Committee of Supply – Head R (Ministry of Law)

The Chairman: Head R, Ministry of Law. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

1.00 pm

Singapore as an International Dispute Hub

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Chairman, I move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100."

Chairman, I am a disputes lawyer in an international arbitration practice. Singapore has firmly established itself as a leading international dispute resolution hub, attracting parties from all over the world seeking a neutral, efficient and trusted venue for resolving their disputes. Our strategic location, strong rule of law and world-class legal institutions make us the preferred choice for businesses and investors navigating complex cross-border disputes.

In 2022 alone, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) handled 357 new cases, with parties from over 65 jurisdictions. SIAC's caseload has grown steadily over the years, reflecting the confidence of the global business community. Similarly, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) has seen an increase in cases involving international parties, reinforcing our reputation as a trusted forum for commercial dispute resolution.

Beyond arbitration and litigation, Singapore is also a leader in mediation. The Singapore Convention on Mediation, signed by more than 55 countries, highlights our commitment to promoting amicable dispute resolution worldwide. With a robust legal framework, top-tier professionals and a commitment to innovation, Singapore will continue to serve as a premier dispute resolution hub, offering certainty and fairness in an increasingly complex global business environment.

Singapore has, over the years, succeeded in attracting inter-governmental dispute resolution institutions. The Permanent Court of Arbitration has an office here in Singapore. Singapore is also the first country to have a model agreement with the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to host its proceedings.

However, we cannot rest on our laurels. All around us, various jurisdictions have made significant developments and there is new competition for talent and disputes.

Just this year, the new Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (Arbitrate AD) was launched with new arbitration rules that emphasise transparency, efficiency and cost effectiveness. A significant change is that the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), is now the default seat of arbitration, unless otherwise agreed, shifting from the previous onshore Abu Dhabi framework.

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, in his Chinese New Year dinner, mentioned Singapore has to: first, stay open in this tumultuous economic climate to attract the right talent and investments to Singapore; second, stay ahead of the competition and ahead of the curve; but at the same time, third, stay united as Singaporeans. Now, in this spirit, may I ask the hon Minister what more is the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) doing to maintain our competitive edge on this front? What is MinLaw doing to support the legal profession to better meet the demands of modern legal practice to strengthen Singapore as a leading legal and dispute resolution hub?

Question proposed.

Strengthening Rule of Law and New Trends

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim: Chairman, access to justice must be real and meaningful for the common person, ensuring that legal protections work for those who need them the most. Singapore has taken concrete steps to make justice accessible, especially in key areas affecting everyday lives.

For families and divorced mothers, enforcing maintenance orders is critical. In 2022, over 2,700 maintenance-related applications were filed. The Maintenance Enforcement Process (MEP) now helps ensure that spouses and children receive the financial support that they are legally entitled to, reducing delays and hardship.

In May 2023, the Family Justice Reform Bill was passed by Parliament and received Presidential assent. The Family Justice Reform Act seeks to, among others: firstly, make improvements to Court proceedings and procedure in the Family Justice Courts; and secondly, enhance MEP. What is the status of the changes to be implemented through this Act?

With rising online harms, over 8,500 reported cases in 2023, swift protection is essential. The Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) provides Expedited Protection Orders against cyberbullying and harassment, ensuring that victims, including the vulnerable, can seek redress quickly.

In this regard, the Prime Minister has announced that a new agency will be set up to deal with online harms and that the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) and MinLaw are working together on this piece of legislation. What measures does MinLaw have in mind for addressing online harms?

For those in financial distress, the personal bankruptcy regime has been reformed. While over 1,600 bankruptcy orders were made in 2022, many benefited from the Debt Repayment Scheme, which offers a structured way to repay debts without the severe consequences of bankruptcy. Bankruptcy applications have increased in recent years as well. Does MinLaw consider that reforms to Singapore's bankruptcy law are necessary to address the evolving financial landscape?

Sir, justice must be fair, accessible and effective for all, not just the privileged but the everyday person. Singapore remains committed to ensuring that legal protections truly serve those who need them the most.

Online Harms

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Chairman, it has been barely three decades since the Internet was first introduced into most of our lives. Many of us in this House may remember life and childhoods without the Internet. For the children of today, this is almost unthinkable. As Internet use has become a ubiquitous part of life, the potential for online harms has also grown. The issue of scams, many of which take place online, has just been discussed in the Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA's) Committee of Supply (COS) debate.

Other types of online harms include exposure to harmful online content or conduct, including explicit or violent materials, cyberbullying and harassment. Addiction to screens is also a problem, especially with children and youths; and countries, such as Australia, have passed legislation to limit access to social media for children.

The Prime Minister announced in October last year that a new agency will be set up to deal with online harms and provide a one-stop centre for victims. He mentioned that MinLaw and MDDI are working together on this project. In conjunction with this, I also note that a public consultation was held by MinLaw and MDDI to get feedback from the public. Does MinLaw have any updates on this initiative, the likely legislative framework and details on the plans for this new agency?

Cyberbullying and Online Harm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, in July 2024, there was a report about an online influencer in Malaysia who took her life due to cyberbullying. In the same month last year, a survey done by MDDI found that 74% of Internet users face harmful content, like cyberbullying or sexual content online, but only a quarter report it.

Many of us who are on social media have faced all sorts of cyberbullying at one point or another. Sometimes, the bully makes false allegations; sometimes, they deliberately use words intended to humiliate and hurt your feelings; the trolls frequently make insinuations about your character, they use mean and vicious words against you. Frequently, the bully hides behind the cloak of anonymity. This is not acceptable, especially for those younger social media users. Why should anyone using social media be subject to such bullying behaviour?

Sir, in an answer to a Parliamentary Question in October 2024, Minister Josephine Teo said that the Government plans to introduce new legislation and measures to provide stronger support and assurance to victims of online harms, such as bullying. Can the Ministry provide an update as to the new legislation? Make it illegal for any social media user to use a false account to register that account. This means that if any user wishes to, say, bully others by making false allegations or using mean or harsh words, they must be held to account for the things they say. I look forward to the day when social media users can be protected from such bullying behaviour.

Tackling Online Harms

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, in recent years, we have seen a rise in the seriousness and prevalence of online harms, such as cyberbullying and non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Singapore has developed a framework to address and mitigate these online harms through various legislation. The Ministry's plans to establish a dedicated agency, codify statutory torts and lift the veil of anonymity, will serve to enhance accountability and fortify our efforts in this regard.

I would like to ask for an elaboration of the nature of timely assistance which will be provided to victims of online harms. Will the agency, for example, have the power to compel the removal of harmful content? How will the assistance be augmented to support vulnerable victims, for example, children as well as women?

The agency will also be empowered to disclose the identity information of perpetrators to victims under specified circumstances. How will this be implemented in practice, given that many online platforms only require an email address for registration? What if the user of the account is overseas, for example?

Finally, tackling online harms must be done upstream. How else can the agency work with community groups to educate the public on constructive and safe online behaviour?

Pre-trial Release

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Sir, a person facing investigations or criminal charges may need to wait several months or even years before his case is concluded. I have seen how some lower-income Singaporeans struggle with this. A simple parking violation that usually attracts an out-of-Court composition fine is not paid, eventually leading to a Court hearing that requires a bailor. Failure to find a bailor will lead to pre-trial custody, which often leads to job loss or disruption of education, plunging the whole family into a much more precarious situation.

I had previously raised this issue during the Justice System Motion in November 2020. To that end, I was very encouraged when the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) was amended last year to expressly require the law enforcement agency or judge to consider releasing a person charged with a less serious offence on his personal bond without the need for a bailor.

Sir, the new provisions of section 93(1A) and section 93(1C) of the CPC, which came into force on 1 August 2024, after more than six months, it will be opportune to find out if there are significant outcomes to date. Are there indications from the law enforcement agencies that more eligible persons are being released on personal bond? Similarly, for those charged in Court, are there similar indications from the Courts that more accused persons are now being released on personal bond?

The Chairman: Mr Patrick Tay. You can take your two cuts together.

Protection from Harassment Act Updates

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Sir, POHA has been around for a decade and the POHA Court set up. Can MinLaw provide an update on the number of cases filed and mediated by the POHA Court; and among all the POHA cases filed, what is the breakdown of the types, that is, how many involve community neighbours; how many are online harassment; how many are sexual harassment; and how many are workplace harassment? I also ask MinLaw how this Court has and can better ensure the efficient and effective resolution of harassment complaints.

Bettering Civil Enforcement

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Sir, I have assisted and advised union members and workers in workplace disputes which may end up in the civil Courts or the Employment Claims Tribunal. The problem is that they may win the case and get a judgment either from the Courts or the Employment Claims Tribunal but their happiness and relief are often short-lived.

This is because the employer may not be able or want to pay up. This would mean the aggrieved worker, often a layman, having to navigate and be subjected to the entire rigmarole to enforce the judgment and also incur monies to do so. In most instances, they would still need to engage a lawyer and may sometimes still be subject to a protracted enforcement process.

There is thus a need to simplify, expedite and better the civil enforcement process and mechanism to facilitate the victim's recovery of monies. Can I ask MinLaw if it intends to review this and make enforcement more accessible, economical, expeditious and less painful for workers and the layman?

Enforcing Awards by Tribunals

Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Last October, I asked if MinLaw would consider simplifying enforcement of small claims and employment claims tribunals' awards. I noted the Minister's reply that MinLaw was working on reforms, "To make the enforcement of civil judgments more effective, efficient and simpler."

The challenge of enforcing awards was also recently raised in the Straits Times forum. Could the Minister provide an update on reforms to address challenges of non-compliance with Court orders?

1.15 pm

Access to Justice

Mr Vikram Nair: Chairman, the last few years have seen significant changes to improve access to justice. Thanks to initiatives from MinLaw, the Law Society, community organisations and, of course, the many lawyers that contribute their time and money to pro bono work.

On the Ministry's part, it set up the Public Defender's Office, a major initiative that now provides criminal defence services for impecunious defendants.

The Law Society has set up an Institution of Public Character called Pro Bono SG and through this, provided legal aid for those who need assistance in civil matters. In the Admiralty division, for example, the Realm of Tranquility, a local charitable organisation, collaborated with Pro Bono SG to open a community legal clinic at their premises which brings legal aid to the heartlands. These are commendable initiatives and I would like to know if the Ministry has any further plans to facilitate access to justice?

An important aspect of justice is also the ability to enforce judgements easily. In the Committee of Supply 2024, the Ministry mentioned it was studying ways to improve the civil enforcement framework. I will be grateful for any updates on this.

Finally, over the years, the Ministry has simplified the bankruptcy regime, making it easier for individuals to restructure debts and also made it easier for bankrupts to get discharged from bankruptcy. Perhaps, in part, because of these measures, the number of bankruptcy applications seems to have gone up. Does the Ministry have any views on this matter and is it planning any further actions in relation to the bankruptcy regime?

The Chairman: Assoc Prof Razwana Begum, you can take your two cuts together.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim (Nominated Member): Sir, access to justice is a fundamental pillar of a fair and equitable society, ensuring that individuals can protect their rights and seek redress through the legal system. Ensuring that legal services are accessible and affordable to all citizens, not only foster trust in the judicial system, but also supports the country's commitment to justice and equality for everyone, regardless of their background or circumstances.

In this context, how is the Ministry addressing the barriers faced by vulnerable populations in accessing justice and what strategies are in place to ensure their voices are both heard and protected? What initiatives are being introduced to make legal information and resources more available online? How is technology being leveraged to streamline legal processes, reducing the time and costs associated with accessing justice?

Mediation and Restorative Justice

Restorative justice and community mediation are effective at resolving conflicts and addressing harm within communities. Unlike traditional punitive systems, restorative justice focuses on healing and reconsolidation by involving all stakeholders in the process, including victims, offenders and the community. Mediation serves as a collaborative tool, facilitating open dialogue and mutual understanding to reach amicable resolutions. Together, these practices not only help reduce recidivism but also strengthen community bonds, promoting a more supportive and cohesive environment.

In this context, what initiative is the Ministry implementing to promote community mediation and resolution and how is this addressing challenges, such as public awareness and acceptance, to encourage broader participation? In what ways is the Ministry ensuring that legal professionals receive adequate training in community mediation and restorative justice principles and what partnerships are being formed between the Ministry and community organisations to facilitate the successful implementation of mediation and restorative programmes?

The Chairman: The next Member is not present. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.

Community Disputes

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mr Chairman, I spoke on community disputes at last year's COS. As many of us in this House have experienced, managing and resolving disputes among neighbours, often living side by side, is one of the most challenging aspects of the work we do in the Community.

Since then, I was heartened to see the passing of the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill in November 2024. In particular, I was looking forward to observe how effective the new Community Relations Unit (CRU) will be, with officers given investigatory and enforcement powers to intervene in neighbourly disputes.

Oftentimes, in disputes involving noise or other disagreements, it is a contest of one neighbour gathering "evidence" against the other. This can include recording each other's alleged noise or movements at odd hours or, in extreme cases, surreptitiously installing cameras directed at each other's homes. As one can expect, such behaviour is likely only to escalate and rapidly increase the temperature of the dispute, often damaging neighbourly relations beyond repair.

Having an objective arbiter, like CRU, could reduce the need for extreme measures taken by the residents themselves, with decisions and outcomes acceptable to affected parties. Separately, the enhanced powers of the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) will also hopefully quicken the pace of resolving community disputes effectively. In this context, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to give an update on the implementation of the enhancements in the space of community mediation after the passing of the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Bill.

Community Justice – Avoid Digital Divides

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): The online Community Justice and Tribunals System brings convenience to those who can go online. What happens to seniors who are less digitally-savvy, less literate or who may not be so familiar with the English language? What happens if these seniors want to access the Small Claims Tribunal or Protection from Harassment Court or other services under the CJTS? Does this mean the digitally disadvantaged may inevitably face an uneven playing field when it comes to accessing community justice with all these new digital platforms?

Sir, digitalisation must not become a digital divide. Digital justice must not become difficult justice for the non-information technology (IT) savvy. We must avoid digital dropout where a case with merits is abandoned, because a senior found it too hard to access digital processes.

The Chairman: Next Member is not present. Ms Sylvia Lim.

Safeguarding IP Rights of Creatives

Ms Sylvia Lim: Chairman, in Singapore, pursuing a creative career can be difficult due to the challenge of earning a stable living. However, it is vital that Singaporean artists, writers, filmmakers and other creatives can lead meaningful livelihoods and help support the growth of Singapore's artistic and cultural landscape.

To that end, I have come across many creatives, such as film producers and photographers, who do not fully understand their rights, especially when it comes to the intellectual property (IP). Many are unaware that under the Copyright Act 2021, the IP rights in their creations automatically belong to them even if they were paid for that work. This is a crucial gap in knowledge that must be addressed. This becomes more urgent and important with the rise of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI), which has led to the unauthorised use of copyrighted materials for profit-driven purposes.

The recent open statement from Singapore's literary community to the National Library Board, signed by at least 88 local creatives, reflects growing concern over the lack of regard for copyrighted works and its potential impact on the vitality and viability of pursuing an artistic career.

Besides promoting education and awareness, the Government can also consider introducing regulations on AI models to better level the playing field between AI developers and creatives. Some jurisdictions have started on this. For example, the European Union's (EU's) AI Act compels Gen AI models to demonstrate compliance with the EU's copyright law and provide a sufficiently detailed summary of the content used for training their models. Such obligations empower copyright-holders to exercise their rights by opting out of having their works used in text and data mining.

In this regard, it would be good to understand whether there are ground outreach efforts to creatives to promote understanding of their IP rights. In addition, how are MinLaw and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) tackling the copyright challenges posed by AI.

Protecting Creators' IP in Age of AI

Ms See Jinli Jean: IPOS and the National Trades Union Congress' (NTUC's) Visual, Audio, Creative Content Professionals Association (Singapore) is partnering to raise IP awareness and proficiency among creators. Likewise, for companies that adopt AI, how will MinLaw guide them to adhere to ethical and respectful use of IP? For instance, copyrighted works should not be used to train Gen AI applications without permission or compensation. How will MinLaw balance between fostering innovation and protecting creators' IP?

The Chairman: Mr Keith Chua, please take your two cuts together.

IPOS' Support for SMEs

Mr Keith Chua (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, there are many avenues for our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to grow both locally and internationally. There are also many helpful grants and different areas of financing support available. However, many of our SMEs may not be aware of the opportunity to unlock value of their intangible assets and IP rights. Successful businesses should ensure that they protect their brand value. This may also open up avenues for access to finance.

How can IPOS support SMEs in this area? Has IPOS worked with trade associations and chambers (TACs) to better reach Singapore SMEs?

Singapore as Arbitration Hub

Mr Chairman, Singapore has established herself as one of the leading places for international arbitration. Recent reports suggest that Singapore has become the leading arbitration hub.

There are many accompanying benefits ranging from professional to economic. However, there is also keen competition from other cities. May I ask the Minister what steps are we taking and what steps can we be taking to deepen the attraction of Singapore as an arbitration hub? With the many global and technological changes more recently, including a more protective and uncertain world, how might this affect our efforts?

In-house Counsels and Para-legals

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Sir, I declare my interest as Director of Legal for NTUC and honorary member of the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association.

In-house counsels in Singapore form a significant and growing part of our legal fraternity. The number of in-house counsels has outstripped the number of lawyers in practice to-date. This presents a great opportunity for our Singapore in-house legal counsels to differentiate themselves in their skills as well as how they help businesses move confidently in Singapore and around the globe, while also helping to bring back crucial work to our private practice lawyers and others in related fields. I therefore ask MinLaw to provide an update of their current support and longer-term plans to further uplift the career health and progression of in-house counsels in Singapore.

In the legal fraternity and ecosystem, we have a group of para-legals, also known as paraprofessionals or legal executives in law firms and corporate entities. Many of them graduated from the law programmes offered by Temasek Polytechnic as well as other educational institutions. They also hope to build and boost their professionalism, competencies and standards, continuing education and career progression opportunities. I therefore ask how can MinLaw further help to uplift and enhance the career health and progression of para-legals and paraprofessionals.

Supporting Our Young Lawyers

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin: Chairman, I continue to speak up for law students and young lawyers in this Chamber. The demands of the legal industry on our juniors are not easy. To keep pace with the fast-evolving demands of the profession and to take care of our young lawyers while maintaining a strong pipeline, it is essential to ensure that our legal training frameworks remain robust and forward-looking.

Under the new practice training framework, trainee lawyers must satisfy the dual seat requirement by rotating through a solicitor's seat and a litigation seat. For smaller firms operating as niche practices, arrangements must be made to rotate trainees to a covering law practice for them to gain exposure to a secondary seat.

Does the Ministry have any indication as to the capacity of smaller firms to undertake the training of young lawyers and recruit future talent, given the necessity of rotating trainees out of their firm? Are measures being considered to support these firms in navigating such demands?

With our growing role as a leading international arbitration hub, a rising number of disputes from our civil law neighbours may be heard on our shores. Is the Ministry considering furthering educational reforms to deepen and broaden civil law expertise among our law students and practitioners to ensure that we can remain at the forefront of international dispute resolution?

1.30 pm

Update on International Conventions

Ms Usha Chandradas (Nominated Member): Sir, I would like to seek an update from the Ministry on Singapore's position with regard to three international conventions, namely the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Judgments Convention), the Convention providing a Uniform Law on the Form of an International Will, (International Wills Convention) and the Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults.

Becoming a signatory to these conventions could strengthen Singapore's position as a global wealth management and family office hub. It could enhance legal certainty in cross-border disputes, simplify estate and succession planning for internationally connected families, and provide greater safeguards for vulnerable individuals who are based in Singapore but who have legal or financial interests across multiple jurisdictions. I would appreciate insights from the Ministry on any ongoing considerations, potential challenges or timelines for Singapore to join these conventions.

Optimising State Properties

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin: Chairman, as our urban living grows increasingly dense, well-planned community areas are essential in creating dynamic and sustainable neighbourhoods. The Ministry has stated that it had identified opportunities to optimise state properties to better meet community needs and create greater social impact. What criteria is used to evaluate which state properties should be redeveloped? What are the specific community needs that are taken into consideration, given our diverse demographic?

Does the Ministry have plans to pilot community concepts that engage a broader spectrum of Singaporeans so as to create dynamic spaces that foster meaningful interactions? Could the Ministry consider piloting co-living concepts in these properties, for example, or create more care and recreational spaces for Singaporeans?

SLA's Reinventing Spaces into Vibrant Places Programme

Mr Keith Chua: Mr Chairman, since launching the Singapore Land Authority's (SLAs') Reinventing Spaces into Vibrant Places (RSVP) programme, could the Minister kindly advise whether properties have been successfully awarded and, if so, how many?

Are any of the properties currently in use by the successful tenants? Are there any properties scheduled for launch in the coming year and, if so, when will be the timing of this launch? Will the decision for additional properties under this programme be solely determined by SLA and the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA)?

In evaluating the interest generated in the programme thus far, can the Ministry advise whether the interest for state land is still leaning towards the more conventional method as there seems to be many more sites listed for tender under this method? Would there be favourable consideration by SLA for proposals from non-profit groups and organisations, given the increase in interest for arts, culture and heritage?

Some community service organisations may find use of state properties as an option to better connect with the community. Is SLA open to such proposals? As an example, creative use of a property may enable it to be a welcoming touchpoint for persons to find out more about difficult topics, such as mental health or other conditions like anxiety or depression. Use of appropriate sites may also appeal to the seniors, especially if the property has an interesting history. It may be helpful for happy memories.

Optimising State Assets via Technology

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim: Chairman, state land assets are crucial to Singapore's urban planning and economic development. Singapore must maximise land use efficiency. How has SLA successfully optimised state assets to meet community and economic needs? How has the development of the Digital Conveyancing Portal been progressing since the last update at COS 2023? Is the project still expected to be completed by 2026?

The Chairman: Minister Edwin Tong.

The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Chairman, this year, we celebrate SG60 and our nation-building efforts that have allowed Singapore to develop, prosper and thrive against the odds.

Many factors have contributed to our transformation from Third World to First, and one of them is our commitment to building a strong legal system and advancing the rule of law. MinLaw will continue to uphold these fundamentals, to ensure the vibrancy of our economy, as well as to maintain trust and cohesion in our society.

I thank the Members for their various suggestions through their cuts, and I will address Members' cuts in this speech, organised into two broad topics: first, strengthening Singapore's position as an international legal and IP hub to support our economic growth; second, improving legal processes and increasing access to justice to maintain trust and cohesion in our community. My colleague, Minister of State Murali Pillai, will speak about optimising the use of state assets and safeguarding our society from online harms.

Sir, the Prime Minister has spoken about the challenges that Singapore is facing in this turbulent external environment. There are undoubtedly strong headwinds and we have to be cautious. But equally, in this environment, there are also opportunities if we remain attractive to foreign investments and maintain an open, thriving business environment. One reason Singapore has been able to attract foreign investments is the confidence in our legal system. My Ministry is committed to preserving and enhancing this trust in Singapore through three legal pillars which I will outline.

First, continually strengthening our legal framework in which we operate. Our approach is to grow new areas to support emerging industries and evolving business models as well as to continue to build on our areas of strength. Let me briefly mention three areas.

First, in the area of IP, which Mr Keith Chua spoke about. The value of an enterprise is increasingly in IP as well as in intangible assets (IA). But to realise this value, enterprises must be able to monetise both the IA and the IP. Only then will they be willing to invest in further innovation, which then further enhances and increases the value of their enterprise.

Singapore's IP regime and innovation environment are recognised internationally. In 2024, Singapore climbed a spot to rank fourth globally in the World Intellectual Property Organisation's (WIPO's) Global Innovation Index and remained top in Asia. Under the Singapore IP Strategy 2030, or SIPS 2030, we are focused on spurring innovation and helping enterprises, including the smaller enterprises, unlock the value in their IA and IP. We support enterprises at various stages of their IP journey. For businesses with overseas expansion plans, IPOS will launch the IP Management Clinics Singapore programme, in collaboration with WIPO, in March 2025. This will provide enterprises with comprehensive IA and IP strategy support, including connecting with experts for a four-month mentorship.

To Ms Sylvia Lim's query, for smaller enterprises and freelancers in the creative sectors, IPOS has simple info-packs as well as easy-to-understand videos that explain copyright and share best practices on using and protecting IP. In fact, Ms Lim, I remember that when I introduced the Bill that you spoke about, we had introduced as well the learner aids as well as these videos.

In addition, IPOS also works with agencies like the National Arts Council (NAC) and the National Library Board (NLB), as well as industry partners, like Copyright Licensing and Administration Society of Singapore (CLASS) and the Visual, Audio, Creative Content Professionals Association (VICPA), to provide additional support.

Just last year, in August 2024, IPOS signed a three-year MOU with VICPA, to support the creative industry in IP education and management, and capacity building. IPOS is also working on a video podcast with NAC and NLB to engage creatives in the music industry. This will be launched during World IP Day on 26 April later this year.

IPOS also actively supports partner events, such as the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO) World Congress to discuss copyright-related issues and developments. This will happen in October this year.

In other words, going down to the basic industry, at that level, as well as elevating ourselves to world global thought leadership in these areas are all part of the efforts to enhance awareness and education in this space. And we will, indeed, look out for more opportunities to reach our creators to raise their awareness in this very quickly evolving environment.

For enterprises looking to commercialise their IA and IP, IPOS is working with local and international partners to develop IA valuation guidelines that are interoperable internationally. We will seek public feedback on the draft IA valuation guidelines in the first half of 2025. Minister of State Murali Pillai will speak about the development of technology and its impact on IP rights.

The second pillar I want to speak about is dispute resolution. From time to time, we all know businesses may run into disputes with others. It is really part and parcel of doing business. But they have to be resolved in an open, transparent manner, as well as efficiently.

Over the years, we have updated our regime and enhanced our services. In short, we take a business-centric approach. We align our regime to international standards. We develop a full suite of options, whether it is in arbitration, mediation or litigation, or a combination of them, so that parties can choose, have the autonomy, depending on the nature of their needs as well as the particular circumstances of the transaction in question. We also give effect to party autonomy, be it choice of law or choice of forum, institution, modality of resolution, or the choice of counsel.

Overall, Singapore has done well. If you take SICC, it is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year. It has seen a steadily increasing caseload, including fresh filings. The caseload of SIAC, as well as SIMC, in both the arbitration and mediation spaces, have also seen a general upward trend. Many of these cases, in fact, have minimal connection to Singapore.

To Mr Keith Chua's query, we will continue to strengthen our institutions.

First, by embracing technology to provide value-added services to users. SIAC, as far as we know, is the only arbitration centre with ISO 27001 Certification for its Information Security Management system. SIMC has a Mediation AI Assistant, and Maxwell Chambers offers cutting-edge drone camera and holographic displays which aid in the presentation of evidence, as well as in the course of resolving disputes at hearings.

Second, by providing platforms to profile Singapore as a thought leader in this space. Members will know that we have many international conferences in Singapore, such as the Singapore Convention Week that started since 2019 in the starting days of the Singapore Convention on Mediation which we have continued since. We have the Singapore-China International Commercial Dispute Resolution Conference. This takes place once a year – one year in China, and one year we hosted in Singapore. We will host it in Singapore later this year. These events, among others, not only provide a platform for leading experts to discuss latest developments, but they are also an opportunity for lawyers in Singapore to connect with the global community.

Third, in debt restructuring and insolvency. This is an integral part of a well-functioning and well-developed economy. It provides practical and commercial options for companies as well as smaller businesses and entrepreneurs in financial distress, giving flexibility and realistic options to restructure. Successful restructurings not only allow the debtor to carry on as a going concern, but generally result in better outcomes for employees, creditors and investors.

My Ministry has enhanced this framework over the last decade and let me speak about three parts of this framework.

First, in corporate insolvency. We have grafted in features from leading, as well as tried-and-tested models, like, for example, chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code, which we brought in about six to seven years ago. We have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency; and we have also clarified the SICC's jurisdiction for cases with multi-jurisdiction elements, which are particularly a feature of large cross-border restructurings. We have introduced simplified insolvency, providing entities with simpler, faster and cheaper processes. Members will know we first introduced this as a temporary measure during COVID-19, and this was made permanent earlier this year to benefit more companies.

Finally, in personal bankruptcy. We have a differentiated discharge framework for bankrupts. This is a rehabilitative regime that seeks to encourage financial prudence without, at the same time, stifling entrepreneurship.

We have arrived at a regime, which we believe, balances the interests of debtors and creditors, maintaining a healthy lending environment for sustained economic growth whilst, at the same time, supporting debtors across the spectrum: from individual entrepreneurs to larger corporates, both locally as well as foreign.

This has resulted in the growing use of Singapore's framework. For instance, the shipping firm, Pacific International Lines, and Vietnamese developer, No Va Land – a case heard in the SICC.

To Mr Zhulkarnain's and Mr Vikram Nair's queries, we are not resting on our laurels. We are building on the experiences of these cases, as well as the experience of practitioners. We are carefully looking at the next set of refinements, considering feedback and we will look at introducing further enhancements.

1.45 pm

These enhancements that we are thinking about will include the following.

First, the Debt Repayment Scheme (DRS) for individuals. MinLaw is looking to, among other matters, prevent misuse of the DRS by debtors who are advised by businesses to borrow irresponsibly and then self-petition for bankruptcy.

Second, in the area of corporate rescue tools, in particular, in judicial management. We will also review our current Chapter 11 regime, to assess the need for changes. In 2023, some two years ago, we convened the Committee to Enhance Singapore's Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency (R&I) Regime. The Committee has been engaged in robust debates, consulted with stakeholders, discussed the recent cases that I mentioned, as well as taken consultations on its recommendations and it will be able to release a report shortly.

Next, I move to the second pillar: expanding and growing our legal competency as well as capabilities.

Sir, the world is increasingly complex and certainly, legal work is no longer limited by geographical boundaries. As Mr Zhulkarnain said, for our law firms and our legal professionals to compete effectively, they must keep up with emerging trends and offer unique advantages and we agree with that.

To raise the quality and consistency of training, we implemented several changes in July 2024, pursuant to the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers. The syllabus for the course leading up to Part B of the Bar Examinations was expanded to cover a wider range of topics. The practice training period was lengthened to one year, to allow trainees more time to gain exposure to contrasting practice areas and develop a strong all-rounded foundation as they start their practice career.

To Ms Nadia Samdin’s point, we recognise that small firms may occasionally need support to cope with these changes and we appreciate very much Ms Samdin's continual advocacy for young lawyers in this space.

The Singapore Institute of Legal Education and the Law Society have released guides to help trainees and supervising solicitors navigate these changes. As Ms Samdin knows, it has been less than a year since we have commenced on this path, so we will take on board the experiences of young lawyers at smaller firms in the space but for the moment, the guidelines cover areas such as honorarium and leave. And the Law Society also published available training positions on their website, so that they become easier for trainees to find a training position in contrasting practice areas. The Law Society also offers career counselling, mentorship and guidance on practice training contracts. And the Law Society will implement other measures if necessary.

Besides raising professional standards, we are also looking to shift mindsets and raise skillsets in our law firms and in our lawyers. One area in which we seek to do this is in that of technology. In the legal sector, AI can potentially perform tasks at the level of junior associates, but at a fraction of the time and cost. For example, a Thomson Reuters report estimated that AI can save professionals up to 12 hours per week by 2029. But instead of seeing this as a threat, let us also look at this as an opportunity for lawyers to go up the value chain, to focus on higher-value tasks looking at front-facing work, client-facing work.

Globally, law firms in other jurisdictions, like the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK), leading jurisdictions, for example: they are embracing and harnessing legaltech in support of their work. To compete with them, our lawyers must also keep that open mindset and embrace legaltech.

In 2022, we made available the Legal Technology Platform (LTP), a matter management and collaboration tool, to law firms that desired a ready product. Generative AI (Gen AI) was also added in 2024 as a feature through Copilot for SG law firms.

We also made legaltech accessible to Singapore law practices, by providing subsidies to defray the cost. We understand that sometimes the startup costs or the cost of entry into such a product could be very high. And so, in 2022, for example, we offered the Productivity Solutions Grant for the Legal Sector (PSG-Legal) which provided 70% support for up to two years. From 1 April 2025, the support level will be 50% for one year – to align with other sectors. To date, there are over 70 successful PSG-Legal applications from Singapore law practices, for over 400 legaltech accounts.

We will also be piloting a change management initiative in the second half of this year. We have heard some feedback from law firms that they require more support to improve their tech processes, whilst at the same time managing and juggling their existing priorities. We will therefore deploy legaltech consultants to the firms keen to join the pilot to diagnose their technology needs and recommend the appropriate tools for them in the context of their practice areas.

Another area which I wish to speak about is civil law. Singapore is a common law jurisdiction, but many of our top trading partners come from civil law jurisdictions, such as China and Indonesia. These are large markets with immense opportunities.

Therefore, to position our lawyers better, we will be deepening civil law content in law school curriculum. We will also continue to run the China Ready Programme as well as the Singapore-Shanghai Lawyers Exchange Programme, which help to provide lawyers with a deeper and more embedded understanding of China’s business and legal environment. And if there is demand for similar programmes in other markets and other jurisdictions, we will be happy to consider.

Sir, it is important for our lawyers to continue to have a lifelong learning culture. Practice is evolving. The areas of practice are quickly moving and the thought leadership around the study of law and more importantly, the practice and application of law to the industry is quickly evolving. To encourage this, we refreshed the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) system and will be increasing the CPD requirements in phases. Lawyers can use and tap into the SkillsFuture funding for many of the courses.

Besides lawyers, allied legal professionals and in-house counsel are also a vital part of our legal sector, as Mr Patrick Tay spoke about it a short while ago. The Singapore Academy of Law is working with the Law Society as well as the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association and Temasek Polytechnic on a Skills Framework for Legal Services and training roadmap. These will be first introduced for lawyers, followed by in-house counsel and then allied legal professionals over the next few years in phases. Temasek Polytechnic will also be introducing new courses in legal technology and legal project management for allied legal professionals. They have got feedback that these are areas that participants and students are keen on and so they will develop modules along these lines.

Sir, moving to the third pillar – keeping ourselves open to the world. As a small city-state, we need to be plugged into the global economy. But to do so, we must enhance our networks and collaborate with others. This really is a win-win situation for us if we can manage it. We help partners meet their goals from Singapore and in doing so, bring work here into the Singapore jurisdiction, which might otherwise not be present in Singapore.

Over the years, we have strengthened our legal cooperation with key and emerging markets. To give Members some examples, last year, we signed four Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) – two with Saudi Arabia, one with India and one with Kazakhstan – further expanding our global outreach into new markets. I have also made several trips in the course of last year to develop connections and help our law firms and lawyers build inroads into these markets.

As Mr Zhulkarnain noted, we also increased our efforts to anchor in Singapore multilateral dispute resolution institutions, which administer disputes involving and including sovereign interests. This contributes to the international rule of law, as well as burnishes Singapore’s attractiveness as a premier dispute resolution hub.

Let me give Mr Zhulkarnain some examples.

First, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which is an intergovernmental organisation providing arbitration and other dispute resolution services, for states, is expanding its presence in Singapore, with our support. Singapore was its first physical office in Asia and since its establishment in 2018, over the last five years, the Singapore office has until 2023 administered over 135 cases from Singapore.

Second, we have also signed an MOU with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and are working towards ICSID setting up its first physical office outside its headquarters in Washington DC here in Singapore. We also continue to welcome international law firms and foreign lawyers to anchor their presence here in Singapore.

Singapore has gradually liberalised the legal sector since the 1990s and this has benefited Singapore and Singaporeans. Over the years, we have introduced various schemes, to allow foreign law firms to collaborate with our local law firms and the schemes are attenuated to fit the level of collaboration that the foreign lawyers want with the local counterparts. These schemes have been successful, but we will continue to review them – to refine the framework where necessary, and also how we can rationalise and streamline them, with one aim being to reduce the regulatory burden on the law firms complying with these schemes.

The Committee to Review the Regulatory Framework for Law Practices and Collaborations in Singapore, which we set up in 2023, is expected to complete its work soon.

I should add that we will not change our posture of being open. We remain open to foreign law firms and lawyers, while remaining committed to preserving the Singapore core in the legal profession.

Mr Chairman, the sum of our work contributes to the economy by facilitating businesses and attracting investments, allowing Singapore to thrive. Overall, we have been successful in playing this role. In 2024, Singapore was first in the World Competitiveness Ranking and rated top for business efficiency. And in 2023, Singapore was ranked second by the World Bank for net inflows of foreign direct investments (FDIs), behind only the US. So, by and large, these measures that I have spoken about, they have been successful in uplifting the Singapore business environment.

Mr Chairman, in the second part of my speech, I will focus on the domestic context. In recent times, many countries have seen their social fabric under stress and divisions forming, as parts of society feel left out and trust in institutions diminishes.

In Singapore, we are fortunate that we remain united; but we cannot for once take this for granted. Our cohesive social fabric is underpinned by the rule of law and access to justice, and these are core pillars of our society. Therefore, we must continue to reinforce these fundamentals to maintain social trust and cohesion as well as uplift people’s lives. Our laws form the bedrock of society – how it is ordered; how it functions; and how its members behave and interact in this society.

In our community, when individuals or businesses face friction with each other, they have a range of options to resolve their disputes and differences. This involves going before an impartial adjudicator or working with a trusted mediator and through this process, parties present their perspectives and find resolution in their conflict. A key part of this process is enforcement that some Members spoke about – that "last mile", where parties realise their rights, obtain redress and then move on. This has been a matter of focus for my Ministry. When a party receives a judgment, this must be enforced effectively. Otherwise, it is only really a paper judgment.

We have therefore been working to strengthen enforcement in two key areas: first in family justice; and second in civil judgments.

Let me give Members an update on these two areas.

Sir, families form the building blocks of our community. Where relations break down, we want to help to reduce the acrimony and allow parties to heal and to move on. A key improvement was the creation of the Maintenance Enforcement Process (MEP), as highlighted by Mr Zhulkarnain.

Unfortunately, the reality is that there remains a fairly high incidence of non-compliance with maintenance orders. There is also a significant number of repeat applications for enforcement.

Therefore, under the MEP, Maintenance Enforcement Officers (MEOs) are empowered to obtain information about the parties’ financial circumstances and these findings will help the Courts make more effective maintenance enforcement orders. They can also facilitate settlements between the parties, which encourages more sustainable outcomes and judgments. The MEP was operationalised in January. A new unit of MEOs in MinLaw have started taking cases. They will progressively expand their operations in phases.

To Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Jean See’s queries, MinLaw will also introduce reforms to make the enforcement of civil judgments more effective, simple and streamlined.

We received feedback that the time, effort and costs – Mr Tay spoke about that – of enforcing judgments can sometimes be disproportionate to the judgment sum. We are looking to address these areas by providing the Court with greater powers to identify the assets and income streams of the judgment debtor as well as introducing new modes of enforcement to deter and punish non-compliance with Court orders. We will also create new Civil Judgment Enforcement Officers, who will effectively assist litigants who wish to enforce their civil judgments.

These reforms will be made available to our civil courts, which includes tribunals such as: the Employment Claims Tribunal, which Mr Tay spoke about; the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals; as well as the Small Claims Tribunal.

Sir, as Members will know, these proposed changes are novel. They depart from the existing framework for enforcement. We are currently studying them, evaluating them and consulting with interested parties, including Members of the Bar and the Judiciary. More details will be released in due course as we complete this study.

Sir, we continually work to improve access to justice, particularly for the most vulnerable. This ensures they receive help and no one is left behind.

To Mr Vikram Nair and Assoc Prof Razwana's queries, MinLaw has had a long history, being at the forefront of providing aid and assistance in the civil and criminal spheres including through programmes, such as the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB), for instance; and more recently, the Public Defender's Office (PDO).

2.00 pm

Since 1958, LAB has provided the vulnerable with civil legal aid, including in matrimonial, monetary claims as well as probate matters. Beyond taking on legal cases, LAB has strengthened connections in the community, for example, by organising networking sessions between family lawyers and social service professionals.

MinLaw has been supporting the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) as well, which is administered by Pro Bono SG, and progressed to directly fund them since 2015. And from December 2022, PDO was operationalised to facilitate access to justice for more accused persons.

Sir, PDO has grown over the years. Today, it has a team of 22 public defenders. In 2024, PDO received almost 1,900 applications and about 1,000 were assessed as eligible. A part of these eligible applications is referred to CLAS, and between CLAS and PDO, they serve the section of the community who are most vulnerable. This partnership exemplifies the pro bono spirit among the legal fraternity – a partnership between the Government as well as Pro Bono SG, which is really ground-up, supported by many lawyers in the private sector.

This helps us to ensure that legal aid remains accessible not just across the criminal spectrum, which CLAS and PDO looks after, but also across the civil sector. Last year, we updated the quantum of the per capita household income (PCHI) as well as the Annual Value (AV) for eligibility criteria to ensure that, in the light of increase in household income and property value in recent years, we will continue to serve the target audience and target persons who need assistance. We continually review these thresholds to ensure that they are kept in line.

Sir, before I conclude, let me quickly touch on community disputes – a topic that Mr Sitoh Yih Pin raised and which I also spoke extensively a few months ago when I introduced the Bill.

To Mr Sitoh Yih Pin's queries, the enhancements will be implemented shortly. The Community Relations Unit (CRU) pilot, including directed mediation, for severe noise and hoarding cases will start in Tampines from the second quarter of this year. Following the pilot, we will consider how to sustainably scale-up the process island-wide.

On mediation, as touched on by Assoc Prof Razwana, the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) continues to promote the benefits of mediation through channels like social media as well as everyday advertisements, such as those we see at the bus stops, for instance, to reach out to those who might need awareness brought to them about these schemes. To manage the anticipated increase in caseload, around 30 duty mediators have been identified to manage directed mediation cases. CMC has also increased the number of satellite mediation locations from 10 in 2023 to 18 in 2025. This will allow more convenience as well as improve accessibility.

Sir, let me just say a few words in closing. I have spoken about our approach in growing the economy and maintaining trust and cohesion in society. These are two very important outcomes of the work that we do at MinLaw. Singapore's success is underpinned by our strong legal system, based on the rule of law. That is something that is really non-negotiable for us in all the work that we do at MinLaw.

On this note, I would like to inform Members that we will be commemorating next year, the 200th anniversary of the establishment of Singapore's modern legal system via the Second Charter of Justice. It was in 1826 – next year will be 200 years. A series of events will take place to commemorate the occasion. More details will be announced in due course. And I hope that Members will come and support these programmes and events next year.

The Chairman: Minister of State Murali Pillai.

The Minister of State for Law (Mr Murali Pillai): Sir, I would like to start off by adding my appreciation to hon Members for their cuts as well as their speeches in this debate. I would cover three broad areas: first, the prudent and imaginative use of state assets; second, safeguarding our society from concerns posed by emerging technologies; and third, access to justice.

The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) ensures effective and imaginative use of land resources. To address Mr Zhulkarnain and Ms Nadia Samdin's queries, this is done by cultivating a good understanding of social and community needs through proactive engagement. For example, SLA engages the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre and community entities, such as New Hope, to understand their challenges in finding suitable spaces. Through such engagements, SLA identified emerging demands, such as silver co-living and the need for community spaces.

First, to address rising demand for independent living for older Singaporeans, SLA activated state properties, such as 79 to 95 Hindoo Road, 26 Evans Road and 98 Henderson Road. Building on the response, SLA plans to launch a tender in the first quarter of this year for 20 heritage properties at Admiralty Road East for multi-generational co-living. Proposals with holistic programming and emphasis on inter-generational co-living that encourages independent senior living will be favourably considered.

Second, SLA is activating state properties with potential to bring communities together. One example is the transformation of 30 Maxwell Road into a wellness and fitness hub through the joint initiative with URA, Reinventing Spaces into Vibrant Places, as noted by Mr Keith Chua. Another example is the transformation of the former Elections Department office at 11 Prinsep Street into a social impact hub named The Foundry, which started operations last year.

Further, SLA will restore and repurpose Block 1 East Coast Road (1ECR) for community and social uses. The renovated space will provide programmes and training to support youths as well as recreational activities for all ages. SLA called a tender for a multidisciplinary team of consultants in September 2024 to provide consultancy services for Additions and Alteration works, with estimated completion in 2028.

SLA will continue collaborating with agencies to introduce more state properties for economic and social uses. By launching more Price-Quality tenders, SLA will be able to better curate placemaking efforts to benefit the community.

Besides optimising the use of state assets, we are harnessing technology to digitalise transactions. Singapore's current conveyancing system is reliant on physical documents and processes, and requires significant manpower. SLA has therefore been developing the Digital Conveyancing Portal (DCP). It is a fully integrated digital end-to-end conveyancing process for all types of property, from the stage of Option to Purchase (OTP) to legal completion. It will also enable e-payments and digital documents.

When operationalised, the DCP will provide greater convenience to all parties, including buyers and sellers, law firms, real estate professionals, financial institutions and developers. We are testing the system rigorously and seeking industry feedback, including on how the phases of the DCP should be prioritised and the continuing evolution of associated technology.

The first phase of the DCP focuses on private residential resale transactions, which make up more than half of private real estate transactions. Beta testing of the OTP process started in November 2024 with selected stakeholders. Live OTP transactions for the private residential resale market is targeted to commence as a pilot initially in 2025. The DCP functions and types of transactions will be progressively expanded in subsequent phases.

Even as technology becomes integral, we are aware that it also presents issues, particularly with copyright. Our IP regime incentivises the creation of new works by rewarding creators with a set of rights over the use of their works, at the same time, allows reasonable access to these works by third parties, including other creators and innovators, who may build on them. In this way, we maximise creative and innovative output through a balanced approach.

Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms Jean See asked about the balance in the context of AI. While the IP regime enables the use of copyright materials for digital innovation, we have built in conditions to protect legitimate interests of rights-holders. In particular, if copyright materials are used to train AI models, the materials must be lawfully accessed. For example, for materials behind pay walls, through paid access. Furthermore, rights-holders can use the copyright protection regime to take action against the generation or use of content substantially similar to their own.

We recognise technologies, such as Gen AI, significantly impact many stakeholders. The Government remains committed to working with the creative community to address their concerns. There is ongoing engagement with stakeholders, including those in the creative sector, such as writers, publishers, record labels and creative agencies.

Some of the suggestions received include greater transparency in how copyright material is used for AI training and for rights-holders to have more control over use of their material. We are studying these suggestions. For example, we are exploring with MDDI and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), support for transparency measures and respect for copyright in our AI governance policies and tools, such as IMDA's upcoming safety guidelines for Gen AI model developers and app deployers.

MinLaw and the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) will continue to work with stakeholders to maintain the right balance that will support creativity and innovation.

We also focus on the impact of technology in the legal sector. Legal professionals should use Gen AI tools safely and responsibly, even as we encourage its adoption.

The need for guardrails is clear because: one, Gen AI may give inaccurate responses or hallucinate; two, security and privacy concerns – some Gen AI models may store user information and search history to train the model and this may then be reproduced for responses to other users; and three, ethical concerns with the rapid development of Gen AI by different programmers, it is critical that Gen AI tools are developed within a framework guided by principles, ethics and rules.

Considering this context, MinLaw is working on guidelines to guide legal professionals to be smart buyers and users of Gen AI tools. We have consulted stakeholders, such as the Singapore Courts, Law Society and IMDA, and will consult the industry in due course.

Another facet of digitalisation is the emerging threats to users and our community. Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Zhulkarnain and Ms Nadia Samdin asked about the Government's efforts to combat online harms.

The Government has taken significant steps to address the prevalence of online harms. This includes, among others, enacting the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) in 2014 and strengthening it in 2019, to provide victims with legal recourse for harassment, including online harassment; and enacting the Online Safety, Miscellaneous (Amendments) Act and the Online Criminal Harms Act to allow the Government to act against harmful content.

However, online harms continue to be an area of concern for many – and hon Members said that in their speeches too.

A 2024 survey by MDDI found that two-thirds of respondents encountered harmful content on social media. Online harms are an especially serious problem for the young and young women in particular. In a 2023 study by SG Her Empowerment (SHE), more than half of the respondents between 15 and 24 years old reported having personally experienced online abuse. This was more than in any other age group. Within this age group, young women were nearly twice as likely as men to be victims of sexual harassment. And 40% of victims of online harassment reported suffering severe emotional and psychological distress, including depression and self-harm.

MinLaw and MDDI have been studying the gaps that remain. We have consulted extensively with community groups, such as those working with youths, and women and girls; experts; technology companies; and the Judiciary.

2.15 pm

The key gaps identified are the need for a simple and fast process to seek relief from online harms. The Court process can be daunting and difficult to navigate. Uncertainty over whether existing laws can be used to address new emerging harms and the lack of accountability as perpetrators are often anonymous.

To address these gaps, MinLaw and MDDI are working together on new legislation that will cover three broad buckets. First, it will establish a new agency that will act quickly on complaints of online harms. MDDI will share more details about the agency as well as some of its broader efforts to deal with online harms.

Second, it will set out Statutory Torts to clarify the types of online harms covered under the law, and the rights and duties of the various parties in the online ecosystem. These Statutory Torts will provide a clear legal basis for victims to hold to account those responsible for the harm they suffer. We intend for the Statutory Torts to apply to a range of serious online harms, including online harassment, intimate image abuse and child abuse material.

Third, it will introduce new mechanisms to address the misuse of anonymity by perpetrators of online harms. As Ms Nadia Samdin and others have rightly observed – there must be adequate information in the first place, if the intent is to enhance accountability. Victims may apply to find out a perpetrator's user information. The victim may need to know, so as to consider legal proceedings, better protect himself or herself from the perpetrator.

The provision of such information will be subject to safeguards, to prevent abuse. The information should not be used to carry out "counter-attacks". Stakeholders, such as the tech companies, have also expressed some reservations – mainly about how such measures will impact their business. We will work closely with them to mitigate their concerns. We will announce more details in due course. The Government is committed to ensuring that victims have accessible and effective remedies when they suffer online harms.

Mr Patrick Tay asked for figures relating to the Protection from Harassment Court (PHC). The number of applications for protection orders to the PHC since it started operations on 1 June 2021 are as follows: (a) 346 PO applications were filed in 2021; (b) 520 in 2022, (c) 526 in 2023; and (d) 631 in 2024.

In terms of breakdown, out of the 2,023 PO applications filed from 1 June 2021, which is when the PHC commenced operations, to 31 December 2024, there were complaints about the following kinds of harassments: (a) 760 cases involved cyberbullying; (b) 719 cases involved doxing; (c) 485 cases involved workplace harassment; (d) 253 cases involved sexual harassment; and (e) 122 cases involved harassment by debt collectors, moneylenders or creditors. The total number is 2,339, though there were 2,023 applications, because a single application can contain complaints for about more than one type of harassment.

I now turn to Ms Sylvia Lim's query on the personal bond in criminal cases – an amendment in the Criminal Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2024. This allows persons accused of non-bailable offences punishable with up to seven years' imprisonment to be released on personal bond, as an alternative to bail. Previously, persons accused of such offences could only be released on bail while awaiting investigations or trial. They will be remanded if they are unable to find a bailor, even if they are offered bail.

With this amendment, they may be released by putting up a bond by themselves in appropriate cases. This reduces the disruptions to their lives and earning capacity, as mentioned by the hon Member. Since the amendment was implemented in August 2024, more than 100 accused persons have been released on personal bond for non-bailable offences. The personal bond regime is new and in its infancy. We will continue to keep our policies on remand and bail under review.

Lastly, I turn to our work on ensuring access to justice. Second Minister Edwin mentioned about the good work of the Public Defender's Office and the Legal Aid Bureau. MinLaw is also working with various partners to increase access to justice, including through technology.

Notably, we have collaborated with Pro Bono SG to develop LawGoWhere. Launched in March last year, this is a first-stop portal that consolidates access to legal information, legal services and law awareness resources.

This year, a legal help finder will be integrated, to make it easier for users to seek legal information. Users may key in information such as their postal code and legal issue, and receive legal assistance options, such as their nearest legal clinics.

Even as the use of technology increases, we are mindful of the digital divide, a point that Dr Tan Wu Meng made. On his query, measures have been taken to ensure that justice remains accessible to everyone, regardless of their level of familiarity with technology. For example, individuals who have difficulties with Court e-services, like the Community Justice and Tribunals System, can contact the State Courts by calling their hotline. They may also visit the State Courts Business Centre to access digital terminals or approach the State Courts Service Hub if they require assistance.

Before I conclude, Mr Chairman, I would like to thank hon Members for their comments. Ms Usha Chandradas spoke about possible areas for law reform. Given the full slate of work outlined, some of these reviews will require more time for careful consideration. I understand from the Ministry of Social and Family Development that the same also applies to the 2000 Protection of Adults Convention. Prof Razwana also spoke about recidivism. This was covered by the Ministry of Home Affairs in their COS.

Mr Chairman, Sir, in conclusion, Second Minister Edwin Tong spoke about the importance of the law and legal processes on achieving good outcomes for Singapore, underpinned by the rule of law. He also spoke about our efforts and approach to growing the economy, even as Singapore faces challenges in this turbulent external environment. We will strengthen our legal framework to be business-friendly and forward-looking, especially in the areas of IP, dispute resolution and debt restructuring and insolvency.

Furthermore, Second Minister Tong outlined our moves to grow the capabilities of law firms and legal professionals – through adoption of LegalTech, facilitating access to overseas markets and uplifting all areas of the profession to grow new competencies.

Then, he spoke on Enforcement Mechanisms in Family Justice and Civil Enforcement; as well as helping the most vulnerable in our society access the legal system. He also provided an update on the Community Disputes Management Framework.

Lastly, he announced our celebrations of the 200th anniversary of the establishment of Singapore's modern legal system.

I have covered SLA's efforts to optimise the use of state assets to meet changing needs and developments on the Digital Conveyancing Portal; our efforts to maintain a robust and balanced IP regime that supports creativity and innovation, as well as ensuring that the legal profession uses Gen AI safely and responsibly; new legislation to enhance protection for the vulnerable online; updates on the Protection from Harassment Court; implementation of reforms on personal bond; and leveraging technology for access to justice while preventing a digital divide.

Together, these form the foundations of our shared public life. Laws are made together, and made legitimate, in this House, but it is only in the living and the working out of these rules, that we as a country, give them life.

The Chairman: We have time for clarifications. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim: Thank you, Chairman. I have two sets of questions: one for Minister Edwin Tong, the other for Minister of State Murali Pillai.

For Minister, on the debt repayment scheme. I truly welcome MinLaw's approach whereby they are looking to refining the debt repayment scheme, which is currently susceptible to abuse. I know of debtors who engage third-party consulting firms and they are charged exorbitantly for such services. And indeed, the debtors themselves are being asked to take up further loans to pay for such services. So, may I ask the Minister on the regulatory standpoint, how does MinLaw plan to enhance oversight of third-party debt consultancy firms to prevent misinformation and exploitation of debtors.

And on the public front, whether the Ministry can consider collaborating with other Ministries or social service agencies to provide debtors with the accurate or reliable financial guidance and protect them from being exploited by such firms. I think public awareness is key.

For Minister of State Murali, on the digital office on the safety and online harms, the potential collaboration with MDDI. We note the challenges such that digital office may face to keep up with new technologies, high volume of harmful content and the misuse of anonymity. My question is a technical one. It is on jurisdiction for Statutory Torts. I understand that the Statutory Torts will be a whole suite that will be introduced by MinLaw, but would they also be pursuant to the double actionability rule for conflict of laws? For instance, does the Tort need to be actionable in Singapore and the country where that Tort occurred – the lex loci delicti and lex fori issues.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I thank Mr Zhulkarnain for his support for the proposed scheme. And indeed, it is true. The irony is that some debtors consult with these firms only to find that they end up in a bigger hole, a larger debt, as a consequence of trying to find a solution to their debt. So, we are very mindful of this and we will take steps to look at how we can have levers to clamp down on such practices by these firms.

Indeed, it is also true, Sir, as Mr Zhulkarnain points out, that public awareness is key, to paraphrase him. We will step up significantly on steps to raise awareness and we will do this in a few ways. First, we will put information on MinLaw's website. We will enhance it, to make it informative and user friendly.

Second, we intend to also publish a guide to help debtors along the journey of submitting bankruptcy applications, and teach them and guide them on what steps to take, to try to turn them away from having to rely on such debt consultancy firms to get assistance for the paperwork. So, we will simplify as much as we can, as well as publish step-by-step guidelines, so that they can avoid going to these firms.

Finally, we will also look at measures to proactively reach out to debtors, for example, imposing mandatory credit counselling as a prerequisite for filing bankruptcy application, so that we get to them first, try and educate them, raise awareness on the process, so that we can deter them as much as we can from turning to the debt consultancy firms.

Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, with respect to the hon Member, Mr Zhulkarnain's question on jurisdiction, as was mentioned in my speech, this creation of Statutory Torts is really providing civil causes of action for victims. And the jurisdiction is based on the civil jurisdiction of the Courts as it stands now, it is quite expansive. And in situations where the double actionability rule, which deals with the commission of Torts overseas, and whether or not there is a basis to pursue it here, whether it applies depends on the current rules.

The Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Chair. I have two clarifications for Minister of State Murali on the Criminal Procedure Code amendments on pre-trial release. Earlier, he mentioned that under the new provisions that were effective on 1 August, about 100 persons had been released on personal bond instead of on bail. I would like him to confirm that this is actually the combined number from law enforcement, as well as the Courts. That is the first question.

And the second question is if that is the case, this means that if it is 100 persons over six months, it is only about 16 persons per month, which to me is quite a low figure. And to this end, can he confirm that there are ongoing efforts to train, especially our law enforcement agencies, on the use of this new provision?

Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, with respect to the hon Member Ms Lim's question, my understanding is this is in relation to Court cases, but I can double check and perhaps, clarify this separately. [Please refer to "Clarification by the Minister of State for Law", Official Report, 4 March 2025, Vol 95, Issue 157, Clarification section.]

The Chairman: Any other clarifications? Ms Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. So, just to follow up, I would just like to know whether there are ongoing efforts to train our officers involved on the new provision and how to apply it in applicable cases.

Mr Murali Pillai: Sir, that would be something that is within the province of the MHA. Certainly, we can convey the feedback as well.

2.30 pm

The Chairman: Any other clarifications from Members? If not, could I invite Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim to withdraw your amendment.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim: Sir, I thank Minister Edwin Tong and Minister of State Murali Pillai for their clear clarifications and plans for MinLaw and for our fellow Singaporeans. Sir, the law is the tool, but justice is the ideal. I thank the staff and officers of MinLaw for making access to justice the ideal for our Singaporeans. With that, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $356,441,800 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $138,973,500 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.