AY2020-2021 Class Timetable
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Annual Report 2010 - 2011 Contents
Annual Report 2010 - 2011 Contents 2 Foreword by the Attorney-General 6 Remembrance and Congratulations 10 Our Mission, Vision and Core Values 13 Our Roles 15 Our Corporate Structure A. AGC’s Management Team B. Six Legal Divisions and Two Non-Legal Divisions 29 Our Key Milestones A. As The Government’s Chief Legal Adviser and Counsel i. AGC’s Advisory Work ii. AGC’s Involvement in Litigation iii. AGC in Negotiations iv. AGC as Legislative Draftsman B. As Public Prosecutor C. In Performing Other Assigned Duties of a Legal Character D. Our Corporate Resources 61 Our Training, Development and Outreach 67 The Ties that Bind Us 71 Key Figures for 2010-2011 A. Corporate Awards B. Performance Indicators C. Financial Indicators for FY2010-FY2011 Attorney-General’s Chambers ANNUAL REPORT 2010 - 2011 1 FOREWORD BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL As we look back on these past years, the taxation policies and policies concerning adjust to these changes so that we can function perceptible increase in the complexity of our casino regulation. Cross-Divisional teams effectively. work is particularly striking. This growing were also engaged to deal with cases before complexity has in turn given rise to two the Singapore Courts when we were required With this in mind, I have intensified the consequences, which I elaborate on below. to address constitutional challenges and also commitment of my Chambers to the training, to defend Singapore’s judiciary in the face of development and specialisation of our officers contempt. so that we are well placed to support the THE NEED FOR Government with the highest level of legal iNTER-dIVISIONAL This is perhaps a reality that is ultimately to be services. -
The Rule of Law and Urban Development
The Rule of Law and Urban Development The transformation of Singapore from a struggling, poor country into one of the most affluent nations in the world—within a single generation—has often been touted as an “economic miracle”. The vision and pragmatism shown by its leaders has been key, as has its STUDIES URBAN SYSTEMS notable political stability. What has been less celebrated, however, while being no less critical to Singapore’s urban development, is the country’s application of the rule of law. The rule of law has been fundamental to Singapore’s success. The Rule of Law and Urban Development gives an overview of the role played by the rule of law in Singapore’s urban development over the past 54 years since independence. It covers the key principles that characterise Singapore’s application of the rule of law, and reveals deep insights from several of the country’s eminent urban pioneers, leaders and experts. It also looks at what ongoing and future The Rule of Law and Urban Development The Rule of Law developments may mean for the rule of law in Singapore. The Rule of Law “ Singapore is a nation which is based wholly on the Rule of Law. It is clear and practical laws and the effective observance and enforcement and Urban Development of these laws which provide the foundation for our economic and social development. It is the certainty which an environment based on the Rule of Law generates which gives our people, as well as many MNCs and other foreign investors, the confidence to invest in our physical, industrial as well as social infrastructure. -
The Criminal Procedure Code 2010
(2011) 23 SAcLJ Modernising the Criminal Justice Framework 23 MODERNISING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FRAMEWORK The Criminal Procedure Code 2010 The concept of “balancing” prevalent in criminal justice discourse is premised on a paradigm where “state” and “individual” interests are perpetually in conflict. This article outlines the key components of the new Criminal Procedure Code 2010 and discusses another dimension of the state- individual relationship. Rather than being inherently incompatible, synergistic common goals can, on occasion, be pursued between the State and an accused. The article will also consider areas in the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 where conflicts between “state” and “individual” interests have in fact arisen, and will outline the pragmatic approach that has been adopted towards their resolution. Melanie CHNG* LLB (Hons) (National University of Singapore), LLM (Harvard); Advocate & Solicitor (Singapore); Assistant Director, Ministry of Law. The criminal process is at the heart of the criminal justice system. It is not only a subject of great practical importance; it is also a reflection of our ideals and values as to the way in which we can accord justice to both the guilty and to the innocent.[1] I. Introduction 1 The recent legislative amendments to Singapore’s Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”) signify a new chapter in the continuing evolution of Singapore’s criminal justice process. The new Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (“New CPC”),2 which came into force on * The opinions expressed in this article are those of its author and are not representative of the official position or policies of the Singapore government. The author is grateful to Mr Amarjeet Singh SC, Ms Jennifer Marie SC, Mr Bala Reddy, Professor Michael Hor, Mr Subhas Anandan, Ms Valerie Thean and Mr Desmond Lee for their invaluable comments on an earlier draft of this article. -
Constitutional Documents of All Tcountries in Southeast Asia As of December 2007, As Well As the ASEAN Charter (Vol
his three volume publication includes the constitutional documents of all Tcountries in Southeast Asia as of December 2007, as well as the ASEAN Charter (Vol. I), reports on the national constitutions (Vol. II), and a collection of papers on cross-cutting issues (Vol. III) which were mostly presented at a conference at the end of March 2008. This collection of Constitutional documents and analytical papers provides the reader with a comprehensive insight into the development of Constitutionalism in Southeast Asia. Some of the constitutions have until now not been publicly available in an up to date English language version. But apart from this, it is the first printed edition ever with ten Southeast Asian constitutions next to each other which makes comparative studies much easier. The country reports provide readers with up to date overviews on the different constitutional systems. In these reports, a common structure is used to enable comparisons in the analytical part as well. References and recommendations for further reading will facilitate additional research. Some of these reports are the first ever systematic analysis of those respective constitutions, while others draw on substantial literature on those constitutions. The contributions on selected issues highlight specific topics and cross-cutting issues in more depth. Although not all timely issues can be addressed in such publication, they indicate the range of questions facing the emerging constitutionalism within this fascinating region. CONSTITUTIONALISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA Volume 2 Reports on National Constitutions (c) Copyright 2008 by Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Singapore Editors Clauspeter Hill Jőrg Menzel Publisher Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung 34 Bukit Pasoh Road Singapore 089848 Tel: +65 6227 2001 Fax: +65 6227 2007 All rights reserved. -
The Road to New Asia Media
The Road to New Asia Media Having trouble viewing? Experience our Annual Report 09/10 using Augmented Reality! Just follow these simple steps: Just follow these simple steps: 1. Ensure that the black MDA marker , and not the front of the driving licence, is placed parallel 1. Remove the driving licence from the inner cover to the webcam. of this booklet (on your left). You’ll find ablack MDA marker on the back. Also ensure your PC has a 2. Do not block any part of the MDA marker’s black functioning webcam. square with your fingers. 3. Make sure the driving licence is not bent or 2. Insert the Annual Report DVD found above the folded. Markers with creases can impair detection. driving licence. Once the DVD flash menu has loaded, click on “Launch AR Application”. 4. Ensure your camera can detect the driving licence clearly. Markers that are further away are more 3. If this is the first time you are running the application, difficult to detect. you will be prompted to install the programme. 5. If you are still experiencing any issues with Follow the instructions on the screen. detection, please close and restart the application. Also, make sure your PC meets the minimum 4. The programme will then launch automatically. Your operating system requirements. LCD monitor acts as a “magic mirror”. Using the driving licence, face the MDA marker towards the webcam. Hold it within the selection circle for three seconds and watch the magic unfold! Having trouble viewing? Open the flap for more information. CONTENTS Mission and Vision 2 Chairman’s Message -
January 2016
January 2016 No. Topic Presenter Date Time Venue Organiser Level Category Remarks 1 A Roundtable on Equipping for Court Panellists: 5-Jan-16 5.00 - 6.00 PM The Conference SJC All JOs Court Leadership Leadership Mr Vincent Hoong, Registrar, Room, State Courts Supreme Court (Refreshments Ms Jennifer Marie, Deputy Presiding provided) Judge / Registrar, State Courts Mr Chia Wee Kiat, Deputy Presiding Judge / Registrar, Family Justice Courts 2 Judgment Writing Workshop Emeritus Professor Edward Berry 12-Jan-16 8.30 AM - 5.00 Viewing Gallery, SJC All JOs Bench Skills University of Victoria, British PM Supreme Court Columbia (Refreshments provided) 3 Forensic Document Examination: Handwriting Ms Nellie Cheng 25-Jan-16 5.00 - 6.00 PM Viewing Gallery, SJC All JOs Technology & Sciences Examination is Only the Tip of the Ice-berg Senior Forensic Scientist, Health Supreme Court • Presentation by HSA Sciences Authority (Refreshments Mr Yap Bei Sing provided) Consultant Forensic Scientist, Health Sciences Authority 4 Family Violence - Sharing by the Police Mr She Zhaozuo 26-Jan-16 Lunch-time Auditorium, State FJC All JOs Social Awareness 2 Operations Officer, Operations Courts Department / Community (Refreshments Involvement Division, Singapore provided) Police Force 5 Recent Trends in Judicial Review: New Zealand The Honourable Justice Matthew 26-Jan-16 5.00 - 6.00 PM Viewing Gallery, SJC All JOs Legal Development Experience Palmer, Wellington QC Supreme Court High Court of New Zealand (Refreshments provided) February 2016 No. Topic Presenter Date -
Competing Narratives and Discourses of the Rule of Law in Singapore
Singapore Journal of Legal Studies [2012] 298–330 SHALL THE TWAIN NEVER MEET? COMPETING NARRATIVES AND DISCOURSES OF THE RULE OF LAW IN SINGAPORE Jack Tsen-Ta Lee∗ This article aims to assess the role played by the rule of law in discourse by critics of the Singapore Government’s policies and in the Government’s responses to such criticisms. It argues that in the past the two narratives clashed over conceptions of the rule of law, but there is now evidence of convergence of thinking as regards the need to protect human rights, though not necessarily as to how the balance between rights and other public interests should be struck. The article also examines why the rule of law must be regarded as a constitutional doctrine in Singapore, the legal implications of this fact, and how useful the doctrine is in fostering greater solicitude for human rights. Singapore is lauded for having a legal system that is, on the whole, regarded as one of the best in the world,1 and yet the Government is often vilified for breaching human rights and the rule of law. This is not a paradox—the nation ranks highly in surveys examining the effectiveness of its legal system in the context of economic compet- itiveness, but tends to score less well when it comes to protection of fundamental ∗ Assistant Professor of Law, School of Law, Singapore Management University. I wish to thank Sui Yi Siong for his able research assistance. 1 See e.g., Lydia Lim, “S’pore Submits Human Rights Report to UN” The Straits Times (26 February 2011): On economic, social and cultural rights, the report [by the Government for Singapore’s Universal Periodic Review] lays out Singapore’s approach and achievements, and cites glowing reviews by leading global bodies. -
Judicial Decision-Making and Explainable Artificial Intelligence
(2021) 33 SAcLJ 280 JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING AND EXPLAINABLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE A Reckoning from First Principles In light of rapid developments in legal technology, it is timely to begin considering whether, and if so how, artificial intelligence (“AI”) can replace judges. However, given that law plays a crucial role in maintaining societal order, that judges are a crucial part of ensuring the continued well-functioning of the law, and also that there are still many unknowns in the use and deployment of AI, it would be prudent to examine and understand exactly what roles judges play in the legal system, and how they do so, before we make any bold steps towards replacing judges with AI. This article examines the current and reasonably foreseeable state of AI to consider its capabilities, as well as the process by which judges make decisions and the duties they are subject to. This article will then consider whether or how AI, given its current and foreseeable state of development, may be used in judicial decision-making, and what safeguards may be required to ensure continued confidence in a well-functioning justice system. Shaun LIM1 LLB (Hons) (National University of Singapore); Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore); Research Assistant, Centre for Technology, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & the Law, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore I. Introduction 1 Advancements in artificial intelligence (“AI”) techniques with demonstrable results have led to a boom in AI research, development and marketing, especially in fields dominated by specialist professionals whose knowledge was thought to be impossible for AI to replicate, such as in medicine and law.2 In law itself, AI solutions are being 1 This article expands upon a prior research paper for credit in the course of the author’s LLB degree. -
Looking Back, Forging Ahead
LOOKING BACK, FORGING AHEAD ANNUAL REPORT 2015/16 CONTENTS MISSION | VISION | CORE VALUES 2 CHAIRMAN'S MESSAGE 3 CHAPTER 1 6 CELEBRATING SG50 WITH UNIQUELY SINGAPOREAN CONTENT 1.1 Lights, Camera, Action! 7 1.2 Game On, Singapore! 10 1.3 Read On, Singapore! 12 CHAPTER 2 13 BEYOND SG50: BUILDING A FUTURE-READY MEDIA SECTOR 2.1 Gearing for Change 14 2.2 Going Global 15 2.3 Enhancing Local Capabilities 19 2.4 Supporting Talents 23 CHAPTER 3 25 CONNECTING COMMUNITIES, PROTECTING CONSUMERS 3.1 Connecting Society through Singapore Stories 26 3.2 Public Education for Digital Media Literacy 29 3.3 Upholding Standards and Consumer Rights 31 CHAPTER 4 33 STRENGTHENING TIES, DEEPENING UNDERSTANDING 4.1 Tracking Media Trends 34 4.2 Engaging the Industry 35 4.3 Engaging our Employees and Giving Back to Society 37 BOARD OF DIRECTORS 39 SENIOR MANAGEMENT 41 ADVISORY COMMITTEES 43 ANNEX 57 FINANCIAL STATEMENT 59 MISSION | VISION | CORE VALUES MISSION The Media Development Authority of Singapore (MDA), a statutory board under the Ministry of Communications and Information, promotes and regulates the media sector so as to contribute towards economic growth and help foster a cohesive and inclusive society in Singapore. To ensure a globally competitive Singapore media sector, MDA invests in: Enhancing the innovative capacity of the media sector; Developing competitive media infrastructure; Nurturing quality manpower; Supporting sustainable enterprise development; and Enabling Singapore media to go global. At the same time, MDA formulates clear and consistent regulatory policies, based on these guiding principles: To foster a pro-business environment for industry players; To ensure fair market conduct and effective competition; To safeguard consumers’ interests; To increase media choices for consumers; To uphold social values in tandem with societal expectations; and To foster a cohesive and inclusive society through quality content with wide reach and impact while promoting nation-building. -
(PDF)692KB***Hearsay Reforms
398 Singapore Academy of Law Journal (2014) 26 SAcLJ HEARSAY REFORMS Simplicity in Statute, Pragmatism in Practice? This article examines the new hearsay scheme introduced in 2012, discussing the rules as well as the principles and policies underlying them. It argues that the hearsay scheme, while bringing welcome changes, leaves many problems unresolved, and adds new problems, especially in the form of widely phrased discretions and indeterminate rules. CHIN Tet Yung BCL (Oxford), Dip Econ (LSE), LLB (London); Barrister (Inner Temple); Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore. By this means [adducing hearsay statements] you may have any man’s life in a week; and I may be massacred by mere hearsay[1] I. Introduction 1 This article attempts to show that while the new hearsay scheme is definitely an improvement over the previous schemes, it suffers from not addressing several existing problems concerning the concept of hearsay and its regulation in the Evidence Act.2 The new scheme also adds some new problems in the name of flexibility. The discretion to exclude otherwise admissible hearsay “in the interests of justice” is particularly problematic due to its high generality and lack of guidance from the legislation. Also some of the provisions are capable of interpretation that might be inimical to accused persons in criminal trials. The article examines some fundamental principles that should govern the admissibility of hearsay and ends with some suggestions for further improvement. 2 Hearsay is traditionally treated as an inferior form of evidence as compared with direct testimony by witnesses. The preference for the latter is often referred to as the “primacy of orality” principle. -
![Chew Seow Leng V Public Prosecutor [2005] SGCA 11](https://docslib.b-cdn.net/cover/8331/chew-seow-leng-v-public-prosecutor-2005-sgca-11-3648331.webp)
Chew Seow Leng V Public Prosecutor [2005] SGCA 11
Chew Seow Leng v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGCA 11 Case Number : Cr App 16/2004 Decision Date : 07 March 2005 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Chao Hick Tin JA; Lai Kew Chai J; Yong Pung How CJ Counsel Name(s) : Lim Choon Mong (David Rasif and Partners) and Teo Choo Kee (CK Teo and Co) for the appellant; Bala Reddy and Seah Kim Ming Glenn (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the respondent Parties : Chew Seow Leng — Public Prosecutor Criminal Law – Statutory offences – Misuse of Drugs Act – Chain of custody – Whether there was break in chain of custody of drugs seized Criminal Law – Statutory offences – Misuse of Drugs Act – Mandatory death penalty – Whether mandatory death penalty legal Criminal Law – Statutory offences – Misuse of Drugs Act – Statutory presumption of possession for purpose of trafficking – Drug trafficking paraphernalia seized together with drug exhibits – Whether paraphernalia circumstantial evidence supporting statutory presumption – Section 17(c) Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2001 Rev Ed) Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Charge – Amalgamation of charges – Separate quantities of drugs seized from different locations – Weight of each quantity exceeded statutory threshold triggering mandatory death penalty under Misuse of Drugs Act – Whether amalgamation of charges bad for duplicity – Whether failure of justice occasioned Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Statements – Voluntariness – Accused did not challenge voluntariness of statements at trial – Whether trial judge correct to place weight on statements 7 March -
Low Crime and Convictions in Singapore Zachary Reynolds
University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound International Immersion Program Papers Student Papers 2017 Intertwining Public Morality, Prosecutorial Discretion, and Punishment : Low Crime and Convictions in Singapore Zachary Reynolds Follow this and additional works at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/ international_immersion_program_papers Recommended Citation Reynolds, Zachary, "Intertwining Public Morality, Prosecutorial Discretion, and Punishment : Low Crime and Convictions in Singapore" (2017). International Immersion Program Papers. 61. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/international_immersion_program_papers/61 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Papers at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Immersion Program Papers by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INTERTWINING PUBLIC MORALITY, PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, AND PUNISHMENT: LOW CRIME AND CONVICTIONS IN SINGAPORE Zachary Reynolds 06/06/17 Introduction We have all likely heard of Singapore’s famously low crime rates. A point of well-deserved national pride, the small, island nation is committed to the safety of citizens and foreigners alike and consistently ranks as one of the safest cities in the world. To put this in perspective, an expatriate alumnus of the University of Chicago explained to me during my recent visit to Singapore1 that he was never concerned for the safety of his teenage daughter regardless of from where, when, or how she came home at night. Murder? Singapore has one of the lowest rates worldwide at 0.2 per 100,000 in 2013.2 Assault? Strictly controlled access to firearms makes deadly assault an extreme anomaly, and violent crime in general is virtually unheard of.