In recent times, many mainland Chinese are taking up employment or immigration opportunities outside China. With the accumulation of personal wealth in China, more of such movement of human capital can be expected. However, at the same time, the Chinese tax authorities are increasing their attempts to enforce Chinese law on Chinese working outside mainland China by requiring them to report overseas income and comply with China's Individual Income Tax Law. The threat of "double taxation" will inevitably affect the decisions of those who are looking for overseas employment opportunities and those who are currently working abroad. This article examines the tax consequences of both outbound and inbound cross-border employment from China's perspective. By comparing the income tax rules applicable to different groups of cross-border employees, the article will highlight the discriminatory treatment of Chinese cross-border employees and propose measures to better facilitate the cross-border movement of human resources.

Singapore has recently instigated two pieces of regulation related to consumer credit - the Buy-Now, Pay-Later Code of Conduct, and the Debt Collection Act 2022. This article discusses the background of these pieces of regulation, considers their similarities and differences, and analyses the benefits and drawbacks of the two approaches. It concludes by highlighting that, whilst they are both well-meaning and have the ability to improve the lives of vulnerable consumers, further work is necessary for the full potential of both regulatory instruments to be realised.

Personal property law is perhaps the one critical area of commercial law which has received relatively less attention in academic literature as a standalone subject than it merits, possibly due to the common misconception that the subject is simply a collection of discrete legal categories. This is rather perplexing, considering that personal property is, by definition and jurisprudentially, all property interests that are not an interest in land, and it certainly warrants specialist treatment. The authors of The Law of Personal Property have, in their third edition, achieved a tremendous feat at publishing what might be the most comprehensive treatise on the subject to date. I salute the authors for the breadth, depth and critical analysis in this third edition, which only goes to demonstrate the significance of personal property law in our daily lives, and that the subject is far greater than the sum of its parts.

Like Dostoevsky's classic namesake, Crime and Punishment in Indonesia explores the sometimes arbitrary demarcation of moral and legal boundaries within an unequal society, together with the interplay between religion and legal positivism. Crime and Punishment in Indonesia is edited by two giants in the field of Indonesian Law, Professor Tim Lindsey and Dr Helen Pausacker, Director and Deputy Director, respectively, of the Centre for Indonesian Law, Islam and Society (CILIS) at Melbourne Law School. They have brought together a knowledgeable cast of 17 different authors across 20 different chapters, featuring a mixture of Indonesian and non-Indonesian scholars. Many of the contributors are connected to Melbourne Law School as Associates of CILIS and/or as Lindsey's former PhD students. At the time of the volume's publication, several authors were intimately involved in law reform or legal advocacy projects in Indonesia, such as Ricky Gunawan (Lembaga Bantuan Hukum (LBH) Masyarakat), Rifqi Sjarief Assegaf (Lembaga Kajian dan Advokasi Untuk Independensi Peradilan (LeIP)), Raynov Tumorang Pamintori (Reprieve), and Mas Achmad Santosa (Presidential Task Force to Combat Illegal Fishing). This serves to provide the book a practical flavour which other collections on criminal law, edited by academics, tend to be missing.

At a time when "stateless income" is the main tax imperative, this article analyses the challenges of internationalising taxation of multinational enterprises in the digital economy and traversing the normative solutions provided so far (and still to be provided) by both coordinated and unilateral rules and policies. In such a way, this article is therefore firmly entrenched at an important intersection of comparative and business law. Considering that the main problem for tax authorities might be that they have remained national - and landlocked - whereas multinational enterprises operate globally - and virtually, this article also brings into the analysis the connected issues of free trade, globalization, and State sovereignty. The article demonstrates the necessity for international and multilateral solutions such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project's "Two-Pillar" solution and explains how this solution can be supplemented by other multilateral reforms.

The mandatory death penalty for murder was changed in Singapore in 2012 to give judges the discretion to choose between imposing the death penalty or life imprisonment (with caning) in cases of non-intentional murder. This article reviews the sentences for murder since then and the factors considered by the courts to justify the use of the death penalty or not. The move from an inherently arbitrary mandatory regime to a discretionary one was a watershed moment in Singapore, and it is questioned if the time has come for the death penalty for murder to be abolished completely.

In Marex and Miao Weiguo , the majority of the UK Supreme Court and the Singapore Court of Appeal opted for simplicity in the form of a bright-line preclusion against recovery of reflective loss by shareholders, ie , losses taking the form of a diminution in the value of shareholding and/or distributions. This article examines the law prior to these significant decisions, sets out the key points and reasoning of the courts, and upon critical examination, respectfully suggests that the law is seeing something that does not exist: there is no such thing as an independent principle of ‘reflective loss'.

Under Singapore's companies legislation, shareholders are vested with significant powers, placing them in the position to play an important monitoring role. Although there are discernible corporate governance benefits to encouraging shareholders to take on a more participatory role, many have argued against shareholder empowerment. Indeed, it is often asserted that shareholders are ill-equipped to play any role in corporate governance for a variety of reasons, including the generally-held view that shareholders, in particular retail investors, are rationally apathetic. The situation is presumed to be exacerbated in Singapore's "concentrated shareholding" corporate environment. In this research, we sought empirical data to assess the state of shareholder involvement in Singapore and whether information technologies, especially manifested in the form of social media, will have any effect on shareholder behaviour. Our purpose is to reach a view as to whether the superior position statutorily accorded to shareholders in Singapore is ultimately largely aspirational where public or retail shareholders are concerned. This paper presents our results and analysis.

The complex relationship between negligence and autonomy is of increasing practical and theoretical interest, as is shown by recent cases such as Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, Shaw v Kovac [2017] EWCA Civ 1028 and ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 20. My discussion of this relationship divides into three parts. In the first part, I make some general observations about the relationship between negligence law and autonomy. In the second part, I argue that interference with autonomy per se should not be recognised as a form of damage that grounds a negligence claim, although I acknowledge that it may be useful for the law to recognise specific forms of autonomy loss as damage in this sense. And in the third and final part, I consider the uneasy relationship between negligence doctrine and patient autonomy in the law of liability for medical non-disclosure, and argue that as a result of recent developments, this may no longer be properly described as liability for negligence.

Cryptoassets, now in the mainstream with significant retail and institutional ownership, can be purchased on cryptoasset exchanges online from around the world. Correspondingly, disputes involving transnational cryptoasset transactions - which have already begun to crop up in the US - are likely to become increasingly common in Singapore given its status as a global financial hub. The problem, however, is that there is no global consensus on how to determine the applicable law for transnational transactions on cryptoasset exchanges. This lack of consensus engenders unnecessary uncertainty as to the disputing parties' rights and obligations, which in turn has significant implications for issuers, potential investors, regulators, and even the entire financial system. Building on the shortcomings of existing conflict of laws solutions in other jurisdictions, this article proposes a conflict of laws solution to this problem for the Singapore courts. The solution entails (1) recognising that the problem should be dealt with using a choice-of-law approach, (2) creating a new category of issues, 'market issues', as which issues may be collectively characterised, and (3) choosing only the lex mercatus for issues characterised as market issues.