Committee of Supply – Head R (Ministry of Law)

The Chairman: Head R, Ministry of Law. Mr Christopher de Souza, could you take your two cuts together, please?

Fortifying Singapore's Legal Hub Status

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100."

The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has strategically positioned Singapore to be a legal hub, building on the foundation of the rule of law.

At this time, ASEAN presents good opportunities to provide an array of legal services. Legal services in the Asia Pacific region are projected to grow at 5.5% per year between 2014 and 2019, outpacing the annual global rate of 3.3%. China's One Belt One Road Initiative, Thailand's East Economic Corridor and other infrastructure projects also pose great opportunity in the region. The new initiative called "Lawyers Go Global" seeks to support positioning Singapore lawyers with the competitive edge through overseas trips, training, branding and marketing. This is especially important for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which have valuable niche expertise to contribute but may lack the resources to do so.

Additionally, "many multinational corporations (MNCs) are based in Singapore and use Singapore lawyers for their regional transactions." In fact, Singapore is the top Asian location for MNCs to set up regional headquarters, with about 46%, compared to 37% in Hong Kong. This disparity, when it comes to technology MNCs, is even more pronounced, with Singapore accounting for 59% and only 18% for Hong Kong.

One aspect of being a legal hub is being a dispute resolution hub through offering of the whole suite of dispute resolution mechanisms. The reputation the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) has as an efficient and impartial dispute resolution platform has strengthened Singapore's reputation as a dispute resolution hub, servicing the region and even beyond the region. I should now declare, Mr Chairman, that I am a partner in a firm that practises arbitration.

SIAC has also been monitoring and spearheading developments in the area of arbitration. For example, in January last year, in recognition of the different interests that may arise in international arbitration disputes, Singapore was the first major arbitration centre to offer specialised rules for international arbitration, on top of the more general rules for commercial arbitration.

The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), as Bloomberg described it, "gives global investors in South and Southeast Asia a judicial forum with international legal sophistication that can rival any in the world." Its unique procedure is also specially adapted for complex commercial cases.

So that Singapore may continue to expand as a legal hub, what further measures will MinLaw roll out to make the Singapore firms and Singapore-based lawyers relevant to the growing opportunities in ASEAN, Asia and the world?

Infrastructure Office under Enterprise Singapore

Sir, Budget 2018 announced that an Infrastructure Office will be set up to draw together local and international firms to develop, finance and execute infrastructure projects in the region. Also involved are the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and Enterprise Singapore (ESG). Would MinLaw please elaborate on the purpose, rationale and thinking behind the Office and how Singapore could benefit from this initiative?

Industry Transformation Map – Developing the Legal Sector

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Following from the recommendations of the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) as well as the Industry Transformation Map (ITM) for the professional services sector, what are MinLaw's plans to drive the implementation of the plans and how are we steering ourselves to position Singapore's legal services sector for the future?

3.30 pm

I have three suggestions on areas for MinLaw to strengthen. First, strengthen Singapore as a hub for growth practice areas through targeted strategic marketing and communications. Second, strengthen support to both law firms and legal practitioners in their journey to embrace digital disruption, harness technology and regionalise. In particular, extra support should be given to small practices, including sole proprietorships, and their staff in their bid to transform. Third, strengthen the inhouse counsel community as they are a growing group wanting to further build and enhance their professionalism, competencies and standards, continuing education and career progression. They will, therefore, require further support from MinLaw in their drive towards this end.

I am aware that Singapore Corporate Counsel Association representing the inhouse counsel in Singapore has embarked on and launched their competencies and standards. I urge MinLaw to support and endorse these standards, to carry this forward and across the entire community.

Small and Medium Law Practices

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Sir, I am a practising lawyer. I was happy to note that the legal sector has been involved in the industry transformation exercise and the CFE Legal and Accounting Working Group was set up to look into the future growth of the legal and accounting sectors. It has been almost a year since the Working Group made its recommendations. What have been the developments and achievements following the recommendations?

In particular, I noted many meaningful initiatives have been launched, including TechStart by the Law Society of Singapore and the Future of Law Innovation Programme (FLIP). How many small and medium-sized law practices have been engaged through these initiatives? What has been the impact on the small and medium-sized law practices so far?

There was news in the United States (US) about how artificial intelligence (AI) has beaten some top lawyers in reviewing contracts more accurately. Their contract reviewing algorithm was created by a legal AI platform LawGeex with teams based in New York and Tel Aviv. Researchers found that the AI was 10% more accurate than humans in spotting key legal issues with business contracts – an everyday task for most lawyers.

I think lawyers should be worried. Technology is clearly disrupting the legal sector. At the same time, the Singapore Bar is steadily growing with more than 5,000 qualified lawyers currently in practice and with the Courts and the Ministry enhancing various services to the public, including enhancement of pro bono schemes and reforms in the Family Justice system as well as placing Singapore as an international legal hub.

Against this backdrop, how will the Ministry support Singapore lawyers and Singapore law practices, especially the small and medium-sized law practices, to be ready for the future?

The Chairman: Mr Christopher de Souza, please take your four cuts together.

Augmenting the Smart Nation Drive

Mr Christopher de Souza: Sir, the Smart Nation drive is Singapore's vision to be an economically competitive global city and a liveable home. There is much economic and social advantage to garner from it, including individuals' convenience, accessibility, enterprise, efficiency through innovation, resource utilisation and allocation.

Society benefits, too, through creating opportunities and finding new ways to generate value. To this end, how is MinLaw supporting this effort through the enacting of a supportive legal regulatory framework, or through the day-to-day operations of the various agencies or bodies under its purview?

Innovation – Protecting Intellectual Property

Innovation, if harnessed and promoted, can be a key driver of future economic growth. This is especially so as Singapore transitions into an innovation-led economy. As MinLaw seeks to develop Singapore as an intellectual property (IP) hub, how does it support businesses to develop strategies and expertise to realise the full value of IP? Importantly, how do MinLaw and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) continue to ensure that IP is well protected in Singapore, and that Singapore retains its reputation as a jurisdiction with good IP protection? I should also declare that I am a legal practitioner who also practice IP law.

Criminal and Civil Justice Systems

The rule of law has been called the "bedrock on which our society was founded and on which it has thrived." An accessible court of law is one of the eight non-exhaustive principles which jurist Joseph Raz set out as flowing from the basic concept of the rule of law. He says, "Given the central position of the courts in ensuring the rule of law… it is obvious that their accessibility is of paramount importance. Long delays, excessive costs may effectively turn the most enlightened law to a dead letter and frustrate one's ability effectively to guide oneself by the law." Access to justice is important for the justice in a rule of law society. Justice cannot be exclusive to the well-educated who can understand and navigate their way through our legal system or the rich who are able to hire lawyers.

Therefore, what reforms does MinLaw envision to improve our criminal, civil and family justice systems, so as to ensure the rule of law and access to justice remain in Singapore?

Three Trial Judges for Capital Cases

There is a need, Sir, to enforce tough laws to deter highly harmful crimes, such as drug trafficking. Historically, capital offences were the last category of cases in Singapore to be tried by jury and, later, by two trial judges. They were required to arrive at a unanimous decision, otherwise the accused would be convicted for a lesser offence. As triers of fact, trial judges have an important role in deciding questions of fact, which the appellate Court seldom disturbs.

In conclusion, therefore, would MinLaw be open to studying whether it would be beneficial for the criminal justice system as a whole – that is, the Defence, Prosecution, as well as the accused person facing capital punishment – to have three High Court Judges sit in trials involving a capital charge?

Small Claims Tribunal

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: I have spoken on this before and I am raising this again to MinLaw. I hope MinLaw will seriously look into reviewing the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) so that more people can have economical and expedient orders in judgment for their contractual claims.

In particular, I know that many professional freelancers who are on a contract for service use the SCT when they are not paid for their work. Raising of the claim limits will be a boon for claimants and freelance workers alike.

Extradition

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Sir, the rationale for extradition arrangements is long-standing. Offenders who manage to leave the countries where the offences were committed should not escape justice. At the same time, countries that do not have extradition arrangements with others risk becoming magnets for fugitives, which will affect their own security and reputation.

Understandably, one cannot rush into concluding extradition agreements. According to the Government, besides the need for a mutual desire for extradition arrangements, the compatibility of the two legal systems is another consideration.

In September 2016, Senior Minister of State Ms Indranee Rajah told the House that as far as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was concerned, there was a model ASEAN Extradition Treaty being worked on, which would function as a sort of template to enable ASEAN members to enter bilateral arrangements. While I can understand that ASEAN member states overall have very different legal systems, does this mean that there is no plan or desire for an ASEAN-wide mutual recognition of arrest warrants?

One only needs to look at the case involving David Roach to illustrate the ASEAN challenge. Roach was suspected of committing a bank robbery in Singapore in July 2016, one-and-a-half years ago. He escaped to our ASEAN neighbour, Thailand, was arrested and convicted of other offences under Thai law and is only now being extradited from London to Singapore because he was being deported from Thailand to his home country, Canada, via London. With the move towards greater ASEAN integration, the fact that such suspects can go to a fellow ASEAN country to escape justice does not seem acceptable.

On a more general level, does the Government plan to increase the number of countries which Singapore has extradition agreements with? Currently, Singapore has arrangements with 40 declared Commonwealth countries, as well as bilateral agreements with the US, Germany and Hong Kong, which makes only 43 out of nearly 200 countries. Does the Government find it an acceptable coverage?

The Rule of International Law

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, international law has been described as a shield for Singapore as a small island-state as well as the occasional sword as well. Could the Ministry update us on our current interstate international law disputes and if public international law remains exclusively important for Singapore?

We called in the Permanent Court of Arbitration that administered the land dispute resolution as it is the amicable enforcement of this award that helped to pave the way for us to work with our immediate neighbour on the Kuala Lumpur (KL)-Singapore High Speed Rail Network as well.

In addition to interstate disputes, could we know the Government's position on investor-state dispute settlement, and if the Ministry and the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) have taken steps to safeguard our sovereign regulatory space against investors' claims?

How does international trade law, on the other hand, help the Government to respond to announcements of fresh tariffs by the US Government that have been recently announced, but in consultation with the US, and also on negotiations of the next-generation mega regional agreements, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)?

Do developments with private international law as well present new opportunities for Singapore lawyers or that arise from clients in India or other ASEAN countries, as an example?

Finally, Mr Chairman, are steps being taken by the Ministry and the Singapore Academy of Law to harness the potential of law and technology? Specifically, what may be the role of lawyers and how are lawyers encouraged to play a role in emerging areas of the regional technology space as well as Smart Nation, as we could see from the cuts that were filed yesterday?

Optimisation of Land Resources

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Marine Parade): Mr Chairman, land is not only a finite but extremely scarce resource in Singapore, as this House has been hearing last week. There are many competing uses of land in Singapore, for industrial, residential, sports, recreation, community, social spaces, each one fulfilling a different but necessary objective. Judicious and thoughtful land use planning is thus required to strike the right balance and optimise our land resources.

With this in mind, could I ask the Minister for an update on the following?

First, what considerations are taken into account when allocating land resources and how are the competing interests properly balanced?

Second, can there be more dual-use facilities, for example, at sports facilities in schools, which can be used on weekends as a dual purpose?

Third, when is the concept plan next expected to be reconsidered and reviewed, particularly in light of the population objectives and other infrastructural needs that we have?

Finally, Mr Chairman, may I ask the Minister to consider a question of local consideration for me where, at Joo Chiat, there are four old blocks of Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats at the junction of East Coast Road and Siglap? The Minister knows very well. They are very quaint, very nice, short low-rise five-storey buildings. They were built in the 1960s and they are standing till today although the residents have been moved out for the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS).

May I ask if it is possible to at least retain a part of this old precinct instead of turning it into another commercial and retail space which will just add to the congestion and also the traffic woes that I already face at Siglap? It would help a lot if we could have it turned into community spaces.

Improving Estate Administration Process

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Sir, the estate administration process for a person dying intestate, meaning without a will, has been the same for a long time.

The process starts with an application to the Court by persons who are willing to administer the estate. This is commonly done by lawyers as it is not easy for a lay person to draft such applications. The Court would then consider the application and appoint these persons as administrators. Thereafter, the administrators would have to distribute the estate in accordance with the order set out in the Intestate Succession Act. The distribution would generally be to surviving spouses, the deceased's children, the deceased's parents and other family members.

The main focus of the Court in such cases is to appoint suitable persons as administrators and identify the beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased.

Presently, the Public Trustee may directly administer the estate of deceased persons where the value of the estate does not exceed $50,000, without going to Court. This is a big relief as, otherwise, the family members of the deceased would be saddled with costs.

I believe there is a case for further simplifying the procedure, especially for straightforward cases involving deceased persons dying intestate and leaving behind spouses and/or children.

Through access to data and data analytics, the Government should be in a position to verify and ascertain the identity of the survivors and their relationship with the deceased without the need for the survivors to go to Court and prove this fact. There is, therefore, an opportunity to considerably shorten the administration process without invoking the Court route, which involves time and money.

3.45 pm

This is done in Japan through the family registration system known as Koseki, which I referred to in last year’s COS debates. In Japan, estate administration does not involve the courts and is done expeditiously.

Dealing with Residents with Mental Issues

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, over the past year, I received a few complaints from residents who face difficulties with their neighbours. The issue is not just a simple dispute between two neighbours or about an unreasonable neighbour. The problem seems to centre on the mental state of a difficult neighbour who behaves irrationally.

In one of the complaints which I received, the neighbour asked for help regarding a neighbour who rants and uses vulgar language or abusive language on every other resident on the same floor. In another case, it was about a neighbour who used a broom stick and banged incessantly on the door of yet another person. In a third case, it was a neighbour who hoards rubbish, not just filling up her entire flat, but also in the common corridor. This creates a hazard to other neighbours.

The recent case about a neighbour at Block 55 Toa Payoh Lorong 5, reported in the news, who threw corrosive liquid or faeces on the walls is a classic case of one person on that floor terrorising the other neighbours around her.

There are other media reports which describe other extreme cases of HDB neighbours who make HDB living a nightmare, for example, in Hougang, the neighbour who flung faeces or dung. In Yishun, a women kept throwing things like toilet paper, sanitary pads, urine outside the door of another neighbour.

The question is: what can the authorities do to help the innocent citizens who are adversely affected by the conduct of a mentally unstable person?

The Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal was set up in March 2015 to hear cases involving intractable disputes between neighbours after all efforts, including community mediation, have been exhausted. According to the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) website, about 79 cases have been heard by the Tribunal as of July 2016.

However, this Tribunal is only able to deal with disputes involving neighbours living within the same building or within 100 metres of each other, and where there has been some form of unreasonable interference by the neighbour.

How effective is this Tribunal in dealing with people who have mental issues and who are not rational? In my opinion, residents who have mental issues require professional treatment, and not just a Tribunal Order. They may not have mental capacity as to whether they are behaving unreasonably. Would these people not simply ignore any order made by the Tribunal?

I am sympathetic to families who have to deal with relatives with mental disorder. I accept that it is challenging to have such a relative with mental issues. However, I am even more sympathetic to the other residents who have to live daily with a neighbour who has a mental issue and is abusive. What is the recourse available to these residents? Or do they have to live with the antics of a mentally deranged person?

May I ask the Minister whether the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal is equipped to deal with people with mental issues? If it is within their jurisdiction, can the Tribunal be empowered to issue mandatory treatment orders against any person found to be mentally unstable?

This will ensure that any person in need of medical help would be able to find such help for their mental issue and be given regular medication to manage their symptoms. This will also provide some form of relief to the other citizens who have to live with a neighbour who is irrational.

Of all the cases dealt with by the Tribunal, does the Ministry track the outcome after the Order is made? How does the Tribunal ensure that quarrelling parties really keep the peace?

Legal Aid

Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): Sir, the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) currently provides legal aid to needy Singaporeans, roughly 10,000 cases a year since I have been a Member of Parliament (MP), if you include legal advice, legal assistance to draft documents, and legal aid in representation in civil proceedings.

In order to qualify for legal aid, Singaporeans will need to pass two tests: the means test to show that they are needy; and the merits test to show that they have a good claim. It is not easy to meet both requirements, and we have all met Singaporeans who applied for, but were found ineligible for legal aid. However, even needy Singaporeans with good claims, who qualify for legal aid from LAB, may not be able to press their claims with LAB's assistance in the following circumstances.

In many standard form contracts that Singaporeans enter into, such as insurance policies, there are contractual requirements that the parties go to arbitration in the event of a dispute. They must go to arbitration. No legal proceedings. There are many good reasons why an insurance company that drafts the policy would want such an arbitration clause, but one effect of such a clause is that it may keep a needy Singaporean from pressing a meritorious claim in the event of a dispute, since legal aid currently does not cover the cost of arbitration proceedings.

I would like to ask that the Minister look into extending aid to eligible recipients, namely, Singaporeans who have passed the means test and the merits test for legal aid, to help them cover the cost of arbitration proceedings, to which they have been mandatorily directed by arbitration clauses in standardised contracts used in large volume.

Access to Justice

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Chairman, in a fair and just society, justice must be accessible to all, including Singaporeans who have less. Some have less resources. Some are less well-informed or less able to put their case across, or even to realise there is a case that could be put across. Some are less aware of how to seek help. Some are unaware of the difference between civil and criminal proceedings. Some are not aware at all.

I have met Clementi residents at my Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS) and on home visits. Some were worried about the means test for legal aid. Some were also worried about finding their way around the system, finding out how to seek help.

Does the Ministry have any plans to revise the means test threshold for legal aid, so as to cover a similar proportion of Singaporeans, even though average incomes are rising over time?

Separately, can the Ministry help enhance education of the public so that people are more aware of the different ways to find help in different circumstances? Has there been any study by MinLaw on how existing processes can be simplified further so that the complexity of finding help does not become an additional barrier for people who want to navigate their way to assistance?

Sir, when the search for help becomes complicated, it has a regressive effect – a regressive on the less literate, on the less mobile, on those less able to Google or search for help online. We have to ensure that justice is always equally accessible, including to fellow Singaporeans with less.

Improving Access to Legal Aid

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, last year, I asked whether some form of discretion can be given to the Director of Legal Aid when granting legal aid. Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah replied that they will review and update the means test and qualifying criteria to ensure access to justice for those of limited means.

In 2017, 92% of applications passed the means test, while 87% passed the merits test. While it is heartening to note that a large majority is granted legal aid, there may, nevertheless, be cases that fall through the gaps. It was stated that the review would include considering granting discretion to the Director of Legal Aid for exceptional cases that do not pass the means and merits test. Can MinLaw provide an update on this review?

Further, how will MinLaw ensure that persons of limited means continue to have access to civil and criminal legal aid?

The Chairman: Minister Shanmugam.

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Chairman, I thank the Members who spoke. I will start with an overview of the legal reforms in our civil, family and criminal justice systems, which Mr Christopher de Souza spoke about.

In the area of civil justice, my Ministry has been working closely with the Judiciary, legal practitioners. The aim is to keep legal costs affordable and to reduce the complexity of civil proceedings. We are also studying measures to strengthen the enforcement of civil judgments. Public consultation is likely to take place later this year.

Mr Patrick Tay asked if we will be raising claims limits in SCT. The answer is, yes, we will be. Amendments will be introduced this year. It will allow claims of a higher value, and we hope it will allow claims to be resolved quickly and cost-effectively at SCT.

On family justice, Members know that in 2014, we made changes. The reforms brought about several positive developments, including providing a child- and family-friendly approach, where the Courts look at what is in the interest of the children: how best to deal with it, and how to try and move on with as little acrimony as possible.

To build on these positive reforms, my Ministry has set up a committee with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) as well as Family Justice Courts. We have asked them to review and further enhance the family justice system. The report will be out later this year, and we will act on it.

On criminal justice, I have said earlier during the MHA COS debate that we want a progressive, balanced and modern criminal justice system.

If Members look at it over the years, there have been a series of reforms, each building on the other: (a) the pre-trial disclosure regime in 2010; (b) the community-based sentences (CBS) which were also introduced in 2010; (c) the changes to the Evidence Act in 2012; and (d) in 2015 – a fairly significant move for the Government – the Government funding legal representation of accused persons through the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme.

And now, comprehensive amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and the Evidence Act have been introduced in Parliament earlier this week.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked whether we should have three High Court Judges to sit in trials for capital cases. We have not seen a need to review this, but it does not mean no. Members will know that since 2012, if a person is sentenced to death and chooses not to appeal, a confirmation hearing must still be held by the Court of Appeal. That ensures that the imposition of the capital punishment is always reviewed by the apex Court of at least three judges. So, there is already a two-level process with at least three Judges of Appeal looking at the matter. But we will review the point made by Mr Christopher de Souza.

I will now speak on our commitments towards advancing the international rule of law. Asst Prof Mohan spoke about it. We see ourselves as a responsible and effective member of the international community, and a firm believer in an international rules-based legal order. Adherence to the international rule of law is integral to our security and survival. To that end, we have done a number of things, which I think the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) has spoken about, and which I have spoken about previously. So, we do not need to repeat that.

But we have to continue our engagement with the international community, other states, and our development of international law expertise in relevant emerging issues. We should support think-tanks which are doing research in these areas. Examples are the Asian Business Law Institute and the Centre for International Law, which are supported by us.

We have to actively participate in international law-making at regional and multilateral forums and bring our interests and values to the table. We have done that. People know our crucial role in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). We have led multilateral negotiations on online dispute resolution and dispute settlement. Right now, we are playing a very important and key role in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group II on Dispute Settlement. Under the chairmanship of a MinLaw Director, we have completed work on both a draft Convention and amended Model Law that will provide for the cross-border enforcement of international commercial settlement agreements resulting from mediation. The Singapore delegation is well-regarded in the international discussions on insolvency, electronic commerce and recognition and enforcement of judgments.

4.00 pm

We are committed to peaceful international dispute resolution mechanisms. These are important for a small country like Singapore. We serve as a neutral venue for state-related disputes, which is also enabled through the partnerships we have forged, for example, through the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), amongst others. We also actively participate in discussions on possible reform of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, so that any future disputes on trade agreements can be fairly and effectively resolved.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked if international trade law will help the Government respond to announcements of fresh tariffs in consultation with the US, and also in our negotiations of the next-generation regional Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), large FTAs.

Well, primarily, how we handle these issues will have to be guided by: (a) what is in our primary, economic as well as strategic interests; and (b) what is the framework of international law, including any applicable treaties. That will guide us in taking what we consider to be principled approaches when dealing and negotiating with our trading partners. And, of course, in these things, size matters as well.

The second query that Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan had was, "Do developments in private international law present new opportunities for our lawyers vis-à-vis clients in India and the ASEAN countries?" The short answer is yes, they do. That is why we participate actively in international efforts to harmonise private international law and to promote the adoption of Singapore legal principles. Standards, but also any sort of civilised set of standards, in this area, would be welcomed, and it will help us. So, that will give our lawyers more opportunities because our commercial law principles are consistent and consonant with international law standards in most advanced jurisdictions.

I will now deal with Mr Christopher de Souza's question on ensuring Singapore law firms and Singapore-based lawyers remain relevant in the region.

Developing Singapore as a dispute resolution hub is, in fact, one of our key strategies in growing our legal industry. I have said that that is a role for the Government but there is also a very critical role for our lawyers. The Government can provide the infrastructure, the framework, the training through the law schools. But ultimately, the lawyers must also take part in it. And now the Government is even putting money on the table for law firms to go regional.

Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah will touch on some of the other strategies, but I will touch on our dispute resolution services.

We aim to provide a full suite of such services that will create more work for Singapore law practices and Singapore-based lawyers within Singapore. We have seen, in fact, a tremendous growth in caseload numbers across all our main dispute resolution institutions, such as: (a) SIAC, (b) SIMC, and (c) SICC.

SIAC, for example, saw within 2008 and 2016, in those eight years, a three-fold increase in cases, from 99 to 343. The total sum in disputes for new cases filed in 2016 hit S$17 billion, and 80% of those cases were international in nature. That is a record – S$17 billion.

SIMC had a much later start. It had 22 cases filed in 2017, it now has 42 cases so far, and it was only established three years ago. To promote international commercial mediation, SIMC has also partnered other institutions. For example, in 2017, last year, SIMC signed memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with the Mediation Center of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade/China Chamber of International Commerce, and the Hangzhou Arbitration Commission. This is to help businesses resolve disputes that may arise in cross-border transactions under China's Belt and Road Initiative. SIMC also signed an MOU with the Japan Association of Arbitrators to help Japan build expertise in international commercial mediation.

So, how do we ensure that we remain a destination of choice for dispute resolution? The starting point is that people must believe and know that there is going to be top-quality legal expertise available here if they come. What the Government can do is to make sure our dispute resolution legislation framework is modern and friendly.

We will continue to make necessary legislative enhancements to make sure that it is at the cutting edge. For example, we recently amended the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. It clarifies that SICC can hear matters relating to international commercial arbitration under the International Arbitration Act. So, it gives the parties who choose Singapore as the seat of arbitration the certainty that they can benefit from the expertise of both local and international judges, who have a wide breadth of knowledge and experience, expertise, and judicial knowledge. All of that can be available from the Singapore Courts. The work itself can only be handled by Singapore-qualified lawyers from Singapore law practices. So, they get an international panel of judges.

We also enacted the Mediation Act in 2017 which strengthens the framework for the enforcement of mediated settlements conducted in Singapore. It codifies certain matters which were previously dealt with under Common Law, such as confidentiality of communications in the context of mediation. It provides for greater certainty and clarity for commercial parties who opt to conduct their mediation in Singapore.

We will continue to strengthen our international dispute resolution facilities and infrastructure. Last year, we announced that we will be expanding Maxwell Chambers. Refurbishment works have started. They are on track to be completed by next year and that will add 120,000 square feet of floor space and it will triple Maxwell Chambers' current size. So, obviously it will allow more cases to be heard. My Ministry will continue to support the development and expansion of our international law capabilities.

Mr Edwin Tong asked about our plans to optimise our limited land resources. Mr Christopher de Souza asked about our support of the Smart Nation drive. The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) has been allowing old state properties with no immediate plans for redevelopment to be innovatively reused. So, that gives the buildings a new lease of life. It unlocks the value for businesses and individuals. A good example is Tanglin Village. It was a former army camp but is now home to a wide range of businesses.

SLA will continue to find opportunities to convert state properties for different uses, in particular, social and community uses. SLA has also opened up previously un-utilised spaces for recreational community use. One example is the Jalan Bukit Merah Viaduct. Under the Viaduct, they have opened it up.

Mr Edwin Tong had a specific question on Joo Chiat's "iconic" buildings. I will ask SLA to discuss the matter with the relevant agencies because the policy on this matter is with the Ministry of National Development (MND), so they will have to decide what land use they have planned for and we will see what can be done.

As regards the Smart Nation agenda, SLA is also building up Singapore's geospatial capabilities through what we call GeoWorks. GeoWorks is a collaborative platform. SLA provides the platform for geospatial startups and industry partners. Many of them are SMEs or individuals, and they create business opportunities through the use of location-based technologies. So, we provide the platform, we make it freely available, people jump on into it and create the business value out of it. So, our approach is to enable and support private sector innovation, as part of our Smart Nation efforts.

Mr Chairman, I have covered many different aspects of MinLaw's work. The common framework for this is, of course, advancing the rule of law and making better use of what resources we have, ultimately, to improve the well-being of the people.

The Senior Minister of State will now take the remaining cuts.

The Senior Minister of State for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Chairman, I thank the Members who spoke. I will cover three main areas. First, enhancing access to justice. Second, building the legal services sector. Third, extradition.

Advancing access to justice is one of my Ministry's core missions. We regularly monitor the civil and criminal legal aid schemes and will enhance them where necessary to ensure access to justice for those less able to fend for themselves. Singapore was the first in Southeast Asia to enact a legal aid scheme in 1958. Over the past 60 years, LAB had assisted many low-income Singaporeans in civil legal proceedings.

Many improvements have been made over the years. First, we have enhanced LAB’s systems and processes to better serve applicants. LAB has gone completely paperless with a new case management system, increasing efficiency by allowing different officers to work on a single file simultaneously. The new system also saves applicants' time, by allowing them to correspond with LAB and submit relevant documents online. Those who are less IT-savvy, such as the elderly, can continue to correspond with LAB by post or in person. Staff at the MinLaw Services Centre also assist the applicants to complete, submit and print online documents and forms if they require help.

Second, LAB has established a referral protocol to refer applicants who require non-legal assistance to social agencies and Promoting Alternatives to Violence (PAVE), a family violence specialist agency. Likewise, these agencies will refer their clients to LAB for legal assistance where necessary. Such cross-referrals provide better support to the vulnerable and also increases awareness of the aid channels.

In one case, a young lady who had been sexually abused by her father sought help from PAVE. PAVE helped her to find shelter and then referred her to LAB to seek a personal protection order (PPO) against her father. While LAB handled the legal matters, PAVE provided counselling and emotional support. The young lady succeeded in obtaining the PPO with the help of PAVE and LAB.

Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Louis Ng asked if we would review our means test, so that more Singaporeans can be helped. We are doing so and will announce details when ready later this year. Even as we seek to help more, our guiding principle is that our system should assist those with meritorious cases but who really cannot afford a lawyer.

Mr Chen Show Mao asked if legal aid can be provided for arbitration. Legal aid is provided in respect of matters which may be litigated in Court, including related alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings. However, we do not provide legal aid for arbitration, as it is a private, consensual dispute resolution process. Typically, arbitration is used for high value commercial dispute resolution, and involves much higher costs, compared to Court litigation.

We must, therefore, be careful about extending legal aid to such cases. Nevertheless, there are various existing avenues for individuals to seek assistance and redress.

(a) LAB can provide legal advice to an applicant on an arbitration clause in his contract and, if there are merits to do so, represent the applicant to challenge the arbitration clause or the arbitration award in the Courts.

(b) Additionally, parties who wish to resolve their dispute by arbitration in a quick and cost-effective manner can consider the Law Society’s arbitration schemes, including its Pro Bono Arbitration Scheme, which adopts streamlined procedures and waives the fees of the sole arbitrator.

I thank Mr Murali Pillai for his suggestions to simplify the process for estate administration. In 2017 and this year, we have been working on reforms to the civil justice system. When completed, we will be able to review the estate administration system in the context of the civil justice reforms.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about neighbourly disputes involving parties with mental disorders. As a starting point, neighbourly disputes are best resolved amicably between parties, or via community mediation. As a last resort, affected residents may consider filing a claim at the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals. The Tribunals provide a simplified and low-cost avenue for resolving all types of neighbourly disputes. They are equipped to handle cases involving parties with suspected mental health issues. Where appropriate, inhouse psychologists and Court counsellors will, first, conduct a preliminary assessment on the individual, and may, with the person’s consent, refer him to the onsite psychiatrist for a preliminary diagnosis and follow-up plan.

4.15 pm

In the usual case, a successful applicant will, in the first instance, obtain an Order from the Tribunal. In the event of non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order, the affected party can apply for a “special direction" directing the respondent to comply with the disobeyed order. During the application for a special direction, the Tribunal may order any person, for example, a family member of the respondent, to enter into a bond. In making this order, the Tribunal may impose conditions or give directions to that person. One such direction or condition could be to order a person suspected of mental illness for assessment and/or treatment. If this special direction is further breached without reasonable excuse, the respondent is guilty of an offence, and the criminal Court convicting the respondent may make a community order against him. A community order includes a Mandatory Treatment Order.

Not all mental health cases need be dealt with through the Courts. Persons with concerns about neighbours with mental health issues who may require assistance can contact the Agency for Integrated Care (AIC) and its community partners for assistance. If the person is a danger to himself or others by reason of his or her mental disorder, the Police can bring the person to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for mental health treatment. The person will be warded if assessed to require management in an in-patient setting.

I will now touch on criminal legal aid. The Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) is administered by the Law Society, with support from the Government. CLAS assigns a lawyer to accused persons who have been charged with a crime and who cannot afford to hire a lawyer. Since 2015, the Government has provided close to $6 million to the Law Society Pro Bono Services (LSPBS), enabling CLAS to help almost four times as many applicants in 2017, compared to pre-2015.

CLAS has also worked to improve its processes. The application processing time has been significantly shortened after a direct phone-link between CLAS and Prisons was installed in March 2017. Further improvements include the installation of a direct video-link between the CLAS office in State Courts and Prisons. My Ministry will continue to support and work with the Law Society to improve CLAS, just as we have done with LAB.

The continued success of CLAS is only possible with the strong support from the legal fraternity. The CLAS Fellowship, which is generously sponsored by five law firms since 2015, has enabled lawyers to join LSPBS to exclusively handle criminal legal aid cases. In the past three years, over 20 firms have signed MOUs and taken on over 600 CLAS cases in total. I would like to thank the legal fraternity for their pro bono spirit and strong support for CLAS.

Let me now touch on another important area of MinLaw's work: getting the legal services sector ready for the future economy. The Working Group on Legal and Accounting Services under CFE made several recommendations in this area, which we are in the process of implementing.

Minister Shanmugam has addressed dispute resolution. I will outline our plans to capture opportunities in: (a) restructuring; (b) corporations; (c) IP; and (d) projects and infrastructure.

First: restructuring. We have moved to strengthen Singapore’s position as an international debt restructuring centre for Asia. We amended the Companies Act to provide more flexibility and options for corporate restructuring. Since May 2017, more than 15 restructuring cases have been filed with the Singapore Courts. We hope to encourage greater use of our legal frameworks and professional services, to facilitate more successful local and international restructurings.

Second: corporations. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) and the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA), together with my Ministry, have been working on enhancing the legal regime for corporations. In 2017, MOF introduced a new re-domiciliation framework to allow foreign companies to transfer their registration to Singapore. This enables them to pursue substantive economic activities here as Singapore companies, while retaining their corporate history. ACRA has also set up the Institute of Corporate Law Panel, with industry stakeholders, to provide feedback on corporate law reforms. With such feedback, ACRA publishes interpretations of specific legislative provisions, which reduce commercial ambiguity.

Third: IP. We have built a robust infrastructure and a good reputation in IP protection, as Mr Christopher de Souza noted. Our patent office is one of only 20-odd offices in the world that can examine international patent applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. We have also established partnerships with more than 30 foreign IP offices to accelerate patent applications filed in their jurisdictions. Last year, we amended the Registered Designs Act and Patents Act, to keep pace with technology changes, and improve IP protection.

IPOS has also taken steps to help businesses realise the full value of their IP. IPOS, with its partners, have designed programmes to train professionals for high value roles in IP management, strategy and valuation. These include the Masters of IP and Innovation Management at the Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), and the Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) for IP Professionals. IPOS' IP Academy has also trained more than 4,000 individuals in areas, such as IP management and commercialisation. In January, IPOS launched the SkillsFuture Study Award for candidates of IP courses.

IPOS also helps businesses develop their IP commercialisation know-how. IPOS’s IP ValueLab provides consultancy services on IP audit, due diligence and strategy, to help businesses secure investments for growth. To date, IP ValueLab has engaged more than 300 local businesses.

Fourth: projects and infrastructure. The Finance Minister announced the setting up of an Infrastructure Office during the Budget Statement. Let me explain the purpose and the thinking behind the Infrastructure Office.

Projections estimate that US$26 trillion may be spent over the next 15 years on infrastructure projects in Asia. Many of such projects are looking for financing, and financers are looking for projects to fund. But the projects are unable to obtain financing due to lack of bankability, usually occasioned by the lack of proper project preparation, project structuring and technical issues.

Singapore is uniquely placed to address these problems. We are a leading financial centre, and Singapore-based banks have provided loans or financial advisory services for an estimated 60% of infrastructure projects in ASEAN.

Commercial banks with project finance teams and project structuring expertise are located in Singapore. Multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank and its sister agencies, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), have also a significant presence in Singapore and offer a critical source of infrastructure finance and project structuring expertise.

We also have accountancy firms with project advisory teams, engineering consultancies, local and international law firms with project financing and infrastructure dispute resolution expertise, and other professional services companies in architecture, engineering and project management.

The Infrastructure Office is intended to be a platform to connect infrastructure stakeholders, enable information exchange on infrastructure opportunities in Asia, facilitate infrastructure investments and financing, and help infrastructure players, including professional services providers, access these opportunities.

My Ministry, through the Professional Services Programme Office (PSPO), will be working with the Infrastructure Office and other agencies, such as ESG, MAS and Economic Development Board (EDB), in this endeavour.

To access these new opportunities, Singapore lawyers and law firms must also embrace the disruptive changes, reinvent themselves and move up the value chain. During a CFE engagement session, I was asked by a Singapore practitioner whether we could protect the wills practice for lawyers. I suggested in reply that rather than focusing purely on wills preparation, which is an area that can be easily templated and commoditised, he could instead expand his practice and offer a comprehensive suite of services related to wealth management to clients, such as estate planning, and trust and asset management − the legal aspects of it. Going into high value-added services would gain him access to a bigger market and higher fees. Of course, he could still continue to do wills as well, as that is part of wealth management.

My Ministry has been implementing the various strategies from the Professional Services ITM, including (a) technology adoption; (b) internationalisation; and (c) capability development.

On technology adoption, raised by Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Rahayu Mahzam, we launched "Tech Start for Law" last year to help small and medium-sized Singapore law practices adopt basic technology to increase productivity. The programme covers technology products for practice management, online legal research and online marketing. About 100 Singapore law practices have benefited and adopted over 100 technology solutions.

The "Lawyers Go Global" programme was launched in February, together with the Law Society and International Enterprise (IE) Singapore. This will help Singapore law practices internationalise through overseas mission trips to fast-growing regional countries and workshops. The Law Society will also initiate a marketing campaign later this year to raise the profile of Singapore lawyers abroad. The programme will be especially useful for the small and medium-sized law practices.

Last but not least, we are supporting Singaporean lawyers in deepening skills and qualifications, through the SkillsFuture Study Awards. To date, 44 Singaporean lawyers have received the award. PSPO will continue to work with Singapore law practices on training and secondment opportunities.

In relation to the inhouse counsel community, which Mr Patrick Tay spoke about, my Ministry continues to work with EDB to promote Singapore as a location for companies’ regional and global headquarters, including inhouse counsel teams. We encourage the inhouse counsel community to continue raising their standards of practice and are heartened by the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association’s recent ground-up efforts in this regard.

Ultimately, the continued success and relevance of Singapore lawyers and Singapore law practices will also depend on how widely Singapore laws and standards are used in commerce and dispute resolution.

My Ministry is working on the promotion of the international use of Singapore law, standards and frameworks in line with the Working Group recommendations. We strive to incorporate Singapore legal principles and standards at the negotiating table of international platforms, such as ASEAN, the Hague Conference of Private International Law and the UN Commission on International Trade Law. We also work with international organisations to promote greater understanding and use of the Singapore legal system. We will also continue to develop uniquely Singaporean legal solutions to serve the international market. One example is our restructuring regime mentioned earlier.

These initiatives will strengthen Singapore’s global market position, build Singapore’s thought leadership, and prepare our legal sector for the future. However, the private sector, too, must do its part and get their firms and people ready to compete in this fast-changing landscape.

Mr Chairman, may I beg your indulgence to have a few minutes to complete my response, otherwise, I would not be able to respond to Ms Sylvia Lim’s cut on extradition.

The Chairman: You have a few minutes. Please proceed.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you. Let me now address Ms Sylvia Lim's queries. My Ministry is committed to facilitating greater international cooperation to combat transnational crime, in accordance with our domestic laws and international obligations. We are, therefore, open to concluding extradition treaties and arrangements.

Within ASEAN, there is no ASEAN-wide initiative for the mutual recognition of arrest warrants. However, Singapore has special extradition arrangements with Malaysia and Brunei, given our shared common law tradition and close relationship, which allow for the swift surrender of fugitives based on the recognition of arrest warrants. All ASEAN member states, including Singapore, are also members of the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), which provides a platform for international law enforcement cooperation. At present, Singapore is actively engaged in negotiations for a Model ASEAN extradition treaty, as Ms Sylvia Lim noted. We have achieved significant progress and, like many other ASEAN partners, are hopeful that work on this instrument will be concluded as soon as possible.

As Ms Sylvia Lim acknowledges, our existing extradition network extends to 43 jurisdictions across the globe, including major jurisdictions, such as the US. We have also signed an extradition treaty with Indonesia, which is pending ratification by Indonesia. With regard to expanding our network, it is not just a matter of numbers alone. Negotiating an extradition treaty is not without complexities. As Ms Lim has noted, relevant considerations include whether such an arrangement would be mutually beneficial for Singapore and the other country, and whether any divergence in legal systems and procedures can be rationalised.

4.30 pm

Furthermore, extradition is a resource-intensive process. The volume of requests can place a significant burden on our Government agencies and judicial system. More importantly, an extradition arrangement, without adequate protection, carries risks to people in Singapore, including our citizens.

In summary, we are open to more extradition treaties and arrangements but would take a careful and considered approach.

The Chairman: Clarifications, if any? Mr Patrick Tay.

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: I thank Minister Shanmugam for agreeing to my suggestion of raising the SCT claim limits. Can the Minister advise on what the new limits will be, because we know the current limits are $10,000 and $20,000 with mutual consent? Has the Ministry decided on how much the new limits will be?

Mr K Shanmugam: In good time.

The Chairman: Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: Can I just check with the Senior Minister of State whether discretion can be granted to the Director of Legal Aid when granting legal aid?

Ms Indranee Rajah: That is one of the things that we will consider in our review.

The Chairman: Would the Member wish to withdraw the amendment?

Mr Christopher de Souza: Sir, may I record our thanks to the many diligent officers in MinLaw and in various agencies under MinLaw's purview. I would also like to thank Minister K Shanmugam and Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah for their insightful replies. With that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment for Head R.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $233,470,100 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $218,061,100 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.