In 1994, a difference of opinion arose between the President and the Government on whether the President had the power, under Article 22H(1) of the Constitution, to veto a Bill to amend Article 22H(1). The Constitution was amended to establish a Tribunal to which any question as to the effect of a constitutional provision on any Bill could be referred for its opinion. In the first reference heard on 17 March 1995, the Tribunal advised that the President had no power under Article 22H(1) to veto a Bill to amend Article 22H(1) itself. The Tribunal's position as well as the case for the Government was strongly criticized in an article published in the December 1995 issue of this journal. This article is a reply to those criticisms.

This article looks at the question of trading in the Singapore and Malaysian contexts. The focus in on transactions in real property. It seeks to establish that, contrary to what has been argued, an isolated transaction in real property can amount to the carrying on of a trade or a business under the Singapore Income Tax Act. Reference is made to relevant Malaysian cases on the matter. This article further examines the factors which the Singapore and Malaysian courts (including the Income Tax Board of Review and Special Commissioners, as the case may be) take into consideration in determining whether a trade/business has been carried on. A proper assessment of these factors is most crucial so as to steer clear of the pitfalls of trading.

Although there are no reported local decisions considering the effect that an assured's suicide has on a claim under his life policy, the prevailing assumption is the local position is no different from the English position prior to the Suicide Act 1961 (which resulted in suicide no longer being an offence in England). According to this approach, the claim would be barred on a contractual level because the assured cannot be the author of his own loss, and on a broader level, because the law will not allow him to benefit from his own criminal acts. This paper examines the question of whether this approach can be applied in toto in Singapore. It will be argued that the Beresford approach may not be appropriate in the local legislative framework and cultural background.

Winding up proceedings have the potential to expose the company to ultimate dissolution. Thus, the issue of locus standi to petition the court for a winding up order assumes some importance. Under section 217()(a) of the Malaysian Companies Act 1965, the 'company' has standing to petition the court. However, under article 73 of Table A of the Act, the directors are delegated the management power. The question then arises as to whether the management power encompasses the power to petition the court for a winding up without a resolution of the members in general meeting. There appears to be a serious conflict of judicial opinion on the issue. This article traces the case law on the subject, focusing on the recent Malaysian case of Miharja Development Sdn Bhd & Ors v Tan Sri Datuk Loy Hean Heong & Ors and Another Application (1995) 4 MSCLC 91,285.

This article discusses the defence of fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study in the law of copyright. A recent decision of the High Court has identified some of the operative problems of this defence, and has ruled that the defence applies to commercial research. This article supports the spirit behind the ruling. It is contended that a literal interpretation of this defence will give rise to serious problems, and that a purposive interpretation should be adopted. this article also suggests legislative reform to clear up any possible doubts within this area of the law.

Intellectual property rights in Singapore are governed by separate statutes as well as the common law. While there are instances where cumulative protection under more than one intellectual property regime is either expressly acknowledged or restricted, there are other situations which are not so dealt with. This article examines one such situation, viz, how it may be possible to acquire both copyright as well as trade marks protection, and the consequences of such cumulative protection.