Committee of Supply – Head R (Ministry of Law)

The Chairman: Head R, Ministry of Law. Mr Murali Pillai.

Forging Efficient and Trusted Legal System

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100".

Sir, I am heartened to note the significant steps that MinLaw has taken to strengthen access to justice in Singapore to the average man in the street and forging an efficient and trusted legal system over the past year.

One major initiative, which has received good reviews from members of public, is the iLab, which is a free legal chatbox that provides legal information on nine modules which include COVID-19 legal issues, monetary claims in addition to the usual family law issues. There has been a good take-up rate for this service. In 2021 alone, iLab registered 47,500 queries in 3,408 sessions.

The feedback on these services is also good, averaging four out of five stars in the post-usage surveys. This achievement comes on top of other initiatives such as the operationalisation of the Protection from Harassment Court with simplified processes allowing a person to navigate the system on his own without the need for a lawyer, and the Apostille Act which was put into effect on 16 September 2021 which helped Singapore travellers easily get Apostilles for their Singapore-issued vaccination records for travel to countries, if so required, as a condition of entry. These and other moves have enhanced access to justice and make our legal system more efficient and trusted.

5.45 pm

I have two suggestions that I hope the Minister would consider to strengthen this even more.

First, the simplification of the probate and administration process. I have been advocating for change in this process, especially for non-contentious matters, for sometime now. I suggested the Japanese Kobeki system, which does not involve the courts, to be looked at.

The vast majority of probate and administration cases are simple. Yet, the current system requiring executors or administrators to file applications in Court is cumbersome and costly, as it involves lawyers in a Rube Goldberg machine or process.

Several years back, the Government agreed to look at my proposal to simplify the system. I would be grateful for an update, please.

Next, to further strengthen access to justice for persons of limited means, I wish to propose that the current means limit of the Per Capita Gross Monthly Household Income (PCHI) of $950, which was last adjusted in October 2019, be raised. Means testing is an important part of prudence in public spending. Balanced against prudence is the assurance that cost will not be an obstacle to access to justice.

I note that in the past five years, the total number of applications has dropped. Between 2017 and 2019, these applications generally numbered around the 9,000s. In 2020, the number went down to 7,722. In 2021, it went down further, to 6,651. That is not all. I also note that the number of successful applicants has also gone down. Between 2017 and 2019, the average number of successful applicants is 6,180. For 2020, it went down to 5,466; and in 2021, it went down even further to 4,928.

The percentage of unsuccessful applications that did not satisfy the means test criteria is about 80%. This could mean that many well-to-do people are trying their luck. But looking at the benchmarks for income in the other parts of our policies on means-testing, I do not think so. For example, in comparison a person under the Joint Single Scheme (JSS) may apply for a public rental flat from HDB, if his gross monthly salary does not exceed $1,500.

Given that there is a capacity to take on more cases, I suggest that a study be done to review the PCHI and study the feasibility of revising it upwards.

I also suggest that the Ministry make it better known that there is a discretion given to the Means Test Panel to waive the means test requirements when it is found to be "just and proper" to do so. I learned from MinLaw's recent response to my Parliamentary Question that since 2019, when the amendments to the Legal Aid and Advice Act to provide for flexibility in providing legal aid was introduced, the Means Test Panel only received seven applications, of which five were approved. In the end though, two withdrew, leaving only three applicants to proceed with their applications.

In my respectful view, this is too small a number, given the demand for legal aid. I also checked the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) website and noted the reference to this statutory discretion is respectfully rather cursory. I was not able to find a reference to the Means Test Panel and the fact that the decisions of the panel can be appealed to the Minister. The illustrations as to what constitutes "just and proper" circumstances are also rather limited.

From time to time, our laws have to be updated in keeping with developments. I would be grateful if the Minister could please outline his plans in this area. I would also like to make two proposals for his kind consideration.

First, I propose that the Ministry look at amending the Limitation Act 1959 to address a recent decision of the Court of Appeal to the effect that claims in unjust enrichment and restitution for wrongs are not covered under the Act. As a result, stale claims based on these causes of action be potentially be brought in our Court.

Next, I propose that the Ministry review the merits of retaining the provisions of the Debtors Act 1934, which allows for judgment debtors to be committed to civil prison after an examination before a Court on the inability to pay or satisfy the judgment debt. In my respectful view, this provision is anachronistic. It has not being used, as I have been told, since 2013, pursuant to a response to my Parliamentary Question recently.

In any event, there exists provisions to deal with judgment debtors who are not forthcoming with honest answers or fraudulently remove their assets to frustrate judgment creditors.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I have spoken on the need to capture all possible efficiencies, including from chatbots and new technologies, to ensure that the provision of justice remains a lean and streamlined process. That is tending to the cost of supply.

At the same time, we must look at demand for legal services and ensure access to justice for all. In this, I ask for us to review the means test.

Last, I ask for a few smaller reviews to ensure that our laws are updated and made coherent with developments across the entire body of law. Together, they ensure that our legal system remains efficient, accessible and coherent, all of which will go a long way towards maintaining and building up that trust that Singaporeans have in our laws.

Question proposed.

Enforcement of Civil Judgments and Orders

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mr Chairman, disputes are often an unpleasant but inevitable by-product of our personal and work life interactions and also in the course of doing business. If unresolved, some of these disputes end up in litigation before the civil Courts or for resolution before Tribunals. To those of us who have had the unfortunate need to go through litigation or dispute resolution, we know that it is not only resource intensive but also likely to be a frustrating and trying experience.

Sir, I had shared my views with this House previously on promoting the greater use of mediation as a platform to resolve civil disputes and I am very pleased to see the various steps taken by the Government to push for the use of mediation as a key platform to resolve civil disputes amicably.

But on the other hand, even if one navigates successfully through the process and obtains a favourable judgment or order, it does not mean that the problem or the dispute is resolved instantly. If, for whatever reason, a party does not comply with the judgment or order, the other party will then have no choice but to take steps to enforce it.

The enforcement process is equally, if not more, painful. It requires investing further time and resources and this could sometimes be to the detriment of the successful party. I was therefore quite pleased when Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong had, at a previous Committee of Supply debate, alluded to the Government’s plan to study measures to streamline and simplify the enforcement of civil judgments and orders.

In the premises, I invite the Minister to share an update with this House of the Government’s study and whether there are plans to push ahead with any recommendations to reform the legal process in the area of enforcement.

Enforcement of Civil Judgment

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): When workers face issues with an employer and get judgments from the Courts or the Employment Claims Tribunal that they are not satisfied with, they would still need to be enforced in the same manner as an order made by the Court. This would involve going through an entire rigmarole of processes set out in the rules of Court pertaining to the filing of relevant forms, documents, as well as the payment of Court fees. In most instances, they would still need to engage a lawyer and may sometimes still be subjected to a protracted enforcement process. Workers’ lack of knowledge of the workings of our Court system exacerbates this problem.

There is thus a need to simplify and expedite the enforcement mechanism to facilitate workers’ recovery of monies. Can I therefore ask if MinLaw is reviewing this entire civil enforcement process to make enforcement more accessible, economical, expeditious and less painful for workers and the layman?

Mr Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim. Not here. Mr Vikram Nair.

Access to Justice

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Chairman, access to justice is an important issue and in recent times, MinLaw and the Singapore Courts have taken important steps to make sure that those who need to access the legal system are able to get it. This includes making proceedings easier for the self-represented, the expansion of legal aid by easing the means test and providing funding for some criminal legal aid cases too. It is also considering a fully funded public defender’s office. These are important developments which I support.

Over the last year, the Ministry has also permitted the use of third-party funding and conditional fee arrangements for arbitrations, as well as for proceedings before the Singapore International Commercial Courts. This is a helpful development that levels the playing field somewhat, between local and international law firms.

However, one area where I still believe more can be done is in the area of domestic litigation for those who do not qualify for legal aid, but who may still lack the resources for an expensive, longdrawn suit, even if they have a valid claim. In these types of situations, I have two suggestions.

The first is that we can consider permitting conditional fee arrangements for these situations as well, meaning that lawyers can have outcome-based payments rather than collecting fixed payments. The other is to allow damages-based awards. This means they can collect a proportion of any damages recovered.

The country with the most liberal system in relation to the above is probably the US and, despite the potentially high legal costs there, access to justice is rarely a complaint by civil litigants because if a person has a good case, it is usually possible to find a lawyer to take it up and share the risk. The UK as well now allows both, although it circumscribes limits to the proportion of damages that can be claimed in certain situations.

The main concern cited against this is the risk of frivolous lawsuits and that the advocate, by taking an interest in the litigation, may not be able to perform his duty as an officer of the Court. On the risk of frivolous lawsuits, I think this is unlikely to be high because lawyers will be bearing the risk and it will be a big investment for them as well.

In relation to lawyers acting as professionals, I think this risk can be managed and other countries, such as the US and the UK, are able to function with this.

Foreign Custody / Maintenance Orders

Singapore is a melting pot and our legal system currently provides a robust and clear framework for foreign judgments to be enforced here. One area though, where this is not so easily enforceable, is in the case of matrimonial law. And we are also a melting pot for mixed marriages, where 25% of Singaporeans marry spouses of a different nationality and we have lots of foreign marriages. However, it is not automatically easy to enforce custody orders or maintenance orders from a foreign court.

These have to still be enforced under first principles through the Guardianship of Infants Act. So, I would be grateful if the Ministry could consider making it easier to enforce maintenance and custody orders from foreign courts, especially if divorce proceedings are determined there.

Family Justice and Litigants-in-person

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Sir, I have met Clementi residents facing divorce proceedings. Some feel disadvantaged, especially if the other spouse is better educated and controls the family's finances. Even where the Court has issued orders in favour of one party, there are cases of maintenance orders not being followed. The spouse can be a litigant-in-person who finds the legal system complex and difficult to navigate. Residents struggling to make ends meet, single parent, single income, looking after elderly grandparents and the children at the same time. Some do not earn enough to engage a lawyer, but earn too much to qualify for legal aid.

One Clementi resident shared about her journey as a litigant-in-person. She wished to vary a maintenance order. She had to navigate the various intermediaries – VITAL, which is a department under MOF, as well as CrimsonLogic – an entity that apparently handles some of the payment transactions.

In February 2021, a Singapore Academy of Law blog, in an excerpt of a book by NUS professors Jaclyn Neo and Helena Whalen-Bridge stated, and I quote: "The legal system itself may limit the litigant-in-person’s access to justice, particularly in terms of equality of access, due to complex procedural rules".

Despite this, some spouses still proceed to deal as a litigant-in-person for divorce proceedings. Has MinLaw studied why and done a deep dive into this issue? Can the system be streamlined for litigants-in-person of limited means? Is MinLaw considering additional enforcement mechanisms against errant spouses who do not attend or comply with maintenance orders and timely payments because justice delayed is justice denied?

Mr Chairman: Ms Hany Soh. Not here. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Sir, may I take both cuts together?

Mr Chairman: Yes, please.

CPF Monies and Estate Administration

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim: Sir, there has been an increase in unclaimed CPF monies held by the Public Trustee. In 2018, it was reported that 2% of CPF monies were unclaimed, amounting to $132 million. Last year, the Central Provident Fund Act was amended to take a "Beneficiary Representative" (BR) approach to simplify the payment of deceased CPF members’ un-nominated CPF monies.

Besides this, what other efforts have been made to increase public awareness among beneficiaries and reduce the amount of unclaimed CPF monies held by the Public Trustee?

6.00 pm

Further, the probate and administration process in Court for beneficiaries can be quite cumbersome to navigate before they are able to appoint the executor and administrator of the estate of the deceased. Hence, may I know what are MinLaw's plans to make it easier during the probate process for beneficiaries to appoint executors and administrators particularly for those with limited means or those without any legal representation?

Legal Technology Reform

Technology is becoming increasingly an important element in the practice and business of law. My own firm, which is part of a larger international set-up, has a global collaborative platform focused on developing, deploying and investing in new technologies in the practice of law in our offices all around the world. It is almost imperative nowadays to incorporate and leverage technology in legal practice. Clients are increasingly looking for quicker assistance and more are specifically seeking out innovative solutions and the adoption of technology.

In this regard, how is MinLaw supporting law practices in their digitalisation journey and also to encourage legal practitioners to utilise legal technology in their practice? This is especially so for smaller or local firms which may not have the benefit of economies of scale when seeking to acquire such legal technology solutions on their own.

Retaining Talent in the Legal Industry

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, I start with a quote: "Every solicitor who has got a serious practice is under stress". The hon Chief Justice was quoted in a Yahoo! News article on Monday as saying this at a recent Court of Three Judges hearing.

Lawyering, Sir, is invariably stressful. Why so? It is because the stakes are so high. It takes a certain dedication to be in a profession that, amongst other things, defends life and liberty, that acts for commercial interests that may have wide-ranging consequences, that challenges in Court the constitutionality of laws made in this House.

If we accept stress as an immutable part of the profession, we have to then look at other things that can be changed to address the exodus of junior and middle category lawyers from the profession. Many suggestions have been made by various people and I would like to add three.

First, MinLaw could consider upping the proportion of law students in our Universities who are graduate students. As a graduate law student myself – my first degree was in political science and I took up a law degree only after working a few years in the Civil Service – I can attest that once someone makes that sacrifice of three years with no salary or advancement to obtain a law degree, they will likely remain in the profession, as most of my batch have. The MOE Tuition Grant should also be extended to all graduate law students, regardless of whether they had utilised the grant for their earlier degree.

Second, it was recently suggested to me by a Senior Counsel that the current training contract scheme has lost the emotional elements of the previous pupillage system, which created a bond between new lawyers and their pupil master, and to the profession. Gone also are the formal dinners that trainee lawyers were invited to attend, where they would be seated with and would get to know senior practitioners. These unique and iconic traditions of the profession helped to build camaraderie and fraternity and gave life to the idea of being part of an ancient and noble profession. Even in the UK, from which we inherit our legal traditions, the importance of these "dining-in sessions" was recently affirmed. Perhaps we could consider bringing these back.

Third, while stress from the job is inevitable, stress from bosses and from the working environment is not. I note that modules on leadership and management have recently been added to the compulsory training for lawyers becoming partners. There is merit in considering including these types of courses as compulsory modules in the Continuing Professional Development programme for middle and senior category lawyers.

Retaining Young Legal Talent

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Chairman, Singapore's position as a global legal hub is well-known and one that we do not take for granted. But every system is, ultimately, made up of people and around the world. The legal profession is facing significant strain. Singapore is no exception and we have heard instances of young lawyers leaving the industry and feeling disillusioned. A record number of 538 lawyers left the profession in 2021, most of whom were in the junior category.

The demands of practice today, with unrelenting advances of technology, long hours, complex cases and transactions, are very real. This is not about millennial strawberries. While it sounds like an exciting career, it is one that, more often than not, veers towards burnout and, if we do not do something meaningfully to tackle structural and attitudinal factors, it will be an unhealthy race to the bottom.

Yet, the legal needs of our society and economy are constantly evolving. To remain as a preferred jurisdiction for dispute resolution, we must remain competitive and have good people. What plans does the Government have to work with the legal sector to attract, manage and retain young legal talent sustainably in the long run? Are there any structural or skilling concerns to ensure that we can continue to meet the evolving legal needs of our society and economy?

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Chairman, may I take all my five cuts together, please?

The Chairman: Yes, please.

The Evolving Legal Needs of our Society

Mr Christopher de Souza: First, allow me to declare that I am a lawyer in private practice.

The pandemic has shifted the legal profession to a new normal of working from home and attending hearings via Zoom. Technological advancements have made the arrangement and management of case documents easier. Additionally, clients' needs have evolved as they themselves face increasingly complex issues because of technological advances and cybercrime. How is MinLaw equipping the legal profession to better meet the evolving legal needs of our society and economy?

Technology in Legal Practice

Technology is becoming an increasingly important element in the practice and business of law, with Zoom hearings, Artificial Intelligence (AI) being utilised to perform due diligence and research and data analytics providing prediction, thereby, saving time.

However, many law practices continue to struggle with the digitalisation journey, such as converting archive files and paperwork to digital records and having the necessary funds to upgrade computers and software to keep up to date. Furthermore, while law graduates emerging into the industry would be the most up to date, legal practitioners who have spent many years in the field and have already honed their craft might find the challenge of incorporating technological advances far too steep. How is MinLaw supporting the law practices in their digitalisation journey?

Singapore – a Dispute Resolution Hub

Singapore has steadily built a reputation as an international dispute resolution centre over the past few decades. Whether through arbitration, mediation or some other form of dispute resolution, Singapore is known to be even-handed and fair and transparent in its dealings.

This has been built upon the backbone of creating and continually updating our law and regulations and developing the relevant infrastructure to take on the flow of legal work through our borders. Additionally, we have cultivated local legal talent to become world-class arbitrators, mediators and advocates.

However, the pandemic has moved many dispute resolutions online and the places having the most updated technology and best handling of the pandemic become the destinations best suited for dispute resolution.

What plans does MinLaw have to maintain Singapore's position as an international dispute resolution hub today?

Intellectual Property – Protection

Intellectual Property, or IP, plays an increasingly important role in an innovation-driven economy, particularly with the rise of blockchain and cryptocurrency, as well as perhaps non-fungible tokens or NFTs.

With the world increasingly interconnected and businesses and revenue going wherever there is the greatest protection over assets and the best environment for innovation, Singapore needs to keep pace. Having the required legal regime and infrastructure will allow for greater foreign investment into local enterprises and allow for the growth of local enterprises to explore and lead the way in blockchain and other cutting-edge developments.

How has MinLaw been supporting the local enterprises in the area of IP to build infrastructure as well as to monetise their IP?

State Land – Rejuvenation and Better Use

Sir, despite our limited land space, Singapore has maximised much of it to build the city that it is today – including much lush greenery and parks and recreational spaces. Over the years, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) has done very well to convert under-utilised state land into community spaces, such as parks and even quarantine facilities during the peak of the pandemic.

Furthermore, by partnering the community in engaging the public to receive feedback on how state properties can be retrofitted and adapted, we can continue to create a beautiful Singapore and maximise the usage of our land.

How does MinLaw plan to continually repurpose and rejuvenate state properties to breathe new life into them?

The Chairman: Minister Edwin Tong.

The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Chairman, good evening. I thank the Members for their various speeches.

The range of issues raised in Members' cuts reflect the extensive and diverse reach of our legal system and its fundamental importance to Singapore, as well as the rapidly-evolving landscape that we are navigating. As we adjust to living with COVID-19, we will pay renewed attention to strengthening the rule of law and access to justice and, of course, at the same time, keeping an eye on being able to seize the opportunities ahead of us. This will secure our place in a post-COVID-19 world and ensure that we continue to thrive.

In support of this, my Ministry remains focused on three broad areas. First, building a legal system that is trusted, effective and accessible. Second, strengthening Singapore as a legal services and intellectual property hub. And third, enhancing our management of state land and properties.

I will address in response to the cuts along these themes.

Singapore has a legal system renowned for efficiency, effectiveness and fairness. We are not, however, resting on our laurels and will continue to make improvements across various facets. This will promote affordability, timeliness, simplicity and, of course, effectiveness and trust, as Mr Murali Pillai puts it, for all litigants – key characteristics of a country with a strong rule of law and good governance.

An important aspect of a strong rule of law is to ensure that Court judgments are efficiently enforced. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked about the enforcement of Court orders following prolonged litigation, often requiring further time and resources. We have also received feedback that the time, effort and costs of enforcing a judgment in some cases, particularly where there is a lower-value judgment, can be disproportionate to the judgment sum.

To address this, we will introduce changes designed to make enforcement simpler and more streamlined – a point also picked up by Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Patrick Tay. SMEs and litigants-in-person, in particular, will benefit from these changes. These include introducing new powers to punish and disincentivise non-compliance with Court orders. And if a party still fails to comply, the Courts will be given enhanced powers to track and trace assets of the judgment debtor.

Sir, these are complex changes and we are studying the options and will engage stakeholders to get their feedback and finetune some of the proposals we have in mind and will provide more details in due course.

Specifically on Mr Tay's concerns on workers encountering difficulties enforcing Employment Claims Tribunal or ECT orders, the proposals I mentioned are intended to apply to ECT orders as well. The Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Resolution Management, or TADM, is mindful that workers should be able to recover their monies efficiently and cost-effectively.

6.15 pm

TADM has partnered NTUC's U Care Centre and Migrant Workers' Centre to provide advice and assistance to local and migrant workers on enforcing ECT orders through a writ of seizure and sale (WSS). In cases where it may be impractical to proceed through a WSS, TADM will help affected workers get financial assistance through the Short-Term Relief Fund or the Migrant Workers' Assistance Fund.

Turning now, Sir, to the family justice system, it is a system that deals with many cases that are often less about legal issues and a lot about emotional and family issues. Typically, this plays out in acrimonious, often protracted, proceedings, often souring the relations of people already strained by the proceedings themselves.

Sir, we place a strong emphasis on promoting therapeutic justice. Amendments to the Women's Charter this year were a step in this direction.

To take these objectives further, we have been working with MSF and the Family Justice Courts (FJC) to effect the recommendations of the Committee to Review and Enhance Reforms in the Family Justice System. We are looking at legislative amendments later this year.

Dr Tan Wu Meng mentioned that family proceedings can be challenging for some litigants-in-person. We agree. He had asked today and also in a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on 15 February why many parties continue to choose to represent themselves.

There are, Sir, a variety of reasons for this. One factor could be the initiatives that MinLaw, together with MSF and FJC, have introduced, in fact, simplify and reduce the acrimony in divorce proceedings. For example, we have implemented the simplified divorce track for couples who have agreed on the divorce and ancillary matters.

We will continue to simplify proceedings so that all parties can obtain a fair and just outcome even if they choose or are sometimes forced to go without a lawyer. Some of the improvements we are, therefore, considering in the upcoming Bill will be especially helpful for self-represented parties, specifically, the enforcement of maintenance orders, which Dr Tan Wu Meng has spoken about.

Take, for example, where the enforcing party has difficulty ascertaining the other party's financial position. This, Members will know, is not an uncommon position. We will empower the Courts to question parties and obtain the information directly. This facilitates a simpler and more efficient process and really gets to the crux of the issues directly. These are the issues which matter.

We are also considering additional enforcement mechanisms to strengthen compliance – a comment which Dr Tan Wu Meng had made.

Mr Vikram Nair suggested simplifying the enforcement process for ancillary orders made by a foreign court in divorce proceedings.

Sir, for maintenance, the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (MOREA) provides a streamlined process for directly enforcing a foreign maintenance order issued by a court of a designated reciprocating jurisdiction. For fresh applications in Singapore for ancillary orders for foreign divorces, our Courts have been mindful to avoid unnecessary re-litigation. Their approach is to respect and recognise any foreign custody order made in the child's habitual residence unless there are exceptional circumstances which militate against that. That said, Sir, we will consider Mr Vikram Nair's feedback.

Mr Murali Pillai raised two matters on law reform and I will address those.

He commented on the Debtors Act dealing with arrest and imprisonment of debtors and asked if MinLaw would consider reviewing its relevance. We thank Mr Murali Pillai for highlighting this. We will review the Debtors Act at the appropriate juncture and, if necessary, propose reforms.

Mr Murali Pillai also asked about the recent Court of Appeal decision, which held that claims in unjust enrichment and restitution for wrongs are not covered by the Limitation Act. We are aware of this. In fact, I think we had spoken about this with Mr Murali Pillai, and are studying, if we decide to proceed, how the Limitation Act should be amended.

We will continue to explore a range of possible refinements and, of course, also review our laws continually to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our legal system and also ensure that justice continues to remain accessible.

In fact, Sir, access to justice is a fundamental pillar of our society. Advancing access to justice for all Singaporeans, regardless of their means, is, therefore, important to us. Let me highlight four areas we are looking to enhance.

First, community disputes remain an area of focus. As Members have noted, there has been a rise in such cases. An inter-agency committee comprising MCCY, MND, MinLaw and MHA has been working on a holistic review of the Community Disputes Management Framework, a broad holistic framework that looks at how we manage such disputes within the community from end to end as far as possible. The committee has made progress in this review. Whilst it is at this point in time premature to announce any firm measures at this stage, I can say that we are considering proposals and remedies which fall into two broad buckets.

First, to look at enhancing upstream measures to help reduce the occurrence of disputes. For example, the committee is studying how we can forge closer relationships and partnership with the community to establish community norms for issues, such as noise and disturbances, local disamenity issues, and this includes the establishment of a community advisory panel. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will elaborate on this during MND's Committee of Supply speech.

Second, if a dispute does arise, how can we enhance the framework to promote an amicable resolution as far as possible? After all, most of these disputes occur in the context of a neighbourly situation where two parties live side by side or in close proximity to each other. How do we find a solution that better facilitates a fair, expedient and effective resolution of that dispute should an amicable resolution not be possible?

Measures that we are studying include: (a) making mediation mandatory in some cases; (b) enhancing the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals' (CDRT) processes to address pain points, including some of the present difficulties involved in the CDRT process; and, finally, (c) having an appropriate response protocol to address disputes quickly and effectively.

This is a complex effort, as Members would appreciate. It requires work and coordination amongst different agencies, and the committee has been working with stakeholders and partners to develop and refine these proposals. I will share some further aspects of the committee's work at MCCY's Committee of Supply speech.

Second, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked about efforts to reduce unclaimed CPF monies held by the Public Trustee. Members will recall that we are already simplifying the claims process through the beneficiary representative approach. This will apply to about half of all unnominated CPF monies handled by the Public Trustee annually. So, a fairly big proportion of the unnominated sums will come under this approach. We are focusing on implementing this by the second quarter of this year. We encourage beneficiaries who are able to, to use this process.

Under this process, an eligible beneficiary can represent all beneficiaries for cases up to $10,000. The application process has also been streamlined, which will significantly reduce inconvenience for beneficiaries and also, in many cases, halve the disbursement time from the current three to six months to one to three months.

We also plan to review the monetary limit for cases to qualify under this approach, potentially expanding the approach to a larger group of cases.

The beneficiary representative approach will go some way towards reducing the inconvenience when making a claim for unclaimed unnominated sums and also reduce the unclaimed monies as a result. I should add, however, that despite refining this and making it simpler and more convenient, that to enable distributions to beneficiaries more quickly and directly, CPF members can, where possible, make their nominations ahead of time and update it as their life circumstances change.

Third, both Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim suggested simplifying the probate process. We agree with that.

Last year, Members may recall that I had shared that the Courts are already working to simplify the application process for straightforward probate matters. Let me now share more details.

In gist, self-represented applicants can look forward to a probate e-service. This can be used to apply for a Grant of Probate online in straightforward applications. One key feature will be the integration of Singpass information, which will allow the applicant's particulars to be automatically populated.

Beyond personal particulars, the e-service will also use guided questions to help applicants provide the relevant information – information that allows their applications to be processed more quickly – and use that to help applicants fill up the Court forms, which sometimes present a chokepoint, even at the start of the process itself. These features reduce the amount of information the applicant needs to provide and potential form-filling errors, which then lengthen and delay the process. This will significantly improve the service journey for self-represented applicants.

Mr Murali Pillai raised an interesting proposal about the Japanese koseki system. We did study this. It is a system that has unique features. Interesting, but, ultimately, we felt that it was relevant for Japan's own context – quite different from our situation. We assessed that adopting it does not necessarily make Singapore's probate and administration processes more efficient and we felt that enhancing and making it more convenient and simplifying the process itself would benefit applicants more.

That said, we take Mr Murali Pillai's suggestion and we are grateful that he has taken the trouble to look at comparable systems. The lesson in that, really, is to look at other systems and think of how it may apply to us and adapt the process, as may be appropriate, to contextualise it to our circumstances, and we will do so.

Mr Murali Pillai proposed reviewing the means test limit in order to strengthen access to justice. It has been less than three years since these criteria were revised. We should let this run for a period of time and study its impact and effectiveness before deciding whether to review the limits again.

Additionally, we also acknowledge Mr Murali Pillai's suggestion on increasing awareness regarding the waiver of the means test requirements. We completely agree with that and we will take steps to enhance the awareness. We will work with various other stakeholders, including Law Society, to do so.

For those who lack resources but may not qualify for legal aid, Mr Vikram Nair asked whether conditional fee agreements (CFAs) could be expanded to domestic litigation and also include damages-based awards.

Members will recall that Parliament passed a framework for CFAs in January. This will commence later this year. Under this new framework, CFAs will be permitted as an additional litigation funding option for arbitration proceedings, certain proceedings in the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) and related Court and mediation proceedings.

We are studying extending CFAs to other categories of proceedings – as I have explained when I made the speech in Parliament in January – such as in domestic litigation and mediation, in order to enhance access to justice.

We are aware of the developments in this area in other jurisdictions like the UK and the US. But as Members know, such proceedings are likely to involve more vulnerable litigants. So, we want to take this approach more carefully, study the pros and cons, make further reviews and consultations, before we move on this front.

On Mr Vikram Nair's other point, we had considered whether to allow damages-based awards but decided not to do so, at least presently, as such an approach means that fees that one charges will have no direct correlation to the quantum and value of the work done by the lawyer. We will, nonetheless, continue to study this and might have further consultations to study the appropriateness of such damages-based awards.

The introduction of CFAs in its current form, nonetheless, will strengthen Singapore's offerings as a legal services and dispute resolution hub – a point that I will now turn to.

Sir, our status as a trusted, best-in-class and efficient legal and intellectual property (IP) system presents us at once with opportunities and advantages. It provides the necessary infrastructure for us to engage in commerce. It contributes to Singapore's status as an international centre for finance, business, shipping, amongst others.

Singapore is building up its reputation as a legal and IP hub. In the 2021 Queen Mary University of London and White & Case International Arbitration Survey, Singapore was ranked as top arbitration seat globally, alongside London, and Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) was the most preferred arbitral institution in the Asia Pacific and second in the world. In the Global Innovation Index 2021, Singapore was amongst the world's top 10 most innovative nations.

Sir, these are statistics and surveys, but they also present a picture and tell us that we can create value for the legal sector and good jobs for Singaporeans with the attendant benefits for the economy.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked how we will maintain Singapore as a dispute resolution hub amidst the changes brought about by the pandemic. Beyond updates to our laws, such as CFAs, that I mentioned, we continue to evolve our international commercial dispute offerings and infrastructure to meet the end-users and the parties' changing needs. We must evolve and move with the times and I am sure that what we offer, what we have in our jurisdiction, meets the needs of users of legal services.

With the pandemic, proceedings are now often held in an online or hybrid format. Our dispute resolution institutions moved quickly to offer online and hybrid solutions. We will, therefore, work with them to consolidate these efforts, enhance their digital offerings at a broader level, and provide users with a comprehensive suite of online solutions and services, including hearing platforms and case management.

We will also work with these institutions to expand their footprint into other jurisdictions and promote our services. This includes supporting this expansion overseas, as I have mentioned; strengthening cooperation with foreign counterparts in a mutually beneficial system; and stepping up our physical engagements with key stakeholders and target markets as travel resumes.

6.30 pm

Sir, at the same time, a legal hub also needs to be supported by a strong legal talent base. Mr Christopher de Souza asked how the profession will meet our evolving needs. Ms Nadia Samdin and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas talked about the high attrition rates, especially amongst young lawyers, and asked how we will support and retain talent.

Sir, for some context, let me just cite some numbers. In 2021, about 20% more lawyers left the profession, compared to the average of the preceding three years. This phenomenon, however, is not unique to Singapore. An International Bar Association survey of more than 3,000 young lawyers globally published in January found that a third are likely to move to a new legal profession, for example, in academia; and a fifth are likely to leave the profession entirely. So, that is about 20% likely to leave the profession entirely.

They leave for a wide variety of reasons, including high workload and pressures, some of which the Members have mentioned. But while there were lawyers who left the profession, the numbers of which I have cited, there were, equally, also new entrants and re-entrants into the profession. In fact, the number of new entrants exceeded those who left the profession every year for the past four years, at least since 2018, when we kept a data bank of the numbers.

There was also a net increase in the number of Practising Certificate (PC) holders, those who practise law, in 2021, compared to 2020. So, overall, while there are a number of lawyers who have left the profession, equally, as I have said, others have come into the profession either at the start as a young lawyer or, in some cases, re-enter the profession as a mid-career or more senior lawyer. That said, I understand the sentiments of young lawyers and the views expressed by Members.

Sir, the start of a young lawyer’s career is challenging. Both Mr Murali Pillai and myself, we practised together as young lawyers and we know the drill. The first few years are when they go on a tremendously steep learning curve. That helps them to deepen their knowledge, quicken their experience, hone their craft and gain exposure. With these challenges, they grow professionally and, I think, if truth be told, through this experience, they become better, more experienced, more well-rounded lawyers.

The reality, too, is that we need to be able to compete globally. Otherwise, Singapore will be a less compelling proposition as a legal services hub. There is, therefore, no shortcut to developing legal skills. It is about the experience, it is about the ability to apply legal knowledge in the context of real-life, lived experiences, and make real commercial value judgements. If we want to be an outstanding legal hub and the jurisdiction of choice, there are no shortcuts. But we can make the journey more sustainable, more meaningful and rewarding.

First, we will look into preparing our lawyers, especially young lawyers, more adequately for practice and, along the way, developments in practice throughout their careers. MinLaw earlier accepted the recommendations of the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers. This includes lengthening the Practice Training Period from six months to a year, to allow trainees to develop a stronger foundation in legal practice before they embark on legal practice. We will implement this next year.

We will also review the training and education for law students, lawyers and allied legal professionals, including the need for leadership and management training, a good suggestion by Mr Raj Joshua Thomas. We will work with the Law Society to explore an industry-wide secondment programme to enhance our presence in important markets, such as in China, and also in important domains, such as in sustainability, M&A and technology.

Second, we will continue to provide lawyers with opportunities in the legal industry and the wider ecosystem. Lawyers today have more diverse options available, beyond joining as a lawyer in a Singapore law practice or joining the public sector. For instance, there are now opportunities at international law practices, in-house counsel teams, dispute resolution institutions, boutique firms and, of course, also legal tech firms.

There are also more development opportunities within the Singapore law practices and the public sector. Our Singapore law practices second lawyers to partner firms and clients, including through programmes introduced by MinLaw. The Legal Service restructuring also gives opportunities to specialise in judicial roles or as public sector lawyers.

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas suggested attracting more graduate students to read law, as they are more likely to stay in the profession. Mr Raj Joshua Thomas might know that all three of our local law schools offer JD programmes and we see a healthy take-up every year. SUSS Law School, in particular, takes in more than 50% in each cohort of JD students on average.

But, Sir, regardless of the law degree, lawyers will stay in the profession if there are opportunities and if they find the work fulfilling. This requires the collective efforts of different stakeholders. We will, therefore, continue to work with the Law Society and law practices to ensure that the legal industry remains attractive, challenging and with renewed opportunities for all and at the same time, continuing to foster a strong, talented, energetic Bar, with camaraderie among lawyers.

Next, let me turn to technology and digitalisation, as Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Mr Christopher de Souza have raised. Both have asked about supporting law practices and lawyers in the technology transformation.

Sir, MinLaw is at the forefront of this transformation, supporting Singapore law practices to adopt technology. We launched a Technology and Innovation Roadmap in 2020, a 10-year roadmap to guide our efforts and direction. We are working on a Legal Industry Digital Plan with IMDA and industry partners. Within the Ministry, we have set up a new Legal Technology Transformation Office, specifically to provide dedicated resources to support law firms on this journey.

We will also be launching the Legal Technology Platform (LTP) shortly. This is a matters management tool that is integrated with technology tools popular with our lawyers. It addresses common pain points when adopting and using technology, such as a steep learning curve and lack of interoperability between tools and systems, often a high threshold for lawyers to cross when talking about adopting technology.

We are also incorporating Singapore-specific features, features which we use best within our own local practice in our jurisdiction, including integration with existing practice management tools and solutions, and ensuring Singapore user data is hosted from Singapore, from a security perspective.

We have taken pains to ensure that user feedback is incorporated early into the design architecture of the system. Over the last year, we engaged over 100 lawyers from small and medium-sized law firms to obtain feedback on their usage, how they see interoperability, what functions they want to see, how they feel integration ought to take place between their own systems and the systems on the platform and so on. We established a standing LTP Industry Engagement & Advisory Group to provide continuous feedback as the product is developed and redeveloped over phases. We held a soft-launch at the end of January this year, where we provided a preview to some industry members and stakeholders, put the system with them and let them use it for a while, market test it, road test it before we finally make the launch later this year.

Once launched, law firms will be able to start adoption progressively. MinLaw is working to ensure firms receive technology support as they adopt the platform and beyond. We will work with Enterprise Singapore, IMDA and Law Society to encourage adoption amongst small and medium-sized law firms. We will also be exploring grants for early adopters to defray the subscription cost of the LTP and selected LTP-integrated solutions. We will share more details of this closer to the launch.

Next, another area – intellectual property (IP) – which we see will carry Singapore into the future.

IP and intangible assets (IA) are engines of today’s innovation-driven global economy. In 2021, the global value of intangible assets reached US$74 trillion. This is expected to keep rising.

But we have long recognised the need to leverage IA and IP for growth. Today, Singapore is an IP hub. We encourage creation, protection and commercialisation of new innovations and technologies, including blockchain and other emerging digital technologies. The rapid pace of innovation requires us to continually review our IP policies and laws to ensure that they support technological advances and, of course, the continually evolving business environment.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked how we are supporting local enterprises build infrastructure and monetise IP. Last year, we launched the Singapore IP Strategy 2030 (SIPS 2030). This aims to strengthen Singapore as a top-ranked global IA/IP hub. I will touch on two areas, particularly relevant to local enterprises, given Mr Christopher de Souza's question.

First, the initiatives that enable enterprises to better leverage IA and IP for growth. Enterprises can obtain IP protection quickly through the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore’s (IPOS) acceleration programme, SG IP Fast Track. It allows patent applications to be granted as fast as six months and, in this area, Members will know, time is efficiency, efficiency is commercialisation and money. So, as fast as six months, and the related trademark and design applications to be registered within three months and one month respectively.

At IPOS’ complimentary IP Legal and Business Clinics, local enterprises can consult lawyers and business consultants on a range of IP matters. You can go there to get help. Since February, these Clinics offer advice on IP issues when expanding overseas.

Concurrently, IPOS is working with Enterprise Singapore and the SME Centres to widen the IA/IP outreach to local enterprises, to socialise the idea with them, to equip them with information and knowledge, should they decide that their own business can take advantage of the IA/IP environment.

In May, IPOS will introduce the IPOS Digital Hub, a new IP registration system, which will harness the latest technologies to enhance the user experience in the IP registration process and provide businesses with new features to manage their own IP portfolio. This will complement the legislative updates in the Intellectual Property (Amendment) Bill passed in January 2022. Altogether, these initiatives will enable a more efficient and business-friendly IP registration system.

Second, we are working on IA and IP disclosure and valuation to make IA and IP more recognised and also more transactable.

IPOS is working with ACRA and the industry to develop an Intangible Asset Disclosure Framework. This will enable enterprises to better identify, communicate and disclose the value of their IP and IA for growth. We plan to consult the industry later this year, before introducing the Framework in 2023. Singapore will also work with international partners to develop internationally-recognised IA/IP valuation guidelines. This enables us to have a uniform platform, one that is internationally-recognised, on which we can say, if you have an IA or IP, this is the valuation methodology and this is how it will be recognised across different jurisdictions. This, in turn, will create more opportunities for IA/IP valuers in Singapore, anchor IA/IP valuation activities and thought leadership here and support Singapore as a trusted business and financial hub. IA/IP valuation based on internationally-recognised guidelines is also critical to enabling enterprises to transact and effectively monetise their IA/IP both in Singapore and overseas.

Finally, Sir, let me touch on Mr Christopher de Souza's cut on how we optimise land resources. As Mr Christopher de Souza recognises, optimising land resources is integral to sustaining Singapore’s economic and social development. Let me set out briefly how we plan to repurpose and rejuvenate state properties.

It almost goes without saying that, given our limited land resources – this is an important piece of the puzzle to ensure that the land is optimised even as it awaits its next use – we manage our state land and properties carefully to ensure that they are put to the best possible use.

In deciding how to utilise these assets, we consider not only economic returns, but also how they can bring broader societal benefits to the community. To achieve this, we manage these assets along two broad thrusts. First, to maximise the utilisation of state properties through good upkeep and enhancements, and by putting state land to more productive uses. Second, to unlock greater value from our state properties through new and innovative ideas which create greater economic and social returns.

Let me explain this by reference to some examples. The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) has engaged extensively with market players to identify fresh concepts for existing state properties. One example is the upcoming rejuvenation of Gillman Barracks. Members may be familiar with this location. This will introduce creative lifestyle concepts to complement the existing commercial arts enclave and attract greater footfall. Sustainability initiatives, such as green programmes and deployment of solar panels, will also be incorporated, as we do our part to grow the green movement in Singapore.

Second, SLA will also be transforming the former campus of Loyang Primary School through adaptive reuse. The first plot, a four-storey building, will be repurposed as a childcare centre. SLA is working with potential tenants to introduce community elements to the adjacent plot with the aim of creating a synergistic community of complementary users within the same site.

These efforts, amongst others, will help to inject life into existing spaces in a manner that benefits both the business and the community, and keeps the use of state lands efficient and, of course, exciting and vibrant in the context of the community in which the state lands are situated.

6.45 pm

Finally, Sir, in closing, let me once again thank Members for their comments and suggestions.

Sir, we have achieved significant progress through these various initiatives. My Ministry will continue to forge ahead to ensure a trusted and efficient legal system, providing access to justice, regardless of means. We will strengthen our attractiveness as a legal and IP hub, a position that we have worked hard to gain, and which we must work even harder to maintain. We will continue the stewardship of state properties and ensure our lived environment best serves Singaporeans’ needs.

Sir, all of this would not be possible without the support of all our stakeholders. I wish to thank the Judiciary, members of the Bar and of this House, Universities, law students and various agencies and professional institutions, including the Law Society and the Singapore Academy of Law.

In Singapore, we are fortunate to have an open and constructive relationship with all our stakeholders in the legal industry fraternity. We have very robust but very constructive discussions, with a clear eye on what is best for Singapore. We are grateful for this, and look forward to extending our partnership and fostering new collaborations in the coming year.

I also want to thank the many staff and officers of MinLaw who have spent much effort in ensuring that we achieve our objectives that I have set out in this speech.

The Chairman: Clarifications, please. Mr Don Wee.

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Chairman. A clarification for Minister Edwin Tong. I am heartened to know that an IA and IP international valuation framework or standard will be developed in Singapore. So, I guess there are a lot of opportunities for the chartered accountants and auditors to work with the lawyers. Maybe I would urge IPOS to work with IE Singapore, as well as the accountants and the lawyers, to develop Singapore into a regional or worldwide valuation hub.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, certainly so. Mr Don Wee can be assured that we look at this as a multi-disciplinary cross-cutting approach and, certainly, there will be opportunities for the business community, including the accountants, as Mr Don Wee has put it, to work with us on this.

The Chairman: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim: Thank you, Sir. I thank the Minister for the announcement on the plans on simplifying the probate process. I just want to have one clarification. I think there is also the need to synergise with the Muslim law probate process as well because there is a need for Muslim intestate beneficiaries to also extract Syariah inheritance certification from the Syariah Court; and whether there will be also plans to synergise the two systems, so that there will be a seamless transfer of documents and the certificate from the Syariah Court to the Family Justice Court, which may be administering the family justice or the probate and the letter of administration process.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Yes, Sir. I assure Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim that we will look at this. The system of law governing inheritance may be different. But the administration is something that we can look at because both of the systems will require some degree of administration. And for the applicants to make their application, there will be some process. So, we can look at that behind the scenes in the eService that I talked about.

The Chairman: Mr Christopher de Souza.

Mr Christopher de Souza: Mr Chairman, just two short clarifications. The first is that Minister Edwin Tong talked quite a lot about therapeutic justice. But I was wondering whether or not there could be some emphasis in the justice system on restorative justice, which is, reconciliation between parties, in addition to therapeutic justice. That is the first question.

For the second question, I declare that I am a lawyer in private practice and I do arbitrations. Be that as it may, may I ask what the Minister and MinLaw are doing to promote the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) rules, especially because arbitrations and hearings are increasingly being held via Zoom or online, so that the rules make all the difference to attract the case to SIAC? So, these are my two clarifications.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank Mr de Souza. On the first question, the answer is yes. All the different objectives and principles behind what we do in sentencing will obviously apply. But it has got to be the appropriate set of facts and context and the appropriate cases. So, restorative justice will be considered, as and when it is appropriate.

On the second query, yes, we have to ensure that we continue to put SIAC out there. We have to work hard at doing that, and part of this is also to ensure that SIAC remains in the mindshare. So, when we talk about forays into foreign jurisdictions, as we have done with Mr Murali Pillai, I think he was present on at least one of the trips overseas to speak about our rules, to talk about our system and to, basically, socialise the idea of using SIAC. I think that is one step that will be taken.

Second, I think it is important to ensure that we continue to have the best arbitrators in SIAC. We look at our Panel as one where we ensure that the best in the class, when it comes to arbitrators, are retained by SIAC – the best personnel, best expertise, best secretariat, to administer the cases. These are often the best advertisements, as it were, to ensure that parties, when they come to choosing the relevant rules, will come to choose SIAC rules and we can give them the best service.

Third, as I mentioned in my speech, it is important to continually update our processes, our laws and even our procedures to ensure that we best fit the business use. When we do this, when we make amendments like the CFA, for instance, we give parties out there the best reasons to come and use the SIAC and, in some cases also, be present in Singapore for the arbitration.

The Chairman: Mr Murali Pillai, would you like to withdraw your amendment, please?

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to thank the hon Minister for his characteristic, comprehensive response to all the points raised in the hon Members' speeches.

Sir, last year, MinLaw had the heaviest legislative agenda because it actually introduced the most number of Bills compared to other Ministries. So, this year, I would not be wishing him and his officers as busy a year as last year, although from the plans that he has in mind, it seems to be going to be as busy, nonetheless. I wish him and his officers well in the implementation of his plans to further the access to justice, strengthen the rule of law, grab the economic opportunities for Singapore and Singaporeans and, of course, strengthen our society. With that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $259,045,400 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $58,450,400 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: Deputy Leader.

The Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Sir, may I seek your consent to move that the Chairman do leave the Chair? This is to enable me to move a Motion to take the proceedings on the business of Supply today beyond 7.30 pm.

The Chairman: I give my consent.

Resolved, That the Chairman do leave the Chair. – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad].

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.