Committee of Supply – Head R (Ministry of Law)

The Chairman: Head R, Ministry of Law. Mr Christopher de Souza, you can take all your four cuts together.

6.00 pm

Top Legal Services Hub

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

MinLaw plays an important role in developing Singapore as a hub for international legal services. In 2018, the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) emerged as the third most preferred arbitral institution in the world and the most preferred arbitral institution based in Asia. While SIAC draws a strong demand for arbitration from parties in Asia, there are trends and developments that indicate that the demand for arbitration in Singapore will move beyond Asia.

For instance, in 2018, the United States topped the foreign user rankings for the first time. Last year, the field of arbitration in Singapore was given a further boost to widen its global influence through the opening of Maxwell Chambers Suites with a whole suite of arbitration offices and facilities. Dignitaries from 12 countries and more than 350 guests from various facets of the legal industry attended the official opening.

It houses the local offices of top international dispute resolution institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce's, International Court of Arbitration (ICC) as well as the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). Allow me, Sir, at this point to declare for the purposes of this COS debate, this cut and all cuts after this, that I am a lawyer whose practice covers arbitration, litigation, advisory work and intellectual property.

Moving back to the cut, Maxwell Chambers Suites currently has the highest concentration of case management offices in the world. It also houses INSOL International Asia Hub. INSOL is the International is the International Association for restructuring, insolvency and bankruptcy professionals. The INSOL International Asia Hub in Maxwell Chambers Suite is INSOL International's first ever physical expansion since the establishment of its London headquarters in 1982.

Would the Minister share with us how the Ministry plans to help Singapore as a legal services hub, drawing to Singapore the demand for international legal services across key practice areas?

Civil, Community and Family Justice

My next cut, Sir, is on civil, community and family justice. In a country where the rule of law is a bedrock of society, maintaining the people's trust in the justice system and increasing access to justice are key.

To further these objectives, our civil, community and family justice systems have gone through several refinements. Launched in 2017, the State Court's Community Justice and Tribunals System (CJTS) is an electronic case filing and management system which helps promote access to justice by allowing parts of the legal system to be accessed by lay persons online. Through it, claims at the Small Claims Tribunal may be filed and negotiated, reducing the need to appear in court where an e-settlement is reached. Without needing to go to court, neighbours can also try to resolve disputes with the help of a court mediator through e-mediation.

We also passed the Protection from Harassment Act so that victims obtain protection from harassment more easily. Will the Minister elaborate on what has been and will be done to further enhance our civil, community and family justice systems?

Enhancing Our Criminal Justice System

My next cut, Mr Chairman, is on enhancing our criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is critical in maintaining law and order in Singapore. More than just a tool for ensuring that law be abided by and that there be order in Singapore, the criminal justice system is important for justice to be carried out, meted out in Singapore. The state has the proper mandate to mete out penal justice, punishing those who do wrong; otherwise, there may be increased vigilantism, mob justice and a descent into chaos and disorder.

The corollary of that mandate is preventing the injustice of punishing persons for wrongs they did not commit; otherwise, law may be seen as arbitrary.

It is therefore important that trust in our criminal justice system is maintained. Will the Minister therefore explain what has been done to ensure the continued efficacy of our criminal justice system here in Singapore?

Singapore – A Formidable Fortress for Intellectual Property

My fourth cut, although is not my last cut for the COS, is on a formidable fortress for Intellectual Property (IP), being Singapore. The Industrial Revolution 4.0 and the Digital, or Information Age rely heavily on intangible property rights, that is, intellectual property rights – to protect the way systems are designed, codes are written, products are created. Intellectual property rights or IP rights allow innovation to be sold, bought, traded and incentivises research and development of technology. IP rights also allow businesses to protect their reputation and reap from investments made in the quality of their products and services.

Would the Minister elaborate on how the intellectual property regime will be used as a means to help our companies remain competitive in a challenging global environment? And, importantly, how will Singapore further fortify its position as a country and jurisdiction in which IP rights can be well protected and enforced?

Question again proposed.

Intellectual Property

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Chairman, in a fast changing and competitive global landscape, we do appreciate that one of a company's competitive advantages is its brand, ideas and innovations. Singapore has come a long way in developing our Intellectual property (IP) capability and eco-system. Singapore is ranked second in the world and the highest in Asia for having the best IP protection as stated in the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report 2019. In fact, this is one of the reason why Singapore is selected by many MNCs to invest their business and research development in Singapore.

6.15 pm

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore or IPOS has been pushing the boundaries to support businesses in using IP to grow. With IPOS’ strong reputation, credentials and capabilities in IP strategy protection and management, could the Ministry share how IPOS is helping Singapore companies especially small and medium enterprises understand the value of their IP, protect their IP and innovations as well as leverage their IP for competitive advantage?

I welcome the Government’s move towards enhancing Singapore’s standing in becoming an even more established intellectual property hub and the launch of IPOS International last August. IPOS International, a wholly-owned subsidiary of IPOS has over 100 IP experts in areas of IP strategy and management, patent search and analysis, and IP education and training. IPOS can provide customised programmes and this provides valuable assistance to many businesses. The use of technology by IPOS is also very encouraging.

IPOS International’s suite of tools related to IP assets, for example, Illuminate for Enterprises, which is an online diagnostic tool developed by IPOS International, assists users to obtain a quick overview of their company’s IP, the health of their intangible assets, as well as any management gaps and risks. Are Singapore SMEs actively leveraging the suite of tools and engaging IPOS International to better understand and develop their IP strategy for competitive advantage? What is MinLaw’s assessment of the progress that Singapore companies are making in leveraging IP for their business growth and the commercialisation of IP of Singapore companies? My second cut.

Enhancing Access to Justice

Mr Chairman, could Minister also on what has been done to improve our criminal, civil, community and family justice systems to make access to justice for citizens simpler and more affordable? Could Minister also inform us on the key priorities on enhancing access to justice that we look forward to?

I would like to highlight areas where some of my residents have sought assistance as they face challenges in their access to justice and equitable outcomes in one area of unscrupulous contractors.

While the law does allow for legal recourse to be provided to consumers who have been cheated by contractors who do not perform their duties to the required standard, there are cases where my residents have been let down or short-changed by contractors who have done shoddy works.

Under the current legal framework, if my understanding is correct, an offence is committed only if money has been paid by the consumer and no work has been done at all. This may not be an altogether satisfactory, as the services rendered may be due to poor workmanship or left unfinished. If the contractor, despite given reasonable time does not rectify the works, what it leaves the consumer to do is to have to hire another contractor to rectify the works and then obtain legal redress which might take some time.

In one of the cases that my resident sought sought my assistance, the said contractor has cheated others. When she had made Police reports, she was that the Police could not assist and that they had to pursue their own cases. The concern is that as they did this, whether besides recovering moneys, whether the contractor was continuing to cheat others and this somehow did not seem right.

In another area of maintenance. While the provisions of the Women’s Charter provides for sanctions or in extreme cases, even imprisonment terms, to those who default in maintenance, by the time the law takes its course, it could provide cold comfort to the wives and children, many who live with relative financial strain. So, could the Ministry consider imposing measures of sufficient deterrence, so that defaulters who breach court orders in maintaining their families will think twice, such as imposing fines of appropriate severity, in addition to any existing penalties?

I would also like to request the Ministry to share on what steps are being taken to educate and inform the public of their legal relief, especially in cases where Singaporeans do not have the financial wherewithal to afford legal representation and hence would be less cognisant of their legal rights.

Legal Design for a Digitalised Nation

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Sir, legal design is the application of human centred design to the world of law to make legal systems and services more human-centred, usable and satisfying. By its very nature, the law can be intimidating to navigate for the common man. To many, it can dense or verbose and inflexible and jargon lead. How many of us have blindly clicked on compliance boxes or lengthy forms when we download the latest version of whatever software we need or even signed PDPA forms without reading them?

To that end, does the way companies and commercial entities and even the Government seek consent in today's digitalised world, ensure that our people are informed about their rights, the rights they are giving up or responsibilities and obligations they are signing up to. Sir, I believe there is room for better legal design in view of the digital tools available today. One Ministry whose website and mobile site has caught the eye for excellent legal design and user friendliness is that of MOM. Their mobile site is intuitive and captures all the critical information citizens will access in a simple and easy to read format. I was made to understand from a public officer at MOM that there is a team that analyses user behaviour with a view to improve online interaction and how to make online services easily understandable and easily understood.

Chairman, Sir, the Budget book lists the key performance indicators of the Ministry some of which include a sound and progressive legal framework and access to justice for the low-income. While the tech-related outcomes in our march towards digitalisation may more appropriately come under GovTech or the Smart Nation office, legal design inputs can help many other Ministries and Statutory Boards improve the delivery and quality of services, and ultimately, outcomes for Singaporeans. I hope the Ministry plays a part with legal design tools to make the law more easily understandable and understood by the layman.

The Chairman: Mr Patrick Tay, you can take your three cuts together.

Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) Judgments

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Chair, my first cut is on the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) Judgments. With the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) having jurisdiction to adjudicate both salary-related disputes as well as wrongful dismissal claims, it now hears more cases.

Having a deeper understanding of the rulings of the ECT would benefit not just practitioners and lawyers, but claimants and respondents too when presenting their respective cases. Past decisions of the ECT would be extremely useful as a source of reference and precedence and should thus be made available. For a start, I would like to suggest that the more landmark and instructive judgments can be selectively published.

Enforcement of ECT Judgments/Orders

My second cut is on Enforcement of ECT Judgments/Orders. The ECT now has jurisdiction to adjudicate both salary-related disputes as well as wrongful dismissal claims, making it more convenient for parties to resolve employment disputes via a single forum.

However, an Employment Claims Tribunal judgment that is not satisfied would still need to be enforced in the same manner as an order made by a District Court. This would involve detailed processes set out in the Rules of Court pertaining to the filing of relevant forms/documents as well as the payment of court fees. A worker who has successfully obtained a judgment may thus still be subject to a protracted enforcement process. Workers’ lack of knowledge of the workings of our courts system exacerbates this problem.

There is thus a need to simplify and expedite the enforcement mechanism to facilitate workers’ recovery of moneys. One suggestion in the context of an insolvent company, is for MOM to look at issuing cash advancements, which could be used to pay part of the worker’s unpaid wages, and thereafter to stand in place of the worker as a preferred creditor to recover the advanced moneys upon distribution of the insolvent company’s assets.

Easier Access to Legal Aid

My final cut is on easier access to legal aid. For Civil Court proceedings, even though registration for such legal aid can now be done online, a full means test with a means test officer is required if representation in court proceedings is required. Depending on the urgency of the case, it appears that it can take between seven days to a month to get an appointment and thereafter, another appointment for statement taking.

I suggest giving applicants the option to do means testing as well as submit copies of required documents online in advance.

For the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS), similar measures, such as allowing for registration and the means test to be done online, can also be implemented to speed up the application process for criminal legal aid cases.

Further, a central online legal aid portal can be set up. Depending on whether legal aid is required for civil or criminal proceedings, potential applicants can then be directed to the relevant organisation’s website and resources. This would make it easier and less confusing. Similarly, can the means test to qualify for CLAS consider similar factors such as those used with the new means test administered by the Legal Aid Bureau?

Encouraging Access to Justice

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Legal aid schemes provide assistance to those who are unable to afford legal advice or representation. Legal aid, however, is only available to those who meet the criteria and some people may not be eligible. The claims may have merit but the legal costs, may be prohibitive and so they decide not to pursue their cases. The concern becomes even more pertinent when it involves matters such as those relating to divorce, applications under the Mental Capacity Act or criminal matters.

In this regard, what has been done to improve the legal aid schemes to enhance access to justice? Could the Ministry look at how to further assist individuals who are not eligible for legal aid to get the help they need?

I declare that I am a lawyer in private practice.

I raised previously the need to incentivise low bono efforts by lawyers. Many lawyers are already doing pro bono work but this often comes at a cost to the lawyer’s earnings, and thus not sustainable. I had asked if a framework could be developed to support low bono efforts by lawyers to augment existing legal aid schemes. I note from the response last year, that MinLaw is working with partners like the Law Society Pro Bono Services and the Singapore Academy of Law to study how it could enhance support for pro bono and low bono efforts. Could MinLaw give an update on these efforts?

Updating Probate and Apostille Processes

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Sir, I had raised the suggestion of simplifying procedures for non-contentious probate and administration matters in the past COS debates. I still get feedback on cumbersome processes from people. One example is Mr Chan, whose wife recently died intestate suddenly. He is a care-giver of his autistic son aged 16. Based on the current rules under the Probate and Administration Act, there was a need for him to get another person to agree to be a co-administrator to administer his late wife's estate to protect his minor son's interests. This was not an easy task.

In comparison, he was appointed as a single deputy by the Court to take care of his son and deal with his son's property and affairs under the Mental Capacity Act. I understand that the Government has been reviewing this matter since 2017. I seek an update. I will also be grateful if the Government could please consider the interplay between the various statutes in its review, too.

Separately, I had pushed for Singapore to accede to the Hague Apostille Convention so as to rationalise the process involved in legalisation of documents for use here and in other countries. I would be grateful for an update on this matter.

Singapore-Global Dispute Resolution

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Mr Chairman, I think mediation is a good dispute resolution mechanism for commercial disputes. I had once personally participated in a mediation under the auspices of the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) as my firm was involved in a commercial dispute that resulted in litigation.

I was, at the time, quite impressed with the mediation format. It was less contentious and driven by parties instead of lawyers to seek a win-win solution where both parties are in a position to accept. It also makes sense from a commercial perspective. Mediation is more efficient than litigation in terms of time and cost. There is no need for commercial entities to be distracted from their day-to-day businesses by being embroiled in long drawn out and costly litigation.

Sir, I was therefore extremely pleased to note that, in August 2019, Singapore facilitated and was also among the first to sign the Singapore Convention on Mediation. This House has also passed the Singapore Convention on Mediation Bill earlier this month. We could be one of the first signatories to ratify the Convention.

This will pave the way for cross-border enforcement of mediated settlement agreements, give businesses greater certainty and assurance and encourage the greater use of mediation to resolve international commercial disputes.

I note that in the past three years, the SMC has conducted under its auspices, close to 1,500 mediations with a recorded settlement rate of between 65% and 69% each year. This means that almost seven in 10 commercial disputes referred to mediation are resolved amicably. This is an excellent rate of return. It is a reflection of the good work that the SMC puts in to resolve a majority of the disputes referred to them. If more litigated commercial disputes are referred to mediation, this could also potentially reduce the case load burden of the Singapore Courts.

On the arbitration front, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, or SIAC, has also seen a steady rise of cases over the years. Based on information from its website, 80% of SIAC’s case load is international in nature and they have an experienced international panel of over 400 expert arbitrators from over 40 jurisdictions around the world.

It, therefore, appears to me that Singapore is well-placed to capitalise on these developments and resources to position ourselves as a leading global dispute resolution hub. In the premises, Sir, I invite the Minister to share with this House the Ministry's larger strategic plans to promote Singapore as a leading global dispute resolution hub to resolve international cross-border commercial disputes.

6.30 pm

Support for Law Firms and Legal Sector

Ms Rahayu Mahzam: In May 2019, MinLaw, together with the Law Society, Enterprise Singapore and Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) launched Tech-Celerate for Law. This is a scheme for Singapore law practices to get funding support of up to 70% for the first-year cost of adopting baseline and advanced technology solutions. This scheme is supposed to prepare law practices for future disruptions beyond baseline technology adoption, empower them to focus on delivering enhanced legal services, strengthen their capabilities and increase their competitiveness in the global landscape. This is, indeed, a meaningful endeavour. Law firms, like other businesses, need to equip themselves with the necessary technology to be efficient and productive and be ready for trends and changes in the future.

However, as I had highlighted in my speeches in previous years, there is often hesitation on the part of small firms to invest time to review and adopt new technology because, unlike bigger firms, they cannot afford to dedicate resources and time to this effort in the midst of continuous and on-going legal work. I am also not sure if awareness of the various support programmes and schemes is high amongst the lawyers in the smaller firms. This may lead to some of these lawyers feeling left out of the efforts that MinLaw has been making in supporting the profession build capabilities. I am, therefore, wondering how MinLaw is preparing small law firms, which may not have sufficient resources, including time and money, to be future-ready?

If awareness and interest in such technology adoption is not high, would MinLaw consider having more engagement and sharing sessions with smaller law firms to encourage the move towards adopting new technology?

The Chairman: Mr Patrick Tay, you can do both your cuts.

Embracing Technology

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Technology is increasingly being felt in the legal fraternity. AI and machine learning have already been tapped to review contracts and conduct research in other countries.

I submit that existing stakeholders in the legal sector, such as practising lawyers and in-house legal counsel, will also need to be brought up to speed in this global move towards adopting legal technology solutions to improve productivity, accuracy as well as enhancing access to justice.

It is inevitable that technology will continue to disrupt and change current work processes in law firms as well as the legal departments in the organisations. Funding of legal technology implementation and solutioning as well as training and upgrading subsidies should thus be set aside for continuing legal education in this area of legal tech solutions. I suggest that such funding should be extended to all relevant stakeholders in the legal sector, including in-house legal departments and counsel of private companies and organisations as well as the public agencies.

Paralegal Upgrading and Community Building

Para-professionals, commonly known as paralegals, are invaluable to the legal industry. They are employed by law firms as well as the legal departments in private companies and public agencies. Depending on the needs of the employer, a paralegal's role can range from conducting research and managing routine files to even knowledge management.

Notwithstanding the wide scope of responsibilities undertaken by paralegals, their professional development as well as interests and welfare are often not given due priority, save for the Chief Justice's recent mention of the increasingly important role of allied legal professionals trained in skillsets relevant and complementary to the core responsibilities of a lawyer.

I submit that more can be done to encourage employers of paralegals to set out clear career progression options for paralegals. These could include more diverse roles, such as project management, business development, legal innovation and legal technology, as well as understanding foreign legal jurisdictions to enable internationalism. To help paralegals take on such roles, a skills framework backed up by both the industry and regulators with nationally endorsed training providers must be promulgated and made available to all paralegals.

Further, an association or union can be specifically set up to better engage paralegals, look after their interests as well as facilitate their professional training, development and progression. This must come with support from the industry and regulators.

Community Use of State Properties

Mr Christopher de Souza: Sir, land is a valuable resource. Would the Minister elaborate on how we can optimise state properties to meet social and community needs? One excellent example is what was done to the former Henderson Secondary School. This state property has been transformed into an integrated space comprising a childcare centre, a nursing home and dialysis centre as well as an urban farm. How can we optimise state properties to meet social and community needs?

The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.

The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Chairman, I thank the Members for their speeches and for the queries that they have raised. I will address them.

MinLaw's mission is, broadly, two-fold: first, to continually update our legal framework to meet both today's and tomorrow’s needs; second, to work together with our stakeholders to strengthen Singapore's position as a leading international legal services hub for Asia and, of course, the world.

In the past two years, we had passed many pieces of legislation to achieve these objectives. We have redoubled our efforts at establishing Singapore as a legal services hub. This has included, as Mr Sitoh Yih Pin has said, the signing of the Singapore Convention on Mediation. I will touch more on that in a moment.

Our focus for the coming year will be to implement the changes that we have put in the place, to ensure also that every Singaporean can be confident of effective access to justice in Singapore.

Our legal system must be user-friendly, affordable and provide effective solutions. It must also be accessible to the most vulnerable amongst us.

We will, therefore, continue to grow the legal services sector to ensure that more can enjoy the benefits of this growth whilst at the same time ensuring that those who require and need those services will have access to those services.

Let me begin by speaking about my Ministry's efforts to strengthen the overall legal framework. Mr Christopher de Souza, Ms Jessica Tan and I think several others have touched on this.

First, family justice. Those who use the family justice system are usually in a state of emotional turmoil, mental anguish and have seen their families break up. It is not a legal proceeding that they wish to be in. They are often also vulnerable, especially those families with children, whose interests, above all, must be looked after. That is the design focus of our laws – to look after the children in any matrimonial or family proceedings. This awareness has driven our revamp of the family justice system since 2014, as Members would be aware.

Our aim is to reduce time, cost and, perhaps most importantly, unnecessary acrimony and to recognise and protect the interests of the children, so that the acrimony does not affect and adversely weigh on the outcomes for the children.

We have moved significantly to improve the process. For example, in 2019, more than 55% of divorce cases were decided on the simplified track, which is faster, less costly and, obviously, less painful through the process, up from just 24% in 2015. These are encouraging numbers, but we do want to go further.

The Government has, therefore, accepted the recommendations of the committee to Review and Enhance Reforms in the Family Justice System (RERF). The committee was tasked to look beyond just legal proceedings and, instead, focus on designing a robust eco-system of support for families. The committee made recommendations on mental capacity issues to address the needs of our ageing population as well. We are working with our stakeholders to implement these recommendations and put them into place.

Ms Jessica Tan spoke about the enforcement of maintenance orders. This is an important concern and we do not want someone to have to spend time running from pillar to post to try to recover something that the Court has already granted by way of an order. We have taken steps, however, over the years to address this issue.

Where the spouse cannot find work, perhaps due to poor health or other reasons as a reason why the orders have not been fulfilled, we should recognise that support services rather than legal proceedings will provide more effective relief for the wife and the children concerned. Nevertheless, at the same time, our laws must also have the tools to deal with a spectrum of options, different situations, including imprisonment, if necessary, so that we can enforce and give teeth to orders that have been made in Court. This serves as a strong deterrent.

But, overall, Members should be assured that where there are genuine financial difficulties, circumstances that the family faces, the Courts will more likely order mediation or financial counselling to find a solution rather than to just simply impose the hard law.

The Government is also considering how to make the overall maintenance regime, both in terms of the orders made as well as the enforcement, simpler and more effective.

Moving on to civil justice. Members will know that two committees – one convened by my Ministry, the other by the Judiciary – made broad-ranging recommendations to enhance the efficiency, affordability and overall effectiveness of our Court system. We have completed public consultation and further discussions with key stakeholders and will introduce legislation to implement some of these changes in due course.

Mr Patrick Tay raised concerns with the enforcement of Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) orders. We are studying recommendations to streamline and simplify the enforcement of judgments and orders and will announce more details in due course once we have completed that.

Mr Patrick Tay also suggested that in the case of insolvent companies, or companies that either cannot or have been unable or refuse to pay the wages, that MOM could advance money to the worker and thereafter stand in his place as a preferred creditor. I understand that MOM has looked at this proposal before and Mr Patrick Tay will probably know that while doing so might well help that specific worker in the immediate short term, it may also inadvertently create a larger problem of a viable company defaulting or owing the salaries in knowledge that the workers could find an alternative avenue to obtain those payments using Government funds. Overall, this leads to a potentially bigger problem in the system for a longer time.

That said, for workers with no other alternative to recover unpaid salaries, the Short-Term Relief Fund (STRF) and the Migrant Workers' Assistance Fund (MWAF) can be tapped on. These provide ex-gratia payments to low-wage employees whose employers were unable to pay salaries due to financial difficulties or business failure.

On the publication of certain ECT decisions, Mr Tay would know that, today, ECT judgments or grounds of decision are available to the public upon request. Why upon request? Because the original proceedings in the first place under the statute are held in private to protect the confidentiality of the parties. So, it follows that whatever takes place in those proceedings is not reported as of right. But the ECT will assess requests for either the judgments or the grounds of decision and, where appropriate, such as when it would help future cases or there is strong precedential value, then those would become available.

I understand that MOM also makes applications to the ECT to publish judgments or grounds of decision that become useful reference points for parties in the same vein as I have outlined.

Next, let me touch on criminal justice. On this, we have worked closely with MHA and other stakeholders in the past two years to make wide-ranging amendments to both procedural and substantive criminal law. Much legislation has been passed in this House on this aspect over the past two years.

In particular, the Penal Code amendments have kept our legislation apace with emerging crime trends developing here and around the world and strengthened protection, in particular, for vulnerable victims. We have implemented most of these changes.

This year, my Ministry is supporting the work of the newly-formed Criminal Procedure Rules Committee chaired by the Chief Justice. This committee will ensure that the Court procedure remains nimble and also adaptable to adjust and meet evolving needs.

Mr Christopher de Souza and Ms Jessica Tan asked about supporting the efforts of Singapore enterprises to thrive in an innovation-driven economy. We have several initiatives. In the interest of time, let me just highlight a few.

First, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) and the Singapore Exchange (SGX) have launched a new Intangible Disclosure Evaluation and Audit Scheme – a bit of a mouthful, so we have short-formed it to IDEAS. IDEAS provides a subsidy of up to $10,000 for companies to undergo an intangible asset evaluation and audit. This identifies intangible assets that are critical to the companies' businesses and recommends how to report them in a way that best communicates the business value of these intangible assets to their investors and the market, obviously, to try to realise the full value of such intangible assets. This helps companies when they raise financing.

Second, IPOS' subsidiary, IPOS International, helps enterprises develop strategies to protect, manage and also commercialise the intangible assets and intellectual property (IP).

To date, IPOS International has helped about 100 enterprises, with close to 95% of them being SMEs and start-ups. That is in answer to Ms Jessica Tan's question as to what help has been given to companies in Singapore. It has also developed a series of IP management business guides, which around 1,000 enterprises have accessed.

Around 70 enterprises have used IPOS International's diagnostic tool, illuminate® for enterprise, to assess their IP and intangible assets risks and gaps, and perhaps they will be working on them and, eventually, can also take advantage of IDEAS.

6.45 pm

Third, we have expanded our patent acceleration initiatives last year to cover Artificial Intelligence (AI) patent applications. AI patent applications can now be granted as early as six months after filing. This supports the development of innovative AI technologies and helps companies with these technologies to remain competitive ahead of the curve. And as we know, technology sometimes outmoded very quickly. So, the quicker we can deal with the patent applications, the more value it is to the companies.

Finally, the newly-launched IPOS Go mobile app enables businesses to register their trademark in just 10 minutes, down from the previous average of about 45 to 60 minutes. To date, over 150 businesses have used the IPOS Go app to protect their brands. These points would also be interest to Mr Singh who asked about we design processes and systems with the end-user in mind.

Let me also turn now to address Ms Tan's and Ms Rahayu's points about access to justice.

First, on civil legal aid. One change we have implemented is the increased flexibility to grant aid. Applicants who do not satisfy the means criteria but are otherwise unable to afford basic legal services without causing significant hardship to themselves and their families, these persons may have their applications reviewed by an independent Means Test Panel. Previously, the moment an applicant failed the means test, then the application was rejected. Now, we look at whether or not this person has failed it only because he had circumstances that might cause hardship to himself or to his family. The panel may waive the means criteria for these deserving applicants. The grant of aid will, of course, still be subject to the merits test, to ensure that applicants have good reasons to bring or defend their cases in law.

Mr Tay asked about improving service delivery for legal aid. We will do so through a number of key initiatives.

Let me just quickly outline them. First, we have just launched the revamped Applicant Portal for civil legal aid and new features will be included over the next few weeks. When completed, this portal will do away with the need to appear in person to complete the means testing and also the statement taking so that it can be done remotely without having to make a trip to the office.

It reduces the need for applicants to provide information that the Government already has. So, for a start, we will tap on MyInfo to provide personal details and income information. These are the key criteria in assessing an application for legal aid. This will reduce processing time by at least two weeks, speeding up the process so that access to legal aid can be granted more quickly.

It also, at the same time, is two-way, allows the applicants to check on the status of their application and be updated as to its progress.

Second, the Legal Aid Bureau has just launched the first phase of its new chatbot, "iLAB". It will be able to provide basic legal information to LAB's potential applicants. It will also be able to triage them based on the nature of their case. And in most cases, this will save the applicants a trip to LAB to discuss it with the case officers in person.

Finally, we are working to include a feature which will allow users to generate simple legal documents. Potential applicants can use these documents to self-help. They do not have to go to see lawyers. With iLab, these simple standardised documents commonly used can be generated. We hope to launch this in the next few weeks.

Mr Singh spoke about design thinking. I think these are all features which fit towards that. And it is a good reminder by Mr Singh that we should be looking at the various enhancements to ensure that they are designed around our clients' needs. And I take the point that it ought not be dense or verbose, and we will endeavour to avoid that.

Putting information online, enabling online applications, making it two-way, the process being dynamic, will make it easier for our clients who may find it difficult to be away from their families or take time away from work.

We also undertook three rounds of rigorous user testing with LAB clients on the Portal and also on iLAB because we recognise that it can also be very frustrating if it does not work, the portal is not intuitive and not interactive enough. So, we have been fairly rigorous in the way which we have tested it before it goes out to market.

The broader legal system also designs access to justice and legal awareness with the end-user in mind. For example, the Courts have pioneered an online dispute resolution system which litigants-in-persons can use to conduct negotiations and mediation for claims online for the Small Claims Tribunal. Mr Sitoh would be glad to hear that as well – you can now mediate your case online as well. And we are also exploring new features, such as asynchronous hearings to make it more convenient for Singaporeans to resolve their disputes. So, rather than to have parties at the same time at the same place, these facilities make it easier, facilitate claims before the Small Claims Tribunal and also allow for some mediation to take place.

I shall elaborate more closely on the law firms' adoption of technology, a point raised by Ms Rahayu, later in my speech.

Let me touch now on criminal legal aid.

MinLaw has also been working with our partners on the Criminal Legal Assistance Steering Committee (CLA SC), including the Law Society as well as the Criminal Bar, to review the means criteria for the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS).

We will adopt the new means criteria and limits for civil legal aid, what I have just outlined, for CLAS as well. These changes will simplify and therefore shorten the application process, while at the same time, maintain the rigour of the means test which we need to have, given that these are public funds that are being used. We will be working with the Law Society Pro Bono Services (LSPBS), which administers CLAS, to implement the changes in the coming year.

Despite these changes, I wish to assure Members of this House that there will be no material impact on the number of households eligible for criminal legal aid.

We will also continue to support the efforts of LSPBS to improve the administration of CLAS. This includes using technology to make the application process more efficient and user-friendly.

At this juncture, let me acknowledge the strong support of members of the Bar, without whom the scheme would not have been quite so strong.

Since 2015, the five largest law firms, Allen & Gledhill, Dentons Rodyk, Drew & Napier, Rajah & Tann and WongPartnership, have generously sponsored the CLAS Fellowship to enable lawyers to join LSPBS exclusively to handle criminal legal aid cases. Sixteen law firms have also signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) to pledge to take on CLAS cases. And I thank the lawyers, the legal fraternity for their support of this programme.

Ms Rahayu asked about support for Singaporeans who cannot qualify for legal aid. To do so, we continue to forge strong partnerships with stakeholders to provide affordable legal help. So, even if you cannot qualify for these programmes, what else do we do?

We work with the LSPBS, the legal fraternity and our community partners to provide legal help through Community Legal Clinics and various legal literacy and legal assistance programmes.

The Government also works with the Law Society and the Law Schools to cultivate a strong pro bono culture within the legal profession. For example, law students are exposed pro bono work from an early stage. They have structured internships with Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) to inculcate not just the spirit but also to allow us to tap onto the law students to assist in our pro bono programmes.

There have also been efforts by the wider legal eco-system. For example, the Singapore Academy of Law will be launching a collaborative workspace called "CLICKS @ State Courts", which will help firms adopt technology by providing them with shared amenities and facilities such as meeting rooms and office equipment. And by reducing operational costs, firms can then consider providing accessible and affordable legal services.

But I think Ms Rahayu will agree with me when I say that access to justice goes beyond legal aid and just providing low bono or pro bono services. It is equally important that we see access to justice as understanding the problems in daily life, understanding at what stage there should be legal, and perhaps, also social intervention so that we can provide simple yet effective and, as far as possible, long lasting solutions to the problem at hand and not just fix the surface, leaving the underlying problems to continue to rear its ugly head.

My Ministry has put in place various legal frameworks to deal with these issues.

We have, over the last year or so, established a new Protection from Harassment Court. It will have specialised expertise and processes. Cases will be heard by specially trained judges. Volunteers will be on hand to assist victims, including from a social aspect and not just from a legal aspect. These changes are intended to minimise anxiety and stress, and to ensure that the victims of harassment can obtain effective remedies.

Second, the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT). We continue to monitor its effectiveness as part of the broader framework that we have to resolve community disputes and also study areas for improvement of the processes.

However, I would stress that mutually agreed solutions between two neighbours, for instance, should always remain the first port of call, that is, should always be the first base that one goes to instead of triggering a process in Court. The CDRT, as far as possible, should be a measure of last resort. So, we encourage Singaporeans to engage their neighbours in an amicable manner, when disputes arise – use community mediation services, use grassroots leaders who can facilitate the process.

On community mediation, I should stress that the approach has been effective. In the past three years, more than 80% of the cases mediated before the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) has resulted in a successful resolution arising from the mediation.

Third, the Government is also reviewing the processes and requirements for the application of probate and letters of administration. Mr Murali Pillai asked for an update on this.

Amongst other things, we are considering digitalising the process, in sort of the same fashion that I have been outlining, to make it simpler, easier and faster, and linking up Government systems to facilitate the retrieval of information. At the end of the day, information has to come through so that the applications can be processed and that sometimes is choke point. So, we will work on digitalising the process. And also streamlining the legal requirements imposed on applicants. These, I believe, will improve the experiences of Singaporeans dealing with end-of-life issues.

But even as we streamline, we must be careful that the law will continue to protect the interests of beneficiaries. This is one area where the original stakeholder or perhaps owner of the assets is not around to say how it should be done or what his intentions were. So, we do have to be careful. But within this rubric, strike an appropriate balance so that we can look out for the interests of both the convenience of the parties applying as well as also the rigours of what the interests of the beneficiaries ought to be. We will provide more details in the coming year.

Ms Tan asked about unscrupulous contractors. We have seen one or more of these types of individuals at some stage and I think it is frustrating. Let me give some suggestions as what can be done.

There is the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) which Mr Lim Biow Chuan can share more information on. CASE publishes a Consumer Alert List on its website. That is a useful first port of call. It lists companies that have multiple complaints made against them and operates to warn consumers about contractors with poor track records. So, to those cases that Ms Tan has spoken about where there have been repeated cases, it ought to be on this list. If not, we will try and find a way to better police it so that members of the public can be warned.

If there are unfair practices, for example, false and misleading claims and so on, CASE may refer the matter to the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) for further action under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. There will be sanctions against errant suppliers.

Where an amicable settlement is not possible even with CASE's assistance, consumers can file claims with the Small Claims Tribunals (SCT). The SCT provides a forum that is low-cost, no lawyers are involved. For example, claimants are only required to pay $10 for claims up to $5,000 in value. And the SCT may order one party to pay money to another party arising from these claims and also order a party to make good on deficiencies, as in the Member's example, the construction contract, for instance.

Moving on, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin spoke about strengthening Singapore's position as a premier international legal services and dispute resolution hub.

Members will know that we are constantly looking at how we can enhance this, what we can do, what other spaces we can fill or other opportunities there will be for the Singapore brand. We look at what we can do to create value for our economy, what we can do to enhance Singapore's value-add as a business hub and of course, ultimately, providing good jobs for Singaporeans. We also want to support our people and businesses in exploiting these opportunities as far as possible.

Let me touch on a few initiatives.

One area in which we shall move to keep pace with the competition is in the area of conditional fee agreements (CFAs). Following public consultations last year, we are working on introducing a CFA framework for certain categories of proceedings. The framework will help our lawyers and law practices by levelling the playing field for Singaporean lawyers and law practices, as against foreign lawyers who may already be able to offer such agreements in their own jurisdictions. We are also studying whether allowing CFAs for a wider range of proceedings can further promote access to justice.

Second, we are also promoting the use of Singapore law. Our initiatives include increasing free access to Singapore judgments. Steps have been taken to make more Supreme Court judgments from 2000 freely available online, and also potentially even earlier judgments, earlier than 2000. Second, encouraging published research on areas of Singapore law that are relevant to commercial parties internationally, and finally, promoting standard forms, that is, use of, straightforward, standard forms, governed by Singapore law.

7.00 pm

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked about progress in dispute resolution. Singapore remains one of the leading hubs for dispute resolution in the world today. We have flagship institutions that Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned providing a full suite of such services. We have best-in-class hearing facilities at Maxwell Chambers.

We will continue to strengthen that framework by supporting the eco-system for viable international dispute resolution services. We have various reviews underway, including a review of the International Arbitration Act.

I had earlier mentioned the Singapore Convention on Mediation. Yes, indeed, we were one of the first two countries, together with Fiji, to ratify the Convention. This took place a few days ago in New York. These efforts, not just to get the countries to sign and to ratify, but to promote more countries to come on board, have broader implications for Singapore's place in the world. It is a powerful statement for multilateralism and has also enhanced our reputation in the international arena.

We will build on the signing of the Convention last year. We will host a second annual Singapore Convention Conference in September this year. This will be part of a week-long of events related to international dispute resolution services. This conference and indeed, the week, will continue to position Singapore as a thought leader in this field and also a forum that parties can choose to come to, regardless of whether the ultimate contract or the subject matter of their agreement is in Singapore or not, to choose Singapore as a forum.

In the area of civil cooperation, Mr Murali Pillai asked about the legalisation of documents. I think it is a point that Mr Murali Pillai has raised several times. The Hague Apostille Convention. We agree that this will be useful and we are currently working towards its accession. This will include preparing the necessary draft legislation domestically in order to accede to the Convention, and thereafter, we will be in the position to do so.

All these efforts will create opportunities for those in the legal sector and also for those who want to enter the legal sector. On this note, Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked what the Government is doing to support lawyers and law firms to exploit these opportunities. Let me again, in the interest of time, outline a few initiatives.

First, we will be launching a Technology Innovation Roadmap. What does this do? This roadmap is the product of intensive consultations with more than 80 stakeholders. This includes law firms, companies, law schools, research institutes and other Government agencies. It will help Singapore law firms understand and embrace technology to improve productivity and the quality of their legal services. Let me give one example.

Altum Law Corporation is a five-lawyer strong Singapore law firm. Under the Tech Start for Law and the Tech-celerate for Law initiatives, MinLaw and the Law Society curated a shortlist of technology solutions and also vendors to help address common problems, common issues amongst smaller law firms. Grants to support up to 70% of adoption costs were available under the schemes.

Strong efforts have been made to promote these schemes. The Law Society reached out to at least 450 Singapore law practices through workshops and seminars to promote this programme and Altum was one of those who was a participant in these events. They were able to upgrade from the standard suite of computer services – they were using Microsoft Office, I believe – to legal technology solutions that were more curated and were better suited to their needs. The firm achieved time and cost savings from automating routine but important tasks, including shortening the time required to complete the checking of references in documents by up to 66%.

The Roadmap will include plans to help to continue to fund law firms, help them to understand what technology can do for their efficiency and also expand support to in-house legal teams to adopt legal technology. As Mr Patrick Tay mentioned, this reflects our belief that both those in practice as well as those in the in-house role have much to benefit from adopting legal technology.

So, we will support the development of cutting-edge legal technology relevant to their work and also reform legal education to build a pipeline of tech-ready legal professionals to support the legal industry. More details will be announced later this year.

Let me touch on Mr Patrick Tay's other point on mid-career PMETs. We will help such PMETs to exploit new opportunities that will be created.

The Law Society and Workforce Singapore have developed a Professional Conversion Programme (PCP) to help employers hire and re-skill mid-career PMETs to join the legal sector as paralegals or legal secretaries.

Paralegals and support services do play an important role in Singapore's legal industry. We note Mr Patrick Tay's suggestions and we will continue to work with the relevant stakeholders so that we can support this segment of the legal industry more closely.

Third, we will be conducting the first run of the China-Ready Programme for Singapore lawyers this year. The programme will expand the pool of Singapore lawyers who understand Chinese culture, the way in which business is done, the legal system and laws; are conversant with Mandarin in the legal context; and can also work with Chinese companies and law firms to better meet clients' needs.

This is one element of the Ministry's strategy to help Singapore lawyers seize new opportunities in different jurisdictions.

Finally, before I run out of time, let me touch on some of the questions relating to the work of the Singapore Land Authority (SLA). SLA optimises land resources to support the economic and social development of Singapore. That is its overall mission. It plays a number of roles, including, as Mr Christopher de Souza outlined, optimising the use of state land and of course, also developing Singapore's geospatial capabilities. Let me elaborate on some key initiatives.

The SLA is intensifying its efforts to engage and collaborate with stakeholders, members of the public, on the interim use of vacant State land and properties. For example, Members may be aware that SLA and URA launched the Power-Up Pasir Panjang ideas competition in April 2019, and reached out to members of the public, professionals and students to co-create ideas for the Power District.

A total of 79 submissions were received, which demonstrates the interest of the public and the professional sector in trying to contribute to ideas as to what can be done. These ideas will be distilled into design principles guiding the Power District's development for the next 15 to 20 years, including the former Pasir Panjang Power Station A.

In the coming weeks, SLA will also be launching engagements with stakeholders to rejuvenate the Old Kallang Airport. This is part of the Reinventing Spaces into Vibrant Places initiative that was launched with URA in 2019.

SLA is also partnering NParks to develop a site at Tanglin Road into a community use space with a playground, benches, something that will appeal to members of the public.

Let me now quickly finish up with the geospatial front. There will be a full launch of the OneMap 3D that will take place later this year. The map will allow users to visualise Singapore in 3D. This will support the efforts of businesses and the public, who require these services, to have new platforms to support their services and products as well as also develop services for the community at large.

SLA will be launching the 3D Singapore Sandbox this year. It will facilitate private sector access to 3D geospatial models and data on a restricted basis and through this, we hope to encourage the private sector to experiment with innovative solutions and services for their customers and the general public using 3D geospatial models. The Sandbox will enable SLA to obtain feedback from the private sector to enhance the experience and to improve the geospatial models.

Mr Chairman, in conclusion, my Ministry will continue to ensure that Singaporeans continue to enjoy effective access to high quality justice – that is a fundamental – and also to build on Singapore's attractiveness as a legal services hub, ensuring that the benefit of the ensuing growth will be shared by more.

Importantly, we do all this not on our own but through working closely with so many stakeholders – the bench, the bar, the legal industry, the universities, law students and the wider community – and for that, we are very grateful.

The Chairman: Mr Christopher de Souza.

Mr Christopher de Souza: I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive responses. On my particular cut about Singapore being a leading international dispute resolution hub, I think one of the flagships we have, apart, obviously, from our court system, is the SIAC. The Minister would know, my question is really a nuts and bolts on how we get the model clause out. In a model clause, there is the centre, there is the rules, there is the seat and there is Singapore law being the relevant law.

So, my question really is – how are we able to advance Singapore law, advance the seat of Singapore, through these clauses such that international parties come? And when international parties come, they do not come with lawyers, they come with their experts, they come with their decision-makers and their witnesses. So how can we use that space to enhance Singapore law and Singapore as an international legal hub?

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I can speak a little more slowly now. The clock is not running. So, a model clause is useful but parties must want to come to Singapore. So having a model law is one thing, but what we want to do is to really build the eco-system that supports why a party from outside Singapore will want to choose Singapore. So, if I may summarise some of the points from my speech earlier.

First, we have to make sure that Singapore law is accessible, that it is first-rate, it is commercial. Our high-quality jurispurdence coming out of our Courts help a lot in that regard for parties who want to choose Singapore law.

Second, we must build a system that is neutral, that is based on the rule of law, that parties, when they come into Singapore, when they make their investments into Singapore or they choose Singapore as a forum, they know that they will get first-class hearings, hearings that will not be unduly interfered with, hearings that will be governed by the rule of law and as far as possible, in our best-in-class facilities as well, in Maxwell Chambers.

Third, we want to look at the way in which our stakeholders – law firms, lawyers, those who practise here, those who practise abroad – are equipped with this information, so that when they do the negotiation, persons such as yourself, Mr Christopher de Souza or Mr Murali Pillai, can then take these learning points, take these model clauses and persuade external parties that in Singapore, we do not only have the best facilities, but we have the best, most neutral system that will ensure a fair adjudication of the disputes.

I think all of these parts must come together in order for us to build a first-class and continue to sustain that first-class international dispute hub.

The Chairman: Mr Christopher de Souza, do you want to withdraw your amendment?

Mr Christopher de Souza: I was hoping to ask for another clarification, but that is all right, I can withdraw the cut.

The Chairman: You have a few minutes to ask your further clarification. Last one.

Mr Christopher de Souza: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I thank the Senior Minister of State for the response. My next question is on a different cut, which is – Singapore as a formidable IP fortress. I think we can protect a lot of protection and enforcement, but how is IPOS and MinLaw working with the R&D outfits to ensure that commercialisation of the IP? So, it is not only a portcullis or a fortress where we protect it but where we can enhance it into commercial terms.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I am not sure that is capable of a short answer but I will try. We have to first realise that no one will choose Singapore to file their patents in or to enhance or enforce their IP rights, if we do not have a strong neutral legal system. So, at the baseline, that is always something that we look at, frankly speaking.

What else do we do? We want to make sure that our laws are updated. So, as I mentioned on several occasions and also earlier, we will look at enhancing and revising the Copyright Act, an experience that we have had after we did extensive consultations. What else can we do? What else can we say to people about how their ideas, their patents, their innovations will be better protected in Singapore and also enforced, should the case be necessary?

Third, we also want to make sure that we be with the system from start to end. So, I mentioned in my speech earlier, IDEAS, for instance. How do you monetise the value in intangible assets? Assets that would otherwise be difficult to look at in terms of valuation. We look at how it can be done so that we can help companies raise capital, raise financing and leverage on the value of such intangible assets.

When you bring all these together in the eco-system, you will then have, in Mr Christopher de Souza's words, a formidable fortress, in which to not just register but enforce and eventually enjoy filing of the patents in Singapore.

When we provide the whole spectrum of services, that is when we can then go out there and tell the major companies, inventors and innovators of the world – come into Singapore. We have the entire suite of services for you, and should there be any disagreement, any dispute over the services, they will be resolved in a firm, fair and completely above board, neutral, rule-of-law fashion.

I think that assurance we give to investors would be the best assurance we have in growing, perhaps, not just the IP sector but overall in our key development areas in Singapore.

7.15 pm

The Chairman: Mr Christopher de Souza, it is about three minutes before guillotine time, so you may have to withdraw.

Mr Christopher de Souza: I am grateful, Chairman. I join my fellow parliamentarians in thanking the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive responses and also all the hardworking officers in MinLaw and the various arms and bodies which report to MinLaw. With that, I seek your leave, Mr Chairman, to withdraw my cut.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $283,293,800 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $145,379,100 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.