The following sections are included: introduction; short answer; criminal mediation in Singapore; understanding the apology in general; Where apologies promote restorative justice; obstacles to achieving restorative justice with apologies; conclusion

The inclusion of welfarist ideology in the consumers' trade derived from the ideal of paternalism is a paradigm change from the doctrine of freedom of contract. Regulatory and legislative steps must be taken to support and attract consumers to the industry. Judicial and legislative actions must be taken to correct the market flaws that create consumers' vulnerability while trading in the global market. As one of ASEAN members' founders, Malaysia is moving towards people-centered economic endeavours to balance both industry and consumer interests through exclusion clauses to prevent unfair practices in consumer contracts. Legal intervention is one of the ways to curbing the issues that arise from exclusion clauses. Before 2010, the non-existence of a specific regulatory framework to limit exclusion clauses usage in contracts involving consumers further increases consumers' vulnerability. Traditional judicial approaches in the battle against coercion and unethical behaviour of traders before 2010 did not engross consumer rights and interests. This sign is, in fact, the modern age of customer contracts, the enforcement of unfair terms. This article used the content analysis technique and analysed the evolution of legislative interference and judicial approaches in interpreting exclusion clauses in contracts involving consumers in Malaysia and Singapore.

Despite being ranked top three countries in the world in the Corruption Perception Index 2018, Singapore has a reputation in sports integrity for being the 'academy of match-fixers' in football and home to the leader of 'the world's most notorious match-fixing syndicate'. It is curious (and somewhat ironic) that Singapore, as one of the world's leaders in managing public section corruption, has been home to sports corruption and match-fixing locally and internationally. To date, Singapore has not instituted sport-specific laws on match-fixing to specifically combat match-fixing and other forms of manipulation of sports competitions in the country, and primarily relies on its criminal laws on corruption to prosecute match-fixing conduct, pursuant to the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed Singapore). This is in comparison to other countries which are home to match-fixing conduct, such as Australia, Germany, and Switzerland. This article will focus on the discussion on whether it is necessary for countries, with particular focus on Singapore, to enact sport-specific laws on match-fixing in their endeavour to combat match-fixing in their country. This work will conclude that while there are benefits to enacting sport-specific match-fixing laws, there may not be a dire or urgent need for Singapore to enact sport-specific laws on match-fixing. In any event, it may be necessary for Singapore authorities and sport governing bodies to take certain concrete steps to buttress the present regulation of match-fixing and state of players' contracts in order to mitigate the risks of such sports manipulation activities. One of these steps may include for Singapore to become a Signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competition (Macolin Convention). Copyright © 2022 The Author(s).

In Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin v Attorney-General [2020] SGCA 122, the Singapore Court of Appeal reconsidered how Article 12(1), the Singapore Constitution's equal protection provision, should apply to executive actions. Departing from the established ‘deliberate and arbitrary’ test, the Court of Appeal proposed to first consider whether the relevant persons were ‘equally situated’ and subject to differential treatment. If so, this treatment had to be justified by legitimate reasons. This case note argues that while the rejection of the ‘deliberate and arbitrary’ test is welcomed, this approach risks returning to an emphasis on classes in equal protection analysis—an emphasis which has been criticised as tautological in the Singapore courts’ own Article 12(1) jurisprudence. A requirement to articulate the substantive requirements of equality in the specific context of the executive decision in question would offer a more principled means of analysing the constitutionality of executive actions under Article 12(1).

The following sections are included: Introduction; financial disputes resolution in Singapore; evaluation of financial disputes mediation in Singapore; suggestions for changes; conclusion