In 2007, Section 377 of Singapore’s Penal Code, a colonial-era law that criminalized sexual activities “against the order of nature,” was removed by Parliament. Section 377A, however, the law specifically criminalizing gay male sex, was kept on the books. Three years later, the first judicial challenge emerged, and after a change in standing requirements, a second challenge followed, both to be ultimately dismissed in 2013. By end of 2018, two new judicial challenges emerged, and by September 2019, another lawsuit was mounted—all three to be heard in November 2019. Despite having survived several constitutional challenges, could Singapore’s lawsuits to strike down Section 377A provide guidance or inspiration to similar attempts to repeal 377 or 377A in ASEAN? This article begins by examining the roots behind 377 and 377A and the attempts to repeal these laws in Singapore. Next, it explores the legal situation in the Southeast Asian nations with similar laws due to their common British colonial histories (Malaysia, Brunei, Myanmar) and discusses the position ASEAN has taken on anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) laws in these nations. The article concludes with a discussion on how Singapore’s experience, as well as ASEAN human rights mechanisms, can potentially be used to expand and protect the rights of LGBT people in Southeast Asia.

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/npf-2021-0032/html?lang=en

This paper examines why Singapore law has not followed English law in the area of beneficial ownership of family property. It points out that the landmark cases in the two jurisdictions are underpinned by different family paradigms.The English landmark cases are based on the unmarried cohabitants paradigm and the legal rules that have emerged from these cases are aimed at, whether successfully or not, ensuring a fair division of the family home upon the breakdown of these relationships. In contrast, the Singapore seminal judgments are underlaid by contests between children over their parents' property which raised questions as to the parties' true intentions and the legal techniques to determine that. In the main, this paper argues that the legal rules that emerge in a society are shaped by the conditions of that society: these rules are purpose-built to resolve the specific types of disputes that come through the judicial system, which are in turn moulded by the distinctive conditions of that society. The discussion also shows that whilst the courts in the two jurisdictions differ in the legal techniques which they apply to determine these disputes, they do not appear to differ greatly in their understanding of human interactions and complex family relationships.

The following sections are included: introduction; importance of confidentiality in mediation; scope of confidentiality; conclusion

The Singapore scheme of arrangement has received considerable attention from the international community in recent years due to the Chapter 11-inspired reforms enacted in 2017. However, an overlooked, and perhaps underdeveloped, aspect of the Singapore scheme has been the disclosure obligations of the debtor throughout the scheme process. This article seeks to provide a critical evaluation of the disclosure framework under the Singapore scheme and, drawing on features of the English scheme and Chapter 11 in the US, to identify potential avenues for reform. Three, in particular, are highlighted. The first relates to a lack of formal requirements in Singapore prescribing the form and duration of notice which a debtor is required to give to its creditors of its application for leave to convene the creditor's meeting. The second concerns the uncertainty surrounding the precise types of information to be included in the explanatory statement which is circulated to the creditors. This is a particularly important issue given that Singapore schemes often feature retail investors who would generally be reliant on the explanatory statement to make an informed decision. Third, given the significant reforms enacted to the Singapore scheme, namely the availability of a broader moratorium and rescue financing provisions, there is a heightened need for more comprehensive financial disclosures at an earlier stage in the scheme process even before the debtor applies for leave to convene the creditors' meeting. © 2021 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.