The growing trend of online vigilantism, coupled with the increasing number of doxxing incidents - where others’ personal information is published online - has highlighted the need for legislation against such conduct. In light of this growing issue, Parliament has amended the Protection from Harassment Act (“POHA”) to criminalise doxxing and provide more comprehensive remedies against doxxing. This article will explain when doxxing constitutes an offence under the POHA, as well as the remedies available for victims of doxxing.
Under the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019, it is an offence for any person to observe or record someone doing a private act, without that person’s consent. It is also an offence to possess, gain access to, distribute, or threaten to distribute images so recorded.This paper focuses on the core offence of voyeurism, and its interpretation under the new laws.
The phenomenon of the spread of deliberate falsehoods has been exacerbated in the current day and age with the usage of technology. An examination of this issue shows that that the motivations and reasons for spreading such falsehoods have not changed. Instead, the primary mischief lies in the near instantaneous dissemination and ease of access via internet intermediaries. Despite this, there is a gap in the regulatory tools available to deal with this mischief. The solution hence should lie in imposing some sort of liability on internet intermediaries to remove deliberate falsehoods. Nevertheless, it is crucial that such intermediary liability must be carefully calibrated to minimize restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.
In cross-border insolvency, there are two contrasting approaches. On the one hand, there is the territorial approach, focused primarily on the interest of the local creditors. On the other, there is the universal approach, where one court leads the administration of the insolvency proceedings, and other courts cooperate with the main action. For the universal approach, the centre of main interest (“COMI”) test is pivotal to determining whether the court in question has the authority to collect and deal with all assets of the debtor. In Singapore, the universal approach has been adopted. Singapore’s position is that its courts retain the inherent discretion to render assistance to foreign winding-up proceedings where appropriate.
In 2017, the Companies Act (“CA”) underwent another round of reform. Among the new legislative changes are the modifications of the statutory requirements for the annual general meeting (“AGM”) and annual returns (“AR”) filing. These modifications should minimise the regulatory burden on companies in two ways. Firstly, there will be new and more straightforward criteria for setting the dates for the AGM and AR filing. Secondly, a new AGM exemption for private companies will be introduced.
Following several proposals made by the Committee to Strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Restructuring (“the Committee”), the Ministry of Law introduced new provisions to the Companies Act (“CA”). These changes improve the legal framework for undertaking major debt restructurings in Singapore and make it easier for foreign companies to access the procedures for debt restructuring.
In Singapore, three statutes provide general protection to tangible heritage: the Preservation of Monuments Act (“PMA”) provides for the protection of historical sites and buildings through the National Heritage Board (“NHB”); the National Heritage Board Act (“NHBA”) regulates archaeological investigations and the National Museum of Singapore and its collections; and the Planning Act (“PA”) incorporates heritage considerations into the land planning process. Heritage, in this context, includes sites, buildings, structures and artefacts.