Student’s name: Trần Hoàng An Phúc

Class: CLC46TA
MSSV: 2153801013198

ASEAN FIELD STUDIES PROGRAM

1. The main difference between the legal system of Singapore and

the legal system of Vietnam might be the law system between the
two countries: Common law and Civil Law
- Singapore is currently influenced by the British Common Law
system. Singapore, in particular, began to be influenced by British
law beginning in 1919. As a result, the British legal system has
been integrated into the Singapore legal system in both direct and
indirect ways. 
- On the other hand, the legal system of Vietnam has all the
characteristics of a civil law tradition, which is essentially based on
the written law. The Vietnamese legal system was initially modeled
on the French and Soviet systems until the late 1980s, when
Vietnam adopted its Innovation - “Doi Moi” policy
- More specifically, the main difference between the two systems is
that in common law countries, case law — in the form of published
judicial opinions — is of primary importance, whereas in civil law
systems, codified statutes predominate.

2. There are numerous ways to settle a dispute. The parties can

choose between two types of dispute resolution: arbitration or
court. The choice of arbitration or court is a concern of businesses
when it comes to commercial dispute resolution. In the following
analysis, I will provide an overview of the legal provisions as well
as the benefits and drawbacks of two types of dispute resolution.
First of all, for the Arbitration method- unless the parties have
agreed otherwise, the dispute resolution is not a public trial. This
advantage is extremely important to the parties in disputes
involving intellectual property: inventions, etc. Furthermore, the
parties may safeguard their reputation as well as other business
secrets.
Second, the arbitration process is simple and fast, the parties can be
proactive in time and place for dispute resolution without having to
go through many levels of negotiation. This allows the parties to
save both the fee and time for dispute resolution.
Third, because the arbitrator's decision is final, it is binding on the
parties, and the right to appeal is null and void in this case.
Moreover, the arbitrator is appointed by the parties to establish an
arbitration tribunal in order to resolve the case in order to assist the
parties in selecting a talented arbitrator with extensive experience
and understanding of the dispute so that they can resolve disputes
quickly and accurately.
A final advantage of arbitration is that the parties don't need to
adhere to any territorial restrictions, so any arbitrator can be
selected by the parties.
Meanwhile, in the name of the state, the court is an agency to settle
disputes, so its judgments are guaranteed to be enforced by the
state's power. Judgment enforcement agencies are specialized and
have the necessary state departments in order to execute legally
valid judgments. Therefore, judgment enforcement is guaranteed in
most cases.
Besides, due to the possibility of multiple levels of trial, the rules of
multiple levels of trial ensure that the court's decisions are accurate,
fair, objective, and lawful.
As a final point, courts of law are more cost-effective at resolving
economic disputes than commercial arbitration organizations and
international arbitration tribunals.
On the other hand, to begin with, the arbitral award is heavily
dependent on the willingness of the disputing parties. If the party
who is to execute the award does not voluntarily enforce or request
the cancellation of the arbitral award, the judgment creditors may
file a request with the enforcement judgment authority after the
time limit for enforcement of the arbitral award has expired.
Furthermore, one of the disputing parties may petition the Court to
vacate the arbitral award. As a result, the judgment debtor may
have difficulty enforcing the other party's obligations.
Second, the fee for resolving disputes through arbitration is quite
high, and it varies according to the value of the dispute. Based on
the parties' capabilities, this is also something to consider.
Third, the existence of the arbitration agreement is a prerequisite
for the dispute to be subject to arbitration. Due to this, if one party
needs to settle a dispute through arbitration but cannot reach an
agreement with the other party, the dispute cannot be resolved
through arbitration.
When dealing with the court, first and foremost, the parties must
follow the rules of the court. When it comes to dispute resolution,
the parties cannot engage in proactive behavior as they do in
arbitration.
Secondly, it is a public trial. Due to the reputational risk involved,
the parties should not protect their trade secrets.
Consequently, the multi-level trial rules ensure that the court's
decision is accurate and fair, but the case is prolonged and may be
on trial multiple times, placing the parties at a disadvantage.

3.Apparently, even though Singapore is a multiracial, during the

field study programmed in this country I hardly witness racism
activities. Obviously accountability, transparency, meritocracy and
a corruption free administration. Account for every cent expended
(the Official Secret Act should only be used to safeguard the
nation's interest and not to conceal malpractices). Singapore being a
multi racial society needs also to ensure that the minority's interest
is also safeguarded. This includes laws to prevent the use of race
and religion to create chaos. All of the traits of good governance
will only work if these guiding principles are put into practice for
very often many nations fail to actually implement them. To these
failed states these catch phrases are just to fish for votes. There is a
lack of political will as well because partisan patronage takes
priority over clean governance ( such as the US where
institutionalized corruption like lobbying and political funding is
freely and openly acceptable ). Laws against fake news( which was
passed as law recently) is also vital as being a closely knitted
society, the wrong info can lead to distortions, manipulation of
facts and result in civil strife and riots. Equally important, laws
against slandering. The mere assumption(without proof) or rumors
that certain senior officials or leaders are on the take would send a
wrong message to junior officials that corruption is tolerable. This
can lead the country to ruins. This is happening in neighboring
countries (where corruption is widespread) and the road to recovery
can be long and arduous. Inflation, increase in unemployment can
result as confidence by investors cannot be built overnight.
Successive governments will have to work very hard to overcome
these insurmountable difficulties and very often they fail. Fresh
elections may be called but it will not solve the problems created
initially by unscrupulous leaders as seen in Greece, Africa, SEA
and Latin American countries. The rot has set in and it may need
the sacrifices of future generations to clear the stench. Singapore
without natural resources can ill afford this lack of morality and
lackadaisical attitude. A message must therefore be sent through the
courts that accusations must be backed by facts otherwise there will
be a hefty price to pay. For some countries it may be too late to
learn from Singapore.