At a press conference on 9 August 1965, moments after Singapore gained independence, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew proclaimed, “This is not a Malay nation; this is not a Chinese nation; this is not an Indian nation. Everybody will have his place.” This statement set the stage for Singapore’s development as a multiracial country. With the introduction of the reserved election mechanism under Article 19B of the Constitution, the question that arises is whether this mechanism, a “hiatus-triggered model” that encourages diversity in the office of the President, truly furthers multiracialism in Singapore.
Social organization in modern democracies is premised on a paradoxical relation. Power is bestowed upon the government, only to be ultimately exercised over its source – the people. A corollary of the systemic design is thus that power is to be exercised within stipulated limits, with the judiciary positioned to safeguard peoples’ rights. To this end, proportionality has emerged as a doctrine to guide judicial decisions over the appropriateness of legislation and governmental action.
An increasing number of iconic home-grown listed companies are acquired by foreign firms such as Raffles Hotel, Robinsons department store, Asia Pacific Breweries, and Fraser & Neave. The trend has raised public concerns of whether the government, should do more to protect local brands in Singapore. This leads to the question of whether no-frustration rule should be abolished from the Singapore Code on Takeovers and Mergers to allow the target board to erect defensive measures to frustrate the bid. In particular, whether the Delaware position in the United States should be adopted instead. Delaware is chosen as a comparator for this paper as the majority of companies listed in NASDAQ and NYSE are incorporated in Delaware.
The traditional common law position in the field of insurance has always been biased towards the insurer, where insurance doctrines have been “inflexibly applied in favour of insurance companies.” This has been noted in several instances, such as the insured’s duty of non-disclosure, the interpretation of insurance policies, and in the context of fraudulent claims. In the recent UK case of Versloot Dredging v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG (“Versloot”), however, a shift in this attitude can be observed, specifically in regard to fraudulent claims.
This paper will compare the contract laws of Singapore and Taiwan in the following areas: (1) the extent to which contractual performance interest is protected; and (2) how remedies of breach of contract are justified and awarded.
In the fast-paced world of trading, everything revolves around gaining an edge. The challenge lies in striving to use information faster than others. If information fresh off the press is great, then a fortiori, information that has yet to hit the press is even better. This gives rise to the issue of insider trading, where parties attempt to take advantage of confidential information to gain an edge.