Illicit transactions are increasingly integrated to legitimate financial flows between international financial centers (IFCs) and offshore jurisdictions (OJs). The United States (US) is actively engaged in regulating illicit transactions through anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) regulations backed by economic sanctions statutes. In this paper, I show how US sanctions regulatory capacity has developed by scaling out compliance and enforcement functions to state regulators and advanced business services (ABS) intermediaries in Singapore. Scaling out draws on a relational scale framework that locates the multiscalar surveillance of IFCs and OJs' entangled financial networks as an instrument for governing the illicit global economy. At the same time, Singapore's enrolment in US financial surveillance benefits the financial center by strengthening the city-state's regulatory functions. Using cases of high-profile illicit financial activities as well as interviews with regulatory agents in Singapore and to a lesser extent the US, the paper shows how multiscalar compliance and enforcement practices support US′ extra-jurisdictional discipline of rogue actors and jurisdictions while augmenting Singapore's stature as a clean and trusted financial center.

The double actionability rule, which was first laid down in the 19th century, has been the subject of considerable academic and judicial criticism. Over the years, several jurisdictions around the world have abandoned the double actionability rule in favour of alternative choice of law rules for torts. Canada, in two landmark decisions, reconsidered its earlier jurisprudence on the applicable choice of law rules for torts, as well as multijurisdictional defamation cases in particular. However, the apex court in Singapore has unquestioningly adopted the double actionability rule as part of Singapore law in a series of cases starting in the 1990s. Unfortunately, the seeds of reform that were sown by the lower courts at various points in time have been largely ignored. This article argues that in the light of recent developments and changing circumstances, the time is now ripe for Singapore to follow the lead of Canada and many other jurisdictions in departing from the double actionability rule. © 2021, National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law. All rights reserved.

Singapore's adult guardianship law was derived from the Mental Capacity Act in England and Wales. This article explores the process of how Singapore's Mental Capacity Act was adapted and fine-tuned to operate in a jurisdiction with different cultural conditions, religions, familial norms, and social institutions. The first part of the article demonstrates that despite its apparent similarities, the policymakers in Singapore have omitted crucial portions of the Mental Capacity Act which deal with the human rights of persons lacking capacity. This omission is unsurprising considering Singapore's history of advancing an Asian values approach to human rights. In the second part, it will be demonstrated that Singapore's Mental Capacity Act has been interpreted by some healthcare professionals through the lens of relational autonomy in certain circumstances to accommodate a family-centric mode of decision-making. The appeal to relational autonomy may be explained on the centrality of the family in the lived reality of most persons in Singapore. In this regard, this article argues that a formal protocol should be drafted to guide healthcare professionals in navigating the tricky minefield of furthering a person's autonomy while recognizing the centrality of the family in certain contexts. © 2022 The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

This chapter provides an overview of statutory adjudication under Singapore’s Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Chapter 30B). It covers the historical context of the legislation, its main objectives, scope and key features, and the growth of adjudication in Singapore. The various stages of the adjudication process are outlined, along with the nature of and remedies associated with adjudication determinations. All this is done with due regard to the recent reforms brought about by the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment (Amendment) Act, which came into effect on 15 December 2019 matter, Renato Nazzini.

It has been a decade (or so) since the last general academic review of statutory interpretation in Singapore. This review considers Singapore Court of Appeal cases directly involving statutory interpretation, between January 2009 and April 2020, where the court had issued written judgments. It has three key objectives. The first is to offer a synthesis of the current law on statutory interpretation in Singapore. Second, it delves more deeply into more challenging issues such when extrinsic material can be considered in purposive interpretation. Finally, it suggests what might be explored in the decade ahead to lend even more coherence to this area of law.