Quantcast
Channel: Latest News
Viewing all 115 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

SMU’s young law alumni shine at 5th Essex Court Chambers-Singapore Academy of Law International Mooting Competition 2016

January 15, 2016, 12:00 am
$
0
0

Singapore, 13 January 2016 (Wednesday) – Two young law alumni from Singapore Management University (SMU) – Devathas Satianathan (SMU Bachelor of Laws, graduated in 2013) and Yeo Gek Min (double degree in law and business management, graduated from SMU in 2014) – have emerged champions at the ECC-SAL International Mooting Competition 2016.  Co-organised by the members of Essex Court Chambers in London and the Singapore Academy of Law between 8 and 12 January 2016 in Singapore, the competition is open to teams from Australia, Brunei, India, Hong Kong, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea.

Now in its fifth year, the ECC-SAL International Mooting Competition is one of the rare moot competitions which is not for students but for young lawyers and legal service officers who have been qualified for practice for no more than three years.  The annual competition presents an ideal opportunity for them to showcase and hone their skills as advocates. This year's moot problem involved issues relating to penalty clauses and remoteness of damage, and mooters were to assume proceedings were before the Singapore International Commercial Court.

More than 20 teams representing Singapore, Brunei, Hong Kong, India and Malaysia participated in this year’s competition.  Amongst the quarterfinalists were seven former SMU international mooters, six of whom continue to be active in international moots as coaches to their juniors at SMU.

Yesterday evening, former SMU international mooters Yeo Gek Min and Devathas Satianathan, representing the Supreme Court Justices’ Law Clerks, won the final round, which was judged by Vinodh Coomaraswamy J, Roderick Cordara QC, and Guorab Banerji SA.  They were up against Cephas Yee (SMU Bachelor of Laws, graduated in 2014) and Reshma Nair (NUS alumnus) from TSMP Law Corporation.  Aleksandar Georgiev (SMU Bachelor of Laws, graduated in 2013) was also named Best Oralist of the tournament.

On his team’s victory, Devathas said, "We are proud to have represented the Supreme Court Justices’ Law Clerks and are pleased with the result.  We attribute it in large part to the guidance and support of our professors and the mooting fraternity at SMU in our time as undergraduates.”

This is not the first time the duo are competing together.  Gek Min and Devathas were part of the winning team at the 2011 Asia Cup Moot team held in Tokyo, Japan; they also went on to successfully represent SMU in the 2014 Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition and the 2013 Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot respectively.

“For a young law school which graduated its first batch of students in 2011, we are pleased to see that we have done very well in the international mooting circuit.  Since our moot training programme started in 2009, we have nurtured many young mooting talents who have gone on to achieve remarkable honour for the University and for Singapore during their undergraduate years.  I am happy to see that our moot alumni are applying what they have learnt.  Though they represent a different institution now, what they are doing will no doubt inspire their juniors who are still in school,” said Assistant Professor of Law Chen Siyuan, who heads the International Moots Programme at the SMU School of Law.

As the winning team, Gek Min and Devathas will be offered an all-expenses paid two-week internship at Essex Court Chambers, a leading set of barristers’ chambers, which specialises in commercial litigation, arbitration, public law and public international law.  The barristers at Essex Court Chambers advise and act in disputes both in the UK and worldwide, and have a reputation for exceptional talent, top-class advocacy and a client-oriented approach.

About mooting support at SMU

At the undergraduate level, SMU School of Law’s mooting teams have reached 28 international championship finals, winning 14 since the School’s inception in 2007.  It has also reached the championship final on its international debut in 11 moots, winning six.  This success can be attributed to a structured moot training programme which has been rolled out since Academic Year 2009-2010.

The law school’s notable achievements have garnered the attention and support of the legal fraternity in Singapore.  In August 2015, WongPartnership became the official and exclusive partner of SMU’s International Moots Programme, whereby the firm will take an active role in mentoring, guiding, and training SMU mooters alongside the programme's principal coaches.

About 150 alumni from the first five batches of law graduates who participated in the international moot competitions also came together in 2014 to form an International Mooters Alumni Group, and started a fundraising initiative in July 2014 with the hope to see future generations of SMU international mooters achieve new levels of excellence in the global arena.  To date, more than $90,000 had been raised (including pledges) from SMU law faculty, SMU alumni as well as the law fraternity.

 

[Photos: Former SMU international mooters Yeo Gek Min (left photo) and Devathas Satianathan (right photo) receiving the top prize from Mr Roderick Cordara, QC (ECC).  Looking on are the other judges on the three–judge  panel, Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy, Chair of panel, on left view, and Mr Gourab Banerji SA (ECC) on right view.  (Photo credit: Organisers ECC & SAL.)]

 

[Featured Photo: Former SMU international mooters Yeo Gek Min (5th from left), Devathas Satianathan (4th from left), and Aleksandar Georgiev (far right) in a group shot with the judges, the Runner-ups and Best Memorandum team.  Photo credit: Organisers ECC & SAL.]

__________________________________________________

For media enquiries, please contact:

Huang Peiling

Senior Assistant Director, Corporate Communications, SMU

Tel: 6828 0964 / 9845 3361

Email: plhuang@smu.edu.sg

 

View Original Article

↧
Search

Dollars and Drugs

January 27, 2016, 12:00 am
$
0
0
SMU Professor Locknie Hsu studies how trade deals affect the public’s access to affordable medicines and healthcare.  Back to Research@SMU Issue 33 By Feng Zengkun SMU Office of Research – At the end of 2015, ASEAN countries became closer to one another as part of the new ASEAN Economic Community. Under the trade bloc’s economic integration arrangements, their citizens will find it easier to do business in other ASEAN countries, import and export goods, and find jobs in the region. The negotiations and compromises leading up to the historic agreement, however, have also highlighted a growing issue—how trade treaties can affect people’s access to healthcare and medicines; in ways that are not always for the better. Locknie Hsu, a professor of law at the Singapore Management University (SMU) School of Law, is particularly interested in the intricacies of such treaties. She specialises in international trade and investment law, and is part of a working group of ASEAN representatives that seeks to facilitate cross-border trade by harmonising commercial laws across these countries. “As ambitious agreements throw the connection between trade and health into even sharper relief, countries will have to grapple with the difficult task of balancing their desire for economic growth with ensuring affordable and accessible healthcare and medicines for their citizens,” she says. Balancing healthcare and economic goals In a recent paper, “Regulatory Flexibilities and Tensions in Public Health and Trade – An Asian Perspective” published in the Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy, Professor Hsu zeroes in on one particular, under-discussed issue of trade treaties, namely the tensions between governments’ economic and public health goals when they sit at the negotiating table. During the discussions for the recent Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, the US called for strong intellectual property protections for biologic medicines, which are expensive medicines derived from living organisms. The US wanted 12 years of data exclusivity for biologics makers, during which rivals would be blocked from creating ‘biosimilars’, or cheaper versions of the drug. But critics believe that too-stringent protections stifle competition and prevent affordable medicines from entering the market earlier. Australia, for instance, wanted just five years of data protection for biologics makers. The recently released TPP text reveals a compromise that has been struck on the duration of protection. “In an economically-diverse region such as Asia, which has both high-income countries and least-developed countries, it is not surprising that differences in health priorities and the ability of citizens to pay for medicines can also give rise to divergent trade, intellectual property and health laws and policies,” Professor Hsu notes. Another potential issue in trade treaties is when Asian countries take differing approaches to compulsory licensing, she says. Compulsory licensing refers to when governments allow another company to manufacture a product without the patent owner’s consent, but with compensation. For example, a country may need a potentially life-saving drug as quickly as possible but the patent holder may be unable or unwilling to meet the demand. In recent years, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have used compulsory licensing for patented pharmaceuticals, although not without some legal challenges by the patent holders. Thailand, in particular, has used compulsory licensing even for drugs to treat non-infectious diseases. Singapore, on the other hand, has announced that it will use compulsory licensing only in emergencies or extremely urgent situations. Big tobacco and ASEAN Aside from making sure the public has access to affordable medicines, governments also have to regulate harmful substances such as tobacco. This, too, can be a source of tension in trade discussions, Professor Hsu comments in a recent monograph chapter, “Tobacco Control in ASEAN”, published in the book The Global Tobacco Epidemic and the Law. ASEAN countries use a variety of non-fiscal and fiscal tools such as excise taxes and value-added, or goods and services, taxes to control tobacco use among their citizens. While import tariffs have also been imposed, the ASEAN Free Trade Area, its Common Effective Preferential Tariff system, and the recent Trade in Goods Agreement have led to ASEAN members committing to a reduction or elimination of these import tariffs on tobacco products. Non-fiscal tools include packaging requirements and restrictions on purchase of such products by minors. Complicating matters is the fact that some ASEAN countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand are also tobacco growers. In fact, the Thailand Tobacco Monopoly (TTM), a state enterprise, operates under the Ministry of Finance. Thai law previously granted TTM a monopoly to produce cigarettes within Thailand, but this changed following pressure from the country’s trade partners, including the US. The tobacco issue was also a point of contention during the TPP negotiations. Some of the negotiating countries, such as the US and Japan, have strong private interests in tobacco production and export. Other countries such as Malaysia were adamant that the deal should not compromise governments’ ability to regulate tobacco use as part of public health protection efforts. An evolving landscape As countries in Asia continue to negotiate new trade partnerships, tensions between healthcare and economic goals will continue to recur, Professor Hsu says. ASEAN countries, for instance, are currently negotiating with six external trade partners to form the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. Members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) are also discussing how to create a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific. To smooth the way for the negotiations, Asian trade partners should identify common interests and health priorities, and carry out health impact assessments for trade treaty provisions, Professor Hsu suggests. Her book, Trade, Investment, Innovation and their Impact on Access to Medicines: An Asian Perspective, published in February 2016 by Cambridge University Press, examines the issue in greater detail. “As ASEAN evolves towards greater integration and development of a common voice on global issues, it will be particularly important to consider what that voice will say when negotiating trade and public health issues,” she shares. Back to Research@SMU Issue 33

View Original Article

↧
↧

SMU law alumnus and undergraduate are winners at inaugural maritime mooting competition

February 5, 2016, 12:00 am
$
0
0
This year, the Maritime Law Association of Singapore (MLAS) held the first ever MLAS Maritime Mooting Competition in partnership with the Maritime Port Authority of Singapore, 20 Essex Street Chambers, Thomson Reuters, Allen & Gledhill and Rajah & Tann.  Open to anyone who has not been called to the bar, the moot competition attracted a total of 38 entrants from Singapore's two law schools, the legal service as well as law firms in the country. Competitors had to tackle a moot problem concerning a shipbuilding contract that had been backdated in order to avoid new (non-governmental) technical regulations on the protective coating used in seawater ballast tanks. The dispute was to be heard by an arbitral panel following the rules of the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration. [Photo: (L-R) Nicholas and Dominic in the final of the competition.] Three competitors affiliated with SMU made it to the semi-finals: Tan Si Ying (School of Law, year 2), Dominic Liew (School of Law, year 2), and Nicholas Liu Sheng (JD graduate, Class of 2015).  Dominic and Nicholas prevailed in their respective semi-final knockout rounds to face each other in an all-SMU final which was held on 29 January 2016 at Thomson Reuters. The calibre of judges at all rounds of the competition was high, including many eminent maritime lawyers associated with the MLAS.  In particular, the final round was judged by an esteemed panel comprising the Honourable Justice Belinda Ang, Professor Lawrence Boo and Mr Malcolm Holmes QC. Nicholas represented the Claimant buyer, who was seeking to enforce the contract in order to rely on a termination/refund clause, and Dominic represented the Respondent shipbuilder, who was seeking to resist enforcement on the ground of illegality in order to keep the payments it had already received.   [Photo: The distinguished judging panel in the final round comprising (R-L) Mr Malcolm Holmes QC, Honourable Justice Belinda Ang and Professor Lawrence Boo.  (The lady on the left end of the table is the time-keeper).] Following a closely contested round, Nicholas was declared the champion and Dominic the first runner-up.  The judges commended both finalists on their fine advocacy and confidence under fire.  Justice Ang expressed her hope that the competition would continue to stimulate interest in maritime law among students and young practitioners in years to come. “It was a privilege to appear before such experienced and knowledgeable judges at all stages of the competition.  I’m grateful to the organisers for this opportunity to gain a deeper appreciation of contract law and the maritime industry.  I’m also delighted by the overall success of SMU representatives in the competition, which is a testament to the quality of training which the University has given us.” As the winner, Nicholas, who is presently a Supreme Court Justices’ Law Clerk, will be offered an exceptional opportunity to do a two-week internship with 20 Essex Street Chambers in London, all expenses paid, in addition to a prize of S$1,500.   [Featured photo: Nicholas (left) and Dominic (right) with the Honourable Justice Belinda Ang.]

View Original Article

↧

Asia’s Legal Tiger

March 4, 2016, 12:00 am
$
0
0
The growing globalisation of Singapore’s legal profession presents both opportunities and challenges, says SMU Associate Professor Goh Yihan.  Back to Research@SMU Issue 34 By Feng Zengkun SMU Office of Research – How did Singapore transform from a legal backwater to a hub for international commercial dispute resolution and other law specialties, and where will it go from there? A look at the country’s legal history over the past 200 years, and especially in the past 50 years, suggests how it might find its footing in an evolving legal landscape. Goh Yihan, Associate Dean of Research and Associate Professor of Law at the Singapore Management University (SMU) School of Law, is an expert on contract and tort law and has also written about the development of Singapore’s legal system. He recently co-edited Singapore Law: 50 Years in the Making, published by Academy Publishing, and authored Singapore Chronicles: Law, published by the Straits Times Press. The books track the birth and growth of Singapore’s legal system, and were timed to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Singapore’s independence. With the rising stars and veterans of the legal profession contributing to the chapters in Singapore Law: 50 Years in the Making, the book is subject-intensive and more suitable for those in the profession who want to know more about specific fields of law. In comparison, Singapore Chronicles: Law offers a simpler overview for people not familiar with Singapore’s legal system. “They weren’t intended as companion books, but they do serve different audiences,” says Professor Goh. “By looking back at Singapore’s legal history, you get a better sense of what its future might look like.” Blazing its own path Among the highlights of Singapore Law: 50 Years in the Making is a chapter penned by former Chief Justice (CJ) Chan Sek Keong, who was also the architect of the landmark Application of English Law Act (AELA) passed in Singapore in 1993. Singapore once followed the English common law that was introduced into the country in 1826, but the 1993 AELA made Singapore’s legal system truly independent of the English common law. As former CJ Chan recounted in his chapter, he had written about some problematic aspects of the English common law in 1961, but thirty years would pass before he convinced the Singapore government to introduce the AELA, and against “strong resistance from an influential lawyer in the Attorney-General’s Chambers”. Professor Goh cites the chapter as one of his favourites in the book. “The Application of English Law Act allowed Singapore to start on a clean slate and provided that, while English law can apply in Singapore, Singapore could develop its own law. Former CJ Chan’s account is the untold story behind that seminal piece of legislation,” he shares. A recent paper he co-wrote with Judge of Appeal Justice Andrew Phang—in which Professor Goh was the secondary author—outlines how Singapore has since taken a novel approach to general and specific issues related to the breach of contract. The paper, “Encounters with History, Theory and Doctrine – Some Reflections on Discharge by Breach of Contract”, was presented in a conference held in Sydney last December. Under English contract law, a party cannot terminate for breach of contract as long as the breached clause is stipulated to be a “warranty”, or a non-essential term of the contract. Under Singapore contract law, however, a party may have the right to terminate the contract, even if the term is listed as a “warranty”, if the consequences of the breach were sufficiently serious. A case study for other legal systems Other countries have also increasingly looked to Singapore for legal guidance. Recently, Hong Kong referred to a 2001 anti-harassment case tried in the Singapore High Court when it adopted common law protections against harassment. “There are increasing references to Singapore law in other countries, despite the smaller number of cases that come out of our courts. This exportation of Singapore law is part of the globalisation of the legal profession,” says Professor Goh. While Singapore’s courts strive to develop laws in various fields, there are nevertheless clear benefits to having homogenous laws, for example in commerce, to facilitate cross-border trade, he says. “If Singapore’s courts think there is a better way of doing things, they will not hesitate to do so, but this must be balanced against being an outlier especially in areas related to commercial law.” The shifting legal landscape While it seeks to develop its own identity, Singapore’s legal system has at the same time become more global in outlook. In 2013, Singapore’s courts considered more than 1,500 foreign cases in their judgments, five times as many as the number 20 years ago, and from countries such as Australia, Malaysia, Canada, India, Hong Kong, New Zealand, the US and even South Africa. In 2015, Singapore also launched the Singapore International Commercial Court, which aims to be the Asian centre for resolving international commercial disputes. The new court joins other international legal institutions in the country such as the Singapore International Arbitration Centre and the Singapore International Mediation Centre. “In this evolving legal landscape, even as we strive to build our own jurisprudence—itself an important endeavour—Singapore’s lawyers and law students will need to know what’s happening in other countries. They can’t just say that only local law is relevant, because that will be the equivalent of burying their heads in the sand,” he says.  Back to Research@SMU Issue 34

View Original Article

↧

SMU students bags 2nd prize at Vis & Vis (East) moots

March 31, 2016, 12:00 am
$
0
0

Two SMU teams have done the University and the country proud by bringing home the first runner-up prizes in two moot competitions - the Willem C. Vis (East) and Willem C. Vis moot competitions held in Hong Kong and Vienna this month.  No other law school in the world has ever reached the finals of both Vis moots in two consecutive years.

The Vis team comprised Won Chian Lim, Tiffany Tseng (both standing in above photo), Jeremy Tan and Wong Yan Yee (both seated in above photo); the Vis (East) team comprised (left to right in photo below) Sean Sim Zhi Quan, Kim Shi Yin, Ni Qian, Beatrice Wee, Deya Dubey (Coach).  Their feat was published in The Straits Times on 30 March 2016.

 

SMU bags 2nd place in two moot court contests

by Alexis Ong

Singapore Management University (SMU) has proven itself to be among the world's best law schools, with two of its moot court teams being placed second in the Willem C. Vis (East) and Willem C. Vis competitions this year.

A moot court competition simulates court proceedings, in which two teams compete on written submissions and oral presentations.

The Willem C. Vis is considered the most prestigious private international law moot court competition, said Mr Lionel Leo, 33, a partner at law firm WongPartnership.

He coached the teams along with his colleague Deya Shankar Dubey and SMU alumnus Shaun Pereira.

WongPartnership has been an official partner of the SMU moot court programme since last year.

Top practitioners from the fields of international sales law and arbitration from around the world form the judging panel.

The Vis (East) competition presents the same legal problem to contestants as the Vis competition, but is targeted at Asian universities and held in Hong Kong, rather than in Vienna.

This year, the SMU Vis team went up against 332 teams, including those from Harvard University, the University of Oxford and the University of Sydney, while its sister team at the Vis (East) competition battled against 132 teams.

The Vis team met four other teams during the general rounds, before being shortlisted to join the top 64 teams. These teams then battled one another in knockout rounds, until two teams reached the finals.

SMU's Vis and Vis (East) teams were both placed second - to the University of Buenos Aires and the Chinese University of Hong Kong, respectively - during the finals.

Vis team vice-captain Jeremy Tan Zhiyi, 25, began preparing last October and met his teammates almost every day in the weeks leading up to the competition.

"While there's always some disappointment when we can't bring back the trophy for our school, I am still immensely thankful that we made it as far as we did and to everyone who enabled us to get there," said the final-year Juris Doctor student.

Vis (East) oralist Ni Qian, 21, said: "Though the learning curve was steep, it was an immensely enjoyable and rewarding process."

Mr Leo said SMU is the first university to reach the finals of both competitions for two years consecutively and the first Singapore university to win the Vis (East) competition, in 2014 and last year.

The National University of Singapore won the Vis competition in 2002, and this year made it to the top 16 and the semi-finals of the Vis and Vis (East) contests, respectively.

"We are extremely proud of our teams which got to the finals," said Mr Leo.

"It's a testament that Singapore law students can compete on the world stage with the very best."

 

View Original Article

↧
↧

SMU becomes first university to win Price Media Law Moot twice

April 4, 2016, 12:00 am
$
0
0

Our law students have once again done Singapore proud!  Singapore Management University (SMU) is officially the first university to win the Price Media Law Moot Court Competition (Price Moot) twice.

Organised by Oxford University, the Price Moot, which is into its ninth edition this year, is the only moot contest in the world that focuses on the freedom of expression and related rights.  With more than a hundred teams participating this year, and with over 40 teams making it to the international rounds held in Oxford between 30 March and 2 April 2016, it is certainly one of the top five moots in the world in terms of scale.

Besides the championship title, the 2016 SMU team comprising Chow Zi En, Daniel Ho, Jevan Li, Beverly Lim, Sampson Lim and Eugene Neo also picked up the prize for Best Memorial, thus replicating the 2010 team's achievements.  This is the third time SMU has reached the final of the Price Moot – yet another record in the competition.

SMU was up against India's Jindal Law School in the final round held on 2 April, which was presided by a judge from the European Court of Human Rights.  In the general rounds and knockout stages, SMU had defeated Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Regent University, Renmin University of China, Brooklyn Law School, Osgoode Hall Law School of York University and University of Technology Sydney.

"It was always going to be hard to match the previous years' achievements, but we have outdone ourselves again this year.  Once again, our international moot alumni community have been instrumental, and with the official partnership with WongPartnership, our programme has indeed strengthened.  We look forward to scaling greater heights," said Assistant Professor of Law Chen Siyuan who heads the International Moots Programme at the SMU School of Law.

Another moot team will be defending our championship position at the International Criminal Court championship next month – we wish them all the best!

[Photo: The SMU team in front of the Radcliffe Camera in Oxford University, England.  From 2nd left to right: Daniel Ho, Sampson Lim, Assistant Professor Chen Siyuan, Eugene Neo, Jevan Li, Chow Zi En and Beverly Lim. (The gentleman on the far left is a friend of the team’s.) Photo credit: Chen Siyuan]

 

[Featured photo: The triumphant SMU team comprising (3rd to 8th from left) Eugene Neo, Sampson Lim, Beverly Lim, Jevan Li, Chow Zi En and Daniel Ho, being photographed with Professor Price (2nd from left), the person of whom the moot is named after. (The lady on the left is an administrator of the competition.) Photo credit: Chen Siyuan]

View Original Article

↧

SMU undergraduate is 1st runner up at 2016 Advocacy Cup

April 26, 2016, 12:00 am
$
0
0

Organised annually, the Advocacy Cup is the primary trial advocacy competition for local law students, and pits the quickest-witted and most eloquent students against each other.  A competition that originated in NUS, it was open to SMU students a few years ago.

The competition was held in three rounds across a period of three weeks.  From the initial 64 participants (10 of whom were from SMU) in the preliminary rounds, 12 progressed to the semi-finals held in late March, and four entered the final held on 1 April 2016.

Final-year law student Amber Joy Estad became the sole SMU representative in the semi-finals and final, which was judged by Honourable Judicial Commissioner Kannan Ramesh SC; Director of Dispute Resolution for Drew and Napier Hri Kumar Nair SC; and NUS Associate Professor Lee Yen Kee, Ruby.

The problem this year concerned a woman from Inner Mongolia who was accused of wrongfully confining a kidnapped person in her house.  The kidnapped person was one of several girls from Inner Mongolia who were regularly brought to the accused’s house and locked up in the room.  The accused claimed that she had to protect them from her step-son and never allowed the girls to leave the house.

In the end, Amber, who was assisted by her course-mate Tan Siew Ann (also in her final year) as her witness, emerged 1st Runner-Up of the competition.

On her achievement, Amber said, “I found the Advocacy Cup to be a challenging and enriching experience.  There is no better way to learn and develop skills in advocacy than to simply try and try again!”

 

[Featured photo: Amber (3rd from right) with fellow winners and the honorable judges - Hri Kumar Nair SC (1st from left), Kannan Ramesh SC (1st from right) and Assoc Prof Lee Yen Kee, Ruby (2nd from right).]

View Original Article

↧

Speaking up for others now

February 29, 2016, 12:00 am
$
0
0

SMU School of Law alumnus Mr Pravin Thevar was featured in a Straits Time article. Now a commercial litigator with Gabriel Law Corporation, he said that he used to get into trouble with the discipline master at school and liked the idea of "fighting for himself". While he enjoys the complexity of commercial litigation and admits it pays better, he has always wanted to try his hand at criminal law. So he started volunteering with the Law Society last year and has taken on about 10 criminal cases so far. "You really meet a lot of different people. Volunteering gives you perspective on how fortunate you are... It makes me wonder how the accused persons would have turned out if they had access to the same opportunities many of us take for granted," he said.

View Original Article

↧
Search

Higher pay for fresh grads of local varsities: Survey

March 2, 2016, 12:00 am
$
0
0

According to the results of the latest Joint Graduation Employment Survey of 10,028 full-time, fresh graduates in November last year by SMU, NUS and NTU, graduates from SMU fared the best, with 93.7 per cent of them being employed within 6 months of finishing their final examinations. The figure was nearly 90 per cent for NUS and NTU. SMU undergraduates also earned the most, with a record mean gross monthly salary of S$3,624, while graduates from NUS and NTU took home S$3,469 and S$3,419 respectively. Employment for law graduates from SMU also rose to 99 per cent, from 95.6 per cent in 2014. Law graduates remained among the top earners as well. SMU law graduates earned a median gross salary of S$4,731 while their peers from NUS had S$4,700.

 

 

View Original Article

↧
↧

Fresh grads see higher employment rate, salaries.

March 2, 2016, 12:00 am
$
0
0

Based on the latest Joint Graduate Employment Survey, the median gross monthly salary for fresh graduates employed in full-time permanent employment last year was S$3,300 — up by about 3 per cent compared to 2014 — while the mean gross monthly salary was S$$3,468. The article also noted that fresh law graduates from SMU received S$4,731, while their peers from NUS had $4,700.

View Original Article

↧

Making history - SMU is 1st university to win International Criminal Court moot 2 years in a row

May 29, 2016, 12:00 am
$
0
0

The results are in from The Netherlands – mooters from SMU School of Law have done Singapore proud by taking top position at the 2016 International Criminal Court (ICC) moot court competition.  Having also won the moot last year, SMU now has the best track record in this competition, and enters the record books as the first university to successfully defend a championship in a major international moot.

The SMU team comprised third-year law undergraduates Nurul Ayu Fajarani, Angus Koh, Stephania Wong, Selina Yap and Joy Yee, and second-year Juris Doctor student Dennis Saw Teng Sheng – all of whom were competing internationally for the first time.  The principal coach was SMU alumnus Edmund Koh, and he was assisted by Nicholas Liu, also an alumnus.

Jointly organised by Leiden University and the ICC, this competition was established in 2008, and is now the largest and most prestigious moot competition in the world on international criminal law.  The competition has four editions: English, Russian, Chinese and Spanish, with the English edition drawing the most teams.  This year, the English competition attracted a global turnout of 112 participating teams, with the best 60 teams qualifying for the international rounds held in The Hague, The Netherlands, from 22 to 27 May 2016.

The competition requires each team to represent three sides: government, prosecution and victims. Each speaker speaks for 30 minutes in total - 20 minutes for main submissions and 10 minutes for rebuttal. Each round pits three teams against each other.  The SMU team reached the championship final after eight matches, facing off against opposition such as former champions Bond University, University of the Philippines, and VU Amsterdam.  In the championship final on 27 May, SMU was up against Germany’s University of Cologne and India’s National Law School of India University.

In the end, it was the SMU team, with their conviction, clarity and composure, that won over the panel, which was presided by ICC judge Howard Morrison.  

[Photo: The winning SMU team: (L-R) Angus Koh, Dennis Saw Teng Sheng, Stephania Wong, Joy Yee, Selina Yap and Nurul Ayu Fajarani  (Photo credit: Edmund Koh)].

With these latest results, SMU now has a total of 16 international moot championships in 34 final appearances since the School of Law's moot programme was launched in AY2009/10.  In this season alone, SMU has reached eight international championship finals, winning three.  Last season, SMU had also reached eight finals, and won five of them.

"We knew that defending our title was going to be hard, especially given the high quality of the international teams, but we have outdone ourselves again this year by matching last year’s record of eight international moot finals in a single season.  With the continued support of the university and our partner WongPartnership, we look forward to scaling greater heights,” said Assistant Professor Chen Siyuan, who heads SMU’s International Moots Programme.

In April 2016, SMU also stood out from over 100 teams to become the first university to win the Price Media Law Moot Court Competition, organised by Oxford University, twice.

View Original Article

↧

Guiding Economic Growth through National Action Plans: Protect, Respect and Remedy

June 28, 2016, 12:00 am
$
0
0

A unique United Nations commissioned academic research collaboration has issued recommendations on the prevention and mitigation of business-related human rights abuses in the Global South.

Back to Research@SMU Issue 38

Image Credit: Feng Yu 

By Nadia El-Awady

SMU Office of Research– On December 31, 2015, the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Economic Community (AEC) was formally launched with the aim of leveraging the region’s US $2.6 trillion market and 622 million people to create one of the largest economies in the world. The AEC is already a major market for foreign investment. In 2014, ASEAN attracted US $136 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI), accounting for 11% of global FDI flows.

The region’s rapid economic development presents opportunities and challenges to countries and corporations alike. In 2012, the United Nations (UN) appointed a coalition of Asian and African academic institutions to formulate guidance on how to develop national action plans in the Global South1 to protect human rights that may be impacted by business conduct. Their final report, submitted to the UN at the end of 2015, emphasises the fact that some human rights concerns in the Global South are remarkably different from those faced by the Global North2 and require special attention and analysis.

“Our report makes it clear that guidance on implementing national action plans cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach,” says Mahdev Mohan, a Singapore Management University (SMU) Assistant Professor of Law and one of the two principal investigators in the coalition.

The CALS-SMU Coalition for National Action Plans on Business and Human Rights was jointly led by the Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) at South Africa’s University of the Witwatersrand and SMU’s Asian Business & Rule of Law Initiative, which Professor Mohan directs.

Involving and learning from stakeholders

The centrepiece of the coalition’s three-year investigation was two workshops held in Bali, Indonesia and Pretoria, South Africa, which focused on tapping into the perspectives of various Global South stakeholders on business and human rights. The workshops also aimed to identify individuals and organisations that can support the UN’s mission to embed national action plans on these issues in both regions.

“Significantly, most stakeholders [in the Bali workshop] were supportive of the idea of Asian countries implementing national action plans on business and human rights. By and large, there was also consensus that unprecedented economic growth in Asia driven by multinational corporations must go hand-in-hand with the promotion and protection of human rights,” says Professor Mohan.

One problem resulting from rapid economic growth that will benefit from a national action plan, he explains, is that of trans-boundary haze pollution. “Haze pollution has impaired the health of millions of people in the region. It has compromised the safety of aircraft, and has also damaged ASEAN’s regional economy. Haze pollution last year cost Singapore an estimated S$700 million in losses. The large quantities of carbon dioxide released from forest fires in Indonesia have also set back ASEAN’s efforts to mitigate global climate change,” he explains.

But this is only one of a multitude of issues that need to be addressed. Many migrant workers in Asia are subject to severe discrimination as well as the denial of freedom of movement and basic economic, social and cultural rights. In most cases, bilateral agreements also do not exist between Asian countries to adequately protect the rights of their workers in host countries.

Many indigenous communities face forced displacement from their lands by multinational companies without adequate consultation and compensation. Unsustainable land use by these companies can cause or contribute to environmental degradation, leading to adverse impacts on health, access to clean water and sources of livelihood. Finally, many victims of business-related human rights abuses often lack access to independent courts and commissions, or non-judicial grievance mechanisms.

The Bali workshop included stakeholders from government, business and civil society. Many believe that progressive businesses need to play a central role in developing national action plans in the region. Also, the concept of corporate social responsibility needs to shift from voluntary philanthropy to one that is based on an awareness of the important role businesses must play in protecting human rights.

Global South commonalities and differences

Asian stakeholders emphasised the importance of developing both regional and national action plans to protect human rights as they relate to business. But among African stakeholders, a stronger emphasis was placed on national plans as some stakeholders felt that the continent is too diverse for the development of regional plans at this stage. Nevertheless, the CALS-SMU coalition noted that economic integration is an objective of the African Union and that this needs to be kept in mind for the long-term.

African stakeholders stated that government officials tend to see national action plans as obstacles to investment when they relate to business and human rights. Because of this, civil society needs to play an important role in pushing for comprehensive policies. Also, progressive businesses in Africa may support the development of a national action plan if they see it as a means to stop local companies from exploiting cheap labour and thus undercutting them in the market.

The Pretoria workshop also emphasised that it was important for African businesses to strike a balance between endorsing gender equality and respecting cultural and traditional values within society. While the African Women’s Charter and the Southern African Development Community Protocol on Gender and Development stress that tradition and culture should not be allowed to impair the rights of women, a national action plan can further guide businesses on progressively influencing gender norms in African societies, said stakeholders.

Converting words into action

The CALS-SMU coalition released a set of recommendations to translate into practice UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which was endorsed in 2011. These principles are based on three “pillars”: the duty of the state to protect human rights, the responsibility of businesses to respect human rights, and the right of victims of business-related abuses to have access to remedy.

“Due to the unique economic, social and political realities of the Global South, existing remedies and grievance mechanisms that are available to victims of human rights abuses are often fragmented and not easily accessible,” says Professor Mohan. “In our report, we recommend that processes involving national action plans in the Global South should first identify gaps in existing legislative and regulatory frameworks and the reasons for the failure to enforce them.”

The CALS-SMU coalition represents the first collaboration between two universities in Asia and Africa where business and human rights issues are identified within each region and then brought together to present a collective Global South position on this topic, explains Professor Mohan. “It’s the first project of its kind where there is significant collaboration across two geographical regions to address a common issue,” he says.

“This cross-border coalition’s final report will inform the UN Working Group’s guidance to UN member states and other actors at the UN Human Rights Council and other forums to better ensure accountability for human rights violations in the context of business activities,” adds CALS director, Associate Professor Bonita Meyersfeld.

Going forward

Progress is being made. South Korea, Indonesia and the Philippines, for example, are in talks with relevant stakeholders to start the national action plans process. Malaysia’s national human rights institution, SUHAKAM, has released a strategic document to provide policy guidance for the formation of a national action plan. At the Bali workshop, a well-known member of the Myanmar Investment Commission, Professor Aung Thun Thet, announced the country’s intention to develop a national action plan. In Africa, Mauritius and Nigeria have reportedly begun developing national action plans, while national human rights institutions in Ghana, Mozambique, South Africa and Tanzania have begun capacity building and gap analysis on business and human rights issues. Research reveals that forward-thinking businesses and business associations in Africa and Asia also agree that sustainable development is necessary and has a crucial role to play in devising and implementing national action plans.

“I am convinced that the outcomes of this research report will inform the progressive update of our guidance document and assist the UN Human Rights Council and state parties to develop context-specific and sustainable national action plans that resonate with the nations of the Global South as much as they do with those of the North,” says Michael Addo, Professor of Law at the University of Exeter, and a member of the UN Business & Human Rights Working Group which had commissioned the CALS-SMU collaboration.

1Global South – Made up of Africa, Latin America, and the developing Asia (including the Middle-East).
2Global North – Made up of the United States, Canada, Western Europe and the developed parts of East Asia.

Back to Research@SMU Issue 38

View Original Article

↧

Drones, Drugs and the Death Penalty

June 28, 2016, 12:00 am
$
0
0

Fears that recreational drones could be used for spying or terrorism are based on little more than paranoia, SMU Assistant Professor Chen Siyuan’s research shows.

Back to Research@SMU Issue 38

Photo Credit: Cyril Ng

By Feng Zengkun­­

SMU Office of Research – These days, anyone can buy a drone from a shop, send it into the sky and get a panoramic photograph of the landscape. While commercial drones have sparked a boom in amateur aerial photography and videography, governments have also become worried that they could be put to spying, terrorism or other nefarious purposes.

Assistant Professor Chen Siyuan of the Singapore Management University (SMU) School of Law, who specialises in criminal evidence law and civil procedure, has researched and published papers on several such hot-button topics.

From drones to drugs and the death penalty, he has investigated the potential limitations and problems of several much-debated laws in Singapore, including the newly introduced legislation to control the use of drones.  

Poor tool for evil

While many other governments have also passed laws on drone use out of fear that the machines could be used by voyeurs or terrorists, or fall out of the sky and hurt people, such concerns are irrational, Professor Chen says in his paper, “The Regulation of the Recreational Use of ‘Drones’ for Aerial Photography and Videography: Comparing Singapore’s Unmanned Aircraft Act with Other Legislation”, published in the Singapore Law Review journal.

“The only explanation for such lightning-speed over-regulation is a fear of the unknown, but the unknown is not the same as the unknowable,” he says.

Take the popular fear that a pervert could use a drone to quietly spy on you while you’re at home. While such a scenario is unsettling, it is also a fantasy, Professor Chen points out.

“Recreational drones are neither suitable for spying nor a smart tool to be used by voyeurs, unless those preyed upon have hearing problems, and even then most drones are rather conspicuous, complete with blinking lights and various moving parts,” he says. “Moreover, a drone that is so small that it can barely be seen will simply be blown away by the slightest of winds.”

Fears that terrorists may use drones to drop bombs or chemicals on an unsuspecting populace are equally overblown. Drones are ill-suited for such acts of mayhem because of their limited flight time on a single battery charge and their inability to carry heavy loads, he notes, adding that no amount of legislation could deter a would-be terrorist anyway.

While Singapore’s Unmanned Aircraft Act, passed in 2015 to regulate drone use, is less restrictive than some other countries’ laws, Professor Chen believes it can be improved. The maximum altitude one can legally fly a drone is currently set at 200 feet above mean sea level, but a more reasonable height limit would be at least 400 feet, he suggests. 

The discretionary death penalty and its challenges

Another Singapore law that can be refined is the Misuse of Drugs Act, Professor Chen says. In his paper, “The discretionary death penalty for drug couriers in Singapore: Four challenges”, published in The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, he points out several judicial questions that have arisen after Singapore amended the Act in 2012 to give its courts more discretion in sentencing drug traffickers.

Singapore’s judges can now replace the mandatory death penalty with life imprisonment and caning instead, provided that the accused person shows that he was merely a drug courier, and the prosecution certifies the accused had substantively helped the authorities to disrupt drug trafficking activities.

While the change in the law was hailed by those opposed to the death penalty, it could also have the unintended effect of giving innocent, accused people an incentive to plead guilty from the outset, he says.

Professor Chen also believes that the prosecution should resolve the question of whether an accused person provided substantive assistance before the trial, and use that as a factor to determine the charge that should be brought against him, rather than as a sentencing consideration.

“If the prosecution is already, in a sense, predetermining the eventual fate of an accused drug trafficker through the initial charge that is brought, why should it be involved again for the purposes of sentencing after liability has been determined by the court?” he asks. 

Riots and repatriation

In another controversial legal topic, however, Professor Chen sides with the Singapore government. After the riot in Little India in 2013, the Singapore government repatriated 57 migrant workers.

The authorities said that their investigations showed the workers posed a threat to Singapore’s safety and security, and the repatriation was in line with Singapore’s law and international standards. Human rights groups, on the other hand, alleged that the decision was arbitrary and showed a lack of due process and transparency.

As it turned out, the international laws, as least in the context of repatriation, were on the Singapore authorities’ side, says Professor Chen, who wrote up his findings in the paper, “The Little India Riot: Domestic and International Law Perspectives”, published as part of the Third International Conference on Human Rights and Peace & Conflict in Southeast Asia.

“If you look at the United Nations’ Migration Convention, migrant workers can be expelled quite easily without much due process afforded. Even the International Labour Organisation takes the position that under international labour standards, states have considerable discretion in formulating their repatriation laws and policies for their migrant workers,” he explains.

As someone who is drawn to subjects of a socio-political nature, Professor Chen’s most recent work focuses on the admissibility of evidence before international tribunals, which have to take into account different jurisdictions’ systems and cultures.

“It’s difficult to find common ground, so international tribunals have lax rules when it comes to admitting evidence. I’m trying to come up with more principled rules,” he says. And although Singapore generally doesn’t get involved in many international cases, Professor Chen says his research might provide some clarity should such a day occur.

Back to Research@SMU Issue 38

View Original Article

↧
↧

The Death Penalty in Singapore

June 15, 2016, 12:00 am
$
0
0

In a commentary, SMU Associate Professor of Law Eugene Tan shared his views on the death penalty in Singapore, as well as the arguments for and against retaining the mandatory death penalty (MDP). He noted that while Singapore could choose to retain the MDP out of habit or convenience, this shift to a discretionary death penalty (DDP) regime indicates that we have taken the important first step of determining that the MDP may not be needed for all types of serious crimes. It, however, does not signal that we are no longer tough on crime and that we are letting up on drug trafficking and murders. Instead, this shift to a DDP regime is necessary to retain public confidence and legitimacy in our administration of criminal justice. More significantly, it manifests our ability to get out of the force of habit, convenience, and reliance on our long-held dogma that the mandatory capital punishment is necessary to deal with the most serious crimes. Associate Prof Tan concluded that it is a more refined approach that seeks to maintain effectiveness without incurring disproportionate outcomes. 

View Original Article

↧

China: Rule-taker, Rule-shaker or Rule-maker?

July 27, 2016, 12:00 am
$
0
0

Despite its ascent on the world stage, SMU Associate Professor Henry Gao’s research shows that China may prefer to keep a low profile in global organisations.

Back to Research@SMU Issue 39

Photo Credit: Cyril Ng

By Feng Zengkun

­­

SMU Office of Research – To see the world’s future, one has to look to China. The country already has the world’s second largest economy, and it is projected to overtake the United States for pole position by the year 2020.

While its size means that its actions can have outsized effects on the rest of the world’s trade, its record in global trade organisations suggests that it may not want to rock the boat too much, says Henry Gao, Associate Professor at the Singapore Management University (SMU) School of Law.

Professor Gao specialises in the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) laws and, in particular, China’s role in the organisation. His work has been widely cited, including by the US and Chinese governments, the United Nations (UN) and the WTO. He has also served as an advisor to the Ministry of Commerce of China and WTO.

Taking a backseat

“Judging from China’s past record in the WTO, it is unlikely that China will propose any sweeping changes to the governing structure of the institution,” he says. “Instead, China will most likely focus on refining the technical rules that fine-tune the system.”

While many analysts had predicted that China would seek a leadership role in the WTO in its first decade as a member, Professor Gao notes that it has instead kept a low profile for several reasons, including to digest and implement the unusually heavy requirements attached to its membership, and to familiarise itself with the WTO’s procedural rules.

It might also have wanted to avoid drawing attention to its awkward position on some issues. While China has called itself a developing country for political reasons, some of its interests actually lie closer to those of developed countries. Developing countries want to eliminate export subsidies and reduce domestic support for agricultural products, for instance, to raise the commodities’ prices and their income, but such measures would hurt China, which is one of the world’s largest importers of wheat, cotton and soya beans.

“Due to the difference between China’s political position and economic interests, it would be politically awkward for China to openly deviate from the ‘party line’ of developing countries. Thus, the best strategy seems to be to keep a low profile,” Professor Gao says.

On the other hand, in contrast to its reticence in WTO negotiations, it has transformed from a reluctant player to a forceful litigant in WTO dispute settlement cases, and sought to change rules that it finds discriminatory toward itself. It has also aggressively pursued regional trade agreements with other countries. 

Professor Gao has written up his findings in a paper, “China’s Ascent in Global Trade Governance: From Rule Taker to Rule Shaker, and Maybe Rule Maker?”, published in a Cambridge University Press book, Making Global Trade Governance Work For Development.

Not invited to the party

In another paper, “Selected Issues in TPP Negotiations and Implications for China”, published as part of the book, Regional Cooperation and Free Trade Agreements in Asia, Professor Gao argued that China might have to institute new rules in its existing and new trade agreements to counteract the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which excludes it.

In 2013, US President Barack Obama said that China was excluded from the TPP as the United States would have a stronger hand in trade negotiations with China if it could ink a trade deal with all the other countries in Asia.

While China could ignore the TPP or seek to join it, both avenues are fraught with perils, Professor Gao explains. If China buries its head in the sand, the US will use the TPP to enhance its economic ties to Asia Pacific countries, and make rules on key issues such as e-commerce and government procurement without China’s involvement. The US could then push for global acceptance of the rules through the WTO, where it would be hard for China to resist.

If China wanted to join the TPP, existing TPP members must reach a consensus to admit a new member, and the US wields considerable clout in the partnership. This means China might have to pay heavy dues for a place at the table, as was the case for its admittance into the WTO. “Or it could also take the middle ground,” says Professor Gao, “and the third option is for China to make its own set of rules in its existing and new free trade agreements. This is, in my view, the best option for China as it could enable it to prevent the dominance of the US approach. The difficulty, however, is that China’s capacity in rule-making seems to be lacking.”

Toeing the line

Regardless of how China’s trade approach evolves, it is in the best interest of other countries, especially small ones such as Singapore, and international organisations to ensure that China plays by existing rules, Professor Gao points out.

While the proliferation of Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) have threatened the WTO’s relevance, it could regain some power by offering its dispute settlement system as a forum to resolve conflicts over the agreements. Professor Gao elaborates on this topic in a paper he co-authored with Professor Chin Leng Lim from the University of Hong Kong that was published in the Journal of International Economic Law.

“How China acts affects smaller countries like Singapore, which relies on international trade organisations,” he says. “If China takes a disruptive approach in the WTO, for instance by simply opposing everything the US says, or if it abandons the WTO and creates its own system, it would be disastrous especially for smaller countries like Singapore.”

Back to Research@SMU Issue 39

View Original Article

↧
Search

SMU wins third ‘Gold’ at LawAsia Moot

August 17, 2016, 12:00 am
$
0
0

The official results are in.  Just as we kicked-off the new Academic Year, our students from the School of Law have brought home the championship title of the 11th LawAsia Moot, and for the third time no less!

The triumphant trio - Alexander Lee, Grace Goh and Melissa Ng - were crowned in Colombo, Sri Lanka, after eight matches held in the days leading up to the final round on 15 August 2016, where they were pitted against former Vis champions – West Bengal State University from India.

The judging panel of the finals, which comprised several legal luminaries including the President of the Sri Lankan Court of Appeal and a judge from the High Court of Australia, also awarded Alexander the 1st-runner-up prize for Best Speaker of the tournament.  The SMU team also clinched the Best Memorial award.

30 teams had participated in this year’s competition, with the top 15 qualifying for the international rounds.  The moot problem they had to tackle was about whether a company could sell its own brand of tea in Malaysia after an agreement to sell Ceylon Tea had expired, raising issues related to intellectual property rights and trademark infringement, international trade, commercial law and contract law. 

“Winning the LawAsia Moot for the third time means that we have overtaken Hong Kong University as the university with the best record in this competition, despite making our debut five years after they did.  This win brings our overall tally of international moot championship titles to 17, and our total number of final appearances at international moot competitions to 36,” said Assistant Professor Chen Siyuan, who heads the international moot programme at SMU.

It is noteworthy to highlight that the team was coached by Qabir Sandhu of WongPartnership and Nanthini Vijayakumar of TSMP Law Corporation – both of whom graduated from SMU last year.  Nanthini was herself a LawAsia mooter when her team emerged champs in 2013.

The competition was organised by LawAsia, an international organisation incepted in 1966 comprising lawyers’ associations, individual lawyers, judges and legal academics that focus on the interests and concerns of the legal profession in the Asia Pacific region.

 

[Featured photo: (L-R) Melissa, Alexander and Grace after their win at the 11th LawAsia Moot in Colombo, Sri Lanka.]

View Original Article

↧

WTO Trade Policy Dialogue 'The WTO: 20 Years & Beyond'

October 26, 2015, 8:00 am
$
0
0

The Third Singapore-WTO Policy Dialogue on the World Trading System was held prior to the 10th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC10) under the title ‘Singapore Dialogue on the WTO: 20 Years and Beyond’.  Similar to previous editions of the Dialogue in 2011 and 2013, this year's Dialogue was intended to provide an opportunity for senior government officials to exchange views and brainstorm on issues and challenges confronting the Multilateral Trading System, in light of recent developments in the global economy.  This would involve high-level officials from the Asia-Pacific region in a broad-ranging strategic dialogue on topics such as the MC10, reinvigorating Doha and key issues for the WTO in the next 20 years.

The Dialogue, was held on 19 – 20 October 2015, was sponsored and organised by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the Government of Singapore, through the Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP) and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), in collaboration with the Singapore Management University (SMU), as part of the agreed activities in the Singapore-WTO MoU signed in 1996 to establish the Singapore-WTO Third Country Training Programme.

View Original Article

↧
↧

WTO Trade Policy Dialogue 'The WTO: 20 Years & Beyond'

October 26, 2015, 4:00 pm
$
0
0

The Third Singapore-WTO Policy Dialogue on the World Trading System was held prior to the 10th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC10) under the title ‘Singapore Dialogue on the WTO: 20 Years and Beyond’.  Similar to previous editions of the Dialogue in 2011 and 2013, this year's Dialogue was intended to provide an opportunity for senior government officials to exchange views and brainstorm on issues and challenges confronting the Multilateral Trading System, in light of recent developments in the global economy.  This would involve high-level officials from the Asia-Pacific region in a broad-ranging strategic dialogue on topics such as the MC10, reinvigorating Doha and key issues for the WTO in the next 20 years.

The Dialogue, was held on 19 – 20 October 2015, was sponsored and organised by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the Government of Singapore, through the Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP) and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), in collaboration with the Singapore Management University (SMU), as part of the agreed activities in the Singapore-WTO MoU signed in 1996 to establish the Singapore-WTO Third Country Training Programme.

View Original Article

↧

The Blame Game

September 14, 2016, 12:00 am
$
0
0

When parties outsource duties to independent contractors who then carry out the work negligently, is the hiring party also responsible? SMU Associate Professor Low Kee Yang believes so.

Back to Research@SMU Issue 40

Photo Credit: Cyril Ng

By Nurfilzah Rohaidi

­­

SMU Office of Research – Picture this: you receive a panicked call while at work because your daughter had injured herself at the pool. You find out later that the swimming lesson she had attended, which is deemed mandatory by the school, wasn’t carried out by the school’s employees. Instead, the school had hired an independent contractor to conduct these lessons. When faced with these facts, you would undoubtedly ask: who is responsible for ensuring your daughter’s safety? The school, the independent contractor, or both?

Low Kee Yang, Associate Professor at the Singapore Management University (SMU) School of Law, attempted to answer this question in a paper that he presented at the Protecting Business and Economy Interests: Contemporary Issues in Tort Law conference held at the Supreme Court of Singapore on 18-19 August 2016.

The paper, titled “Non-delegable Duty of Care: Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association and Beyond”, had previously received a commendation during the Singapore Law Gazette Awards 2015.

Hiring a third party contractor

In this paper, Professor Low focused on a tort law case in the UK where the Supreme Court addressed the thorny issue of non-delegable duty, which refers to an obligation that cannot be outsourced to a third party.

“In the past, even though you had hired independent contractors, the general principle then was that you would not be liable if you had acted with care when selecting these contractors,” he explains.

The situation changes if extra-hazardous activity is involved, but Professor Low noted that Lord Sumption, the Supreme Court judge who passed the ruling in the decision of Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association and others case, did not consider swimming as extra-hazardous.

Nevertheless, Lord Sumption identified this case as a special one, where the defendant was in breach of his personal duty towards ensuring the safety of the claimant, since the independent contractor representing him was acting without due care.

Five defining features of non-delegable duty

Drawing from this case and others in Australia, Lord Sumption came up with a landmark framework consisting of five defining features to determine whether the duty of care in a certain situation would be non-delegable.

“If you can satisfy these five elements, then there is non-delegable duty,” Professor Low explains. “Previously, there was no such unifying framework of principles or criteria.”

Of the five, three are particularly important. Firstly, there must be an existing relationship between the claimant and defendant, placing her in the defendant’s custody or care. In the Woodland case, this was obvious—the student studied at the school. Secondly, the claimant must have no control over whether the defendant delegates his duties to third parties - of which in that case, students have no say in who teaches their lessons. Thirdly, the defendant must have delegated a function that is integral to his positive duty. For the claimant, swimming was part of the school curriculum.

Considering the facts of the Woodland case, Lord Sumption had decided that all those elements were satisfied and that this was a case of non-delegable duty, relates Professor Low.

“Therefore, the school was found to be liable for the victim’s injuries as the swimming instruction was carelessly carried out by the independent contractor. Effectively, the instructor was representing the school and could be seen as an employee or agent,” he says, pointing out that this is a particularly controversial area of tort law.

Making duty of care non-delegable by default

Using the Woodland case as a starting point, Professor Low proposed an interesting new principle in his paper: that duty of care is non-delegable, and that the principal can be held liable for his representative’s negligence.

“What I’m trying to say is that if there are so many situations in which duty is non-delegable, why don’t we flip it around and say that duty is non-delegable as a default?” he asks. “If you ask someone to do for you, you are responsible. If he doesn’t do it well, you are liable.”

Professor Low’s reasoning behind this is a practical one. The Sumption framework is not one-size-fits-all, he says, citing a recent tort case in Singapore, MCST Plan No 3322 v Tiong Aik Construction Pte Ltd. Here, the management company of a condominium represented the property owners to sue the developer, main contractor, architect and various parties for some defects.

“The pool landscaping was not well done, and leaves would often fall into the pool and clog up the system. There was also a foul smell coming out of the sewage system,” describes Professor Low.

However, the Singapore Court of Appeal had endorsed the Woodland decision and, referencing the Sumption framework, said that the five requirements were not satisfied. For that reason, the judge ruled that there was no non-delegable duty on the part of the main contractor and the architect.

Regarding the fairness of the Tiong Aik decision, Professor Low confesses that he had his doubts. “I think that in general property buyers do not  contemplate at all who the sub-contractors of their units are,” he says. “They bought the house from the developer; when something goes wrong, they would expect the developer to take care of it.”

Professor Low saw the need to draw up an alternative: one where the principal has non-delegable duty and will be held liable, subject to appropriate exceptions. Noting in his paper that the adoption of such a principle would be a “radical move”, he also pointed out the lack of any comprehensive and coherent legal framework still troubles judges and jurists alike. “This area of law is tricky, and needs to be cleared up.”

Back to Research@SMU Issue 40

View Original Article

↧

WTO Trade Policy Dialogue 'The WTO: 20 Years & Beyond'

October 27, 2015, 12:00 am
$
0
0

The Third Singapore-WTO Policy Dialogue on the World Trading System was held prior to the 10th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC10) under the title ‘Singapore Dialogue on the WTO: 20 Years and Beyond’.  Similar to previous editions of the Dialogue in 2011 and 2013, this year's Dialogue was intended to provide an opportunity for senior government officials to exchange views and brainstorm on issues and challenges confronting the Multilateral Trading System, in light of recent developments in the global economy.  This would involve high-level officials from the Asia-Pacific region in a broad-ranging strategic dialogue on topics such as the MC10, reinvigorating Doha and key issues for the WTO in the next 20 years.

The Dialogue, was held on 19 – 20 October 2015, was sponsored and organised by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the Government of Singapore, through the Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP) and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), in collaboration with the Singapore Management University (SMU), as part of the agreed activities in the Singapore-WTO MoU signed in 1996 to establish the Singapore-WTO Third Country Training Programme.

View Original Article

↧
Viewing all 115 articles
Browse latest View live
Search