This article explores some of the changes that the 4th Industrial Revolution brings to our understanding of money. Our analysis does not suggest that the only valid form of money is that provided or backed by the state. We rather argue that it is unlikely that money-like means of payment will prove sustainable in the long-term if not perceived as being vested with some form of legality. Still, mere legality will not prove to be sufficient for the new payment instruments to qualify as money. They must also prove to be able to serve as means of exchange/payment. A sharp reduction in value will diminish the credibility of the payment promise and thus user confidence/trust. Like acceptance of payment on sight, the use of money as a common measure of value is one of the most important properties of fiat (and metallic) money. Retention of value in times of stress is fundamental as regards the new assets’ ability to act as a measure of value and its ability to fit with common perceptions of money. The requisite enquiry should be based on empirical studies of the intertemporal behaviour of the instrument. We suggest that fiat money aside, instruments that could eventually qualify as “money” ought to pass the dual test of legality and relative retention of value. This approach does not suggest a return to the metallic rule, which would limit free circulation of money. It is rather a pragmatic reformulation of the characteristics that means of payment, which do not enjoy the backing (will) of the state, must exhibit to enjoy quasi-money or money-like status. Assets that display high volatility are, thus, unlikely to fulfil the functions of “money” and should instead be dealt under the law of investments if they qualify as such.
{"title":"The Concept of Money in the 4th Industrial Revolution—A Legal and Economic Analysis","authors":"E. Avgouleas, Sir William Blair","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3534701","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3534701","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores some of the changes that the 4th Industrial Revolution brings to our understanding of money. Our analysis does not suggest that the only valid form of money is that provided or backed by the state. We rather argue that it is unlikely that money-like means of payment will prove sustainable in the long-term if not perceived as being vested with some form of legality. Still, mere legality will not prove to be sufficient for the new payment instruments to qualify as money. They must also prove to be able to serve as means of exchange/payment. A sharp reduction in value will diminish the credibility of the payment promise and thus user confidence/trust. Like acceptance of payment on sight, the use of money as a common measure of value is one of the most important properties of fiat (and metallic) money. Retention of value in times of stress is fundamental as regards the new assets’ ability to act as a measure of value and its ability to fit with common perceptions of money. The requisite enquiry should be based on empirical studies of the intertemporal behaviour of the instrument. We suggest that fiat money aside, instruments that could eventually qualify as “money” ought to pass the dual test of legality and relative retention of value. This approach does not suggest a return to the metallic rule, which would limit free circulation of money. It is rather a pragmatic reformulation of the characteristics that means of payment, which do not enjoy the backing (will) of the state, must exhibit to enjoy quasi-money or money-like status. Assets that display high volatility are, thus, unlikely to fulfil the functions of “money” and should instead be dealt under the law of investments if they qualify as such.","PeriodicalId":38330,"journal":{"name":"Singapore Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49339456","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Over the last decade, FinTech – broadly defined as the use of new technologies to compete in the marketplace of financial institutions and intermediaries – has disrupted the financial services sector. In this paper, we revisit the question of how banks and regulators should respond. We argue that incumbent financial service providers can learn useful lessons from the experience of the most innovative companies and their efforts to navigate the new realities of doing business in a networked age. One of the striking features of successful large businesses with an established track record for sustained innovation has been their capacity to implement effective corporate venturing strategies that continually feed dynamic, technology-driven innovation (“borrowing the startup genie’s magic”). Here, we identify seven corporate venturing strategies adopted by the most innovative companies and argue that incumbent banks could utilize similar strategies in responding to FinTech. A crucial element of these strategies is a recognition of the value of “co-creation,” namely an inclusive, collaborative partnering between incumbents and non-traditional players. To implement this objective, incumbents need to become open “ecosystems” that absorb the skills and resources of the most dynamic startups. We argue that some banks are already moving in this direction and that this trend towards “unbundling” will likely continue. The paper ends with a discussion of the implications of such an account for regulators and regulatory design. In order to establish an effective ecosystem, regulators need to become active participants in these new ecosystems. We characterize this approach as “community-driven” regulatory design and identify some key features of such an approach.
{"title":"Banking and Regulatory Responses to Fintech Revisited—Building the Sustainable Financial Service ‘Ecosystems’ of Tomorrow","authors":"M. Fenwick, E. Vermeulen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3446273","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3446273","url":null,"abstract":"Over the last decade, FinTech – broadly defined as the use of new technologies to compete in the marketplace of financial institutions and intermediaries – has disrupted the financial services sector. In this paper, we revisit the question of how banks and regulators should respond. \u0000 \u0000We argue that incumbent financial service providers can learn useful lessons from the experience of the most innovative companies and their efforts to navigate the new realities of doing business in a networked age. One of the striking features of successful large businesses with an established track record for sustained innovation has been their capacity to implement effective corporate venturing strategies that continually feed dynamic, technology-driven innovation (“borrowing the startup genie’s magic”). Here, we identify seven corporate venturing strategies adopted by the most innovative companies and argue that incumbent banks could utilize similar strategies in responding to FinTech. A crucial element of these strategies is a recognition of the value of “co-creation,” namely an inclusive, collaborative partnering between incumbents and non-traditional players. To implement this objective, incumbents need to become open “ecosystems” that absorb the skills and resources of the most dynamic startups. We argue that some banks are already moving in this direction and that this trend towards “unbundling” will likely continue. \u0000 \u0000The paper ends with a discussion of the implications of such an account for regulators and regulatory design. In order to establish an effective ecosystem, regulators need to become active participants in these new ecosystems. We characterize this approach as “community-driven” regulatory design and identify some key features of such an approach.","PeriodicalId":38330,"journal":{"name":"Singapore Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45481226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The first decade of the new millennium was a challenging and transformative period for the NUS law school even as she was confronted with a testing financial position. Both the curriculum and teaching pedagogy underwent significant change. Research assumed far greater importance and the period saw important strides being made in the quantity and quality of faculty publications. The school also saw herself become an important voice in the global conversation about law and legal institutions. In addition to being Singapore’s national law school, she developed an identity as Asia’s Global Law School, a law school that continues to contribute significantly to Singapore while at the same time playing a role intended to advance the interests of people everywhere, particularly in Asia.
{"title":"NUS Law in the Noughties: Becoming ‘Asia’s Global Law School’","authors":"C. Tan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3012931","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3012931","url":null,"abstract":"The first decade of the new millennium was a challenging and transformative period for the NUS law school even as she was confronted with a testing financial position. Both the curriculum and teaching pedagogy underwent significant change. Research assumed far greater importance and the period saw important strides being made in the quantity and quality of faculty publications. The school also saw herself become an important voice in the global conversation about law and legal institutions. In addition to being Singapore’s national law school, she developed an identity as Asia’s Global Law School, a law school that continues to contribute significantly to Singapore while at the same time playing a role intended to advance the interests of people everywhere, particularly in Asia.","PeriodicalId":38330,"journal":{"name":"Singapore Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.3012931","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46006458","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Review(s) of: Contract as assumption II: Formation, performance and enforcement, by Brian Coote, ed by J W Carter [Oxford Hart Publishing, 2016, xxxiv + 233 pp. Hardcover, 55.00 pounds].
{"title":"Contract as assumption II: Formation, performance and enforcement [Book Review]","authors":"S. Booysen","doi":"10.5040/9781782256717","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781782256717","url":null,"abstract":"Review(s) of: Contract as assumption II: Formation, performance and enforcement, by Brian Coote, ed by J W Carter [Oxford Hart Publishing, 2016, xxxiv + 233 pp. Hardcover, 55.00 pounds].","PeriodicalId":38330,"journal":{"name":"Singapore Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"369"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70543059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article considers the dilemma that constitutional judicial review presents to the most well-meaning of judges — that of navigating the narrow and difficult road between parliamentary supremacy and judicial oligarchy. It examines the Singapore Court of Appeal’s delineation of legal and extra-legal considerations in view of Ronald Dworkin’s theory of adjudication in determining the constitutionality of section 377A of the Penal Code in Lim Meng Suang v. Attorney General. It proposes an alternative natural law approach to constitutional judicial review based on Radbruch’s formula, which helps courts to avoid the pitfalls of judicial idiosyncrasies and usurpation of legislative mandate while staying true to constitutionalism.
{"title":"Between Judicial Oligarchy and Parliamentary Supremacy: Understanding the Court's Dilemma in Constitutional Judicial Review","authors":"Seow Hon Tan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2780732","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2780732","url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the dilemma that constitutional judicial review presents to the most well-meaning of judges — that of navigating the narrow and difficult road between parliamentary supremacy and judicial oligarchy. It examines the Singapore Court of Appeal’s delineation of legal and extra-legal considerations in view of Ronald Dworkin’s theory of adjudication in determining the constitutionality of section 377A of the Penal Code in Lim Meng Suang v. Attorney General. It proposes an alternative natural law approach to constitutional judicial review based on Radbruch’s formula, which helps courts to avoid the pitfalls of judicial idiosyncrasies and usurpation of legislative mandate while staying true to constitutionalism.","PeriodicalId":38330,"journal":{"name":"Singapore Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"307"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68317069","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Evan C. Gibson, Federico Lupo-Pasini, Ross P. Buckley
Limited access to bank branches excludes over one billion people from accessing financial services in developing countries. Digital financial services offered by banks and mobile money providers through agents can solve this problem without the need for complex and costly physical banking infrastructures. Delivering digital financial services through agents requires a legal framework to regulate liability. This article analyses whether vicarious liability of the principal is a more efficient regulatory approach than personal liability of the agent. Agent liability in Kenya, Fiji, and Malawi is analysed to demonstrate that vicarious liability of the principal, coupled to an explicit agreement as to agent rewards and penalties, is the more efficient regulatory approach.
{"title":"Regulating digital financial services agents in developing countries to promote financial inclusion","authors":"Evan C. Gibson, Federico Lupo-Pasini, Ross P. Buckley","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2973806","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2973806","url":null,"abstract":"Limited access to bank branches excludes over one billion people from accessing financial services in developing countries. Digital financial services offered by banks and mobile money providers through agents can solve this problem without the need for complex and costly physical banking infrastructures. Delivering digital financial services through agents requires a legal framework to regulate liability. This article analyses whether vicarious liability of the principal is a more efficient regulatory approach than personal liability of the agent. Agent liability in Kenya, Fiji, and Malawi is analysed to demonstrate that vicarious liability of the principal, coupled to an explicit agreement as to agent rewards and penalties, is the more efficient regulatory approach.","PeriodicalId":38330,"journal":{"name":"Singapore Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"26-45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2973806","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68456438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article discusses the changing ways in which information is produced, stored, and shared— exemplified by the rise of social-networking sites like Facebook and controversies over the activities of WikiLeaks—and the implications for privacy and data protection. Legal protections of privacy have always been reactive, but the coherence of any legal regime has also been undermined by the lack of a strong theory of what privacy is. There is more promise in the narrower field of data protection. Singapore, which does not recognise a right to privacy, has positioned itself as an e-commerce hub but had no law on data protection until the passage of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012. The passage of that law suggests the possibilities and limitations of an approach to data protection that eschews both the European Union’s privacy-rights-based approach and the ad hoc sectoral patches that characterise the U.S. approach to the subject.
本文讨论了信息产生、存储和共享方式的变化——以Facebook等社交网站的兴起和维基解密活动的争议为例——以及对隐私和数据保护的影响。对隐私的法律保护一直是被动的，但任何法律制度的一致性也因缺乏一个强有力的隐私理论而受到破坏。在数据保护的狭窄领域有更多的希望。不承认隐私权的新加坡将自己定位为电子商务中心，但直到2012年《个人数据保护法》(Personal data protection Act 2012)通过之前，一直没有数据保护方面的法律。这项法律的通过表明了一种数据保护方法的可能性和局限性，这种方法既避开了欧盟基于隐私权的方法，也避开了美国在这一问题上的特殊部门补丁。
{"title":"After Privacy: The Rise of Facebook, the Fall of WikiLeaks, and Singapore's Personal Data Protection Act 2012","authors":"S. Chesterman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2042144","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2042144","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the changing ways in which information is produced, stored, and shared— exemplified by the rise of social-networking sites like Facebook and controversies over the activities of WikiLeaks—and the implications for privacy and data protection. Legal protections of privacy have always been reactive, but the coherence of any legal regime has also been undermined by the lack of a strong theory of what privacy is. There is more promise in the narrower field of data protection. Singapore, which does not recognise a right to privacy, has positioned itself as an e-commerce hub but had no law on data protection until the passage of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012. The passage of that law suggests the possibilities and limitations of an approach to data protection that eschews both the European Union’s privacy-rights-based approach and the ad hoc sectoral patches that characterise the U.S. approach to the subject.","PeriodicalId":38330,"journal":{"name":"Singapore Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"2012 1","pages":"391"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67876269","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Intestacy law is an important area of property and succession law because some people do not make valid wills. The values and expectations of a society will generally influence the framing of intestacy rules. The intestacy schemes presently operating in Australia, England and Singapore are no exception. This article describes how the law in each of these jurisdictions has changed since the 19th century. It compares and contrasts the major elements of the intestacy schemes in Australia, England and Singapore. It is argued that in Australia and England an important priority is the protection of the economic well-being of the surviving spouse (broadly defined). In recent decades, law reformers in both jurisdictions have articulated an emerging priority for intestacy law: the enhancement of the economic well-being of the aged surviving spouse. Singapore’s statutory intestacy regime has remained stable since its implementation in 1967. It evidences the concern that not only the spouse, but also that in certain circumstances, lineal descendants and ascendants ought to inherit from the intestate. Therefore, the concept of immediate family not only includes the spouse, but the issue and parents of the intestate.
{"title":"Intestacy Law In Australia, England and Singapore - Another Aid to Social Sustainability in an Ageing Population?","authors":"Fiona R. Burns","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2255245","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2255245","url":null,"abstract":"Intestacy law is an important area of property and succession law because some people do not make valid wills. The values and expectations of a society will generally influence the framing of intestacy rules. The intestacy schemes presently operating in Australia, England and Singapore are no exception. This article describes how the law in each of these jurisdictions has changed since the 19th century. It compares and contrasts the major elements of the intestacy schemes in Australia, England and Singapore. It is argued that in Australia and England an important priority is the protection of the economic well-being of the surviving spouse (broadly defined). In recent decades, law reformers in both jurisdictions have articulated an emerging priority for intestacy law: the enhancement of the economic well-being of the aged surviving spouse. Singapore’s statutory intestacy regime has remained stable since its implementation in 1967. It evidences the concern that not only the spouse, but also that in certain circumstances, lineal descendants and ascendants ought to inherit from the intestate. Therefore, the concept of immediate family not only includes the spouse, but the issue and parents of the intestate.","PeriodicalId":38330,"journal":{"name":"Singapore Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"366"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68034274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It is commonly assumed that the Court of Appeal rejected a doctrine of good faith in contract law in Ng Giap Hon v. Westcomb Securities Pte Ltd, and as a result there has been no serious debate in Singapore of the proper role, nature and function of good faith. This article explores the definitional, normative and methodological aspects of the debate, and argues for the introduction of a duty of good faith in Singapore contract law. The content of such a duty must nonetheless be fact-sensitive in order to preserve contractual autonomy and commercial certainty. A series of recent decisions is also examined to demonstrate the courts’ support for such an approach.
{"title":"A Leap of Good Faith in Singapore Contract Law","authors":"Colin Liew","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2255275","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2255275","url":null,"abstract":"It is commonly assumed that the Court of Appeal rejected a doctrine of good faith in contract law in Ng Giap Hon v. Westcomb Securities Pte Ltd, and as a result there has been no serious debate in Singapore of the proper role, nature and function of good faith. This article explores the definitional, normative and methodological aspects of the debate, and argues for the introduction of a duty of good faith in Singapore contract law. The content of such a duty must nonetheless be fact-sensitive in order to preserve contractual autonomy and commercial certainty. A series of recent decisions is also examined to demonstrate the courts’ support for such an approach.","PeriodicalId":38330,"journal":{"name":"Singapore Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"416"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68033994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Against the triumvirate of evaluative factors (viz. the ‘rule of law’, human rights and democracy) assessing good government, domestic and foreign sources have given Singapore both good and bad reports.
根据评估好政府的三个评估因素(即“法治”、人权和民主)，国内外对新加坡的报道有好有坏。
{"title":"Between Apology and Apogee, Autochthony: The ‘Rule of Law’ Beyond the Rules of Law in Singapore","authors":"L. Thio","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2255266","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2255266","url":null,"abstract":"Against the triumvirate of evaluative factors (viz. the ‘rule of law’, human rights and democracy) assessing good government, domestic and foreign sources have given Singapore both good and bad reports.","PeriodicalId":38330,"journal":{"name":"Singapore Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":"269"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68033967","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：