This article looks at who is caveatee for the purposes of section 127 of the Land Titles Act. The focus is on the position of a person who has yet to acquire a registered title or interest in land. Where a caveat is sought to be removed, the question of who bears the onus of proof is also examined. The need for a provision to prevent abuse of the caveat procedure so as to ensure the effectiveness of the remedies provided in section 127 is also discussed.

It is now widely recognised that in the 1970s and 1980s, cooperation within ASEAN had a political and strategic focus. With this focus, ASEAN has generally been hailed as a success, particularly in the coordination of its members political stands on international issues. The aim of economic cooperation, although enshrined in the Bangkok Declaration, was largely relegated to the back seat until 1976, when the Declaration of ASEAN Concord was signed in Bali, Indonesia. In Bali, the leaders of ASEAN reaffirmed the goal of economic cooperation within ASEAN, although progress in this regard, since then, has been slow. However, as ASEAN entered the decade of the 1990s, there was a perceptible change in focus. The new raison d'etre for ASEAN cooperation is now economic. Concrete developments include the designation of sub-regional areas with complementary factor endowments for investment and economic development, the Common Effective Preferential Tariffs Scheme, and ultimately, by means of which Scheme, the formation of a free trade zone between member countries (the ASEAN Free Trade Area). The ASEAN Heads of Government recognised, at the Fourth ASEAN Summit in 1992, that multilateral cooperation within ASEAN is one of the primary means of achieving economic stability in the 21st century. The need for greater economic integration in the face of growing economic regionalism and the prospect of more intense competition for foreign investment in the region was emphasised. Thus far, the emphasis has been on cooperation in trade and industry. In the area of securities, there has been little talk of capital markets integration. It has been observed that it does not require any significant feat of intellect to notice that capital markets all around the globe have internationalised or are in the process of internationalising. This trend is perceptible too in ASEAN as individual Member States have gradually liberalised and deregulated, in varying degrees, their respective financial and capital markets since the late 1970s. Regionalisation and internationalisation of the ASEAN securities markets are on the agenda. With advances in technology and telecommunications, national boundaries are no longer barriers to international securities trading and investment. Leading companies around the world have realised that their capital-raising capabilities are greatly enhanced through multi-jurisdictional share issues. Thus far, most of these multi-jurisdictional offerings have occurred in Western developed countries. Given the significant level of investable liquidity in ASEAN markets, it is not unlikely that companies may think of doing the same in ASEAN. Because of the increasing economic intercourse between ASEAN countries and the integral role capital markets play in facilitating this intercourse, it is crucial then that ASEAN should consider their appropriate response in the area of capital markets development and securities regulation. It does not seem too early then for ASEAN to seriously consider cooperation in the area of securities regulation and ultimately regulatory integration of their capital markets. The purpose of this paper is to examine the question of harmonisation in the regulation of the securities industry in ASEAN. The paper is not a thesis on a possible code for the ASEAN securities industry. Rather, it examines the purpose of harmonising securities regulations and to question whether harmonisation in itself is at all an attainable goal in the light of the very different backgrounds of the member countries of ASEAN. The experience of the European Community in harmonising their securities legislation is considered and an attempt is made to see what lessons may be gleaned from this experience.

The privilege against self-incrimination is a common law right of respectable antiquity. Recent attempts to water down the right by creating "exceptions" have not been successful. However, statutory intervention to modify or remove the privilege is as old as the right itself. In Hong Kong, as in other common law jurisdictions, there are statutes which impinge upon the right in one way or another. The advent of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights may have further implications, as statutory provisions inconsistent with the Bill are deemed to be repealed. This article traces the development of the privilege in the common law and discusses the possible impact of Art 11(2)(g) of the Bill on certain statutory provisions in Hong Kong.