ECONOMIC co-operation within ASEAN 1 can be said to have seriously begun only at the beginning of the nineties. Prior to that, it was well known that, ASEAN as a co-operative grouping, had existed mainly with a political and strategic focus. It is with this focus that ASEAN managed to establish and maintain cohesiveness through the years despite the shaky beginnings of what has been described as a "brittle alliance" borne of a common fear of communism. 2 And it is with this focus that ASEAN, as a regional grouping, has generally been hailed as a success.In contrast, the progress of economic co-operation within ASEAN has been described as slow and reluctant. 3 Whilst economic co-operation has always been part of the avowed reason for the regional grouping, 4 ASEAN's achievements in this area have, up until recent years, been insignificant. In the past, several ASEAN countries were following inward-looking and nationalistic policies. 3 National priorities and national sovereignty took precedence ahead of regional priorities, 6 unless the latter coincided with the former. This was largely due to differences in the levels of economic development and industrialisation among ASEAN countries. However, from around about the 1980s, ASEAN began adopting economic and financial liberalisation policies due to external pressures. Mr Lim Boon Heng the then Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Singapore, 7 attributed the impetus for this trend of
for their comments on an earlier draft of the paper. All errors remain mine alone. 1 The corporate director and the duties he owes are currently under intense scrutiny. The tidal wave of corporate law reform initiatives set in motion with the launch by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI, Modern Company Law for a Competitive Economy (1998)) had, at its core, a proposed statement of directors' duties. The reform cudgel was subsequently taken up by the independent Company Law Review Steering Group (CLRSG) formed of those with particular knowledge and expertise in company law matters. The CLRSG presented its Final Report (Modern Company Law for a Competitive Economy: Final Report (2001, URN 01/942 (vol. 1) and 01/943 (vol. 2)) (``Final Report'') to the Secretary of State in mid-2001. The Government has, in its White Paper, Modernising Company Law Cm. 5553 (``MCL''), endorsed much of what was recommended by the CLRSG, with the exception of the proposed duty in relation to creditors:
The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal has utilised a ‘scope of business’ inquiry to delineate the boundaries of the no‐conflict rule for the company director. Such an inquiry is directed at discerning the realistic ability of the company to exploit any particular business opportunity and a strict capacity approach is eschewed, at least where the no‐conflict rule is concerned. The decision is premised on a bifurcation between the no‐conflict and no‐profit rules, suggesting that the tests to determine breach of these fiduciary rules are not necessarily the same, thus permitting a more nuanced consideration of directorial breaches.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.