Edwin Tong Chun Fai
Singapore
“These questions have been answered in the reply to Questions Nos 26 to 31 for Oral Answer on today's Order Paper. [Please refer to "Addressing Issues Identified in Legal Profession Sustainability Study", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time secti…”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme was first introduced in June 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic with two key objectives: one, to help Singaporean households cope with daily expenses; and two, to support hawker…”
“If the incident is a result of bilateral obligations relating to data protection and inviolability of equipment not being complied with, then the Government will consider all available legal and diplomatic options, in accordance with the bilateral RTS Link treaties, as well as the relevant international law.”
“In 2024, community sentences under part 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (CPC) were imposed in 86 criminal cases handled by the State Courts.”
“It is a five-minute journey across both ways; and with the availability of closed circuit television coverage and the real-time monitoring that will be done by the officers on both sides, we did not think that this will be necessary.”
“The Ministry of Law will provide an oral reply to this Parliamentary Question, together with other Parliamentary Questions which have been filed on this topic at the next available opportunity.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,221 lines we hold for Edwin Tong Chun Fai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 45.
“To make one other point to Prof Goh's question, there is a degree to which IP can intersect with sport as well. In fact, WIPO is making this year's focus on World IP Day, the theme of in "IP and Sports". Looking at sports, not just in terms of the resolving disputes around what you might do with transfers and the like, but also in terms of commercial marketing, licence rights, broadcast, image rights and the like. So, WIPO is working on promoting IP and sports, and we see an opportunity there, because, as I mentioned earlier, IP is one of our areas of focus for building the hub status in Singapore. My colleague Senior Minister of State Murali will talk a little bit more about green transition, but I will address your point on PDO. Since we started the PDO, the number of cases, applications have gone up. We started with about 1,500 in 2023. Last year, it was in excess of 2,300. So, the cases have gone up. But I would like to assure the Member that we had catered for this. When we set up PDO, we had a plan to scale up our resources and manpower, expecting that the numbers would rise. We are also working with Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) to share the case load; and so that is manageable for the foreseeable future. We now have grown the PDO with 22 public defender officers, and they are full-time, they are very professional and dedicated. And I think they also find reward and value and purpose in the work that they do. So, on that note, the Member's last point was what can else can we do? We work with a variety of different organisations, including the Law Society, Pro Bono SG, with CLAS, and with the Bar in general, to promote giving back through pro bono work. And Pro Bono SG, CLAS and the work that we do with PDO are some examples of this.”
“Sir, I thank Prof Goh for his support for MinLaw's work and our position. Overall, we have focused on Singapore being a hub. A hub that we built up. As I explained earlier, in dispute resolution, we have now one of the foremost number and the profile in terms of international institutions located in Singapore, so it made Singapore a hub for transactions. And the stronger we are in terms of having an infrastructure to resolve disputes in a clear, fair, transparent manner, the more likely it is that investors will see opportunity in Singapore. We take the same approach when it comes to IP as well as in international restructuring. So, these are areas in which we have built up a hub. Prof Goh mentioned sports and entertainment. I think this is an option and avenue for us to explore, and in fact, when I discuss with members of the Bar, with the Law Society, there are already lawyers who are interested in the areas, they practise in those areas and they are keen to elevate their practice areas. We have also had initial discussions with the Court of Arbitration for Sport with a view to seeing whether we can have collaboration with them, again, to bring it in here. And we do that on the same principle as what I have articulated for dispute resolution. If you have a system of being able to resolve disputes here, then you are more likely to be able to attract the entire ecosystem of investment and economic opportunity into Singapore as well. So, on that basis we have been working very closely with various practitioners, people who are interested in this area, and also, as I said, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which represents one of the foremost global bodies on resolving sports disputes.”
“00 am On this endeavour, what I can assure this House of is that MinLaw will not be a spectator. We will be an active, present and engaged partner – listening carefully and investing purposefully in our people and in our institutions. Sir, AI will not replace the lawyer, but the lawyer who harnesses AI thoughtfully and more effectively will outpace the lawyer who does not. And the legal system that navigates these changes wisely will command far greater trust and attract more commerce and investment, than one that responds with uncritical enthusiasm, or perhaps, unexamined fear. The 1826 Charter of Justice gave Singapore a foundation. We worked on it. Generations that followed built upon it. Now it falls to us – this generation, to ensure that the next chapter is worthy of all that came before it. Sir, MinLaw remains fully committed to working with every stakeholder in Singapore's legal landscape to advance a legal system that is excellent, accessible, adaptive and just. And that is work that we must continue together. [Applause.]”
“Some of these issues will be studied by the Future of the Legal Profession Committee, which I spoke about earlier, and we will have to work with the profession and the broader legal industry to understand these issues deeply and come together to find a solution. But I want to emphasise this point. These are not matters which any single institution can resolve in isolation. The challenges before us will require a collective response – from practitioners, in-house counsel, academics, regulators, policy-makers, law students as well as members of the public whose interests the legal system ultimately serves. As a first step, MinLaw is organising a gathering of the legal industry later this week, we titled it, "The Next Charter: Shaping Singapore's Legal Future Together" on 6 March. This is an opportunity for an open, frank and candid conversation about the challenges we face, starting with AI and technology, but also understanding the road ahead and the opportunities that might lie ahead for us and the future we want to build, collectively, for Singapore's legal industry. Sir, as I conclude, I want to close with a direct appeal to every member of Singapore's legal community. What you do matters a lot, not just to the profession, but to Singapore's development and our continued success. In this extraordinary age of change, perhaps it matters more. Singapore did not build our legal system by accident, as I sketched out earlier, nor can we hope to preserve and strengthen it by accident. It will require all of us – my Ministry, the Bar, the Judiciary, our law schools, the firms and every single lawyer – to engage with purpose and genuine commitment and intentionality to tackling the disruptive challenges. 11.”
“How do we regulate cross-border AI-generated advice without, at the same time, allowing regulation to stifle innovation? And perhaps most fundamentally, how do we harness AI to serve the public interest, and not just allow it to widen the gap between those who can afford sophisticated legal technology and those who cannot? The impact on legal education is equally pressing. Our law schools have, for generations, trained lawyers through a well-established pedagogy, where the process of reading and analysing cases, drafting legal memos and crafting oral arguments – all of these, which I described as the process – is as important as the outcome when it comes to training. But if the AI can do the research or draft a memo in minutes, what happens to this training? What happens to the cultivation of hands-on experience, in making mistakes? Perhaps the law degree ought then to redouble its emphasis on what AI cannot replicate. Ethical reasoning, empathetic client engagement and the exercise of judgement in areas of genuine ambiguity and moral courage. The challenge is equally acute for those who are already in practice and in continuing legal education. Can our structures support a landscape where skills need to be updated every once in a while, more recently, every once in a few months? These questions, Sir, do not admit easy answers. They go to the heart of what it means to practise law, to train lawyers and to uphold the standards of a profession entrusted with the heavy responsibility of the administration of justice.”
“The numbers tell a striking story. Based on Thomson Reuters' survey findings last month, the proportion of legal professionals using generative AI in their organisation has roughly tripled since 2024. That is just about a year and a half, two years ago. Legaltech funding in 2025 reached US$5.99 billion, up from US$3.88 in 2023. Closer to home, Singapore law firms, some with MinLaw's support, have begun piloting AI tools. The Supreme Court's own Court Audio Services System integrates audio recording and automated AI-driven transcription technology, allowing real-time conversion of spoken words into written text. This and other examples, many other examples, shows a profession already in motion, moving and evolving with the advent of technology. But we have to ask ourselves, what does this mean for us, as a legal profession, in practice? AI-powered tools are already conducting document reviews, drafting contracts and flagging regulatory exposure across multiple jurisdictions at speeds that no humans can replicate or even match. Some platforms can even analyse thousands of precedents and generate predictive assessments of case outcomes – work that previously demanded years and years of legal experience. These are genuinely impressive capabilities. But they also raise very important questions for the future of our profession. How does a young lawyer develop judgement, intuition and professional instinct if the AI performs the basic tasks and gives the answers to these young lawyers? How will our lawyers develop these instincts which are honed by a process of doing and redoing and repeating it? Who bears responsibility when the AI produces errors with commercial implications?”
“At the same time, in making any appointments, the Government also takes into account a range of considerations, including the performance of the incumbent, his ability and willingness to serve and whether there are significant ongoing matters that require continuity and careful oversight. In particular, the Government continues to rely on Mr Wong's counsel on significant matters that remain in progress today, including negotiations on maritime boundaries; tax and financial sector legal reforms; and complex cross-border criminal matters. These and others are substantial responsibilities that will benefit from deep expertise, sound judgement and a steady hand. Mr Wong has had a proven track record. We have seen and worked with him, we have assessed and we know the quality of the work, including on sensitive matters. He remains fit, able and willing to continue. So, having considered all these factors and after the required consultations, the Prime Minister advised the President to re-appoint Mr Wong for another term based on the constitutional mechanism. The President then exercised his constitutional functions. And I believe this is a system of appointment which is careful, structured and designed to preserve both independence and public trust. Sir, I have sketched out our areas of priority in broad terms. My colleagues, Senior Minister of State Murali and Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua will set out further details in their speeches. However, even as we pursue these priorities, we must be very clear-eyed about the challenges that lie ahead of us. We are entering into an era of profound disruption, the kind of disruption the legal industry has not encountered in recent memory. And the most consequential driver of this disruption is artificial intelligence (AI).”
“The safeguards, however, lie in the constitutional requirements and qualifications required, the consultative process that I have just outlined and ultimately, in the performance and the conduct of the office. Ms Lim also says that there are many qualified persons for the position. That may be so, if one considers only the basic eligibility criteria. However, the selection of an AG is not simply about meeting the basic criteria. It requires a careful assessment of who is best suited to discharge the heavy and very important responsibilities of the office. We want the best, not just those who might qualify. What then does the Government look for in an AG? There are several considerations. As I said, the role of an AG is a demanding one. It is, in fact, one of the most critical offices in our constitutional framework. So, beyond formal qualification, it calls for an individual of high professional standing, wide-ranging legal experience, sound judgement and a strong sense of public duty. The AG must also have unimpeachable integrity and strong moral fibre. He must render objective advice and act fairly in the conduct of prosecutions, even when doing so may be difficult or unpopular. He must be prepared to uphold the law impartially and apply it equally to everyone, whether one is a Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. Individuals with the requisite experience, judgement and integrity for this office are not easily found. The Government continually looks out for suitable candidates, one who can shoulder the full weight of these responsibilities.”
“This process reflects a careful and considered balance between executive responsibility and institutional safeguards. Ms Lim then goes on to suggest that there should be public disclosure of these deliberations. Sir, I do not think that would be wise. First, these are matters for Chairman PSC and the CPA to assess independently and take a considered view of. The CPA, for instance, does not publish its advice to the President, nor is the Government privy to its deliberations. Second, confidential deliberations also serve an important function when it comes to making such appointments. If you put it out publicly, you put the candidates out for public debate. Even the best of candidates will have some detractors; a small minority, but there will be some. Suitable candidates may well then be deterred from even being considered if discussions as to their suitability and perhaps their rejection were to be made publicly. The consultation process also requires candour and frank assessment. Turning it into a public debate risks politicising an office that must remain scrupulously non-partisan. It is easy to say, let us have more information, let us have more public debate, public discourse and deliberations. But we have seen other countries using such methods in other systems. And the question we have to ask ourselves is, are they better? Singapore's legal system, our corruption levels, our adherence to the rule of law has consistently been marked internationally very well and I think we want to continue with this. In some jurisdictions, the AGs are elected office holders, but Singapore has had a different model since our Independence. Our AG is not a politician. He is appointed based on professional excellence, integrity and judgement.”
“As AG, Mr Wong has made major contributions across almost every area of law. Under his leadership, the AGC has advised the Government on complex legal and constitutional matters; prosecuted criminal offences fairly and firmly; and ensured that legislation introduced in Parliament is clear, sound and fit for Singapore's purposes. His experience and steady hand have also been especially valuable to Singapore in sensitive international matters, some of which are presently ongoing. In January this year, Mr Wong's term was renewed for three years. Ms Lim, in her speech, has described the appointment process for the AG as "thin", if I heard her correctly. But I would have to disagree and would instead characterise it quite differently. Sir, the appointment of the AG, whether the initial appointment or any subsequent renewal, is made in accordance with the Constitution. There is a clear, deliberate and very structured process of appointment, with the appropriate checks and balances. Let me explain. In the appointment of an AG, Article 35 of the Constitution provides that the Prime Minister must first consult the Chief Justice and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC) before tendering his advice as to the appointment to the President. After receiving that advice, the President in turn consults the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA) and makes an independent assessment of the appointment. Sir, this is not a perfunctory process; nor is it "thin" by any measure. It involves consultation with the head of the Judiciary, the leadership of the PSC and the elected President exercising his constitutional role, in consultation with the CPA, before the AG is either appointed or renewed.”
“This would cover more households, allowing them to benefit from legal advice in the appropriate cases. When we did a survey, we found that between the previous threshold of $1,050 and $1,650, about half of civil litigants in this expanded income range remain unrepresented. Some may have done so by choice, but after we put this in place, we will allow them to now avail themselves of legal aid, should that become necessary. This will extend more legal aid to more Singaporeans. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric will share more details on these efforts. Next, I turn to optimising our state assets and I thank Mr de Souza for recognising our efforts over the years to unlock underutilised spaces for social and community good, place-making, such as providing arts spaces for practitioners and sports and recreational facilities. But this is no easy undertaking. The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) manages a substantial portfolio of around 2,600 state properties and 11,000 hectares of state land – the equivalent of some 15,000 football fields. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric will share how SLA continues to support our economic and social needs. At this juncture, let me turn to address Ms Sylvia Lim's cut on the appointment of the Attorney-General (AG). Ms Lim's cut was originally filed to the Prime Minister's Office. It was redirected to MinLaw, as I will respond on behalf of the Prime Minister. Sir, Mr Lucien Wong has served as AG since January 2017. As Ms Lim noted, Mr Wong has had a distinguished legal career. Prior to his appointment, he grew and led Singapore's largest law firm and was widely regarded as the country's top corporate lawyer over many years, with an international standing. In fact, I would say that his reputation stands as amongst the best in the world.”
“It reflects growth in not just the number of lawyers in practice or in in-house counsel roles but the growth of MNCs in Singapore, which supports the economy, in turn requiring in-house counsel legal support. In-house counsel help companies navigate regulatory landscapes and invest with confidence in Singapore. Next, Sir, let me turn to enhancing access to justice, ensuring that those who are most vulnerable and most in need can still access our first-class legal system. Sir, in the preceding years, we have streamlined laws and processes to meet our society’s evolving needs. For example, we have shifted away from the adversarial approach in family proceedings, addressing non-compliance with maintenance orders. We have simplified enforcement of civil claims. We have strengthened the management of community disputes through mandatory mediation and we support those with special needs in our criminal justice system. We have also made a firm commitment to Government legal aid through the Legal Aid Bureau and the setting up of the Public Defender’s Office. We have continued to work with the legal fraternity and partners like Pro Bono SG to deliver legal aid and expand outreach and assistance through schemes like the Community Law Centres. We have introduced technology, such as LawGoWhere, to bring legal services closer to Singaporeans and help them to navigate the process and empower and enable self-help. This year, Sir, we will make another shift to expand civil legal aid coverage. 10.45 am Today, civil legal aid is available to the bottom 25th percentile of households with a per capita household income (PCHI) of $1,050. We will raise the means-test criteria to a PCHI of $1,650.”
“We will have to think collectively and carefully about embracing technology to automate mundane tasks, equipping lawyers with relevant 21st century skills, widening the industry ecosystem, so that lawyers can pursue diverse interests and strengths, and find meaning, purpose and value in the profession that they practise in. Senior Minister of State Murali Pillai will share our efforts on education and the adoption of legaltech. Sir, what I have found during my time in practice was that while the hours may be long and the pressure intense, a collaborative workplace culture helps in longevity, helps in building the ecosystem and the environment in which each lawyer practises. The Law Society and the Singapore Academy of Law have introduced mentorship programmes and other initiatives to help promote sustainability. The Chief Justice and I will oversee a Committee on the Future of the Legal Profession to consider and tackle these and other pertinent issues that may arise. The Committee will explore these matters, from the holistic perspective of ensuring the long-term sustainability of our legal sector. In parallel, the Government will also continue to support in-house counsel, who are integral to Singapore’s legal ecosystem and economic competitiveness. As Mr Vikram Nair noted, lawyers joining in-house legal teams are not a loss. Multinational companies (MNCs) present in Singapore have grown to over 7,000 present in Singapore today, and between 2015 and 2024, the number of Singapore-qualified in-house counsel more than doubled. So, in that period of time, while our industry has remained stable, in fact, with a 26% increase, the number of in-house counsel has more than doubled over the last 10 years.”
“To Ms Lee’s query, we have studied the recommendations by the Committee to Review the Regulatory Framework for Law Practices and Collaborations and gathered feedback from a public consultation and our industry engagements, and we will share our decision on the Committee’s Report shortly. Third, Sir, we will redouble efforts to develop the individual lawyer. The strength of any legal system and indeed, of our legal profession, lies ultimately in the strength of our people. We will therefore expand education and competency frameworks, not just in technical skills but in civil law, technology literacy and cross-border practice, so that every Singapore lawyer can serve their clients and their community with confidence and competence. This also means confronting the sustainability of legal practice, issues which Ms Kuah Boon Theng, Mr Vikram Nair and Ms Cassandra Lee spoke on. Let me start by saying that attrition has remained stable, so far. And in fact, the number of Singapore lawyers in practice grew 26% over the past decade. So, over the last 10 years, the number of lawyers in practice grew 26%. Nonetheless, I agree with the observations made by the hon Members. We must continue to explore ways to alleviate pressures on our lawyers in light of the changing environment. There is, however, no magic bullet. As Ms Kuah has noted, the challenges are multi-faceted. It will require collective effort, including law firms, which will set the conditions for growth, exposure and mentorship for lawyers, but also lawyers themselves, each of them, who can be stewards of their own careers.”
“And we want Singapore to remain a jurisdiction where the finest legal minds choose to practise here and where homegrown talent is given every opportunity to flourish and remain at the core of our profession. I encourage our law firms to expand their horizons, think about internationalising their practices. Given our market, Singapore’s size, we must build our legal ecosystem with the broader Asia and ASEAN in context. And the case for doing so is compelling. In ASEAN alone, it is set as a bloc to become the fourth largest economy by 2030, if not sooner. And foreign direct investments into ASEAN have been steadily rising. So, I believe our firms are well-primed to capture these opportunities. At the same time, we recognise the value that foreign law firms and lawyers bring to our industry and the wider economy. Ms Cassandra Lee mentioned balancing between open competitiveness and preserving a Singapore core. We agree, and the two can co-exist. Singapore, in fact, has gradually liberalised the legal sector since the 1990s, and we have not changed our posture. Foreign firms have more than doubled and foreign lawyers have more than quadrupled since the year 2000. They complement our Singapore lawyers, offering advice and expertise on international and foreign law, which we need as a global business hub. This strengthens Singapore’s value proposition. Indeed, over the same period of time, since the year 2000, our legal services exports have gone up eight-fold, which shows that when we bring it together – foreign lawyers, Singapore practitioners at the core – we can extract value. We regularly review our frameworks to remain attractive to foreign law firms and lawyers.”
“This year, we welcome three more institutions to Singapore: first, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID); second, the Shanghai International Arbitration Centre; and third, the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration. Besides being the first office outside its Washington DC headquarters, ICSID will join the four other World Bank Group organisations already based in Singapore, making Singapore the first country in the world to host local offices for all five World Bank organisations. Indeed, Singaporeans also contribute to leadership on the international stage, including Mr Daren Tang and Ambassador Rena Lee, as mentioned by Mr Christopher de Souza. Our international engagement also extends to strengthening legal cooperation frameworks with our partners, ensuring that as commerce and cross-border activity grow, the rule of law keeps pace. One example is extradition treaties. To Ms Sylvia Lim’s query on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Treaty on Extradition (AET), the AET requires at least six ASEAN members states to complete their respective domestic procedures and notify the ASEAN Secretary-General that they are ready to bring the AET into effect. The Government will also similarly ratify the AET once we have completed our own internal procedures. On the risks to Singaporeans, there are robust legal safeguards in the AET, which set out the circumstances where extradition will not be granted. One example is if the request is made to prosecute the fugitive based on his race, religion, nationality or political opinions. Second, we must continue to cultivate a strong legal profession. This is the backbone of our legal progress.”
“In my speech this morning, I will set out our overarching vision, the priority areas that we will focus on as well as outline some of the key challenges that we will have to confront. Let me start with the continued development of our legal industry, which remains a priority. We will continue our work to build Singapore as a legal and professional services hub. These are powerful growth engines, providing opportunities, driving economic expansion and job creation. In order to achieve this, Singapore must constantly refresh its legal frameworks in an ever-changing and fast-evolving world, and also do it in a timely manner. We will therefore be reviewing key legislation with a view to updating them to ensure that our laws stay fit for purpose. This will include, this year, reforms in arbitration, corporate insolvency and IP. Beyond reviewing legislation, we will also identify opportunities in emerging areas. This includes supporting the green transition, the digital economy and major regional infrastructure projects, as well as sports and entertainment dispute resolution that Assoc Prof Kenneth Goh mentioned. Beyond domestic reforms, Singapore will continue to contribute to international thought leadership. By being present in the global legal mindshare, we ensure that we will not merely be price-takers but we will actively play a role in shaping the law. The Singapore Convention on Mediation bears our name, our country’s name – a testament to our involvement in shaping international dispute resolution. Maxwell Chambers continues to serve as a leading dispute resolution complex, hosting the highest concentration of international dispute resolution institutions worldwide.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I thank the various Members who spoke last week, in particular, for each of their support of the Ministry of Law's (MinLaw's) work. Sir, let me begin with history because context matters. In 1826, the Second Charter of Justice formally established the Court of Judicature of Singapore, at that time, a fledgling colonial legal order in a trading post that had barely found its footing. The law then served a different purpose, a different master and in a very different age. Nearly two centuries on, what Singapore has built has been nothing short of remarkable. We now rank among the top legal and intellectual property (IP) systems in the world. Our Courts and dispute resolution institutions, like the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, Singapore International Mediation Centre and Singapore International Commercial Court, are globally recognised for excellence. Whilst our legal beginnings were inherited, we have since moulded and contextualised the rule of law to serve our nation and our people. This has been the Singapore story of progress. However, none of this happened by accident. Generations of lawyers, judges, academics and policy-makers understood that a rules-based society is the bedrock upon which everything else – commerce, safety and liberty – is built. Sir, in our bicentennial year, this year, since the Second Charter of Justice, we are facing significant disruptive forces: geopolitical tensions, which escalated just over the weekend, revolutionary technologies, climate risk and pressures on the social fabric. We will therefore have to redouble efforts to keep our laws updated and relevant and also be bold and open to embracing changes. MinLaw will continue to press on with reform and progress in our legal policies.”
“For those who require special assistance and those who cannot or are unable to evacuate themselves independently, they should stay in their own unit or in a room that is furthest away from the fire, close the door and as far as possible, inform the authorities of their location and wait for assistance. I would like to add that in addition to that, SCDF is equipped with firefighting capabilities using aerial appliances that can reach up to 90 metres, or about 30 storeys tall, as well as the use of surveillance drones to effectively conduct firefighting and rescue operations, particularly in high rise settings. So those are the measures both in terms of the design infrastructure as well as the measures that SCDF takes. But ultimately, it is important that we are all prepared as a community. Having community assistance and support for residents and having the awareness and the wherewithal as well when that happens. And of course that also includes ensuring that the basic requirements of having a fire blanket or, first, the fire extinguisher present in the homes would be very useful, given that in most of these fire situations, they are caused by unattended fires, cooking fires, cooking on the stove, and these are all pretty commonplace to the extent that for the fires that happen, and a fire blanket in such a situation, or an extinguisher would be very useful as the measure of first resort.”
“Sir, I think this is a particularly relevant topic, given that Singapore is land scarce and high-rise buildings are inevitable. But we do have measures, which we have put in place, including assisting with the elderly and the mobility impaired. Let me just quickly sketch them out. First of all, we have a building design that is in coherence with the Fire Code. That is a requirement. In this Fire Code, each unit is designed to be a compartment in itself. That helps to retard the spread of fire. In addition, the common corridors have natural ventilation – that is the design intent – provided, of course, the common corridors are free from clutter. That is something that I think we all can help to see to. Second, beyond high-rise buildings complying with the Fire Code, there are also what we call "super high-rise buildings" and these are 40 storeys and above. For that, additional measures, such as having wet rising mains and having at least two fire lifts. All of this helps SCDF in their firefighting measures, rescue measures and these facilities are maintained by the Town Council or the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) where appropriate. If you put this together, then the evacuation protocols by SCDF can be better carried out. 7.15 pm In the SCDF protocols, SCDF prioritises the evacuation of the occupants on the floor affected by the fire and the two floors above. The usual instruction is for residents in the unaffected floors to remain in their units and SCDF will assess on the ground whether evacuation is necessary.”
“Based on our records, there were four legally aided persons from 2021 to 2025 who were ordered by the Courts to pay costs. All four cases were civil matters, out of about 5,500 civil cases that received Grant of Aid or Provisional Grant of Aid in that period. We conduct a rigorous legal merits test, including assessment of the applicant's amenability to accept legal advice, before granting aid. For civil legal aid, we will assess whether the applicant has a reasonable prospect of success in Court based on all available information and evidence. For criminal defence aid, we will assess whether the applicant requires legal representation to plead guilty or if there are reasonable grounds for defence. Cases are closely monitored and aid may be cancelled where there are no longer merits. For example, where new information affects case viability or where the manner in which the applicant wishes to conduct proceedings has become unreasonable.”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. Value Meals @ South West is a partnership between South West Community Development Council (CDC) and Select Group, towards a programme that helps ease the cost of living, especially for low-income residents. It is a pilot programme, aimed at providing quality, accessible and affordable meal options via vending machines in the void decks of heartland locations. Residents can buy each value meal for $3 or less. This programme is funded by the Select Group as part of its corporate social responsibility project and no cost is borne by South West CDC. This programme is one of various initiatives which all CDCs have instituted, with the assistance of its partners, with tangible benefits going directly to the residents. The CDCs have and will continue to build strong networks among its social and corporate partners, aggregating resources and working with partners to deliver meaningful collaborations that can benefit the residents directly. In doing so, the CDCs take into account the specific local needs in each of their districts.”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers scheme was first introduced in June 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objectives of the scheme are to help Singaporean households with daily expenses and to support hawkers and heartland merchants. In 2023, we responded to residents' requests to further alleviate their expenses by introducing a separate CDC Supermarket Vouchers – for spending at the eight participating supermarkets with over 400 outlets. The separate hawker and heartland merchant category and supermarket category serve to strike a balance between supporting Singaporean households with their daily expenses and supporting hawkers and heartland merchants. In line with the policy intent and in fairness to heartland shops, we focus on onboarding hawkers and merchants in Housing and Development Board heartlands and merchants in commercial malls are not eligible to be onboarded. To date, we have onboarded over 24,000 hawkers and heartland merchants.”
“Third, for the most severe of cases that involve recalcitrant nuisance-makers, the case may be referred to HDB to consider compulsory acquisition of the HDB flat. One example is where the owner or an occupier has been convicted by the Courts at least twice for disobeying an abatement order issued by the CRU or an exclusion order from the CDRT. We recognise that it is a very severe action, which would affect not only the nuisance-maker but also the rest of the person's household. This lever is considered where all other levers have failed to abate the nuisance and measures are required to protect the wider community. Any resident who feels threatened by his or her neighbour, is faced with a confrontation or fears for his or her personal safety should immediately call the Police, who will intervene when there are law and order concerns.”
“In the lead up to the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Act 2024 (Act), the Government conducted a holistic review of the Community Disputes Management Framework (CDMF). Under the Act, several enhancements to the CDMF were introduced. First, the Act empowers authorised officers to issue a Mediation Direction (MD) to require neighbours (who refuse voluntary mediation) to attend mediation at the Community Mediation Centre for suitable cases. Non-compliance with a MD is an offence. The MD framework is currently being piloted in the Housing and Development Board (HDB) estate of Tampines for neighbour noise disputes, which form the vast majority of neighbour disamenity complaints. The MD framework will be expanded nationwide as soon as practicable. Second, the Act establishes the Community Relations Unit (CRU). CRU officers have a range of investigatory and enforcement powers to intervene in neighbour disputes. This includes the power to issue advisories, warnings and abatement orders. The CRU is currently being piloted in the HDB estate of Tampines Town for serious noise and hoarding cases. Agencies are also planning to expand the CRU pilot to more towns. For completeness, in cases that cannot be resolved via mediation or the CRU, affected residents can consider filing a Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) claim if they assess that their neighbour has caused unreasonable interference with their enjoyment or use of their residence. CDRT filing fees are kept low – it costs $150 to commence a CDRT claim and the hearing fees for the first day of hearing are free. Individuals with demonstrated financial need can apply for an upfront fee waiver, and those who succeed in their claim may recover the costs incurred from the respondent.”
“Between 2023 and 2024, around 394 claims were filed with the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals via logins using SingPass or CJTSPass (for individuals who do not have SingPass) to the Community Justice and Tribunals System (CJTS). The CJTS does not track the other requested data.”
“However, this is difficult to implement for various reasons, including the fact that the CMC is not able to share detailed case information with the CDRT as the mediation process is private and confidential. Additionally, parties may be more reluctant to attempt mediation or engage in frank discussions if the CMC is able to refer cases or provide detailed information to the CDRT. Nonetheless, parties who attend mediation at the CMC are informed of other avenues to seek further recourse, including filing a CDRT claim if mediation is unsuccessful. For completeness, under the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Act 2024, officers from the Community Relations Unit (CRU) are empowered to investigate cases, collect evidence, and submit the same to the CDRT. The CRU is currently being piloted in the Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates of Tampines Town for serious noise and hoarding cases. In addition, we are working to operationalise an enhanced process to enable the Director-General of the CRU to apply for a dispute to be heard by the CDRT. Individuals who require assistance with filing their CDRT claims or have questions regarding a fee waiver may visit the State Courts Service Hub, located at Level 2 of the State Courts.”
“The Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) is an avenue of last resort for addressing neighbour disputes, after all other amicable options such as mediation, have failed. As a Court of law, the CDRT must adhere to certain basic principles to ensure the fair and proper administration of justice. For example, CDRT claims must be supported by evidence, and the respondent must be given the opportunity of a fair hearing. At the same time, the CDRT framework is intended to be affordable and accessible. First, fees and costs ought not to discourage genuine cases. CDRT filing fees are kept low. In addition, individuals with demonstrated financial need can apply for an upfront fee waiver. Those who succeed in their claim may recover the filing costs from the respondent. Second, the CDRT’s processes are much simpler than other litigation proceedings. Residents can file and manage a CDRT claim online through the Community Justice and Tribunals System (CJTS). The CJTS allows residents to commence or respond to a claim using plain English forms, and also leverages on Singpass to auto-populate personal particulars. Third, CDRT claims are heard using simplified processes. CDRT Judges take an active role in managing the case, such as by posing questions to parties or asking them to produce supporting evidence. Parties are not expected to, and generally cannot, engage legal representation. In the review leading to the Community Disputes Resolution (Amendment) Act 2024, the Ministry considered empowering the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) to refer unsuccessful mediation cases to the CDRT.”
“The Legal Aid Bureau and the Public Defender's Office provide legal aid to Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents, including those with special needs, who satisfy the means and merits tests. Applicants with special needs who do not meet the means test criteria but have extenuating circumstances will also have their applications reviewed by an independent Means Test Panel for possible support. Pro Bono SG provides legal assistance at their Community Law Centres and various legal clinics across Singapore. They run schemes, such as the Ad Hoc Pro Bono Scheme, which accepts referrals for needy or vulnerable individuals who do not qualify for other legal aid schemes but require legal help due to exceptional circumstances.”
“The Ministry looks forward to the taskforce’s contributions as part of our ongoing commitment to strengthen our legal system and advance access to justice to all, including those who are vulnerable. This launch is the latest instalment in the Ministry's extensive efforts to ensure that our legal system remains effective, accessible and inclusive. These include our efforts to make laws, legal processes and Court procedures easier to understand and navigate, the provision of civil legal aid and criminal defence aid to lower-income beneficiaries by the Legal Aid Bureau and the Public Defender's Office, and our partnerships with Pro Bono SG, the legal fraternity and social service agencies to provide more holistic socio-legal support to those in need.”
“On 26 March 2025, the Ministry first announced its commitment to a taskforce to better support persons with “invisible disabilities” in the criminal justice system at the inaugural Access to Justice Symposium hosted by Pro Bono SG. The organising committee for the Symposium was led by Ms Peggy Yee, Managing Director of PYLegal LLC and advocate for persons with “invisible disabilities”. Since then, the Ministry has been working with Ms Yee and other key stakeholders and community partners on foundational steps for the taskforce's work: bringing together representatives with the right expertise and experience, identifying the taskforce's preliminary scope and the potential areas that it may study and establishing the necessary administrative and support structures. The formal launch of the Inclusive Justice Taskforce was announced on 8 January 2026.1 The taskforce is co-led by Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Law and Social and Family Development Mr Eric Chua and Ms Yee. It comprises a multi-disciplinary group of representatives from across the private and public sector, including lawyers, policymakers, law enforcement officers, social service professionals, healthcare experts, community partners and caregiver representatives. It will examine how our society can better support individuals with disabilities and mental health conditions who are at risk of offending or may interact with Singapore's criminal justice system, including accused persons, victims and witnesses. A thorough and consultative review process will be undertaken to ensure that the taskforce's recommendations are well-considered and practical. The taskforce has started its work and will provide an update on its progress or recommendations in due course.”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme 2026 (January) tranche was launched a month ago. While it is still early to share the claim and spend rate of the latest tranche, $3.995 billion worth of CDC vouchers and SG60 vouchers has been spent over the last four years. Of this, $2.127 billion was spent at heartland merchants and hawkers, and $1.868 billion was spent at supermarkets. Beyond fulfilling its goal of helping Singaporeans households with their daily necessities, the spending of CDC vouchers boosted the businesses of participating heartland merchants and hawkers while also increasing the vibrancy of heartland shops.”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The People's Association's (PA's) mission is to promote social cohesion and racial harmony, and build bridges between people to people, as well as people and the Government. This is achieved through a wide range of programmes and events that bring residents from all walks of life together to interact and bond with one another. PA organises hundreds of events every month across Singapore, which are open to everyone, regardless of their background, age, race or religion. These events range from local gatherings, such as block parties and festive celebrations, to national level events like the National Day Parade @ Heartlands and many others. Participation rates are generally healthy and may vary depending on the needs and interests of residents of a particular constituency. PA strives to enhance our programmes and other offerings to keep them relevant to evolving needs and interests of our population.”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association (PA). Every Singaporean household can claim one set of Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers per tranche. If there is more than one unrelated Singaporean households residing at the same address, the additional household(s) at the address remain eligible for their set of CDC vouchers and can apply for the vouchers at any Community Centre or Club by providing the necessary supporting documents. The application process is simple and various types of supporting documents that show proof of a distinct household, such as tenancy agreement and marriage certificate, are accepted. In general, the application will be approved as long as the applicants are not from the same Singaporean household and have not previously claimed the CDC vouchers. Those with difficulties claiming the vouchers can approach their nearest Community Centre or Club for assistance.”
“Let me first clarify that when making a bankruptcy order, the High Court appoints a person to be the trustee of the bankrupt's estate. This trustee can be either a licensed insolvency practitioner from the private sector (private trustee) or the Official Assignee (OA), a person appointed by the Minister for Law. Private trustees are distinct from the OA and are not part of the Ministry of Law's Insolvency Office, which supports the work of the OA. A bankrupt whose estate is administered by a private trustee may apply to the High Court to review any act, omission or decision of the private trustee. The bankrupt may also make a complaint to the OA in relation to the private trustee's conduct in the administration of the estate.”
“Between 2020 and 2024, 69 applications for Special Directions and 13 applications for Exclusion Orders were filed. Of these applications filed, 24 Special Directions and two Exclusion Orders were made. This means that around 30% of enforcement applications resulted in an enforcement order. Due to the small number of applications involved, caution should be exercised in interpreting these percentages which are subject to wide statistical fluctuations. Orders made by the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) are Court orders that must be complied with. The breach of a CDRT order constitutes contempt of Court. The breach of a Special Direction or Exclusion Order is also an offence punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to three months. CDRT proceedings are private actions between private parties. As such, the claimants in private actions would typically monitor compliance with Court orders issued in their favour and decide how to proceed. If a CDRT Order has been breached, a claimant can apply for a Special Direction to enforce the CDRT Order. If a Special Direction has been breached, a claimant can further apply for an Exclusion Order to exclude the respondent from his or her residence. In severe noise nuisance and hoarding cases in the pilot town of Tampines, the Community Relations Unit can assist by using its investigation powers to verify the breach of a CDRT Order or a Special Direction.”
“Under the Women's Charter 1961 (WC), the Court may make maintenance orders for the provision of financial support for wives, children or incapacitated husbands. Maintenance orders may be made even without divorce proceedings. The Syariah Court may also make orders for maintenance under the Administration of Muslim Law Act 1966, referred to as SYC maintenance orders. A maintenance enforcement application refers to an application to enforce an existing maintenance order, if the party who is required to make payment under the order fails to do so. The number of maintenance enforcement applications filed with the Family Justice Courts (FJC) via the Integrated Family Application Management System (iFAMS)1 from 2023 to 2025 in respect of (a) maintenance orders made under the WC and (b) SYC maintenance orders is set out in Table 1 below. This represents the number of applications to enforce maintenance orders made during marriage and during divorce, as the breakdown is not available.”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association (PA). The increase in PA's expenditure for activities and projects from the FY2023 to FY2024 was primarily driven by the Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme, a national initiative that PA administers. The FY2024 expenditure covered payments to heartland merchants, hawkers and supermarkets across three tranches of CDC Vouchers, while the FY2023 expenditure covered these payments across two tranches. The increased expenditure incurred by PA in FY2024 reflects the additional tranche, as part of the greater support by the Government in providing direct financial relief to households for daily expenses. The increase in PA's expenditure for activities and projects in FY2024 is also due to the supporting of a higher volume of events and programmes organised by grassroots organisations, CDCs and PA for the benefit of residents across Singapore.”
“For example, when house fires occur, PA and GRLs are alerted of households that require interim housing and essential supplies through chatgroups or neighbours. Residents may also approach GRLs directly for assistance. PA will continue to strengthen our outreach and work with our partners to connect residents in need to the appropriate assistance.”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association (PA). The PA's mission is to promote social cohesion and act as a bridge between the Government and the people. It is a Statutory Board that supports the elected Government of the day in implementing its policies and programmes. This includes providing social assistance and welfare support to residents in need. The Community Development Welfare Fund (CDWF) serves as one of the mechanisms to deliver such support. The CDWF is a Grassroots Organisation (GRO)-administered fund that supports local community and welfare programmes. Examples of such activities are grocery distributions, educational bursaries and scholarships, and direct welfare assistance for needy residents. GROs facilitate CDWF awareness and access through multiple channels. Publicity at local estates include posters, banners and social media outreach highlighting available programmes. In some Divisions, partners, such as schools and Social Service Agencies, lean forward to work with the GROs through referrals to the CDWF programmes and publicity/ outreach efforts. We encourage all local partners to work with PA to support residents in need. Through PA’s networks, we are also aware of residents who require assistance. PA has many touchpoints on the ground, including our many Community Clubs and digital channels, such as neighbourhood chatgroups. Grassroots Leaders (GRLs), as familiar faces residing in the neighbourhood, are also well-positioned to identify residents in need through regular interactions such as community activities and house visits, and through their own neighbour networks.”
“The Legal Profession Act 1966 (LPA) provides for the establishment of the Law Society of Singapore, including the composition of its Council and the election of office‑bearers. We have noted the recent extraordinary general meeting (EGM). The Ministry will give due consideration to the points made at the EGM, as well as at other fora, as part of its regular review of the LPA to ensure its continued relevance and application.”
“Under Article 35(8) of the Constitution, the Attorney-General, as Public Prosecutor, exercises prosecutorial discretion. This includes the assessment and decision to prosecute suspected offences. Such decisions are made independently. The processes by which the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) assesses and makes its prosecutorial decisions, including whether a matter is reviewed at Director or higher management levels, are operational matters within the AGC's purview to determine independently and for AGC to decide based on the circumstances of each case and its assessment of the public interest. Under the Administration of Muslim Law Act, there is no provision requiring the Attorney-General's express consent to prosecute offences under Part 9.”
“We will take into account industry feedback to decide if further reviews are needed.”
“The Practice Training Framework was introduced in 2024, following deliberations by the Working Group for the Implementation of the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers' Recommendations (CPTL WG). The CPTL WG had decided based on industry norms and considering exigencies, such as illness or family commitments, that it would be reasonable to allow for 18 non-training days as the benchmark for trainees undergoing the 12-month practice training period (PTP). The practice training framework and its requirements are administered by the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE), in consultation with the Ministry of Law (MinLaw). SILE's Practice Training Period Guidelines 2024, which are published on their website, permit a maximum of 18 non-training days. Trainees who require more than 18 non-training days can take additional time off, provided they make up the shortfall within 16 months from the start of their PTP. Prior to 2024, trainees had to make up any non-training days during the PTP itself. It is nonetheless open for the number of leave days in a training contract to be agreed between a trainee and the supervising law practice. Further, trainees intending to take more non-training days than the allowance provided in their training contracts can discuss alternative arrangements with the supervising law practice, which has incentive to be reasonable in competing for trainees. This is generally aligned with the approach adopted in other jurisdictions. As the framework was implemented only in 2024, MinLaw will continue to monitor its efficacy. The first batch of Lawyers (Non-Practitioner) were admitted to the Singapore Bar in April 2025 and will complete their PTP in 2026.”
“The Government currently has no plans for a dog run park on the State land parcel in question.”
“We looked at the group of Singaporeans who were made bankrupt between 2021 and August 2025. Among this group, almost half were between the ages of 40 to 54 at the time of bankruptcy. Based on the information disclosed by bankrupts in their Statement of Affairs, more than two-thirds were employed at the time of bankruptcy. Almost two-thirds were married at the time of bankruptcy, with more than three-quarters of this group having immediate family dependents. More than 80% of bankrupts have been paying their monthly contributions.”
“It would not happen here, because the time runs from when they get the notice. And, thereafter, their conduct as to what is reasonable will be measured by how easy it is to disable in the case, if it is very easy, then it should be very quick, as I mentioned earlier. Or if there is some reason why they cannot do so expeditiously, all that will be taken into account. But the conduct, they cannot sit on it. The conduct from the time they receive notice will be under scrutiny. And in a way, that Statutory Tort Framework complements the OSC framework in ensuring that the platforms respond, react and do something about the harm that is complained of. 8.52 pm”
“Thank you, Sir. I understand where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from. I will not provide information on the first question because that is not the subject of OSRA. But I think on your more general point, the question really is this – two points. First, as I mentioned, we did have extensive consultations, including with the platforms. The idea here is obviously we do not want to devise a framework in a scheme that will be unworkable and inoperable, practically speaking, so we have been consulting with them. I mean, if truth be told, you start from a blank canvas and you ask the platforms, would they want to see a Bill like this? The answer probably is, no, if they had a choice. But we were quite determined to ensure that there would be a Bill of this nature, and a Bill of this nature would not have the teeth if it did not involve the platforms and have powers over the platforms, and I think they quickly understood that. So, we have been working with them. There will be differences of views on what can be done, what cannot be done, but we have navigated the path forward and we will continue to do so. To the Member's point about how quickly it can be done in this case, I would like to say that all of the provisions they work with one another. The OSC, on the one hand, the Statutory Tort Framework on the other and, bear in mind, that in the Statutory Tort Framework we have now prescribed in the case of platforms, administrators, communicators, tortious duties that are triggered from the time they get notice. So, unlike in the past where you can get notice and the Member has heard what Minister Josephine said earlier about the requests from individuals being ignored in the case, sometimes five days or more.”
“In clause 4, Mr Low will be aware that neither the Government will be bound by this legislation nor can the Government avail itself of this legislation. So, on that basis, we do not think that it is suitable not to include the Government either way and for the reasons that we set out in the Explanatory Statement. I hope that answers his question. Sir, I think that is really all the questions and, as I said, I apologise if I have not been able to go into the specifics but I think what I have said on both End-User Information and the Statutory Tort Framework elucidates our thinking behind those two measures in this Bill, and we ask for Members' support because, like Minister of State Rahayu, I believe this will be a game-changer in the online space, not just in what we do online but it will translate into how we interact with one another offline as well.”
“So, we believe overall that this provides the right balance to redress the victim's harm, provide an avenue to pursue the action. Without the identity, you cannot pursue the action and also ensure that the information is not used in a collateral way. I hope that answers Ms Chong's question. Mr Henry Kwek noted that some anonymous perpetrators may abandon their account when a platform subsequently, after finding out that there is an online harm, attempts to collect their identity through the Collection Notice. Sir, that is possible. In such cases, the reality is that their information will then not be collected and both OSC and victims will, then, not be able to identify the perpetrator. But we did consider what the alternative would be. The alternative would be to require all platforms to collect all information upfront, regardless of whether or not anyone has conducted online harm. As I said at the outset, the vast majority of users will not fall in that category. So, it will inconvenience and in some cases, perhaps, add an additional hurdle, and there is also a burden on platforms. Taking into account, as I said earlier, that balance, we decided that we will require the platforms to do so once we have established the online harm. We know that, with doing that, there is a real risk, that in some cases they will just abandon. But at the very least, with the provisions that OSC has under this Bill, OSC will be able to take action to deal with the harm being continued online. Sir, I believe I have covered most of the points. I would just want to address Mr Low's point about clause 4. I think he raised a point about clause 4. The general position in law is that the Government is not bound by legislation unless it provides expressly for that to be so.”