Committee of Supply – Head R (Ministry of Law)

Head R (cont) –

Resumption of Debate on Question [1 March 2019],

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates to be reduced by $100." − [Mr Christopher de Souza].

Question again proposed.

The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.

The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Thank you, Chairman. I thank the Members for their speeches that were made last week and also for the various suggestions that were canvassed.

The Ministry of Law’s focus is two-fold:

First, we continually update the legal framework to meet the people's needs as well as the businesses' – all of those who call Singapore home. Fundamentally, our rule of law must remain strong. Our legal framework must have laws that are relevant and also updated.

Second, we are strengthening Singapore’s position as the premier legal services hub for Asia, and beyond. This also supports and contributes to the continuing transformation of Singapore’s economy. We must continue to have a trusted system.

I will touch on these themes, as follows, and I will begin by giving an update on my Ministry's efforts to continually update the legal framework to meet those evolving needs. Mr Christopher de Souza touched on this.

On criminal justice, we passed extensive amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act last year. We have since implemented most of the measures. My Ministry also worked closely with MHA on wide-ranging amendments to the Penal Code and other substantive criminal laws, that were introduced in Parliament earlier this year. A major focus of these amendments is to enhance legal protections for vulnerable victims of crime, and ensure that our criminal justice framework addresses new forms of crime effectively.

As for family justice, we set up a committee with MSF and the Family Justice Courts last year, to build on the wide-ranging changes made in 2014. Its report will be released soon. We will consider the committee’s recommendations thereafter.

Moving on to civil justice, we amended the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (SCJA) in October 2018 to enhance efficiency in court procedures and allow the courts to better manage proceedings. That same month, two committees, one convened by my Ministry and another by the Judiciary, proposed a number of changes to enhance the efficiency and affordability of our courts. The public consultation on these proposals concluded on 31 January 2019. We are reviewing the feedback and will make the necessary legislative amendments this year.

We will also work on legislation this year to strengthen the enforcement of civil orders.

These proposals work together, and they also overlap with each other, to ensure that our court processes continue to provide effective access to justice. And that must remain the hallmark of our judicial system.

Mr Sitoh asked about promoting the use of mediation for commercial disputes. First, I am encouraged to hear about his story and also his very positive experience with the Mediation Centre. This vindicates the efforts of our mediation community to enhance mediation as an effective alternative dispute resolution tool.

Litigants are currently encouraged to attempt an amicable resolution of their disputes through alternative dispute resolution (ADR). This can include mediation, neutral evaluation or even attempting to negotiate settlements privately.

Two of the changes proposed by the Committees relate to ADR: firstly, making it mandatory for parties to attempt to resolve their disputes before resorting to litigation; and secondly, empowering the court to order parties to attend ADR if the court is of the view that the parties had failed to reasonably consider ADR prior to commencing the legal proceedings.

We recognise that ADR mechanisms such as mediation can be a valuable tool in resolving disputes or providing a forum for parties to ventilate key issues. We will decide how best to encourage the use of ADR after considering feedback on these proposals.

Moving on to the area of community justice, Mr Patrick Tay asked about cases filed under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). As at 31 December 2018, 535 applications for Protection Orders have been filed. Of these, 213 Protection Orders and 193 Expedited Protection Orders were granted. This includes applications by victims of workplace harassment. Ninety-nine applications for Protection Orders were referred to the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution. Of the 96 cases that completed mediation, 59 reached a settlement leading to a withdrawal of the application or the grant of a Consent Protection Order.

Over the same period, 12 civil proceedings for statutory damages have been brought under section 11 of POHA, while 11 applications for non-publication orders under section 15 of POHA have been filed.

Three thousand and eighty-nine Magistrate’s Complaints have been filed for alleged POHA offences, while 51 Magistrate’s Complaints have been filed for alleged breaches of Protection Orders or Expedited Protection Orders. About three out of 10 Magistrate Complaints, inclusive of those related to POHA, underwent mediation. And about 80% of these cases reached a settlement. One thousand, seven hundred and fourteen criminal cases with POHA charges have also been commenced by the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

We note Mr Tay’s suggestion to track the types of cases filed and will work with the State Courts to explore this further.

11.15 am

As for the reporting and publication of POHA cases, any person may ask for a copy of the court’s decision. The court may consider factors, such as whether the applicant has a sufficient interest in the action or any other legitimate reason for making the request, in assessing whether to grant the request. In every POHA case, oral grounds of decision are provided to explain the court’s reasons for its decision. As in all cases in the State Courts, full written grounds will be published if there is an appeal to the High Court on the matter.

Mr Murali Pillai asked for an update on our review of the probate and administration regime. This review is taking place against the backdrop of a whole-of-Government effort to improve the experience of citizens and also their loved ones at the end-of-life. My Ministry is working with MOH, GovTech and also several other Government agencies to develop a Moments of Life Digital Portal to support Singaporeans as they deal with their estate management matters, or that of their loves ones, in the end-of-life journey. Features will also include step-by-step guidance on making wills and settling post-death estate matters. A beta version will be released by the end of 2019.

On top of that, we are also considering ways in which we can simplify estate administration, how the process is for affected families, particularly where smaller estates are concerned. So, we are making the process simpler, more straightforward, less expensive for the simpler, smaller cases but, at the same time, also going upstream to help with estate management and planning prior to that stage.

Mr de Souza and Mdm Rahayu asked about legal aid. We recently amended the Legal Aid and Advice Act to simplify the means test, provide greater flexibility to grant aid and also improve on the overall administration of legal aid. These changes will be implemented in the second half of this year.

On criminal legal aid, the number of accused persons assisted per year has risen after the Government introduced direct funding in 2015. CLAS assisted almost 1,600 cases in 2018, almost four times the number of cases that were assisted pre-2015, before the Government funding.

We will continue to review these schemes to ensure that persons of limited means, the right target clientele for this scheme will remain assisted and will have access to justice.

Mdm Rahayu also asked about supporting lawyers’ low bono efforts. We are working with our partners, the Law Society Pro Bono Services and the Singapore Academy of Law, to study how we can further enhance support for pro bono and also low bono efforts.

Mr Chen Show Mao also asked about legal aid for arbitration in disputes over consumer contracts. As a general rule, legal aid is not provided for arbitration because it is a private, consensual dispute mechanism and it is typically used for high-value commercial dispute resolution. Nonetheless, I would like to assure Mr Chen that there are several avenues available for such consumers to seek assistance and redress. Let me just outline a few.

Before consumers undergo arbitration, they can obtain free legal advice from the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) on the arbitration clauses in the contract. This can help consumers better understand their rights and obligations under the contract, and LAB can also provide substantive advice and also legal options available to the consumer. Consumers who then wish to take their dispute to resolution by arbitration in a quick and cost-effective manner can consider the Law Society’s Pro Bono Arbitration Scheme, which adopts streamlined procedures and, more importantly, waives the fees of the sole arbitrators in those cases. If the consumer wishes to challenge the arbitration clause or the arbitration award, he can apply for legal aid for representation in court. And LAB will represent such consumers if there are legal merits in his case.

That said, if Mr Chen is able to provide us with a specific case that he has encountered – in the example he cited last week, there is a case where a consumer is in a situation where he has got no choice over the entry into the contract – my Ministry will review the case and see what we can do to assist on a case-by-case basis. On top of that, we will also continue to monitor developments in this area with MTI – since it concerns consumer protection – and consider whether further steps need to be taken.

A number of Members have asked specifically about the Intellectual Property (IP) regime in Singapore and I will turn to that next. The Minister for Finance spoke about positioning Singapore as a “Global-Asia node of technology, innovation and enterprise” for our next phase of growth, so these are quite pertinent questions which Members have raised. My Ministry’s efforts in the area of IP will support this push in four major ways.

First, we are positioning our IP system to better support creators and innovators. Mr Tay asked about protecting the IP rights of creators. We will be amending the Copyright Act to better support creators in this digital age. For example, creators will find it easier to build their reputation as people who use their works will then have to properly acknowledge the creator. Creators of certain commissioned works will also enjoy default ownership of their works whereas, previously, the commissioning party would own the works.

As for innovators, innovative businesses in data analytics will find it easier to mine data for analysis. Details can be found in the Copyright Review Report – a fairly comprehensive report – which was released in January 2019.

At the same time, we are also reviewing the IP dispute resolution system to make it more accessible, especially for individuals and SMEs, so that they can more effectively safeguard their rights. We held a public consultation on proposed reforms in late 2018 and we are now studying the feedback that was received from the community for the next phase.

Mr Tay also asked about helping Fintech start-ups to protect their IP. Last year, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) introduced a FinTech Fast Track Initiative which accelerates the file-to-grant period of deserving FinTech patents to approximately six months, and that is in place of the usual two to four years. IPOS will extend this initiative for a further year to 25 April 2020. FinTech start-ups can also avail themselves of other assistance schemes available to Singapore businesses, some of which I am going to highlight.

Second, we are helping Singapore businesses in commercialising their IP rights. Ms Jessica Tan asked about this. There are various forms of assistance already available to enterprises, in particular SMEs and start-ups, on IP strategy and management:

Businesses that need preliminary advice on IP strategies to support their business plans or on IP legal issues can tap on IPOS’ IP Business Clinics and Legal Clinics. These are available to small businesses, individuals and sole proprietors, and approximately 600 businesses have availed themselves of the use of these clinics since 2015.

IPOS also provides specialised consultancy services on IP audit, due diligence and strategy to help enterprises identify their intangible assets and also integrate them into their own strategies for growth and expansion. About 80 enterprises have benefited from these services, with close to 90% of them being either SMEs or start-ups. When enterprises seek assistance in developing their IP strategy management capabilities, eligible costs may also be defrayed under Enterprise Singapore’s Market Readiness Assistance Grant and the Enterprise Development Grant.

While there is still some way to go in encouraging businesses to leverage on their IP growth and take advantage of the ecosystem, we have seen a number of success stories. One example is OTSAW Digital, an SME which builds autonomous robots for the security industry. IPOS assisted the company in developing its IP strategy – how to protect and manage its IP and, thereafter, exploit it as well as other intangible assets.

OTSAW now has internal processes to identify IP that is developed and to protect it appropriately. It is also more aware of IP-related issues when negotiating with other business partners and also, of course, potential investors. The company is now expanding internationally into Malaysia, Indonesia and the Chinese markets. We are naturally excited to see them grow as they leverage on their start-up position, IP rights and look forward to observing their continued success.

Third, we are making it easier for businesses to commercialise IP from the public sector. The National IP Protocol was developed and rolled out in April 2018 to encourage commercialisation of public sector IP and also R&D outputs. It streamlines IP practices in our public research institutes, Universities and public agencies to reduce the time and effort needed to structure commercialisation agreements entered into with the private sector. This will foster greater collaboration between the private sector businesses on the one hand and the public sector.

Finally, and in response to Ms Jessica Tan’s question on job opportunities, we have also several initiatives to develop talent and create jobs in the IP sector. IPOS has partnered SkillsFuture Singapore to develop the first national level skills development framework for the IP sector. This will be rolled out in August 2019. This framework will provide comprehensive information on the career options, skills needed for the various job roles, and also the training programmes relevant for the IP sector. This will aid in the upskilling of new entrants and also existing IP professionals.

IPOS has also partnered with Workforce Singapore on the IP Professional Conversion Programme and with SkillsFuture Singapore on the SkillsFuture Study Awards. These schemes provide financial support for the reskilling of newly-hired employees and for individuals who are seeking to deepen and broaden their skills.

We are also developing programmes to ensure that trained individuals are recognised with certifications. For example, IPOS launched a Specialist Certificate in Intangible Asset Management in January 2019 and also collaborated with the Singapore University of Social Sciences to launch a Master of IP and Innovation Management programme in 2017. This year, the first batch of 14 students is expected to graduate from this programme, with another 21 expected in the next cohort.

All these measures work towards ensuring that our legal system meets the needs of all – whether it is the man-in-the-street or businesses large or small – who call Singapore home. Our legal system as a whole also plays a broader role as a supporting pillar for the next phase of Singapore’s economic transformation. On this, there are two interlocking aspects of my Ministry’s efforts to provide this support.

First, we are strengthening Singapore’s position as an international legal services hub.

Second, we are working to establish Singapore as a thought leader of international rule of law and pursuing international cooperation.

These mutually reinforcing efforts together underpin our position in an increasingly uncertain world as a trusted, stable centre for law and business and I would like to elaborate on these few points now.

First, we are investing in strengthening Singapore’s position as a premier legal services hub, both regionally as well as globally. This means strengthening our position as a dispute resolution centre; growing new areas to meet the demands of international legal services; and finally, promoting the use of Singapore law to meet business needs.

There are three broad categories of efforts related to dispute resolution.

First, we have been and we continue to position Singapore as a trusted and neutral forum for dispute resolution. We have done well in international dispute resolution, but we will continue to build on these efforts to further enhance our position. We are now the third most preferred seat of arbitration globally. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is also the third most preferred arbitral institution in the world. And the SIAC, along with the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) and the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), have all seen increases in caseload over the years. For the SIAC, the highest caseload of 452 cases in 2017, of which 83% were international in nature. As for the SIMC, as of 31 December 2018, it had received a total of 68 case filings from parties from more than 20 different jurisdictions. In the SICC, 29 cases have reached the SICC since it was established in 2015.

Mr Murali Pillai asked for an update on the SICC. Beyond just the caseload alone, what the SICC has been working very hard on is to enhance the enforceability of SICC judgments.

In 2018, our Supreme Court and the Supreme People's Court of China signed a Memorandum of Guidance (MOG) on the recognition and enforcement of money judgments in commercial cases. This means that parties who have commercial dealings, are much clearer on how any money judgments arising from disputes, can be enforced against any other party, whether in Singapore or in China.

11.30 am

Mr Murali also asked about third-party funding for an update in the area of international arbitration. My Ministry has consulted a public consultation to obtain feedback from stakeholders on how the reforms have been working in practice. We also asked if there was a need to extend third-party funding to new areas.

Generally, it has been positive. Mr Murali would be pleased to know. Funders have seen an upturn in the requests for funding in Singapore and there also has been a support for expansion. We are currently reviewing the overall framework, how it might work, including areas for potential extension into proceedings commenced in the SICC and any appeals from the SICC.

Second, we must continue to invest in order to strengthen our leadership position. We are bolstering our infrastructure to meet demand and also support growth. The expansion of Maxwell Chambers is on track. The newly refurbished building located next to it, the Maxwell Chambers Suites will be launched in the third quarter of 2019, shortly. This will add 120,000 square feet of floor space and triple Maxwell Chambers' current size.

But it is not just about size or how big the physical infrastructure is.

We need to deepen our collaborations with international institutions. And on this score, we have attracted top arbitral institutions to set up offices in Singapore – the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC Court), for instance, has set up a case management office here. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) has its new office in Singapore – its first in Asia. The SIAC has also signed MOUs with a number of Chinese institutions in 2018 alone: China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) – one of the leading commissions in China for dispute resolution, an MOU was signed in 2018. Likewise, an MOU was also signed with the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) as well as the Xi'an Arbitration Commission (XAC).

As far as mediation is concerned, the SIMC signed an MOU in 2018 with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to help resolve disputes that may arise in infrastructure public-private partnership (PPP) projects, and an MOU with the China Council for Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) Mediation Centre in January 2019.

Further to our efforts in enhancing Singapore's attractiveness as a forum for dispute resolution, we have also identified several high-growth practice areas to develop. First, in the area of insolvency and debt restructuring. We amended the Companies Act previously and now we have got an omnibus Act that was passed in 2018 – the Insolvency Restructuring and Dissolution Act. And that was the final piece of principal legislation in our phased implementation of the recommendations of the Law Review Committee as well as the Committee to Strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Structuring.

So, we now have legislation that seeks to properly balance the interest of debtors and creditors as they are undergoing restructuring in Singapore.

The Act, which we target to bring into force this year, benefits local businesses needing help, positions Singapore as a location of choice for foreign debtors to restructure and also creates new opportunities for insolvency professionals, distressed debt funds and also financial institutions.

Second, in the area of Projects and Infrastructure. We have taken steps to capture the increasing demand for legal services in this area. Infrastructure Asia, Singapore's infrastructure office, was launched in October 2018. This is an office set up by Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Enterprise Singapore, and supported by MinLaw through our Professional Services Programme Office (PSPO). It provides a platform for information exchange on infrastructure opportunities in Asia, facilitates investments and financing, and gives Singapore-based infrastructure players access to these opportunities.

In the same month, we also launched the Singapore Infrastructure Dispute-Management Protocol (SIDP). It helps to proactively manage differences to prevent them from escalating into disputes, and also minimise the risks of time and cost overruns. All of which aim at enhancing and improving on the large-scale infrastructure eco-system in Singapore.

Mr de Souza has rightly pointed out that Singapore's position as an international legal services hub can be further strengthened by promoting the use of Singapore law. We agree. And Singapore Law is well placed to meet the legal needs of businesses in Asia, particularly those businesses that are previously familiar with or accustomed to using English law.

Singapore law benefits from its roots in the English common law system, but has gone on to evolve to remain modern and relevant. And overlaid on our common law, are legal frameworks and statutes which are often developed in very close consultation with the industry users. Those who choose Singapore law choose to do so as they wish to tap into a legal system that has, not just familiar, but one which is trusted, both in Singapore as well as internationally.

The promotion of Singapore law does not, however, just involve government stakeholders, but is also driven from the ground-up, by the Bar and from others, within this eco-system. For example, in October 2018, the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) and the Singapore Venture Capital & Private Equity Association launched the Venture Capital Investment Model Agreements (VIMA). This is a set of standard-form documents which makes the process of structuring a deal faster, quicker and more cost-efficient for start-ups and venture capital (VC) firms. VIMA incorporates Singapore law as the governing law and Singapore as the chosen dispute resolution forum.

My Ministry also works with the universities to encourage research that helps to develop and strengthen Singapore Law. The intent is to ensure that our law remains cutting edge, and not just cutting edge, but also one that meets the needs of our modern businesses. We continue to welcome views and suggestions from practitioners and businessmen alike on how we can further strengthen and enhance these laws.

Besides the efforts to strengthen our position as a premier legal services hub, we are also investing in establishing Singapore as a thought leader in international rule of law efforts and also participating in legal cooperation.

First, we want to establish Singapore as an advocate of, and a thought leader in, international rule of law efforts. The Singapore Convention on Mediation will be the first convention under the UN auspices to be named after Singapore. This reinforces Singapore's reputation brand as a forum of choice for cross-border dispute resolution and also other forms of alternative dispute resolutions. We also engage actively in international efforts to design new international rules to ensure that Singapore's perspectives and our unique circumstances are not ignored. For example, my Ministry, together with other Ministries, worked to secure Singapore's re-election as member of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law from 2019. This will enable Singapore to continue to actively participate in the development of international trade law.

We have also worked hard to promote international law scholarship, particularly in the ASEAN law context. For instance, we supported the launch of the ASEAN Law Academy at the NUS last year. At the same time, we must also ensure that we are a responsible global citizen, if we are to earn and maintain the trust of the international community. There are two aspects to international co-operation that I will touch on: criminal cooperation and civil co-operation.

As a sign of our commitment to international co-operation to combat transnational crime: we concluded the Model ASEAN Extradition Treaty in 2018 and launched the commencement of negotiations for an ASEAN Extradition Treaty. We also launched the commencement of negotiations on a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with China.

We are pursuing a number of efforts in the area of civil co-operation, as well. Mr Murali Pillai asked whether Singapore intends to accede to the Hague Apostille Convention. My Ministry is currently studying the possibility of doing so. We have begun discussions with stakeholders, engaged representatives from the Hague Conference about the practicalities and the steps needed in implementing the Convention.

All of these efforts translate into more opportunities for Singapore law practices. Both Mr de Souza and Mdm Rahayu have asked how Singapore law practices are being assisted to take advantage of the opportunities created for them.

The final area that I will therefore cover relates to our efforts to support Singapore law practices (SLPs) to adapt; and not just that, but to go beyond and take advantage of these opportunities in this broader landscape that has been curated. Broadly, we are supporting SLPs in three ways.

First, in new business areas. To sustain their business in the face of competition and technological disruption, and as Ms Rahayu has pointed out, law firms need to venture into new practice areas. We cannot keep holding on to the conventional ones. My Ministry will continue to help Singapore lawyers develop capabilities in high growth practice areas. To give an example, we worked with the NUS Faculty of Law to roll out "The Project Finance Academy", a three-day practical hands-on workshop in November 2018 to take participants through the main legal considerations in structuring project financing transactions and negotiating infrastructure deals.

We also encourage and support law firms to develop new practice areas and access regional opportunities. Also, in response to Ms Rahayu's suggestion on CPD courses, the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) and the Law Society of Singapore have been developing various CPD programmes and courses, designed in a new way, to equip practitioners interested in deepening or building practices in new areas. Some of these programmes are also approved for SkillsFuture credits; Mdm Rahayu might like to know. We will share the feedback that has been given by Ms Rahayu last week, with SAL and Law Society.

On Ms Rahayu's point about providing customised consultancy services to small and medium firms, SAL's Future Law Innovation Programme (FLIP) recently launched an initiative, where, for as low as $1,500, small and medium-sized law firms can engage a consultant to review their workflows and advise how they can better harness and adopt technology to help with the process more efficiently and perhaps more importantly for these small firms, also more cost-effectively.

Second, on internationalisation. My Ministry is supporting the efforts of SLPs to capture a greater share of international demand for legal services. In other words, look at not just at Singapore as the market, but to go beyond Singapore, into the region and globally. Together with the Law Society of Singapore and the then-International Enterprise (IE) Singapore, we launched the Lawyers Go Global programme in February 2018.

The programme helps lawyers expand their networks outside Singapore through mission trips, training and also a branding exercise for the Singapore lawyer brand. In the last 12 months, close to 60 lawyers have participated in three mission trips. We have also stepped up our engagements in Asia. My Ministry has led our law firms and institutions on promotion trips to Asian countries. I visited China earlier this year to strengthen the Singapore-China legal and judicial co-operation. During my visit, I attended and spoke at the "China-Singapore International Commercial Dispute Resolution Conference", a first of its kind, jointly organised by Singapore and China.

Prior to this visit, 24 lawyers from six leading firms in China's Shaanxi province undertook a one-month long attachment in Singapore as part of MinLaw's initiative to help Chinese lawyers better understand what Singapore has to offer as a business hub for Chinese companies as well as also to help Singapore lawyers connect with their Chinese counterparts and learn about and tap into opportunites in the BRI.

The Chairman: Senior Minister of State, if you could just wrap up. You have got one minute to go.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Yes.

Third, in the adoption of technology, we are supporting law practices' to keep up to date with technology. So, Members might like to know that under the Tech Start for Law scheme, SLPs have been given 70% funding, 115 law practices of which 99% are small and medium sized-ones have collectively adopted 143 of such solutions. In the longer term, we will work with A*STAR to develop a broader term roadmap for up to 2030, in identifying technologies that will impact and change the delivery of legal services.

Fourth, we continue to development of legal talent; not just for lawyers but also for sub-specialists like paralegals. We continue to work closely with the law schools to ensure the law curriculum, the training, is robust and prepares our lawyers and paralegals for future generations. We will also continue to support Singapore lawyers to deepen their skills through the SkillsFuture Programmes, as I mentioned earlier.

Mr Chairman, just give me a few minutes as I wrap up.

I will conclude with the question that drives all of us – what purposes must the legal framework serve?

The Chairman: The Guillotine Time is 11.55 am, so assuming clarifications do not extend beyond that. I am happy to eat into clarification time. But only a few minutes. And counting.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: All right, then I will go on. Members might like to know that since 2016, in the contacts of supporting Singapore lawyers, 78 Singaporean lawyers and in-house counsel have successfully applied for the SkillsFuture Study Award for the legal sector to hone leadership skills in management of their own law firms. So, the SAL and INSEAD run a Law Firm Leadership Programme (SILLP). At the same time, SkillsFuture also supports qualifications for solicitors to seek admission as solicitors of England and Wales through the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS).

From 1 April 2019, we will also be supporting lawyers who wish to take the New York State Bar exam, through the SkillsFuture Study Award as well.

11.45 am

The role of paralegals is growing and we recognise the integral roles that they and other legal support professionals play in this industry. So, we will also continue to work with SAL, the programme of the SAL, Legal Industry Framework for Training and Education (LIFTED) for paralegals, this maps out the competency and training that are needed for paralegals to move up the value chain and support legal services.

In addition, we also provided pathways for paralegals who wish to upskill and advance their career. To give an example, 80% of places in SUSS Law School are set aside for mature students, including paralegals.

Mr Chairman, allow me to conclude now.

As I mentioned earlier, we ask ourselves what purpose must our legal framework serve? We must have a legal framework that is fair, is transparent, is updated, remains relevant to the users of the system and, most importantly, underpinned by a strong rule of law. It must then meet the needs of individuals and businesses who call Singapore home. We do this through ensuring that our criminal, civil and family justice networks and frameworks are up-to-date, and making sure that persons of limited means have and will continue to have access to justice.

Second, on a broader level, the legal framework must support Singapore’s continuing economic growth. This is especially crucial as we enter a season of global economic uncertainty. While it will pose challenges, there will also be many opportunities from these challenges and disruptions that we can reap, if we can leverage our position as a stable and trusted centre for law and businesses.

None of this, however, can be done by the Government alone. In particular, therefore, I wish to record my appreciation and gratitude to the many members of the Bar for their numerous contributions to the work of my Ministry. Many have given their time and expertise to sit on our committees, give feedback during consultations, and also collaborate with us on our many initiatives, both locally as well as overseas. I am grateful for their close involvement in all that we do and I look forward to building on this strong relationship. On our end, we will continue to work with all stakeholders, to achieve all of the objectives I have just set out. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The Chairman: Three minutes. Clarifications, please.

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State. I saw quite a thick file, and if there is anything more the Senior Minister of State would like to say on SkillsFuture, legal technology use in Singapore, and regional and global outreach —

The Chairman: This is clarification, not an excuse for extra speech time.

Mr Christopher de Souza: In addition to those clarifications, Mr Chairman, the use of SMC is very positive but, at the same time, where we have a lot of cases settled and the settlements are kept confidential, it does impact the development of legal jurisprudence in Singapore. So, in addition to the clarifications that I asked previously, would there be a move to encourage parties who do not mind having their settlements, non-confidential in nature, allow for the mediators' understanding and grounds in coming to his/her conclusion published; and quite possibly published as a judgement of court or a decision of the SMC?

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I think the Member's question on mediation, most mediations – and I think Mr Sitoh's own experience has been the same – are private and confidential for a number of reasons. People choose to look at the dispute from different angles. Mediation allows you to explore resolution of the dispute on means which are completely extralegal on different considerations, such as commercial considerations or maybe confidentiality considerations.

So, it might not necessarily add to legal jurisprudence to have those mediation agreements published. But I understand Mr de Souza's point, on those cases where there might be legal jurisprudence and legal merit in doing so, with the consent of the parties, obviously, and the mediators, that can be considered.

On Mr de Souza's first point – and I welcome that because it gives me an opportunity to explain this a little bit more – we do see development in upskilling of know-how, competencies as a very important part of legal development. We have to make sure that our lawyers who come out from law school and those who come out from their practice traineeship are properly equipped for practice. Mr de Souza knows that we have been looking very closely at what we do with practice traineeship. The Committee has given a very extensive discussion on that.

On top of that, those who are already in practice, either as lawyers, or those who are now serving a legal fraternity as paralegals or other support professionals, there must be ample opportunity to upscale. We are very glad to be working with SkillsFuture and the Academy of Law as well, in having a broader and more diverse mix of opportunities available and supported by SkillsFuture, so that these individuals, who are already in the system, can upskill themselves and enhance their career opportunities and, overall, lend to the improvement of the legal landscape that we have.

The Chairman: Any other clarifications? Mr Christopher de Souza, would you like to withdraw the amendment?

Mr Christopher de Souza: Mr Chairman, Sir, we have had a productive debate, first starting on Friday and then now concluding on Monday. I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong for his comprehensive responses to our cuts.

Sir, Singapore continues to have an efficient and effective governance system based on the rule of law. Due to the hard work of many players in the legal industry, these include MinLaw, IPOS, IPTO and many other public officers.

So, in conclusion, a big thank you to the Minister K Shanmugam, Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong, MinLaw, and the officers for their hard work. With that, Mr Chairman, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $269,697,500 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $323,398,500 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.