The protection of Geographical Indications ("Gis") has been a subject of immense controversy. The provisions in the Agreement on the Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS") dealing with Gis, which were negotiated during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations that gave birth to the World Trade Organization ("WTO"), represent a sensitive compromise - a compromise between WTO member states that believe in different standards of protection and different means by which such protection may be granted. Despite the compromise, the debate on the protection of Gis continues to not only expand the existing North-South divide, but also create new divisions within the developed world. It is also notable that the topic has acquired a renewed interest and flavour. While we are seeing Gis being hotly debated within the WTO framework in its Doha Round of trade negotiations, the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") has recently extended the protection afforded to appellations of origin under the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration , 31 October 1958, 923 UNTS 205 (entered in force 25 September 1966) [Lisbon Agreement] to Gis with important modifications that truly seeks to establish an 'international register' for Gis. Furthermore, we are also witnessing a trend in provisions on Gis being included in bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements between major economies such as the United States of America ("USA") and the European Union ("EU") on the one hand and developing nations on the other, which has the indirect effect of establishing the internationally dominant approach for the protection of Gis.

What is the relationship between being a good citizen in a constitutional democracy and being a good person? By playing our parts as citizens, are we actualising our potential to live worthy lives, or are we risking moral purity? Citizens, even in liberal democracies, might find their integrity threatened by their civic duties, for example, to pay taxes and to vote in political elections, if they do not agree with the choices of the polity. Because of moral dilemmas in the event of conflict between one's moral views and the requirements of citizenship, it seems easier to compartmentalise citizenship within one's general moral life such that different moral principles are taken as applicable in one's role as a citizen. One might even regard citizenship as a moral hazard, and consequently, as far as possible, disengage from political life.

The second edition of Data Protection Law in Singapore, edited by Professor Simon Chesterman, is a much-anticipated update to the authoritative text on data protection law in Singapore. This second edition builds on the strengths of the first, combining a focus on practical issues with theoretical and comparative analyses. The book offers a broad spectrum of perspectives by bringing together a wide range of authors including law academics, data protection regulators and legal practitioners.

Equity, Trusts and Commerce is a collection of 14 essays that were first presented at a conference of the same name held at the National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law in April 2016. All 14 contributors are leading experts. All 14 papers are focused on the interplay and interaction of equitable doctrines with commerce. This is undoubtedly a very timely and important contribution to the debates on modern equity. Recent cases from the highest courts of various common law jurisdictions demonstrate a clear need for judges, practitioners and academics to directly grapple with the influence of the commercial context on the development of equitable principles and doctrines. Locally, in Singapore where this pre-eminent conference was held, the establishment of the Singapore International Commercial Court could hasten the maturing of the discourse on the interaction between equity and commercial law.

Prior to independence, legal education was all but non-existent in Singapore and many other colonies. This essay briefly discusses that colonial context before going on to describe how the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law came to play an important part in Singapore's rule of law story as Singapore's national law school, a global law school, and an Asian law school. A third section considers challenges for the future, including the impact of technology on legal practice and the changing market for legal services. These transformations require us to rethink the purpose of law school, even as they are matched by changes in the students and faculty who enter our classrooms and our offices.

The first decade of the new millennium was a challenging and transformative period for the NUS law school even as she was confronted with a testing financial position. Both the curriculum and teaching pedagogy underwent significant change. Research assumed far greater importance and the period saw important strides being made in the quantity and quality of faculty publications. The school also saw herself become an important voice in the global conversation about law and legal institutions. In addition to being Singapore's national law school, she developed an identity as Asia's Global Law School, a law school that continues to contribute significantly to Singapore while at the same time playing a role intended to advance the interests of people everywhere, particularly in Asia.

This essay engages pedagogy and teaching philosophy in reviewing how constitutional and administrative law ("CAAL") has been taught at NUS over the past 60 years, engaging the themes of mission, method and materials. Gone is the time when foreign academics disinterested in local law thoughtlessly issued readings on Bickel and irrelevant foreign cases; today, most CAAL teachers are active researchers who appreciate the autochthonous, experimental nature of the constitutional order and the changing political context, while staying abreast of comparative and international developments. While the dominant party state remains, the governance style has shifted from authoritarianism to a more consultative, participatory approach, befitting of a post-deferential era. Government-driven constitutional amendments continue, constitutional litigation is proceeding apace and public interest in public law is in ascendancy.

Like Baloo of The Jungle Book, I have been involved in the teaching of law (and more specifically, Company Law) for a long time. Company Law is considered to be an essential subject for all lawyers in Singapore. This is borne out by its inclusion as a compulsory paper in Part A of the Bar Examination conducted by the Singapore Institute of Legal Education ("SILE") for graduates of foreign universities intending to be called to the Bar, even though it is not mandatory in many LLB courses abroad. This short piece is a distillation of my experiences not only as a teacher of law but also as a legal practitioner in both the public and private sector over a period of more than thirty years, as well as a member of the board of directors of several listed and non-listed companies. On the basis of that experience, may I proffer the following thoughts on the teaching of Company Law specifically and on legal teaching generally, in the hope of provoking some reflection and discussion.

In the 60 years of the Law School's existence, the value of teaching the distinction between law and equity has sometimes been questioned but never marginalised. Different emphases are discernible. In the foundational years, equity and trusts was presented as a kind of flexible real property or as land management rights. The land context was the institutional focus. Little by little that has given way to more varied contractarian and commercial contexts and applications of equity. This short note traces the shifts in institutional focus in both teaching and research in equity and trusts. Observing that there was little concerted planning in ensuring that the teaching and research in equity and trusts would remain responsive and relevant to the needs of the legal profession, it concludes with the proposition that equity and trusts is still relevantly taught as a distinct and separate subject.

The paper begins with the recognition that land is scarce in Singapore and looks at how Singapore responds to the situation. The property law course in NUS which has evolved over the years is then considered and is assessed to be what it is today as a result of careful and meticulous planning. The students' experience in the learning of property law has been enhanced and enriched by the Faculty's teaching and research in the subject. Going forward, property law legal education in NUS will continue to develop to meet the future needs of the legal community and Singapore.