Hi there, kindly guide me on how to approach this question. Thanks!

As you are aware, the superior courts in different jurisdictions have taken slightly different approaches to equitable doctrines such as unconscionability and undue influence. This is particularly marked in English law, as compared to Australian law, for instance, in relation to both unconscionable conduct and undue influence. In Singapore, the approach may be different again: in BOM v BOK [2018] SGCA 83, [132] and [133], Andrew Phang Boon Leong J of the Singapore Court of Appeal rejected what he called a 'broad' doctrine of unconscionability, which his Honour exemplified by reference to the leading Australian case of Commercial Bank of Australia Limited v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 ('Amadio'). Do you consider that His Honour's characterisation of the decision in Amadio and of the Australian doctrine of unconscionable dealing was accurate? What were the grounds upon which Phang J rejected a 'broad' doctrine of unconscionability and do you agree with the reasoning that his Honour adopted in doing so?