected. Recently, there have been several challenges to the exercise of this discretion on the basis of alleged violation of the constitutionally protected right to equal treatment. This article examines the basis of the prosecutorial discretion and considers the value of developing prosecution guidelines to assist prosecutors in making decisions consistently and fairly.
|223. ||JULY 2013 Issue|
|Deposit Insurance in Singapore: Why Have It, Who Gets It, How Does It Work?|
Sandra Annette Booysen  Sing JLS 76 (Jul)
Singapore's deposit insurance scheme was revised in 2011. This paper reviews the debate on the merits of a deposit insurance scheme, considers key features of the scheme operating in Singapore and evaluates how well it promotes the rationale of deposit insurance.[Full Text]
|224. ||JULY 2013 Issue|
|The Evolution of Malaysian Shareholder Protection: A Legal Origins Analysis|
Vivien J.H. Chen  Sing JLS 100 (Jul)
In the aftermath following the Asian financial crisis, theWorld Bank prescribed regulatory reforms as a remedy for weak financial fundamentals. These reforms reflect the claims of the strong form legal origins hypothesis that countries with common law legal traditions have stronger investor protection laws and better financial outcomes than countries of civil law origin. This paper seeks to test the legal origins hypothesis through an examination of the evolution of Malaysian shareholder protection from 1965 to 2010. Comparison with six other countries in the time series studies indicates that Malaysia had the highest growth in formal shareholder protection. Persistent borrowing from the regulations of other common law countries suggests that inherited legal tradition has, to an extent, influenced the evolution of Malaysian shareholder protection. The influence of other common law countries' regulations is explained by institutional complementarities, supporting the claims of the weak form legal origins hypothesis.
|225. ||JULY 2013 Issue|
|Animal Protection Laws of Singapore and Malaysia|
Alvin W.-L. See  Sing JLS 125 (Jul)
This article offers an overview and assessment of the laws relating to the protection of animals in Singapore and Malaysia. The focus is on identifying the interpretations of the statutory offences of cruelty that will best promote their objectives and effectiveness.
|226. ||JULY 2013 Issue|
|Lawful Act Conspiracy: Malice and Abuse of Rights|
Nathan Tamblyn  Sing JLS 158 (Jul)
This article argues that the tort of lawful act conspiracy is best understood, not as an economic tort, but as an instance of abuse of rights, and why it requires a test of malice.
|227. ||JULY 2013 Issue|
|Challenges to Singapore from the Global Financial Crisis: Actual and Suggested Legal and Regulatory Responses|
Hans Tjio  Sing JLS 168 (Jul)
Securitisation, which involved shifting assets off balance sheets, inadvertently led to the creation of even greater risks that were packaged into toxic instruments that brought down a number of large financial institutions. In Singapore, however, the risks of the U.S. housing market collapse and consequent mortgage and financial institution default were largely moved out of the banking sector and sold to the public. In that sense, corporate/securities laws fulfilled the purpose of disintermediation. But while these insulated Singapore banks, the losses were largely borne by investors, whose confidence in the securities market has been eroded. The article discusses the legal and regulatory changes that have been made in response to the crisis, and suggests further trends and reforms dealing with its aftermath from financial and economic perspectives.
|228. ||JULY 2013 Issue|
|Legislation and Case Notes:Contributory Negligence and the Disabled Claimant|
Margaret Fordham  Sing JLS 192 (Jul)
One of the fundamental aspects of the defence of contributory negligence is that it is objective in nature. Thus, when assessing the question of whether a claimant's failure to take care of his own safety contributed to the damage which he suffered, the court asks what a reasonable claimantwould have done in the relevant circumstances. The only universally accepted variation to this rule applies in the case of children, in relation to whom an age-appropriate albeit otherwise objective standard is imposed. Other categories of claimants are generally judged by purely objective criteria - even where, as in the case of those with physical or mental disabilities, such criteria may be wholly unrealistic.
|229. ||JULY 2013 Issue|
|Legislation and Case Notes:Not So Different After All? A Causation-Based Approach to Joint Illegal Enterprises|
Margaret Fordham  Sing JLS 202 (Jul)
In recent years, courts in the U.K. and Australia have decided a number of cases involving the concept of illegality,2 or ex turpi causa non oritur actio.3 Several of these cases have focused specifically on the branch of illegality relating to joint illegal enterprises. Although courts in both jurisdictions have always shown greater willingness to refuse claims which involve joint participants in criminal ventures than those which do not, the actual basis for the refusal of such claims has been uncertain - with some judges taking the view that the very nature of the enterprise negates the duty of care and others concentrating on whether it is impossible to establish an appropriate standard of care between joint wrongdoers. This uncertainty was resolved in Australia by the decision of the High Court in Miller v. Miller,4 which rejected as artificial the "impossibility of setting a standard of care" approach, and effectively reverted to an approach based on duty. Given that the High Court of Australia has always been something of a trail-blazer where the law on joint illegal enterprises is concerned, the case gave rise to understandable speculation about the possibility of courts in other jurisdictions following suit.
|230. ||JULY 2013 Issue|
|Legislation and Case Notes: Agreements to Negotiate in Good Faith|
Joel Lee  Sing JLS 212 (Jul)
It has been the position for quite some time in English jurisprudence that an agreement to agree and an agreement to negotiate are invalid and unenforceable. This was the position established in Walford v. Miles2 and Courtney & Fairbairn Ltd. V. Tolaini Brothers (Hotels) Ltd.3 The rationale for this was that such agreements were too uncertain to be enforceable. This is certainly true for an agreement to agree; one could not accurately predict whether an agreement is possible in every case especially when there may be structural constraints to the factual matrix that make an agreement impossible.