This Issue marks an important inflection point for the Asian Journal of Comparative Law (AsJCL). In 2015, the AsJCL entered into a partnership with Cambridge University Press to publish the Journal, which gave it an opportunity to reach a much wider readership and double its output from publishing one issue to two issues per year. Building on a decade of success, the Journal seized this opportunity – publishing two issues per year filled with leading scholarship in the fields of Asian law and comparative law. The continued success of the Journal has resulted in a ‘good problem’. The Journal now receives far more high-quality submissions than it has space to publish. This development ensures that every article in the Journal is not only a high-quality piece of scholarship, but one that has been specifically identified as standing out among a body of leading scholarship by our expert peer reviewers and editorial team.

The scope of the subject matter examined in this Issue is as varied as any in the Journal’s history. Rather than curating this Issue based along the lines of a particular theme, the touchstone of this Issue is the important academic contribution that each piece makes in its respective field.

The Issue commences with an article by Kwai Hang Ng and Brynna Jacobson which undertakes a sophisticated empirical analysis of foreign citations in court decisions in Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Singapore to gain insights into the development of the common law in Asia and the character of the judiciary in these jurisdictions. Taslima Yasmin contributes the next article, which examines the tension between traditional Muslim personal law rules and the secular concept of ‘the welfare of the child’ in Bangladeshi family law. The Issue continues with an article by Andrew Harding, which uses the fascinating case study of the Malaysian state of Sarawak to explore the process of ‘devolution’ as a mechanism for dealing with the inherent tensions in federalist states. Vivien Chen contributes the next article, which undertakes a comparative analysis of the derivative action in Malaysia to examine whether it has achieved its objective of facilitating better shareholder access to redress. The Issue then features an article by Tu Phuong Nguyen, which draws on the author’s original fieldwork to explore how labour law, legal training, and legal aid may contribute to labour resistance in Vietnam. Kelvin Hiu Fai Kwok contributes the next article, which undertakes an interesting analysis of the importance of bilateral antitrust co-operation between Mainland China and Hong Kong for the promotion of market competition in the two regions. Lindy Wilmott et al. round out the Issue with an article providing an insightful comparative analysis of guardianship and health decisions in China and Australia.

This Issue would not have been possible without the skill, hard work, and dedication of the Journal’s Executive Editors (Kevin Y.L. Tan and Wang Jiangyu), Deputy Editor (Dian A.H. Shah), Associate Editors (KarLuis Quek, Samantha Tang, Ayesha Wijayalath, Alan Koh, and Walter Yong), Assistant Editors (Nisha Rajoo, Thaddaeus Tan, Shreya Kittur, and Chong Siew Men) and our administrative team (Elizabeth Chua and Khairiyah Binte Abu). We are also grateful to our 23 Subject Editors, based primarily at leading law schools across Asia, which distinguishes the Journal in its ability to deliver an authentic Asian voice in a way that influences the leading international literature. Finally, we would like to thank our Advisory Board, made up of preeminent members of the Asian law fraternity, for their continued support and guidance.

We hope that you enjoy reading this Issue as much as we enjoyed working on it.