The dynamics surrounding the legislative process of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana, KUHAP) from 1979 to 1981 were shaped by a clash between two opposing ideologies. On one side stood proponents of a rights-based approach, advocating for legal protections for the accused; on the other, supporters of an authoritarian approach emphasised the primacy of state authority in maintaining security and public order. In the end, Indonesian lawmakers were able to strike a balance by establishing several procedural safeguards that purported to protect the rights of the accused. This article offers a detailed account and analysis of this debate, illuminating how resistance and compromise emerged from the struggle. Drawing on these historical insights, the article explores the potential for reform in the contemporary Indonesian legal and political landscape, highlighting current challenges. The main dataset for this article was collected from official records of the meetings that took place during the legislative process of the KUHAP, as well as public opinion at the time. Although this debate took place more than four decades ago, revisiting the historical context of the KUHAP remains crucial to understanding its ongoing relevance and potential future for reform.

In recent times, Malaysian courts have resorted to a ritual incantation of unconscionability and the notion of a remedial constructive trust to justify a declaration of a constructive trust. This methodology is unhelpful for approaching constructive trusts and has led the law to develop in an unprincipled and unpredictable fashion. Our central thesis is that the key Malaysian decisions could have been decided on the basis of pre-existing legal principles upon which English and Commonwealth courts have declared a constructive trust. We argue that future courts ought to realign their methodology with the orthodox tradition of incremental development of the law in this area instead of resorting to broad notions of unconscionability and the remedial constructive trust.

In Hong Kong, the basic joint enterprise principle is recognised as an independent basis for attributing criminal liability. Although the principle has been recognised by the highest courts of the United Kingdom, Australia, and Hong Kong at different times, this article suggests that it does not have a historical foundation in common law. This article further argues that the basic joint enterprise principle (i) has no practical utility as it completely overlaps with traditional accessorial liability and the inchoate offence of conspiracy; (ii) necessarily requires the court to engage in circular reasoning; (iii) is unable to deal with situations of evidential uncertainty; and (iv) unjustifiably disrupts the principal-accessory distinction under common law. It is therefore recommended that the basic joint enterprise principle be abolished.

Countries across Asia have attempted to expand the involvement of fathers in childcare, motivated by declining birth rates, growing elderly populations, notable gender inequality gaps, and the demand of fathers for paid leave. This article assesses the efforts of twenty-one Asian nations to achieve a more equal distribution of the responsibility for child-rearing by comparing legal entitlements to paid maternity leave, paternity leave, and parental leave. Twenty-one jurisdictions are classified according to three models. Model A is a ‘gender equality’ model where non-transferable paid leave is provided in more equal share to parents, with an additional post-birth period exclusively for birth mothers. Model B is a ‘quota for fathers’ approach where a number of days or weeks are provided in amounts that fall far short of the amount of paid leave exclusively offered to mothers. Model C captures countries that offer no legal entitlements for paid leave for fathers. The data reveals the extent to which Asia lags behind global good practice in the provision of leave to different-sex and same-sex parents, with regional laws reflecting the view that caregiving primarily or exclusively falls upon women. Generous, paid and non-transferable leave for fathers is needed to increase leave-taking.