Committee of Supply – Head R (Ministry of Law)

Head R (Cont) —

Resumption of Debate on Question [27 February 2026],

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100." – [Mr Vikram Nair].

Question again proposed.

The Chairman: Minister Edwin Tong.

10.33 am

The Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Chairman, Sir, I thank the various Members who spoke last week, in particular, for each of their support of the Ministry of Law's (MinLaw's) work.

Sir, let me begin with history because context matters.

In 1826, the Second Charter of Justice formally established the Court of Judicature of Singapore, at that time, a fledgling colonial legal order in a trading post that had barely found its footing. The law then served a different purpose, a different master and in a very different age.

Nearly two centuries on, what Singapore has built has been nothing short of remarkable. We now rank among the top legal and intellectual property (IP) systems in the world. Our Courts and dispute resolution institutions, like the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) and Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), are globally recognised for excellence.

Whilst our legal beginnings were inherited, we have since moulded and contextualised the rule of law to serve our nation and our people. This has been the Singapore story of progress. However, none of this happened by accident. Generations of lawyers, judges, academics and policymakers understood that a rules-based society is the bedrock upon which everything else – commerce, safety, and liberty – is built.

Sir, in our bicentennial year, this year, since the Second Charter of Justice, we are facing significant disruptive forces: geopolitical tensions, which escalated just over the weekend, revolutionary technologies, climate risk and pressures on the social fabric. We will therefore have to redouble efforts to keep our laws updated and relevant and also be bold and open to embracing changes. MinLaw will continue to press on with reform and progress in our legal policies.

In my speech this morning, I will set out our overarching vision, the priority areas that we will focus on as well as outline some of the key challenges that we will have to confront.

Let me start with the continued development of our legal industry, which remains a priority.

We will continue our work to build Singapore as a legal and professional services hub. These are powerful growth engines, providing opportunities, driving economic expansion and job creation. In order to achieve this, Singapore must constantly refresh its legal frameworks in an ever-changing and fast-evolving world, and also do it in a timely manner.

We will therefore be reviewing key legislation with a view to updating them to ensure that our laws stay fit for purpose. This will include, this year, reforms in arbitration, corporate insolvency and IP.

Beyond reviewing legislation, we will also identify opportunities in emerging areas. This includes supporting the green transition, the digital economy and major regional infrastructure projects, as well as sports and entertainment dispute resolution that Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh mentioned.

Beyond domestic reforms, Singapore will continue to contribute to international thought leadership. By being present in the global legal mindshare, we ensure that we will not merely be price takers but we will actively play a role in shaping the law.

The Singapore Convention on Mediation bears our name, our country’s name – a testament to our involvement in shaping international dispute resolution. Maxwell Chambers continues to serve as a leading dispute resolution complex, hosting the highest concentration of international dispute resolution institutions worldwide.

This year, we welcome three more institutions to Singapore: first, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID); second, the Shanghai International Arbitration Centre; and third, the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration.

Besides being the first office outside its Washington DC headquarters, ICSID will join the four other World Bank Group organisations already based in Singapore, making Singapore the first country in the world to host local offices for all five World Bank organisations.

Indeed, Singaporeans also contribute to leadership on the international stage, including Mr Daren Tang and Ambassador Rena Lee, as mentioned by Mr Christopher de Souza.

Our international engagement also extends to strengthening legal cooperation frameworks with our partners, ensuring that as commerce and cross-border activity grow, the rule of law keeps pace.

One example is extradition treaties.

To Ms Sylvia Lim’s query on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Treaty on Extradition (AET), the AET requires at least six ASEAN members states to complete their respective domestic procedures and notify the ASEAN Secretary-General that they are ready to bring the AET into effect. The Government will also similarly ratify the AET once we have completed our own internal procedures. On the risks to Singaporeans, there are robust legal safeguards in the AET, which set out the circumstances where extradition will not be granted. One example is if the request is made to prosecute the fugitive based on his race, religion, nationality or political opinions.

Second, we must continue to cultivate a strong legal profession. This is the backbone of our legal progress. And we want Singapore to remain a jurisdiction where the finest legal minds choose to practise here and where homegrown talent is given every opportunity to flourish and remain at the core of our profession. I encourage our law firms to expand their horizons, think about internationalising their practices. Given our market, Singapore’s size, we must build our legal ecosystem with the broader Asia and ASEAN in context.

And the case for doing so is compelling. In ASEAN alone, it is set as a bloc to become the fourth largest economy by 2030, if not sooner. And foreign direct investments into ASEAN have been steadily rising. So, I believe our firms are well-primed to capture these opportunities.

At the same time, we recognise the value that foreign law firms and lawyers bring to our industry and the wider economy. Ms Cassandra Lee mentioned balancing between open competitiveness and preserving a Singapore core. We agree, and the two can co-exist.

Singapore, in fact, has gradually liberalised the legal sector since the 1990s, and we have not changed our posture. Foreign firms have more than doubled, and foreign lawyers have more than quadrupled since the year 2000.

They complement our Singapore lawyers, offering advice and expertise on international and foreign law, which we need as a global business hub. This strengthens Singapore’s value proposition. Indeed, over the same period of time, since the year 2000, our legal services exports have gone up eight-fold, which shows that when we bring it together – foreign lawyers, Singapore practitioners at the core – we can extract value.

We regularly review our frameworks to remain attractive to foreign law firms and lawyers. To Ms Lee’s query, we have studied the recommendations by the Committee to Review the Regulatory Framework for Law Practices and Collaborations and gathered feedback from a public consultation and our industry engagements, and we will share our decision on the Committee’s Report shortly.

Third, Sir, we will redouble efforts to develop the individual lawyer. The strength of any legal system and, indeed, of our legal profession, lies ultimately in the strength of our people. We will therefore expand education and competency frameworks, not just in technical skills but in civil law, technology literacy and cross-border practice, so that every Singapore lawyer can serve their clients and their community with confidence and competence.

This also means confronting the sustainability of legal practice, issues which Ms Kuah Boon Theng, Mr Vikram Nair and Ms Cassandra Lee spoke on.

Let me start by saying that attrition has remained stable, so far. And in fact, the number of Singapore lawyers in practice grew 26% over the past decade. So, over the last 10 years, the number of lawyers in practice grew 26%. Nonetheless, I agree with the observations made by the hon Members. We must continue to explore ways to alleviate pressures on our lawyers in light of the changing environment.

There is, however, no magic bullet. As Ms Kuah has noted, the challenges are multifaceted. It will require collective effort, including law firms, which will set the conditions for growth, exposure and mentorship for lawyers, but also lawyers themselves, each of them, who can be stewards of their own careers.

We will have to think collectively and carefully about embracing technology to automate mundane tasks, equipping lawyers with relevant 21st century skills, widening the industry ecosystem, so that lawyers can pursue diverse interests and strengths, and find meaning, purpose and value in the profession that they practise in. Senior Minister of State Murali Pillai will share our efforts on education and the adoption of legaltech.

Sir, what I have found during my time in practice was that while the hours may be long and the pressure intense, a collaborative workplace culture helps in longevity, helps in building the ecosystem and the environment in which each lawyer practises. The Law Society and the Singapore Academy of Law have introduced mentorship programmes and other initiatives to help promote sustainability. The Chief Justice and I will oversee a Committee on the Future of the Legal Profession to consider and tackle these and other pertinent issues that may arise. The Committee will explore these matters, from the holistic perspective of ensuring the long-term sustainability of our legal sector.

In parallel, the Government will also continue to support in-house counsel, who are integral to Singapore’s legal ecosystem and economic competitiveness. As Mr Vikram Nair noted, lawyers joining in-house legal teams are not a loss. Multinational companies (MNCs) present in Singapore have grown to over 7,000 present in Singapore today, and between 2015 and 2024, the number of Singapore-qualified in-house counsel more than doubled.

So, in that period of time, while our industry has remained stable, in fact, with a 26% increase, the number of in-house counsel has more than doubled over the last 10 years. It reflects growth in not just the number of lawyers in practice or in in-house counsel roles but the growth of MNCs in Singapore, which supports the economy, in turn requiring in-house counsel legal support. In-house counsel help companies navigate regulatory landscapes and invest with confidence in Singapore.

Next, Sir, let me turn to enhancing access to justice, ensuring that those who are most vulnerable and most in need can still access our first-class legal system.

Sir, in the preceding years, we have streamlined laws and processes to meet our society’s evolving needs. For example, we have shifted away from the adversarial approach in family proceedings, addressing non-compliance with maintenance orders. We have simplified enforcement of civil claims. We have strengthened the management of community disputes through mandatory mediation and we support those with special needs in our criminal justice system.

We have also made a firm commitment to Government legal aid through the Legal Aid Bureau and the setting up of the Public Defender’s Office. We have continued to work with the legal fraternity and partners like Pro Bono SG to deliver legal aid and expand outreach and assistance through schemes like the Community Law Centres. We have introduced technology, such as LawGoWhere, to bring legal services closer to Singaporeans and help them to navigate the process and empower and enable self-help.

This year, Sir, we will make another shift to expand civil legal aid coverage.

10.45 am

Today, civil legal aid is available to the bottom 25th percentile of households with a per capita household income (PCHI) of $1,050. We will raise the means-test criteria to a PCHI of $1,650. This would cover more households, allowing them to benefit from legal advice in the appropriate cases.

When we did a survey, we found that between the previous threshold of $1,050 and $1,650, about half of civil litigants in this expanded income range remain unrepresented. Some may have done so by choice, but after we put this in place, we will allow them to now avail themselves of legal aid, should that become necessary. This will extend more legal aid to more Singaporeans. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric will share more details on these efforts.

Next, I turn to optimising our state assets and I thank Mr de Souza for recognising our efforts over the years to unlock underutilised spaces for social and community good, place-making, such as providing arts spaces for practitioners and sports and recreational facilities.

But this is no easy undertaking. The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) manages a substantial portfolio of around 2,600 state properties and 11,000 hectares of state land – the equivalent of some 15,000 football fields. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric will share how SLA continues to support our economic and social needs.

At this juncture, let me turn to address Ms Sylvia Lim's cut on the appointment of the Attorney-General (AG). Ms Lim's cut was originally filed to the Prime Minister's Office. It was redirected to MinLaw, as I will respond on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Sir, Mr Lucien Wong has served as AG since January 2017. As Ms Lim noted, Mr Wong has had a distinguished legal career. Prior to his appointment, he grew and led Singapore's largest law firm and was widely regarded as the country's top corporate lawyer over many years, with an international standing. In fact, I would say that his reputation stands as amongst the best in the world.

As AG, Mr Wong has made major contributions across almost every area of law. Under his leadership, the AGC has advised the Government on complex legal and constitutional matters; prosecuted criminal offences fairly and firmly; and ensured that legislation introduced in Parliament is clear, sound and fit for Singapore's purposes. His experience and steady hand have also been especially valuable to Singapore in sensitive international matters, some of which are presently ongoing. In January this year, Mr Wong's term was renewed for three years.

Ms Lim, in her speech, has described the appointment process for the AG as "thin", if I heard her correctly. But I would have to disagree and would instead characterise it quite differently.

Sir, the appointment of the AG, whether the initial appointment or any subsequent renewal, is made in accordance with the Constitution. There is a clear, deliberate and very structured process of appointment, with the appropriate checks and balances.

Let me explain. In the appointment of an AG, Article 35 of the Constitution provides that the Prime Minister must first consult the Chief Justice and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC) before tendering his advice as to the appointment to the President. After receiving that advice, the President in turn consults the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA) and makes an independent assessment of the appointment.

Sir, this is not a perfunctory process; nor is it "thin" by any measure. It involves consultation with the head of the Judiciary, the leadership of the PSC and the elected President exercising his constitutional role, in consultation with the CPA, before the AG is either appointed or renewed. This process reflects a careful and considered balance between executive responsibility and institutional safeguards.

Ms Lim then goes on to suggest that there should be public disclosure of these deliberations.

Sir, I do not think that would be wise.

First, these are matters for Chairman PSC and the CPA to assess independently and take a considered view of. The CPA, for instance, does not publish its advice to the President, nor is the Government privy to its deliberations.

Second, confidential deliberations also serve an important function when it comes to making such appointments.

If you put it out publicly, you put the candidates out for public debate. Even the best of candidates will have some detractors; a small minority, but there will be some. Suitable candidates may well then be deterred from even being considered if discussions as to their suitability and perhaps their rejection were to be made publicly.

The consultation process also requires candour and frank assessment. Turning it into a public debate risks politicising an office that must remain scrupulously non-partisan.

It is easy to say, let us have more information, let us have more public debate, public discourse and deliberations. But we have seen other countries using such methods in other systems. And the question we have to ask ourselves is, are they better?

Singapore's legal system, our corruption levels, our adherence to the rule of law has consistently been marked internationally very well and I think we want to continue with this.

In some jurisdictions, the AGs are elected office holders, but Singapore has had a different model since our Independence. Our AG is not a politician. He is appointed based on professional excellence, integrity and judgement. The safeguards, however, lie in the constitutional requirements and qualifications required, the consultative process that I have just outlined and ultimately, in the performance and the conduct of the office.

Ms Lim also says that there are many qualified persons for the position. That may be so, if one considers only the basic eligibility criteria. However, the selection of an AG is not simply about meeting the basic criteria. It requires a careful assessment of who is best suited to discharge the heavy and very important responsibilities of the office. We want the best, not just those who might qualify.

What then does the Government look for in an AG? There are several considerations.

As I said, the role of an AG is a demanding one. It is, in fact, one of the most critical offices in our constitutional framework. So, beyond formal qualification, it calls for an individual of high professional standing, wide-ranging legal experience, sound judgement and a strong sense of public duty.

The AG must also have unimpeachable integrity and strong moral fibre. He must render objective advice and act fairly in the conduct of prosecutions, even when doing so may be difficult or unpopular. He must be prepared to uphold the law impartially and apply it equally to everyone, whether one is a Minister or the Leader of the Opposition.

Individuals with the requisite experience, judgement and integrity for this office are not easily found. The Government continually looks out for suitable candidates, one who can shoulder the full weight of these responsibilities.

At the same time, in making any appointments, the Government also takes into account a range of considerations, including the performance of the incumbent, his ability and willingness to serve and whether there are significant ongoing matters that require continuity and careful oversight. In particular, the Government continues to rely on Mr Wong's counsel on significant matters that remain in progress today, including negotiations on maritime boundaries; tax and financial sector legal reforms; and complex cross-border criminal matters. These and others are substantial responsibilities that will benefit from deep expertise, sound judgement and a steady hand.

Mr Wong has had a proven track record. We have seen and worked with him, we have assessed and we know the quality of the work, including on sensitive matters. He remains fit, able and willing to continue.

So, having considered all these factors and after the required consultations, the Prime Minister advised the President to re-appoint Mr Wong for another term based on the constitutional mechanism. The President then exercised his constitutional functions. And I believe this is a system of appointment which is careful, structured and designed to preserve both independence and public trust.

Sir, I have sketched out our areas of priority in broad terms. My colleagues, Senior Minister of State Murali and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua will set out further details in their speeches. However, even as we pursue these priorities, we must be very clear-eyed about the challenges that lie ahead of us. We are entering into an era of profound disruption, the kind of disruption the legal industry has not encountered in recent memory. And the most consequential driver of this disruption is artificial intelligence (AI). The numbers tell a striking story. Based on Thomson Reuters' survey findings last month, the proportion of legal professionals using generative AI in their organisation has roughly tripled since 2024. That is just about a year and a half, two years ago. Legaltech funding in 2025 reached US$5.99 billion, up from US$3.88 in 2023.

Closer to home, Singapore law firms, some with MinLaw's support, have begun piloting AI tools. The Supreme Court's own Court Audio Services System integrates audio recording and automated AI-driven transcription technology, allowing real-time conversion of spoken words into written text. This and other examples, many other examples, shows a profession already in motion, moving and evolving with the advent of technology.

But we have to ask ourselves, what does this mean for us, as a legal profession, in practice? AI-powered tools are already conducting document reviews, drafting contracts and flagging regulatory exposure across multiple jurisdictions at speeds that no humans can replicate or even match. Some platforms can even analyse thousands of precedents and generate predictive assessments of case outcomes – work that previously demanded years and years of legal experience.

These are genuinely impressive capabilities. But they also raise very important questions for the future of our profession. How does a young lawyer develop judgement, intuition and professional instinct if the AI performs the basic tasks and gives the answers to these young lawyers? How will our lawyers develop these instincts which are honed by a process of doing and redoing and repeating it? Who bears responsibility when the AI produces errors with commercial implications? How do we regulate cross-border AI-generated advice without, at the same time, allowing regulation to stifle innovation? And perhaps most fundamentally, how do we harness AI to serve the public interest, and not just allow it to widen the gap between those who can afford sophisticated legal technology and those who cannot?

The impact on legal education is equally pressing. Our law schools have, for generations, trained lawyers through a well-established pedagogy, where the process of reading and analysing cases, drafting legal memos and crafting oral arguments – all of these, which I described as the process – is as important as the outcome when it comes to training.

But if the AI can do the research or draft a memo in minutes, what happens to this training? What happens to the cultivation of hands-on experience, in making mistakes?

Perhaps the law degree ought then to redouble its emphasis on what AI cannot replicate. Ethical reasoning, empathetic client engagement and the exercise of judgement in areas of genuine ambiguity and moral courage.

The challenge is equally acute for those who are already in practice and in continuing legal education. Can our structures support a landscape where skills need to be updated every once in a while, more recently, every once in a few months?

These questions, Sir, do not admit easy answers. They go to the heart of what it means to practise law, to train lawyers and to uphold the standards of a profession entrusted with the heavy responsibility of the administration of justice.

Some of these issues will be studied by the Future of the Legal Profession Committee, which I spoke about earlier, and we will have to work with the profession and the broader legal industry to understand these issues deeply and come together to find a solution.

But I want to emphasise this point. These are not matters which any single institution can resolve in isolation. The challenges before us will require a collective response – from practitioners, in-house counsel, academics, regulators, policy-makers, law students as well as members of the public whose interests the legal system ultimately serves.

As a first step, MinLaw is organising a gathering of the legal industry later this week, we titled it, "The Next Charter: Shaping Singapore's Legal Future Together" on 6 March. This is an opportunity for an open, frank and candid conversation about the challenges we face, starting with AI and technology, but also understanding the road ahead and the opportunities that might lie ahead for us and the future we want to build, collectively, for Singapore's legal industry.

Sir, as I conclude, I want to close with a direct appeal to every member of Singapore's legal community. What you do matters a lot, not just to the profession, but to Singapore's development and our continued success. In this extraordinary age of change, perhaps it matters more.

Singapore did not build our legal system by accident, as I sketched out earlier, nor can we hope to preserve and strengthen it by accident. It will require all of us – my Ministry, the Bar, the Judiciary, our law schools, the firms and every single lawyer – to engage with purpose and genuine commitment and intentionality to tackling the disruptive challenges.

11.00 am

On this endeavour, what I can assure this House of is that MinLaw will not be a spectator. We will be an active, present and engaged partner – listening carefully and investing purposefully in our people and in our institutions.

Sir, AI will not replace the lawyer, but the lawyer who harnesses AI thoughtfully and more effectively will outpace the lawyer who does not. And the legal system that navigates these changes wisely will command far greater trust and attract more commerce and investment, than one that responds with uncritical enthusiasm, or perhaps, unexamined fear.

The 1826 Charter of Justice gave Singapore a foundation. We worked on it. Generations that followed built upon it. Now it falls to us – this generation, to ensure that the next chapter is worthy of all that came before it.

Sir, MinLaw remains fully committed to working with every stakeholder in Singapore's legal landscape to advance a legal system that is excellent, accessible, adaptive and just. And that is work that we must continue together. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Murali Pillai.

The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai): Mr Chairman, the law cannot generate a single cent in commerce or bring a single idea into market. It powers neither our economy nor our society. It collapses on itself when it stands alone. Yet, we will have no peace, no security, no comfort, neither prosperity nor progress without the law.

The law underwrites both the private and the public sectors of our world. Today, I will speak about both and how they, together, secure the livelihoods of fellow Singaporeans. MinLaw will steward the next bound of our development in three ways: first, the private – empowering businesses through IP as an engine of growth; second, the public – facilitating resolution of disputes by deepening capabilities and reliability of our dispute resolution pathways; and third, the people – to grow the capabilities of our legal profession.

First, intangible assets (IA) and IP are critical for enterprises to develop – as mentioned by the hon Members Mr Jackson Lam and Mr Mark Lee. The most valuable resources of a business are often intangible.

These assets are generated by the ingenuity and creativity of men, but they are given specific value by the law. Singapore has been working for decades to harness IP for economic growth. Since 2021, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has stepped up to attract and grow innovative enterprises using IA and IP, guided by the Singapore IP Strategy (SIPS) 2030.

While the assets may be intangible, the benefits of focusing on IA and IP are tangible. This year, IPOS celebrates 25 years of empowering businesses to turn ideas into tangible assets. In the second tranche of SIPS 2030, we will work harder to uplift enterprises and strengthen Singapore as a global IA and IP Hub. This includes – first, supporting businesses, particularly SMEs, in managing their IP and unlocking its value. For example, the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) will exchange a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in a few days to set up the WIPO IP Business Centre @ ASME – the first in ASEAN. From there, more SMEs will gain access to initiatives like WIPO's IP Management Clinic Singapore programme to develop IP strategies and overseas expansion.

Second, stepping up work on IA and IP valuation. This includes developing frameworks with financial institutions, public agencies and industry partners, to help companies realise IA value and commercialise their ideas through licensing and partnerships. IPOS will support our partners in publishing the IA valuation guidelines this year. To Mr Mark Lee's queries on research attachments as well as IP financing – on the former, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) seconds researchers to SMEs. IPI Singapore, a subsidiary under EnterpriseSG, also assists SMEs with technology matching services and advisory support to develop go-to-market strategies. On the latter, IPOS is studying the market gaps in enterprise financing.

I now move to AI. Human creativity is the lifeblood of innovation and progress. As we harness AI for growth, we are committed to maintaining a balanced and robust IP regime. Ms Goh Hanyan and Mr Jackson Lam spoke about concerns relating to the training and use of generative AI (GenAI), particularly from the creative sectors.

Our approach to developing our IP regime is human-centric. We are working with stakeholders to refine our regime, for example, the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) supported by MinLaw and IPOS, organised industry and expert roundtables.

The feedback was broadly supportive of Singapore's copyright framework which balances AI development with guardrails to protect rights-holders' interests. It also raised suggestions for further consultation and refinement, which we will study.

Last year, IPOS also launched explainers to help the public and businesses understand how copyright laws address key GenAI issues. We are monitoring international developments to remain competitive. To take our work further, MinLaw and IPOS will conduct a public consultation later this year on potential refinements. This aims to engage broader perspectives and co-create our approach to AI-related IP issues.

Next, I turn to dispute resolution. Businesses need clear, reliable and impartial pathways to resolution, providing predictability and certainty in their relationships. Singapore has long recognised this and worked hard to be an international dispute resolution hub, as hon Members Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Vikram Nair said.

Over the past decades, our ecosystem has deepened. Our institutions refined their rules and procedures, expanded their international panels and strengthened their case management capabilities. Signature platforms, such as the Singapore Convention Week, reinforce our reputation as a global node. This contributes to Singapore's standing as a services centre and signals our openness for commerce.

However, the landscape is evolving and we must continue to innovate. Technology is transforming dispute management, from virtual hearings to AI-assisted document review. Our institutions have also deepened offerings in specialist areas.

Reinforcing our frameworks and institutions is insufficient without looking at our people. MinLaw is working with industry on three thrusts: first, education and professionalisation – to deepen the strength of our legal industry; second, adoption of legaltech – to reduce repetitive, low-value tasks; and third, providing opportunities in emerging areas of work, such as the environmental, social and governance (ESG) sector.

First, on legal education and professionalisation. We have been implementing recommendations of the Reform of Legal Education Working Group since late 2024. These better equip legal professionals for cross-border work with civil law partners. In the professional sphere, SAL has published the national legal sector competency framework for disputes and corporate lawyers and in-house counsel. By 2027, a framework and training roadmap for allied legal professionals will follow.

Second, harnessing technology. Hon Members Mr Vikram Nair and Ms Cassandra Lee spoke on AI adoption. MinLaw is committed to supporting our legal professionals adopt AI. First, we are addressing the adoption barriers directly. Change management remains a challenge, especially for smaller Singapore Law Practices (SLPs) alongside cost. We launched the pilot of the Legal Innovation and Future-Readiness Transformation (LIFT) initiative in June 2025 to support these firms to diagnose technology needs and implement tailored legaltech solutions. To date, seven SLPs have joined the pilot. Their experiences will guide how we will support the broader industry in 2027.

Second, we are ensuring responsible GenAI use – a point raised by Mr Nair. We conducted a public consultation in September 2025 on the draft Guide for Using GenAI in the Legal Sector and received over 20 constructive responses. We will be publishing the Guide in the coming weeks. On Ms Lee's point about AI skills, we are also partnering the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) to build AI fluency amongst our lawyers and in-house counsel through upskilling and training initiatives, together with professional bodies including SAL and the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association (SCCA).

Third, we are creating more avenues for lawyers, including in-house counsel, to discover legaltech, through initiatives such as LegalTech GoWhere and the Singapore Open Legal Informatics Database (SOLID) with our partner, the Singapore Management University (SMU).

Besides assisting legal professionals, AI can transform the way our society interacts with the law. This has tremendous potential for good – provided it is harnessed responsibly, as hon Member Mr Nair mentioned. Users ultimately remain responsible for how they use these tools and the attendant risks – knowing that the algorithms are incapable of weighing consequences or applying ethical reasoning in the way legal professionals do. MinLaw will monitor these developments and raise public awareness on the responsible use of GenAI tools in legal matters.

My final point is on capturing opportunities in emerging areas of legal demand. One example is ESG, which Ms Gho Sze Kee spoke on. Sustainability is one of the paradoxes of the business world, even as it is one of the most important and consequential factors in business decisions, it is often overlooked or under-considered. Being an emerging area, the Government is taking a targeted approach to build capability across the legal profession. For firms with a dedicated ESG practice, we launched a pilot ESG-Legal Secondment Programme this year. MinLaw co-funds secondments for lawyers into participating corporations, giving secondees exposure to ESG business contexts. The pilot began in February with a small initial cohort and we will review its outcome later this year.

Mr Chairman, I have spoken today about the importance of the law in giving value to ideas. I want to end on the need to give power to the law.

In a world increasingly dominated by might, money and manipulation, it is vital for us to remember that it is the law that enables justice, reason and rightfulness to find strength and standing.

There are no shortcuts to give power to the law, but one unvarying path is to remember that law is inextricably tied up with the human condition. Even as I spoke about the need for technology, I have spoken more about the need for people. We must build and grow a profession with the skills, courage and moral instincts suited for our tumultuous times. The law underwrites both the private and the public sectors, but it is for, and in the people, that the law finds its surest power.

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Mr Eric Chua): Chairman, the Rule of Law underpins our society's broader objectives and continued development.

In my speech, I will focus on two key areas: first, optimising land and creating good spaces for our economic and social needs; second, upholding the Rule of Law and expanding access to justice to strengthen our social fabric. We do so by ensuring that no one is denied legal access and by supporting vulnerable groups.

Let me start with land. Sir, we are committed to optimising state properties to better meet community and business needs. This safeguards land resources for our current and future generations. To this end, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) engages public agencies and industry to better understand market needs and identify opportunities to put state land and properties to good use, in a pro-enterprise manner.

Mr Christopher de Souza and Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh asked about the use of State land and properties. I will share some examples.

Responding to arts practitioners' call for a dedicated space, SLA collaborated with the National Arts Council (NAC) to transform State properties at Kampong Java Road, into "Flock" – an artist-led innovation and creation hub.

SLA has also been activating suitable spaces in response to requests for "weather-proofed" sports spaces. One creative example is the placement of sport facilities under viaducts. These were previously under-utilised due to noise and lack of essential utilities. But we saw potential in the natural shelter and worked with Sport Singapore to transform the Gali Batu Flyover area into ARK Sports Village @ Segar. What was previously unused space is now a thriving sports facility.

Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh also asked about a longer tenure for more state properties. Currently, state properties are let out for a range of interim uses, typically with tenures of under 10 years, to retain planning flexibility. In response to feedback that such tenures may not facilitate capital expenditure recovery and may limit investment in property rejuvenation, SLA has leased out selected state properties on longer tenures, subject to planning considerations.

11.15 am

For instance, SLA recently launched the sale of the Adam Park heritage bungalow cluster on a 30-year lease. Such extended tenure allows time for investment recoupment and greater business certainty.

Ms Goh Han Yan asked about improvements to the Land Betterment Charge (LBC) regime. We have enhanced various aspects of the LBC framework since it came into force in 2022. Minister Edwin spoke about the enhancements just last week at the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore (REDAS) Spring Festival Lunch. More details may be found in his speech on the MinLaw website.

It is also vital that our legal processes and frameworks remain accessible, fair and effective. We continue to review our legal frameworks to adapt to trends and societal needs so that Singaporeans can seek recourse and resolve frictions whenever they arise.

First, in community justice. Legislation was passed in 2024 to enhance the Community Disputes Management Framework (CDMF). We have made mediation mandatory in appropriate cases. Second, a new Community Relations Unit (CRU) has been created to investigate neighbour disputes and to act. This is being piloted in Tampines. Third, we have enhanced the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) to improve the service journey for victims and enable them to obtain relief more quickly.

Mr Gerald Giam made several points on the CDRT's processes.

Sir, the CDRT is but one component of our broader community disputes framework, which also includes mediation and the Community Relations Unit. Many disputes arise from misunderstandings or lifestyle differences. Calm, neighbourly exchanges can usually go a long way. But if informal communication fails, parties should attempt formal mediation. Mediation at the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) is quick, effective and free. About 80% of cases reach an amicable settlement and that is why we made it mandatory.

The CDRT is an avenue of last resort, after all other measures have failed. As it is a court of law, some proper processes are necessary to ensure the proper administration of justice. The pre-filing assessment is not designed to redirect or deter residents. Instead, it is meant to help residents assess whether their dispute is suitable for the CDRT.

For example, residents should attempt mediation before filing a CDRT claim. So, the form asks whether mediation has been attempted before.

Residents also cannot file a CDRT claim against persons who are not their neighbours. Again, the form highlights this point. This ensures that residents do not spend time, money and energy filing a claim, that cannot be heard in the CDRT.

Those who need help navigating the e-filing system, including those with specific language needs, can contact the State Courts Service Hub. On the $150 filing fee, those with financial need can apply for a waiver. But again, parties should always attempt mediation first. It is entirely free and mostly effective.

Second, we have been studying ways to streamline the enforcement of civil judgments, as mentioned by Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Gabriel Lam and Mr Alex Yeo.

We received feedback that the time, the effort and the cost of enforcing judgments can be disproportionate to the judgment sum, leaving some judgments unenforced. This is undesirable. We aim to simplify the enforcement process, therefore, to be more effective, efficient and affordable.

We intend to do this by: one, giving the Court greater powers to identify a judgment debtor's assets and means; two, by introducing new enforcement modes to deter and punish non-compliance with Court orders; and three, creating new Civil Judgment Enforcement Officers to assist parties with enforcing their civil judgments.

We have been consulting with relevant stakeholders, including the Bar and the Judiciary, and aim to introduce a Bill later this year.

Third, in family justice. We have made changes to help families move forward with minimal acrimony, including addressing non-compliance with maintenance orders, as noted by Mr Nair and Mr Yeo.

Since establishing the new Maintenance Enforcement Division in January last year, the Family Justice Courts have referred around 1,000 cases to the new Division. So far, about two thirds of concluded cases settled during or after conciliation. This is a good start and we plan to expand coverage in future phases.

Another area is ensuring will-making remains accessible to Singaporeans. Singaporeans have a range of options. Depending on complexity, budget and personal preference, they can write their own wills, engage will-making services or even ask a friend for help.

Ms Hany Soh asked if wills can be registered for free in the Singapore Academy of Law's (SAL's) Wills Registry and suggested regulation or mandatory insurance for non-lawyers.

On the former, the fee defrays the costs of the service, which includes maintaining records for up to 120 years of the testator's life. Those with genuine financial needs can apply for a fee waiver. I would add that the validity of a will does not depend on registration with the Registry.

On the latter, we do not plan to impose insurance requirements to encourage options for legacy planning. If the public is unsure whether their service-provider is a licensed lawyer, they may check the MinLaw webpage. It has a search function that lists lawyers who have valid practising licences at the date of the search.

Lastly, I turn to access to justice. It is a key pillar that ensures our laws and justice system are not just for those with means, thereby preserving our social fabric, as mentioned by Mr Nair.

We have been helping those in need through the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) and the Public Defender's Office (PDO).

Since 1958, LAB has provided the vulnerable with civil legal aid, including matrimonial, monetary claims and probate matters. The impact of LAB's work is significant – receiving an average of around 7,000 applications annually.

In 2022, MinLaw established the PDO, which institutionalised criminal defence aid. PDO received about 2,400 applications in 2025. A portion of applications is referred to Pro Bono SG's Criminal Legal Aid Scheme under a co-delivery model. Additionally, LAB and PDO partner with social service agencies, Family Service Centres and Social Services Offices to provide holistic assistance and referrals for applicants with social needs, such as family violence, addiction, mental health and housing problems.

Dr Wan Rizal, Mr Alex Yeo, Mr Gabriel Lam and Mr Jackson Lam asked about ensuring access to legal aid for lower-income and lower-middle-income Singaporeans.

We continue to review the means test thresholds regularly. In 2022, we expanded the income coverage for criminal defence aid from the bottom 25th to the bottom 35th percentile by PCHI.

In 2024, we adjusted the PCHI and annual value thresholds for civil legal aid and criminal defence aid, accounting for the increase in household income and property value over the years.

As the Minister announced earlier, we will expand civil legal aid coverage by the LAB. We will raise the PCHI threshold for civil legal aid from $1,050 to $1,650. This could potentially benefit up to 1,000 more Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents annually.

To account for rising household income, the bank savings and non-Central Provident Fund investment threshold for both civil legal aid and criminal defence aid will be raised from $10,000 to $12,000 to ensure that the truly needy remain eligible.

We target to implement this later this year.

Applicants with extenuating circumstances will continue to be reviewed by an independent means test panel comprising legal and social service professionals.

Beyond Government schemes, we continue to partner with the legal fraternity and key stakeholders, such as Pro Bono SG to strengthen the legal help ecosystem for all Singaporeans.

Mr Alex Yeo asked about those facing legal issues arising from the loss of mental capacity of family members. In 2025, we amended the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1995 to allow means testing based on the mentally incapacitated person, not the volunteers applying to be their deputy. This has reduced financial barriers and encouraged more volunteer deputies for vulnerable persons without family support.

Finally, we are also examining how our justice system may better serve those with disabilities or mental health conditions as needs for these individuals often go beyond legal support. This was mentioned by Mr Vikram Nair.

In better serving these individuals, we have in the past made some efforts. In 2010, we introduced community-based sentences, including the Mandatory Treatment Order (MTO). The MTO allows certain offenders with treatable psychiatric conditions to be treated in the community rather than be incarcerated in appropriate cases. In 2018, we expanded the MTO scheme to benefit more suitable offenders. Other measures include the Appropriate Adult Scheme for Persons with Mental Disabilities, administered by MINDS to support such persons during interviews with investigating officers.

But we fully recognise that more can be done. We want to finetune how our system caters to these vulnerable individuals' unique needs while delivering just outcomes. For instance, effective rehabilitation may differ for offenders with different underlying conditions. While some may benefit from psychiatric treatment, others such as those living with autism or intellectual disability may benefit from other interventions.

These questions intersect multiple areas such as law, social services and healthcare, and involve stakeholders from the private and public sector. Thus, MinLaw formally announced the launch of the Inclusive Justice Taskforce (IJT) in January this year. The IJT will examine how society can better support individuals with such conditions and disabilities who risk offending or who interact with the criminal justice system.

Our objective is simple. It is to raise public awareness of what works and recommend tangible improvements.

The IJT has begun its work and we will provide updates in due course.

I am privileged to co-lead the IJT alongside Ms Peggy Yee, founding director of PY Legal LLC and a long-time advocate in this space. I am also grateful for the IJT members across the private and public sectors – lawyers, policy-makers, law enforcement officers, social service professionals, healthcare experts, community partners and caregiver representatives.

Sir, to be sure, we face both challenges and disruptions, but also tremendous opportunities. Our Ministry's priorities are crystal clear. We will enhance legal services and intellectual property to support the economy, uphold the rule of law and expand access to justice and, at the same time, optimise land to meet our community needs. Together with our partners, we will press on.

As we commemorate the bicentennial anniversary of the Second Charter of Justice this year, we look not only to our own history but to the future – one where the law continues to serve Singapore and Singaporeans well. [Applause.]

The Chairman: We have time for clarifications. Mr Gerald Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Sir. Sir, I have some clarifications for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.

On filing CDRT claims, can vernacular translations be provided on the online application form and can evidence exceeding the two-year limit be allowed to better deal with long-running disputes?

Secondly, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that filing help is available at the State Courts' service hub. How many individuals has the service hub assisted to successfully file applications in each of the last three years? I asked this question in my cut.

Does the hub provide end-to-end guidance for applicants who are not digitally savvy and not just advice? For example, if a resident does not have a Singpass, can the service hub help the resident to complete the filing of the CDRT claim?

11.30 am

Mr Eric Chua: Sir, I thank the Member for his clarifications. On the provisions of information in vernacular languages on the website, I think that is something that we can potentially explore and look at. Of course, we are also mindful not to provide for content in a variety of languages such that it affects the way in which the content can be consumed. So, accessibility of how the website presents itself to users is also something that we consider.

With regard to the two-year framework, what we want to prevent in many cases, because a lot of times, community disputes verge on "he says", "I say". And what we want to prevent is the return of vexatious claims made by parties. So, a two-year framework removes the potential for these vexatious claims to come back on a recurrent basis.

On the next question about the cases, about 400 CDRT-related enquiries last year were handled by the State Courts Services Hub.

And can the Member repeat the last point about the end-to-end services again, if you do not mind?

The Chairman: Mr Giam.

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: I would like to ask if the service hub provides end-to-end guidance and not just advice. So, that means if an applicant needs to actually file the claim but does not know how to do it, can the hub actually help them to do it step by step rather than say, "You just do this, do this" and then you go back home and do it on your own.

Mr Eric Chua: I think the Service Hub provides assistance on a case by case basis, and to the best of their ability in each case to really walk through the service journey with each individual user.

The Chairman: Ms Hany Soh.

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Chairman. I wish to first declare that I am a practicing lawyer, serving the Law Society's pro bono practice committee, as well as our Pro Bono SG's community legal clinics committee.

I have two clarifications for Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua. The first is in relation to his explanations that the registration fees for the Wills Registry cannot be waived at this juncture and the reason is because it is to defray the fees for maintaining such a service. In this regard, I wish to propose, can we consider instead that waiving the fees but instead increase the search fees component. Fundamentally, the reason is because we really want to enable the Wills Registry to become a reliable and accurate repository where we are able to know exactly how many wills are accurate registered and done in Singapore.

The second suggestion or clarification is, to strengthen the comprehensive legacy planning, apart from the suggestions that I have made on Wills Registry and LPAs waivers, I wish to enquire whether can we also explore for the advanced medical directives, whether currently it is only allowed for the doctors to witness the signing of this legal instrument? Akin to the same principle for registrations of LPAs, can we also work with the Ministry of Health to explore for the lawyers to do a comprehensive legacy planning which allows them to also witness the signing of an Advance Medical Directive (AMD)?

Mr Eric Chua: Chairman, I thank the Member for her clarifications. On the second part about AMDs, I understand that to look at it comprehensively for a full suite of, in a way, future care plans instruments, AMD definitely is one of the instruments that we can potentially look at. But in my own exchanges with say, seniors on the ground, I think it is oftentimes far more easier to broach a conversation on setting up an LPA and also drafting or talking about an Advance Care Plan. And then the AMD, which is actually much further down the line, is something that we can potentially look at after all these, perhaps, more upstream instruments have been addressed.

On the Member's first question, do you mind repeating that again?

The Chairman: Ms Soh.

Ms Hany Soh: The first question is, can we explore rather than to not totally include or consider the waiver of fees, instead can we explore increasing the search fees instead, so as to achieve the objectives that Senior Parliamentary Secretary had mentioned in terms of defraying the fees for maintaining such a services in the Wills Registry?

Mr Eric Chua: I thank the Member for her clarifications. I think that is something we can explore and we will take it back to consider.

The Chairman: Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh.

Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh (Nominated Member): Thank you, Chair, and I thank the Ministers for their response. I just have two clarification questions. The first question has to do with what Minister has shared about support for the green transition, the digital economy, major regional infrastructure projects, and sports and entertainment. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that.

My second clarification question has to do with the resourcing of PDO to ensure that there is access and a manageable case load for the lawyers. I think it is good that legal access is made more available to more Singaporeans, but I think we also want to ensure that the quality of service is comparable, and so whether PDO is adequately resourced; how does the Ministry think about that?

And in line with that as well, whether there are stronger support and incentives for lawyers doing pro bono work?

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I thank Prof Goh for his support for MinLaw's work and our position. Overall, we have focused on Singapore being a hub. A hub that we built up. As I explained earlier, in dispute resolution, we have now one of the foremost number and the profile in terms of international institutions located in Singapore, so it made Singapore a hub for transactions. And the stronger we are in terms of having an infrastructure to resolve disputes in a clear, fair, transparent manner, the more likely it is that investors will see opportunity in Singapore.

We take the same approach when it comes to IP as well as in international restructuring. So, these are areas in which we have built up a hub.

Prof Goh mentioned sports and entertainment. I think this is an option and avenue for us to explore, and in fact, when I discuss with members of the Bar, with the Law Society, there are already lawyers who are interested in the areas, they practise in those areas, and they are keen to elevate their practice areas.

We have also had initial discussions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) with a view to seeing whether we can have collaboration with them, again, to bring it in here.

And we do that on the same principle as what I have articulated for dispute resolution. If you have a system of being able to resolve disputes here, then you are more likely to be able to attract the entire ecosystem of investment and economic opportunity into Singapore as well. So, on that basis we have been working very closely with various practitioners, people who are interested in this area, and also, as I said, the CAS, which represents one of the foremost global bodies on resolving sports disputes.

To make one other point to Prof Goh's question, there is a degree to which IP can intersect with sport as well. In fact, WIPO is making this year's focus on World IP Day, the theme of in "IP and Sports". Looking at sports, not just in terms of the resolving disputes around what you might do with transfers and the like, but also in terms of commercial marketing, licence rights, broadcast, image rights and the like. So, WIPO is working on promoting IP and sports, and we see an opportunity there, because, as I mentioned earlier, IP is one of our areas of focus for building the hub status in Singapore.

My colleague Senior Minister of State Murali will talk a little bit more about green transition, but I will address your point on PDO. Since we started the PDO, the number of cases, applications have gone up. We started with about 1,500 in 2023. Last year, it was in excess of 2,300. So, the cases have gone up.

But I would like to assure the Member that we had catered for this. When we set up PDO, we had a plan to scale up our resources and manpower, expecting that the numbers would rise. We are also working with Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) to share the case load; and so that is manageable for the foreseeable future. We now have grown the PDO with 22 public defender officers, and they are full-time, they are very professional and dedicated. And I think they also find reward and value and purpose in the work that they do.

So, on that note, the Member's last point was what can else can we do? We work with a variety of different organisations, including the Law Society, Pro Bono SG, with CLAS, and with the Bar in general, to promote giving back through pro bono work. And Pro Bono SG, CLAS and the work that we do with PDO are some examples of this.

Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, I would like to respond to the hon Member, Prof Goh's clarification on green transition. Here, the law's role is to shape how businesses operate, invest and structure transactions. And in this regard, IPOS has done studies on green trademarks and green economy. We also provide patent analytics insights to support the green economy.

Over and above that, we are strengthening the environmental, social and governance (ESG) capabilities across the profession in partnership with key legal associations. For example, we supported initiatives such as the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association's (SCCA's) inaugural Sustainability Connect, a dedicated platform that brings together legal and sustainability professionals for knowledge exchange.

SCCA Academy has also started to roll out ESG focused training programmes, including a course delivered in partnership with NTU's Carbon Market Academy of Singapore. At the same time, the Law Society of Singapore and SAL have introduced a range of ESG related training and thought leadership initiatives, equipping legal professionals with relevant capabilities.

The Chairman: We are approaching the end of guillotine time. I know a few of you still have clarifications to make. Priority will be given to those who have spoken on this earlier. So, please keep all clarifications and responses short.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, sir. I have two clarifications for Minister. But before that I would like to thank him for the additional information that he has just given to us on the recent reappointment of the AG, which was information we did not have before. So, that was the thrust actually of my cut.

So, my two clarifications. One, can he confirm then that the Prime Minister did not shortlist any other candidates in the recent round of appointment of AG? And the second is this: he mentioned that the current AG is required to continue managing some ongoing projects, which are quite complex. Is he saying now that the AG has become individually indispensable in the managing of these projects, there is no one being groomed to take over? Because from a system point of view it sounds to me precarious and in three years' time we might be facing the same argument again.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Ms Lim. I cited a lot of public source information and data. Mr Wong's qualifications, his reputation, his CV and what he has achieved in both in public service as well as in private practice, I think it is really common knowledge.

The ongoing projects that you mentioned and you seem to say that they are new, the fact that we have maritime boundary discussions, I think is not new. I have not gone into the sensitive materials because I cannot and I will not, but I think it suffices to say that we take this into account.

And on the Member's second question, it is not that any individual is indispensable. But at a given point in time, a multitude of factors are taken into account, as I said, including whether he is available, whether he is able to continue. Continuity is one factor, but it is not the only one. But taking all of this into account, factors such as what are the ongoing projects, his ability to contribute, the projects that are ongoing, the stature and reputation of the individual at hand, all of these are factors that we take into account in selecting the individual for the office.

11.45 am

As for the Member's first question, I am not going to go into whether there is a long list or a short list, but it suffices to say that we will consider this carefully, think about what the incumbent has done, whether there is a need to change at that point in time and, if so, what are the options and take all of these factors into consideration before deciding on making a recommendation to the President.

The Chairman: Dr Wan Rizal.

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Sir, I have two clarifications for the Minister. The first is regarding making mediation mandatory in appropriate cases. Can the Minister share what is the requirement and what are the type of cases for which mediation can be made mandatory? My second clarification is on both mandatory mediation and the CRU. Can the Minister share whether there are any plans for the Government to expand mandatory mediation and the CRU beyond the Tampines pilot?

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, we have taken the view that mediation is effective. Members heard Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric outline some of the statistics. Broadly, although I know that they currently apply to consensual mediation, 80% of cases are resolved amicably through mediation. So, we think this is an effective mechanism and framework.

More importantly, in the context of community disputes where you are talking about two neighbours who live in proximity to one another, we think that it is, in fact, the most appropriate means by which you should resolve a dispute. So, we have designed the enhanced framework in the CDRA, which we passed in Parliament some months ago as having a lower threshold for driving parties to mediation and in this case, mandatory mediation. We think that in most cases, matters ought to be resolved in the first instance and maybe even in the second instance through mediation.

Therefore, the threshold for issuing a mediation direction is low. There is no a need to investigate the case. So, the officer who issues the direction does not have to ascertain whether one is right or the other one is wrong. As long as there is a prima facie basis for believing that there is a valid complaint and that they are not trying to bring a neighbour to mediation vexatiously. In those circumstances, the threshold having been met, the direction will be issued.

In terms of an expansion, let me say that we are studying the pilot that is being conducted at Tampines, learning from the experiences, understanding the processes and streamlining it and, in some cases, finetuning it. We are thinking about what more can be done and we are studying the expansion, both in terms of the pilot, as well as thinking about what other functions of the CRU can be expanded. When we are ready with that, we will come back and explain that in due course.

The Chairman: One last clarification. Mr Mark Lee.

Mr Mark Lee (Nominated Member): Sir, I would like to thank Senior Minister of State Murali that IPOS is actually studying recommendations on IP financing. I think in this day and age, businesses will need as many financing options in their arsenal. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if IPOS has an indicative or targeted timeline, and whether we will be piloting initiatives in this area?

Mr Murali Pillai: Just a short response, Mr Chairman, Sir, because I do not want to be guillotined. The point about enterprise financing is that we need to figure out the blind spots as well as the moral hazards. What we do not want is for, in respect of the Member's suggestion, the Government to assume the risk and then, as a result of which, financial institutions may not necessarily be minded to do their due diligence and that creates a problem as well. So, we will study this very carefully and make the announcements in due course.

11.49 am

The Chairman: The hon Member Mr Vikram Nair had earlier officially applied for leave from Parliament for today because he has to attend a Court hearing. I had accordingly approved his leave. Therefore, since Mr Vikram Nair is not here to withdraw his amendment, I will now put the amendment to a vote.

The Question is, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100." Those who agree say "Aye". Those who disagree say "No".

Hon Members indicated dissent.

The Chairman: I think the "Noes" have it, the "Noes" have it.

Amendment negatived.

The sum of $417,819,500 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $287,047,600 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.