Designfreebies Free Indesign Newsletter Template 2

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

C O N F E R E N C E POST-EVENT REPORT DOING BUSINESS ACROSS ASIA: LEGAL CONVERGENCE IN AN ASIAN CENTURY INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AND LAUNCH OF THE ASIAN BUSINESS LAW INSTITUTE (ABLI) 21 & 22 JANUARY 2016 / RAFFLES CITY CONVENTION CENTRE SINGAPORE ORGANISER: CONFERENCE PARTNER: SUPPORTED BY: 2016 - Post-conference Report 1 KEYNOTE ADDRESS Opening Remarks Mrs Lee Suet-Fern, Managing Partner, Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC; Chairman, Conference Steering Committee, giving the opening remarks The Honourable The Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Supreme Court of Singapore; President, Singapore Academy of Law 21 January 2016 Business today is conducted in an environment that is dramatically different from what we have, until recently, been President SAL also accustomed to. Once upon a time, the marketplace referred to riotous unveiled the inaugural fairs and bazaars in which merchants gathered to barter and trade. Board of Governors of Today, we think of the marketplace as a metaphysical global interface the ABLI. for the exchange of goods and services, unbounded both in its reach and its potential. Click here for the list Click here for the keynote address transcript 2 2016 - Post-conference Report The four Justices launching the Asian Business Law Institute. (L to R) The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Supreme Court of Singapore; The Honourable Chief Justice Robert Shenton French AC, High Court of Australia; The Honourable Senior Judge Zhang Yongjian, Chief Judge of the Fourth Civil Division, The Supreme People’s Court, The People’s Republic of China and The Honourable Justice Arjan Sikri, Supreme Court of India The launch of ASIAN BUSINESS LAW INSTITUTE ADDRESS “A convergence on which there is a broad consensus in society should be the aim. Hence I call upon you to seek ‘optimal convergence’—a convergence which takes into account the benefits of convergence but recognises that there will always be some need for diversity of laws.” - The Honourable Mr Arun Jaitley, Union Minister of Finance, Corporate Affairs and Information and Broadcasting, India Click here for the address transcript “The word ‘convergence’, in this context, preceded by the word ‘cooperative’ is a dialogue that must engage law-makers, the judiciary and the legal profession, business networks and associations, academics and government officials with responsibility across a range of areas relevant to business law and practice.” - The Honourable Chief Justice Robert Shenton French AC, High Court of Australia Click here for the address transcript “Legal convergence is one of the steps which will help unlock Asia’s full economic potential.” - Mr K Shanmugam SC, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, Singapore Click here for the closing address transcript 2016 - Post-conference Report 3 Panel ONE Written by: Benjamin Ng, Nabarro AND Daniel Gaw, Rajah & Tann Asia Convergence in an Asian Century This panel, led by Professor Tommy Koh, raised key supporting pillars, any attempts to harmonise busi- points on the business imperative for legal conver- ness laws might be reduced to an academic exercise. gence in Asia. While the panel largely agreed that the whole of Asia would benefit from legal conver- This was echoed by Dr Shinjiro Takagi, Advisor to gence and harmonisation, there were certain key Nomura Securities, Co Ltd, who had earlier met with factors that had to be considered before any initia- Japanese business leaders who were based in Sin- tive could be undertaken. gapore. Lending his voice to the Japanese business community in Asia, Dr Takagi underlined the impor- tance of clear, stable and predictable laws: he con- trasted common law to Japanese civil law, in which statutes were reformed less frequently, thereby pro- viding large corporations with certainty on how the law would be implemented and interpreted. Mr Henri de Castries, Chairman and CEO of AXA, highlighted that large corporations could pave the way for convergence, since multinational companies with offices around Asia are able to create workflows or processes that give effect to legal convergence ini- tiatives, such as the adoption of guidelines and best Professor Tommy Koh practices. As the only panellist currently residing in Europe, Mr de Castries also shared his experiences on A few of the panellists raised the issue of rule of law the convergence of business laws in the European and how the perceived weakness of the rule of law in Union, stressing that the extent of integration of re- certain Asian jurisdictions could be an obstacle to le- gional business laws was a more important yardstick gal convergence. In particular, the competence and of legal convergence than the number of countries integrity of the legal system of each country must purporting to adopt such measures. first give foreign investors a sense of confidence be- fore they are ready to invest. Finally, Professor Ashish Nanda, Director, Indian Insti- tute of Management, Ahmedabad; Executive Educa- Mr Simon Israel, Chairman of Singtel Telecommuni- tion Fellow, Harvard Business School; Harvard Law cations Limited, believed that the harmonisation of School, provided his views on the short-term and business laws is essential, but cautioned that the out- long-term implementation of legal convergence in come would be marginal without the collective ef- Asia. Pointing out that China’s growth has been a big fort of participating countries. Drawing a link to the driver of legal convergence, he expects legal conver- importance of the rule of law, Mr Israel emphasised gence initiatives to take a while to fully develop in that business laws had to be bolstered by a common light of the current Asian economic situation. How- interpretation and implementation across Asian ju- ever, in the longer run, Professor Nanda believed that risdictions, as well as enforceable arbitration awards the harmonisation of Asian business laws is achiev- and competent commercial courts. Without these able; he cited the growth of the tech industry as an 4 2016 - Post-conference Report impetus that eliminated geographical borders which would in- crease the relevance of cross-border legal initiatives, especially those pertaining to the regulation and protection of data. Ultimately, the panellists agreed that there were significant eco- nomic imperatives to pursue legal convergence. In wrapping up the panel discussion, Mr de Castries noted that the legal con- vergence initiative boils down to three key elements: first, the clarity of the proposed rules or guidelines for harmonisation; (L to R) Mr Henri de Castries, Dr Shinjiro Takagi, Professor Ashish Nanda, Mr Simon Israel second, the consistency of the practice; and third, the effective- ness of the enforcement. Panel TWO Written by: Colin Liew, TSMP Law Corporation Asian Economic Expansion – The Role of Legal and Regulatory Frameworks This panel, led by Dr Beh Swan Gin, Chairman of the the convergence of legal principles across multiple Singapore Economic Development Board, examined jurisdictions. the role of legal and regulatory frameworks for global trade and investment. The matter was put in context The inevitability of convergence was a theme picked by Dr Beh, who noted that the Association of South- up by Mr Bharat Vasani, General Counsel of the Tata East Asian Nations is now a US$2.4 trillion economy, Group, who shared his experience of the Tata Group’s having expanded by more than 300% since 2001. cross-border transactions, stating that a significant part of his time was spent on due diligence as a re- However, Dr Beh suggested that while companies sult of the diversity of legal regulations. Mr Vasani are turning their attention to Asia, they were also lamented the lack of a single Asian competition wary of the region’s risks, including its political and regulator with which businesses could deal, and socio-cultural differences, with the diversity of busi- expressed his desire for a greater convergence and ness laws and legal systems adding a further layer of harmonisation of commercial and corporate laws in complexity to doing business in Asia. Asia. In this context, many of the panellists agreed that In a speech sprinkled with good humour and witty harmonisation of legal and regulatory frameworks anecdotes, Ms Marjorie Yang, Chairman of the Esquel would play a key role in navigating these challenges. Group, spoke passionately about the importance of the rule of law and its role in driving business. Adopt- Mr Stephen J Brogan, Managing Partner of Jones Day, ing a slightly different perspective from Mr Brogan, explained his belief that harmonisation across Asia in Ms Yang suggested that it was not necessary to wait this regard was not merely feasible or possible, but for lawyers to prompt a change in laws if corporates indeed inevitable. Mr Brogan suggested that legal could do so responsibly and respectably. institutions had to be at the forefront of this process, being as they were on the front lines of globalisation Next, Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma of the Hong Kong and well-placed to witness and take advantage of Court of Final Appeal delved deeper into the theme 2016 - Post-conference Report 5 by exploring the underlying purpose of legal and regulatory frameworks, pointing out that convergence in the implementation of such laws could not take place unless the fundamental principles were first understood and accepted. Chief Justice Ma considered such frameworks to be neces- sary in facilitating business development, by ensuring market discipline, a level and hence fair playing field for all participants, and transactional effec- tiveness. Concentrating on the idea of fairness, Chief Justice Ma identified within it the facets of principle, certainty and transparency, and stressed the importance of these matters to all stakeholders operating within legal and regulatory frameworks. Finally, Chief Justice James Allsop AO of the Federal Court of Australia turned his attention to the convergence of arbitration laws, highlighting that Asia was very much a Model Law area, with the result that the judiciary naturally looked to the decisions of other courts in the region for guidance on issues of international commercial arbitration.
Recommended publications
  • Singapore C of a on Consideration in Variation of Contracts.Pdf

    Singapore C of a on Consideration in Variation of Contracts.Pdf

    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGCA 106 Civil Appeal No 45 of 2019 Between Ma Hongjin … Appellant And SCP Holdings Pte Ltd … Respondent In the matter of HC/Suit No 765 of 2016 Between Ma Hongjin … Plaintiff And (1) SCP Holdings Pte Ltd (2) Biomax Technologies Pte Ltd … Defendants GROUNDS OF DECISION [Contract] — [Consideration] — [Necessity] [Contract] — [Consideration] — [Failure] [Contract] — [Variation] — [Consideration] [Civil Procedure] — [Pleadings] [Civil Procedure] — [No case to answer] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................4 THE DECISION BELOW ..............................................................................7 THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL.............................................9 ISSUES ............................................................................................................10 OUR DECISION ............................................................................................11 ISSUE 1: THE APPLICABLE TEST UPON A SUBMISSION OF NO CASE TO ANSWER ........................................................................................................11 ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAD ADEQUATELY PLEADED THAT THE SA WAS SUPPORTED BY CONSIDERATION ...............................................16 ISSUE 3: WHETHER CL 9.3 OF THE CLA DISPENSED WITH THE NEED FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION
  • 4 Comparative Law and Constitutional Interpretation in Singapore: Insights from Constitutional Theory 114 ARUN K THIRUVENGADAM

    4 Comparative Law and Constitutional Interpretation in Singapore: Insights from Constitutional Theory 114 ARUN K THIRUVENGADAM

    Evolution of a Revolution Between 1965 and 2005, changes to Singapore’s Constitution were so tremendous as to amount to a revolution. These developments are comprehensively discussed and critically examined for the first time in this edited volume. With its momentous secession from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965, Singapore had the perfect opportunity to craft a popularly-endorsed constitution. Instead, it retained the 1958 State Constitution and augmented it with provisions from the Malaysian Federal Constitution. The decision in favour of stability and gradual change belied the revolutionary changes to Singapore’s Constitution over the next 40 years, transforming its erstwhile Westminster-style constitution into something quite unique. The Government’s overriding concern with ensuring stability, public order, Asian values and communitarian politics, are not without their setbacks or critics. This collection strives to enrich our understanding of the historical antecedents of the current Constitution and offers a timely retrospective assessment of how history, politics and economics have shaped the Constitution. It is the first collaborative effort by a group of Singapore constitutional law scholars and will be of interest to students and academics from a range of disciplines, including comparative constitutional law, political science, government and Asian studies. Dr Li-ann Thio is Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore where she teaches public international law, constitutional law and human rights law. She is a Nominated Member of Parliament (11th Session). Dr Kevin YL Tan is Director of Equilibrium Consulting Pte Ltd and Adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore where he teaches public law and media law.
  • OPENING of the LEGAL YEAR 2019 Speech by Attorney-General

    OPENING of the LEGAL YEAR 2019 Speech by Attorney-General

    OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2019 Speech by Attorney-General, Mr Lucien Wong, S.C. Monday, 7 January 2019 Supreme Court Building, Level Basement 2, Auditorium May it please Your Honours, Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the Supreme Court, Introduction: AGC in Support of the Government, for the People 1 2018 was a fast-paced year for the Government and for the Attorney-General’s Chambers. The issues occupying the thoughts of Singapore’s leaders were complex and varied, with several key themes coming to the fore. These themes shaped our work over the past year, as we strove to be a strategic partner in support of the Government’s plans and initiatives, for the benefit of our country and its citizens. I will touch on three of these themes. 2 The first theme was our Smart Nation. This initiative aims to tap on the ongoing digital revolution in order to transform Singapore through technology. The Smart Nation vision is for Singapore to be a world-class leader in the field of digital innovation, resting on the triple pillars of a digital economy, digital government, and digital society. The Smart Nation revolution will play a critical part in ensuring our continued competitiveness on the world stage, powered by digital innovation. 1 3 Data sharing was and continues to be a critical aspect of this initiative. To this end, a new law was passed in 2018 which introduced a data sharing regime among different agencies in the Singapore Government. The Public Sector (Governance) Act 2018, which was drafted by our Chambers in support of this initiative, underpins and formalises a data sharing framework for the Singapore public sector.
  • The Decline of Oral Advocacy Opportunities: Concerns and Implications

    The Decline of Oral Advocacy Opportunities: Concerns and Implications

    Published on 6 September 2018 THE DECLINE OF ORAL ADVOCACY OPPORTUNITIES: CONCERNS AND IMPLICATIONS [2018] SAL Prac 1 Singapore has produced a steady stream of illustrious and highly accomplished advocates over the decades. Without a doubt, these advocates have lifted and contributed to the prominence and reputation of the profession’s ability to deliver dispute resolution services of the highest quality. However, the conditions in which these advocates acquired, practised and honed their advocacy craft are very different from those present today. One trend stands out, in particular: the decline of oral advocacy opportunities across the profession as a whole. This is no trifling matter. The profession has a moral duty, if not a commercial imperative, to apply itself to addressing this phenomenon. Nicholas POON* LLB (Singapore Management University); Director, Breakpoint LLC; Advocate and Solicitor, Supreme Court of Singapore. I. Introduction 1 Effective oral advocacy is the bedrock of dispute resolution.1 It is also indisputable that effective oral advocacy is the product of training and experience. An effective advocate is forged in the charged atmosphere of courtrooms and arbitration chambers. An effective oral advocate does not become one by dint of age. 2 There is a common perception that sustained opportunities for oral advocacy in Singapore, especially for junior lawyers, are on the decline. This commentary suggests * This commentary reflects the author’s personal opinion. The author would like to thank the editors of the SAL Practitioner, as well as Thio Shen Yi SC and Paul Tan for reading through earlier drafts and offering their thoughtful insights. 1 Throughout this piece, any reference to “litigation” is a reference to contentious dispute resolution practice, including but not limited to court and arbitration proceedings, unless otherwise stated.
  • Lee Kuan Yew V Chee Soon Juan (No 2)

    Lee Kuan Yew V Chee Soon Juan (No 2)

    Lee Kuan Yew v Chee Soon Juan (No 2) [2005] SGHC 2 Case Number : Suit 1459/2001 Decision Date : 06 January 2005 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Kan Ting Chiu J Counsel Name(s) : Davinder Singh SC, Hri Kumar, Nicolas Tang (Drew and Napier LLC) for the plaintiff; The defendant in person Parties : Lee Kuan Yew — Chee Soon Juan Tort – Defamation – Damages – Assessment of damages – Defendant alleging plaintiff mishandling nation's funds – Principles of assessment – Quantification of damages Civil Procedure – Reconvening hearing – Defendant not attending assessment of damages hearing – Defendant applying to reconvene such hearing – Defendant applying to cross-examine plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel in application to reconvene hearing – Factors to consider when deciding whether to grant defendant's applications to reconvene hearing and to cross-examine plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel at such reconvened hearing 6 January 2005 Judgment reserved. Kan Ting Chiu J: 1 This matter came before me for damages to be assessed following a finding that the defendant had defamed the plaintiff. 2 The plaintiff, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, was the Senior Minister of Singapore before he assumed the office of Minister Mentor on 12 August 2004. The defendant, Dr Chee Soon Juan, was and is the Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party. 3 This action arose out of words the defendant said in the course of campaigning in the 2001 Parliamentary General Elections. The subject words 4 On 28 October 2001, the defendant spoke at an election rally at Nee Soon Central. He told his audience: Yesterday, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was at his best.
  • [2020] SGCA 108 Civil Appeal No 34 of 2019 Between (1) BRS … Appellant and (1) BRQ (2) BRR … Respondents in the Matter of Or

    [2020] SGCA 108 Civil Appeal No 34 of 2019 Between (1) BRS … Appellant and (1) BRQ (2) BRR … Respondents in the Matter of Or

    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGCA 108 Civil Appeal No 34 of 2019 Between (1) BRS … Appellant And (1) BRQ (2) BRR … Respondents In the matter of Originating Summons No 770 of 2018 Between (1) BRS … Plaintiff And (1) BRQ (2) BRR … Defendants Civil Appeal No 35 of 2019 Between (1) BRQ (2) BRR … Appellants And (1) BRS … Respondent In the matter of Originating Summons No 512 of 2018 Between (1) BRQ (2) BRR … Plaintiffs And (1) BRS (2) BRT … Defendants JUDGMENT [Arbitration] — [Award] — [Recourse against award] — [Setting aside] — [Whether three-month time limit extended by request for correction] [Arbitration] — [Award] — [Recourse against award] — [Setting aside] — [Breach of natural justice] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND FACTS ................................................................................2 THE PARTIES ...................................................................................................3 THE SPA.........................................................................................................3 THE BULK POWER TRANSMISSION AGREEMENT .............................................6 DELAYS IN THE PROJECT AND COST OVERRUN ...............................................6 THE ARBITRATION...........................................................................................7 Relief sought...............................................................................................8
  • Valedictory Reference in Honour of Justice Chao Hick Tin 27 September 2017 Address by the Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon

    Valedictory Reference in Honour of Justice Chao Hick Tin 27 September 2017 Address by the Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon

    VALEDICTORY REFERENCE IN HONOUR OF JUSTICE CHAO HICK TIN 27 SEPTEMBER 2017 ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SUNDARESH MENON -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon Deputy Prime Minister Teo, Minister Shanmugam, Prof Jayakumar, Mr Attorney, Mr Vijayendran, Mr Hoong, Ladies and Gentlemen, 1. Welcome to this Valedictory Reference for Justice Chao Hick Tin. The Reference is a formal sitting of the full bench of the Supreme Court to mark an event of special significance. In Singapore, it is customarily done to welcome a new Chief Justice. For many years we have not observed the tradition of having a Reference to salute a colleague leaving the Bench. Indeed, the last such Reference I can recall was the one for Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin, which happened on this very day, the 27th day of September, exactly 27 years ago. In that sense, this is an unusual event and hence I thought I would begin the proceedings by saying something about why we thought it would be appropriate to convene a Reference on this occasion. The answer begins with the unique character of the man we have gathered to honour. 1 2. Much can and will be said about this in the course of the next hour or so, but I would like to narrate a story that took place a little over a year ago. It was on the occasion of the annual dinner between members of the Judiciary and the Forum of Senior Counsel. Mr Chelva Rajah SC was seated next to me and we were discussing the recently established Judicial College and its aspiration to provide, among other things, induction and continuing training for Judges.
  • Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin V Lee Kuan Yew [2001]

    Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin V Lee Kuan Yew [2001]

    Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew [2001] SGCA 55 Case Number : CA 600023/2001 Decision Date : 22 August 2001 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Chao Hick Tin JA; L P Thean JA Counsel Name(s) : Appellant in person; Davinder Singh SC and Hri Kumar (Drew & Napier LLC) for the respondent Parties : Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin — Lee Kuan Yew Civil Procedure – Striking out – Dismissal of action for want of prosecution – Principles applicable – Inordinate and inexcusable delay – Respondent's delay of over two years without reason or explanation – Whether delay amounts to intentional and contumelious default – Prejudice by reason of delay – Whether unavailability of services of particular Queen's Counsel amounts to prejudice – Whether inordinate and inexcusable delay amounts to abuse of court process – Limitation period yet to expire – Whether action should be struck out Statutory Interpretation – Statutes – Repealing – Repeal of Rules of Court O 3 r 5 – Effect of repeal – Distinction between substantive and procedural rights – Whether amendments to procedural rules affect rights of parties retrospectively – Whether rights under repealed order survive – s 16(1)(c) Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 1999 Ed) Words and Phrases – 'Contumelious conduct' (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction This appeal arose from an application by Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, the appellant (`the appellant`), to strike out the action in Suit 224/97 initiated by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the respondent (`the respondent`). The application was heard before the senior assistant registrar and was dismissed. The appellant appealed to a judge-in-chambers, and the appeal was heard before Lai Siu Chiu J. The judge dismissed it and against her decision the appellant now brings this appeal.
  • Smubrochure.Pdf

    Smubrochure.Pdf

    SMU LAW SCHOOL The Singapore Government, in a major review of the domestic supply of lawyers, confirmed a shortage of lawyers in Singapore. 2007 hence marked a major milestone in the development of legal education in Singapore – the setting up of the nation’s second law school. SMU is honoured to be entrusted with this important responsibility. As Singapore’s first private university and the only university here with a city campus purpose-built to its pedagogy of small class size and interactive learning, SMU will be extending its unique approach to its School of Law. SMU’s undergraduate law programme aims to mould students into excellent lawyers who will contribute significantly to society. The objective is to produce law graduates who have contextualised legal expertise and the ability to think across disciplines and geographical borders. In terms of pedagogy, SMU’s seminar-style learning will be put to good effect to nurture students who are confident, articulate and analytically agile. CONTENTS 03 Dean’s Message 04 Investing In The Fundamentals // Rigorous and Challenging Curriculum // Holistic Pedagogy & Course Assessment // Optional Second Major // Wide Range of Double Degree Options // Beneficial Internship & Community Service // Internship Partners 09 Commitment To Excellence // Scholarships & Awards // National & International Competitions // International Exchange 12 Career Prospects // Raising The Bar 13 Visionary Campus // City Campus // Facilities 15 Strengthening Our Relevance // Centre for Dispute Resolution // International Islamic Law and Finance Centre // Pro Bono Centre // Asian Peace-building and Rule of Law Programme 18 Heeding The Best // Advisory Board Members 19 Top Notch Faculty // Deanery // Faculty 24 The Fun Stuff // Beyond The Classroom Dean’s Message The School of Law was started in 2007 after a major review of legal education in Singapore concluded that it was timely to have a second law school in Singapore.
  • Bioethics Advisory Committee (Bac)

    Bioethics Advisory Committee (Bac)

    APPENDIX D HUMAN TISSUE RESEARCH CONSULTATION PAPER (27 Feb 2002) DISTRIBUTION LIST # Name Designation Organisation 1 Dr Walter Tan Master Academy of Medicine 2 A/Prof Rajasoorya Cunniah Chairman, Medical Alexandra Hospital Board 3 Mr Bertie Cheng Chairman, Board of Ang Mo Kio Community Hospital Directors 4 Mr Allan Yeo Chief Executive Balestier Hospital Officer 5 Prof Chew Yong Tian President Biomedical Engineering Society 6 Dr Eric Yap President Biomedical Research & Experimental Therapeutics Society of Singapore 7 Prof Fock Kwong Ming Chairman, Medical Changi General Hospital Board 8 Dr Tan Hiang Khoon Chairman Children’s Cancer Foundation 9 A/Prof Cheong Pak Yean President College of Family Physicians 10 Mr Yeo Guat Kuang President Consumers Association of Singapore 11 Ms Tan Mui Ling General Manager East Shore Hospital (Parkway Group Healthcare Pte Ltd) 12 Dr Daphne Khoo President Endocrine and Metabolic Society of Singapore 13 Prof Lee Eng Hin Dean Faculty of Medicine, NUS 14 Prof Edison Liu Executive Director Genome Institute of Singapore 15 Dr S Thanasekaran Asst General Gleneagles Hospital (Parkway Group Manager Healthcare Pte Ltd) 16 Mr Allan Wong President Graduates’ Christian Fellowship 17 Dr Lam Sian Lian Chief Executive Health Promotion Board Officer 18 Dr Clarence Tan Chief Executive Health Sciences Authority Officer 19 Mr Ajib Hari Dass Chairman Hindu Advisory Board 20 Prof Goh Chee Leok Director Institute of Dermatology, National Skin Centre 21 Prof Kua Ee Heok Chief Executive Institute of Mental Health and Woodbridge
  • Lawlink 2019 Contents Contents

    Lawlink 2019 Contents Contents

    law link FROM ACADEMIA TO POLITICS AND BACK PROFESSOR S JAYAKUMAR ‘63 CHARTING THE NEXT CHAPTER JUSTICE ANDREW PHANG ‘82 ON LANGUAGE, LAW AND CODING STEPHANIE LAW ‘14 AN EMINENT CAREER EMERITUS PROFESSOR M. SORNARAJAH AI & THE LAW ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DANIEL SENG ‘92 THE ALUMNI MAGAZINE OF THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE FACULTY OF LAW LAWLINK 2019 CONTENTS CONTENTS 02 04 10 16 22 28 Dean’s Diary Alumni Spotlight Student Features Reunions Benefactors Law School Message from the Dean Professor S Jayakumar ’63: Highlights Congratulations Class of 2019 16 Class of 1989 22 From Academia to Politics and Back 03 Michael Hwang SC Class of 1999 24 An Eminent Career 10 30 Justice Andrew Phang ’82: Emeritus Professor M. Sornarajah Delivers SLR Annual Lecture 17 Charting The Next Chapter 05 Class of 2009 25 NUS Giving The Appeal of the Moot 18 AI & the Law 11 Stephanie Law ’14: LLM Class of 2009 26 Chandran Mohan K Nair ‘76 Associate Professor Daniel Seng ’92 & Susan de Silva ‘83: On Language, Law and Coding 08 Rag & Flag 2019 20 12 Scholarship to expand Kuala Lumpur & New York 27 Key Lectures minsets about success Law Alumni Mentor Programme Law IV: Unjust Enrichment 21 14 2019 09 Book Launches Alumni Relations & Development NUS Law Eu Tong Sen Building 469G Bukit Timah Road Singapore 259776 Tel: (65) 6516 3616 Fax: (65) 6779 0979 Email: [email protected] www.nuslawlink.com www.law.nus.edu.sg/alumni Please update your particulars at: www.law.nus.edu.sg/ alumni_update_particulars.asp 1 LAWLINK 2019 ALUMNI SPOTLIGHT DEAN’S DIARY FROM ACADEMIA TO POLITICS PROFESSOR SIMON CHESTERMAN AND BACK History often makes more sense in retrospect (TRAIL).
  • Eighteenth Annual International Maritime Law

    Eighteenth Annual International Maritime Law

    EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY TEAM 10 ON BEHALF OF: AGAINST: INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD FURNACE TRADING PTE LTD AND IDONCARE BERJAYA UTAMA PTY LTD CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS COUNSEL Margery Harry Declan Haiqiu Ai Godber Noble Zhu TEAM 10 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... III LIST OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................ V STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................ 1 APPLICABLE LAW ......................................................................................................................... 2 I. SINGAPOREAN LAW APPLIES TO ALL ASPECTS OF THE DISPUTE ............................................... 2 A. Singaporean law governs the procedure of the arbitration ................................................... 2 B. Singaporean law is the substantive law applying to FURNACE and INFERNO’s dispute ....... 2 C. Singaporean law is also the substantive law applying to FURNACE and IDONCARE’s dispute ................................................................................................................................... 3 ARGUMENTS ON THE INTERIM APPLICATION FOR SALE OF CARGO ......................... 4 II. A VALID AND ENFORCEABLE LIEN