arbiter
JournalsAccount

A comparative analysis of legislative protection from harassment: a view from Singapore

Joel Soon

Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal2022https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2022.2109272article
ABDC A*
Weight
0.57

Abstract

Harassment continues to plague modern society. Yet, countries have not found the panacea. Some have opted for a common law tort approach, while others have sought to legislate for protection against harassment. Singapore initially tackled this issue with the former, but turned to the latter after the common law tort created by the Singapore High Court in Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Betram v Naresh Kumar Mehta was thrown into disarray by AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd v Chandran s/o Natesan. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of similar harassment legislation in the United Kingdom and New Zealand and English and Hong Kong case law. It argues that while statutory protection from harassment is preferred over a common law tort, several recommendations can be considered to calibrate the scope of harassment and provide greater clarity as to what constitutes impermissible social interaction.

2 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2022.2109272

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{joel2022,
  title        = {{A comparative analysis of legislative protection from harassment: a view from Singapore}},
  author       = {Joel Soon},
  journal      = {Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal},
  year         = {2022},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2022.2109272},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

A comparative analysis of legislative protection from harassment: a view from Singapore

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.57

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.56 × 0.4 = 0.22
M · momentum0.80 × 0.15 = 0.12
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.