In the aftermath of Douglas v. Hello! Ltd., in which pictures surreptitiously taken of a New York wedding were published in a United Kingdom magazine, it is becoming increasingly apparent that privacy invasions are not restricted by national borders. The equitable doctrine of breach of confidence, which gave a remedy in that case, has shown adaptability in the face of changing circumstances and practices. The challenge for the future will be ensuring greater international harmonisation of substantive legal protection of privacy. Already there are some positive signs.

The main aim of this article is to show that proof of pre-constituted contracts has been obscured by the parol evidence rule and the signature rule. After a brief demonstration that the parol evidence is primarily a rule of substantive law, rather than a rule of evidence, and, as such, must be rejected as the basis of the signature rule, it is argued that of three other possible bases, a theory of procedural fairness best explains the rule, leading to a narrower scope than hitherto supposed. The relationship between the signature rule and the Interfoto rule is next considered and the decision in PATEC, which has preferred the signature role to the Interfoto rule where they clash, is closely examined. The argument here is that although the Interfoto rule is complicated by provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act, both rules can be reconciled if the signature rule is kept as narrow as possible to reflect its concern with procedure fairness. The other aim- to show that proof of recorded contracts has been hampered by inappropriate notions of hearsay- is accomplished by a detailed study of section 32(b) of the Evidence Act and it is argued that the desirable solution provided by PATEC to the problem of records of a composite nature is a little oversimplified.

To add life to the years that have been added to life. By 2030, Singapore's elderly will make up a staggering 19% of the population. With such a large proportion of people becoming old, it is timely to pay some attention to the broad spectrum of legal issues surrounding elders. Several sociological and statistical studies have been done on the elderly Singapore, yet relatively little has been written on the law relating to them. Much of the present legislation which directly or indirectly addresses the problems of the elderly in Singapore relate to their financial arrangements. Examples of these are provisions relating to withdrawal of Central Provident Fund ("CPF") monies and the age of retirement This article explores selected issues relating to financial support of Singapore's elderly, and highlights some areas in which the law does and can further play an effective role to safeguard their interest. Other equally important issues on housing, succession, divorce, capacity, elder abuse and crimes that impact the elderly are left for discussion elsewhere.

In Singapore, no petition for divorce is permitted in the first three years of marriage unless leave of court is given on the basis that the case is one of exceptional hardship suffered by the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of the respondent. This article examines the purpose of the three-year restriction on divorce and whether its retention in Singapore continues to promote the best interests of family members affected. It suggests that a shorter period of restriction, without exceptions, be adopted. A brief survey of the marriage relationship and the recent patterns of divorce in Singapore is also made here.

In recent years, the English courts have reached seemingly contradictory decisions with respect to the rights of convicted prisoners to sue for false imprisonment when they are detained beyond their proper release date. This article examines those decisions- focusing, in particular, on the most recent case in this area- and concludes that, as the law currently stands, the rules governing this aspect of tort law are both arbitrary and unfair. The article also considers the likelihood or otherwise of actions by similarly aggrieved prisoners succeeding in Singapore.

This paper argues that the new heightened consciousness of terrorism in Singapore and Malaysia requires a more accommodative, but still distinctly liberal, approach to social and political rights, one which harnesses the strengths of liberal democracy and pluralism in its efforts to suppress both the threat of terrorism and its potential socially divisive consequences. In particular, the paper defends the view that liberalism, properly conceived, has the conceptual tools to accommodate cultural and religious differences and provides an antidote to the divisive, essentialist thinking that the tragic events of September 11 have unleashed.