Indranee Rajah
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a clarification in relation to two written answers on childcare leave issued by the Prime Minister's Office on 25 September 2025 and 3 February 2026 in response to Parliamentary Questions filed by Members of Parliament Ms Cassandra Lee and Ms Valerie Lee respectively.”
“Based on Year of Assessment (YA) 2025 data, about 9,500 working mothers claimed a lower amount of Working Mother's Child Relief (WCMR) under the fixed-dollar basis than they would have under the previous percentage-based basis, for children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2024.”
“We regularly receive feedback on enhancing child-related leave provisions, including the Member's suggestion. In recent years, parental leave provisions have been significantly enhanced, such that parents now have 30 weeks of paid leave, including 10 weeks of Shared Parental Leave.”
“The Government does not have data on the number of transactions involving multiple units on a single residential title that have not been subdivided. Such properties are treated as a single property for Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) purposes when it is bought, so no ABSD is foregone.”
“The Government publishes data on personal income tax, which is publicly available on www.data.gov.sg. This includes data on the number of course fees relief claimants and the amount of the relief granted. The Member may refer to the website to access the data for the first three questions.”
“In considering the duration of leave, we will look at the need. In this case, as I have explained, there is a difference between those who give birth physically to a child and those who adopt.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,520 lines we hold for Indranee Rajah, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 34 of 51.
“While many other countries are in a net debt position, we have consistently spent within our means and achieved a balanced Budget in each successive term of Government. A good example is the Pioneer Generation Package, announced in Budget 2014. We set aside $8 billion from Current Reserves to help fund this. To ensure the long-term sustainability of our expenditures, this Government has consistently also taken the approach of preparing ahead for spending needs. This Budget is a good example of this approach. The Minister for Finance has highlighted the longer-term increase in healthcare and infrastructure needs and has signaled that we will be reviewing revenue measures to meet this expenditure. This is the right approach − spending prudently and effectively and growing our revenues fairly and sustainably. We have in place a strong system of fiscal rules and safeguards to ensure fiscal sustainability. This is provided for in our Constitution. The Government is required to seek Parliament's approval for its expenditures during each year's Budget. The annual Budget Debate and COS provide the opportunity for Members of Parliament to raise questions and scrutinise Government policies and programmes. Parliament is supported by the Estimates Committee, which examines the Government's Budget. The Elected President, advised by the Council of Presidential Advisors, holds the second key to our Reserves. At each year's Budget, the President may veto the Budget if he is of the opinion that it is likely to draw on Past Reserves. This effectively instils discipline for the Government to achieve a balanced Budget over each term of office. The Government's accounts are audited by the Auditor-General's Office (AGO).”
“In that context, he said the UK urgently needed a full, independent assessment of how bad their problem really was. 3.45 pm He went on to say, "Over the last 13 years, the public and markets have completely lost confidence in government economic forecasts. The last government's forecasts for growth in the economy, over the past 10 years, have, on average, been out by £13 billion. Their forecasts of the budget deficit three years ahead have, on average, been out by £40 billion. Unsurprisingly, these forecasting errors have almost always been in the wrong direction. The conclusion is clear. We need long-lasting change in the way we put together the budgets in this country. The final decision on the forecast has always been made by the Chancellor, not independent officials, and that is precisely the problem." Mr George Osborne's view was that a significant part of the problem in the UK was because of "the temptation to fiddle the figures, to nudge up a growth forecast here or reduce a borrowing number there, to make the figures add up and that had proved too great". And so, there you have, in the words of the UK Chancellor, the context of the OBR and why the UK set it up − which is huge deficits and unreliable budgeting. Likewise, a number of other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries have set up budget offices or fiscal councils in the aftermath of the global financial crisis as the surge of government deficits and debts" left countries worried that fiscal rules were insufficient and "governments wanted to boost the credibility of their financial promises" to financial markets. That is not the case here in Singapore. Our situation is very different. Our Government has a strong track record of sound finances.”
“Mdm Chairperson, Mr Low Thia Khiang suggested that we set up an independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), such as those in other countries, and he referred specifically to the OBR in the UK. While it is always useful to look at what other countries do, it is important to remember that what is done in one country is not always necessary or relevant to another. In determining whether to adopt institutions similar to those elsewhere, it is also important to understand the context in which those institutions were established. The OBR was set up in the UK in 2010 and the context in which it was set up is as follows. The new Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition government had just taken over from the Labour government after the general election. They were burdened by a huge deficit inherited from the previous government. There was little confidence in government economic and fiscal planning. This can be seen from the speech of the then Chancellor Mr George Osborne when he announced the setting up of the OBR. And this is what he said: "So, today, less than a week after taking office, I want to explain some of the early arrangements for dealing with the fiscal crisis left by the last Government. First, let me just tell you some of the stark facts. Last year, our budget deficit was the largest ever it has been in our peacetime history. This year, it is set to be among the largest in the world. According to the IMF and the European Commission, it will be the largest in the G7 and the largest in the European Union. This is the legacy of thirteen years of fiscal irresponsibility." Mr Osborne went on to highlight the urgent need to tackle the deficit and said that the first part of their approach was to boost credibility and confidence in the UK's fiscal framework.”
“This will come at a considerable cost and does not seem necessary in light of the fact that the existing practice allows for persons of all religious beliefs to take an affirmation, which has the same legal effect as an oath. It is, therefore, best for us to maintain our current system, which has worked well for us for many years.”
“Mdm Chairman, I thank Mr Pillai for his cut. Mr Pillai correctly pointed out that the current practice in our Courts allows Christians to take oaths by swearing on the Bible. This is a long-established practice which can be traced back to the UK tradition, which we adopted. But the important point is that this practice does not affect those with other religious beliefs or those who conscientiously object to the taking of an oath. This is because they can avail themselves of another established alternative − making an affirmation. Under the Oaths and Declarations Act, the taking of an oath has the same legal effect as making an affirmation. Making an affirmation is, therefore, not an exception to the general rule. It is simply an alternative to oath-taking. Seen in this context, our current practice of taking oath is really a historical exception. Mr Pillai has suggested that it may be possible to update the current practice of taking oaths, such that people of all religions can take oaths in accordance with their religious beliefs. First, there is no need to do so, given that an affirmation has the same legal effect as an oath and is neutral. Second, there are practical issues with Mr Pillai's suggestion. There are many religions in the world today − some are well-established, others less so. It would be difficult to expect us, or the Courts, to have sufficient knowledge about all religions so as to be in a position to administer oaths correctly under each of those religions. A move to change the current practice of taking oaths may also invite a multitude of claims from people of different religious beliefs.”
“I can tell the House that others have been approached for public sector positions, not necessarily for AGC, including some of the top six to seven, but they were not willing to give up their private practice for a number of reasons. Mr Hri Kumar accepted his appointment as Deputy AG despite the considerable personal and financial cost to him. He loses the privacy he enjoyed in private practice. He also now earns significantly less than what he used to earn. We should be grateful that a person of such standing has agreed to dedicate himself to the public cause. We should welcome his spirit of public service. Second, the ultimate decider of cases is the Court, not AG. While AG takes a position on whether to prosecute, it is the Court that eventually decides on innocence or guilt. This is why, in many countries, it is perfectly acceptable for the AG to be a politician. In conclusion, we must ensure that AGC is sufficiently staffed and led by outstanding leaders in the law. This will enable AGC to serve as a steadfast guardian of the public interest and a steward of the rule of law.”
“Thank you. If you look at Rajah & Tann − the current Chief Justice, as well as Judge of Appeal Steven Chong and Justice Quentin Loh came into public service, as well as the previous AG. And, in the last few years, several others have also been taken from other firms and the private sector, to come into the Public Service. In our view, those whom I mentioned, who are still in private practice, would all, together with Mr Hri Kumar SC, be considered to be among the top six to seven litigators in town. This wealth of talent should be available to the Public Service. Ultimately, the most important considerations are the quality, character and integrity of the individuals appointed to lead AGC. To put matters in context, of those appointed SCs in the past 10 years, as of last month, only 16 were in private practice or remained in private practice. As stated earlier, Mr Hri Kumar is amongst the top six to seven litigators in Singapore today. He is recommended in publications, such as Chambers Global and Asia-Pacific Legal 500. He has been hailed as, I quote, "an extremely… impressive litigator". Others have observed that, again I quote "few senior counsel … can rival the prowess of Hri Kumar …". Senior figures in the profession have noted that he is "incisive, diligent, fair-minded", possesses "rare intellect" and is capable of "consummate advocacy". Appointments to the Public Service must, of course, be based on ability. But they are also informed by a confluence of other factors, including the willingness to make sacrifices for the public good and having a heart for public service.”
“He is also the Chief Legal Adviser and also oversees the Prosecution Service. Australia has a similar system. The AG is a member of the Legislature. Likewise, in the United States (US). In the US, the President appoints an AG − and the current AG was a Republican Senator no less. The US AG had taken positions on political issues as a Senator. He resigned from the Senate just before being appointed AG and continues to be a member of the Republican Party. So, as a matter of systems design, many countries see it perfectly proper to have an AG who is a politician. We have adopted a slightly different model. In our system, the AG and AGC officers are not politicians and are not members of political parties. But it is going too far to suggest that AGC officers must not have previously had any links with any political party. We must bear in mind two points. First, AGC must be led by the best legal talent available. Our talent pool for the highest legal appointment is small. It is common for political parties to get the best legal talent. Some of our top lawyers have been Members of Parliament. Look at the senior partners and top lawyers in our largest firms. Drew & Napier − Mr Davinder Singh Senior Counsel (SC), who is generally recognised as the top litigator in town, was a People's Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament; Wong Partnership − the top litigator, Mr Alvin Yeo SC, was a PAP Member of Parliament; Allen & Gledhill − one of the two SCs in the litigation department, Mr Edwin Tong, is a sitting Member of Parliament. Madam, may I beg your indulgence? I just have a few paragraphs more.”
“The AGC legislative team has embarked on the Plain Laws Understandable by Singaporeans (PLUS) project, an initiative to improve and modernise legislative drafting, to make our laws more accessible to the public. With AGC's improved manpower situation, we do not expect the same pace of manpower growth to continue into the foreseeable future. Ms Sylvia Lim also asked about mid-career recruits to the AGC. Mid-career changes are common in many industries. The legal industry is no exception. Mid-career hires can bring along fresh perspectives and ideas honed by their experiences elsewhere. The key considerations are whether the mid-career hires possess the necessary skills, aptitude and desire to serve the public interest. We do not see any basis for suggesting that mid-career entrants will not serve the public interest. It will be noted that many of our Judges are appointed to the Bench from the private sector. Can it be suggested that they are all not suitable because they come from the private sector? It will also be noted that some Cabinet Ministers are appointed from the private sector, including both officeholders in MinLaw. Would Ms Lim suggest that they are not suitable because they were not in the public sector all their lives? Finally, Ms Sylvia Lim seemed to suggest that senior officers in AGC should not have had any political affiliation. If she is saying − as a matter of institutional philosophy − that there is something inherent about the office of AG that rules out political affiliation at some time, then that will be inaccurate. In many first-world countries, the AG, as the head of AGC, is, in fact, a sitting Member of Parliament or politician. In the United Kingdom, the AG is a Cabinet Minister.”
“Mdm Chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the increased AGC headcount. Looking at the period from 2011, then-AG, Mr Sundaresh Menon, felt that AGC was understaffed. His successor, Mr VK Rajah, took the same view as well. AGC raised it with the Ministry of Finance (MOF). MOF has also done a manpower review. AGC's headcount was increased. Much of the recruitment thus took place from 2011 to 2015, with a 35% increase in headcount over that period. This helped to "right-size" AGC and ensured that it could deliver quality legal services as required by the public sector. The increase in manpower allocation was necessary, in view of the fact that AGC's portfolio and work demands have increased significantly over the past few years. For example, AGC has taken on an increased volume in complexity of civil and criminal hearings. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in complexity of white-collar crime cases. There has also been an increase in sophisticated, organised and internationalised criminal activity. The complexity of legal advisory work has also grown, in tandem with the increasing multifaceted nature of the Government's work. The demand for legal input to improve and speed up the formulation and implementation of policies has also increased. In the international arena, AGC has managed an increasing number of disputes and negotiations to advance Singapore's interests. AGC has also taken on several new functions. AGC now provides legal representation for Statutory Boards in judicial review proceedings. AGC has taken over prosecution work from the Police's Prosecution Branch.”
“I do not have a specific breakdown of the actual numbers for sexual and workplace harassment. I have given the consolidated figures. But if the Member wishes, perhaps, he can file a specific question on that.”
“I can say that we are actively reviewing not only that, but all other Court procedures where it is really for the community or the man-in-the-street. You will see that, in recent times, we have actually started simplifying various procedures. POHA, for example, is one such example where we try to make it such that the person does not need to actually instruct the lawyer in order to make an application. CDRT is yet another. So, this is an area which we will study to see whether the procedures can be simplified.”
“There are some important considerations. There are different types of event-triggered fee arrangements and they have pros and cons. In contingency fee arrangements, the lawyer shares in an agreed percentage of the sum recovered by the client where the claim is successful. On the one hand, there is certainty upfront as the lawyer's fees are directly tied to the amount the client recovers. On the other hand, the lawyer's fees have no correlation to the work done. The lawyer could receive a large sum of money for a short trial, or a small sum for a protracted trial. In conditional fee arrangements, the lawyer receives payment of his legal fees only if the claim is successful. The arrangement may also allow for an uplift of fees in the event of success. For such arrangements, the lawyer's fees are based on the amount of work done for the client. But it also means that there is less certainty upfront about the fees that could be incurred. There are also other considerations, for example, whether such arrangements would give rise to a potential conflict of interest, as the lawyer has a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, and whether they may increase frivolous litigation or raise litigation costs. Different countries have adopted different models. We need to carefully assess these considerations to determine the framework which is most suitable for Singapore.”
“Thank you. Other than Government-funded legal aid, pro bono basic legal advice is also provided at many legal clinics across Singapore. There are also family, civil and criminal legal clinics run at the State and Family Courts. The Law Society also has various schemes aimed at promoting legal awareness. These include general legal awareness talks, as well as the annual Law Awareness Week programmes. On community justice, we have put in place various mechanisms to resolve community disputes. Our Community Mediation Centre has a good track record of mediating disputes in the community. Disputes can also be resolved at the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) and SCT. The Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) provides for simplified Court procedures and Court forms for Protection Order applications. Mr Tay spoke about initiatives in this area. The issue of increasing the SCT's jurisdiction is currently under review by my Ministry and the State Courts. To update on POHA, as of 31 January 2017, 268 applications for Protection Orders have been filed since it took effect on 15 November 2014. These include the applications by victims of sexual, workplace and online harassment. Out of the 96 Protection Orders granted, 59 were granted by consent. Ninety-nine applications for Protection Orders were withdrawn. Seventy-seven Expedited Protection Orders have also been granted, and 18 Magistrate's Complaints have been filed for alleged breach of a Protection Order or Expedited Protection Order. Out of the 46 applications referred to mediation at the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution, 23 were successfully settled and five are pending completion of mediation. Finally, on event-triggered fee arrangements which Mr de Souza asked about, MinLaw and SAL are studying this.”
“This is a threefold increase, compared to 2014, where only 431 accused persons received full representation. More applicants are being helped because of the increased coverage of enhanced CLAS, such as under the Moneylenders Act. For example, there was an elderly lady charged with assisting illegal moneylending because she was tricked into letting a stranger access her bank account. She was assigned a CLAS lawyer, who was ultimately able to get the charges dropped. From December last year, we have provided additional funding to hire two CLAS advocates, to strengthen the scheme. I am encouraged by the strong partnership and support from law firms for CLAS. Several law firms have taken on a significant number of CLAS cases. Many lawyers have generously waived their honoraria. The largest five law firms in Singapore have also supported the CLAS Fellowship scheme. I hope law firms will continue to support CLAS and take on more cases on a regular basis to enhance access to justice. Madam, I see that there are just a few seconds more, if I may complete the last few paragraphs of my speech.”
“In 2007, we amended the means-test criteria to help persons facing hardship, such as sudden mental or physical disabilities, or the sudden loss of income. In 2013, we amended the means-test criteria for persons in family proceedings involving children or protection orders, in order to protect the most vulnerable persons in family disputes. We will continue to review and update the means-test framework and qualifying criteria to ensure access to justice for people who cannot afford to hire their own lawyer. This includes considering whether additional discretion should be granted to the Director of Legal Aid or other authority for exceptional cases. Mr de Souza asked specifically about legal aid for probate matters. First, legal aid is available for such matters, if the applicant qualifies. Second, if the estate value does not exceed $50,000, the next-of-kin can also apply to the Public Trustee to administer the estate, subject to fulfilment of certain criteria. Third, for estates exceeding $50,000, the next-of-kin may engage a lawyer to assist in the estate administration and the costs can be recovered from the estate. Criminal legal aid is available under the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) run by the Law Society's Pro Bono Services Office. Since the launch of enhanced CLAS in 2015 and the Government started directly funding CLAS, the number of CLAS applicants has increased significantly. CLAS received 2,308 applications in 2016, compared to 1,780 applications in 2014, before the Government started directly funding CLAS. All 2,308 accused persons who applied to CLAS in 2016 received basic legal advice, of which 1,373 also received full representation or legal services not involving Court attendance.”
“MinLaw will also monitor the progress and adoption of SCCA's competency framework with a view towards revisiting the issue of whether competency frameworks should be made mandatory in the future, taking into consideration the developments in the in-house counsel space. Several Members filed cuts relating to enhancing access to justice. Access to justice is extremely important. The best laws and best Courts will be of little effect if the ordinary citizen has no access to them. My Ministry is working closely with the Judiciary, the Law Society and other stakeholders to enhance access to justice, especially for the man-in-the-street, by ensuring legal aid and pro bono advice are available to those who need it and providing mechanisms to help resolve community disputes. Let me address Government-funded legal aid, pro bono legal advice and legal awareness. The Legal Aid Bureau provides civil legal aid to less-privileged Singaporeans who pass the means and merits test. The means-test framework is regularly reviewed to allow persons of limited means to qualify for legal aid. In 2013, the qualifying criteria were updated to allow approximately 25% of Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents to qualify for legal aid, up from 17% previously. This translated into about 300,000 additional Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who can potentially qualify for legal aid. In response to Mr Louis Ng and Mr Murali Pillai's queries, the discretion to depart from the general means-test already exists for certain vulnerable groups of people, such as those who face hardship or are involved in certain family proceedings, to qualify for legal aid.”
“This informal group, which includes Computer Science and Engineering students, hopes to use data analysis to supplement expert opinion for lawyers, policymakers and clients in areas, such as sentencing guidelines. These are the types of innovative and cross-disciplinary efforts that we must cultivate and encourage. There are also programmes on leadership and management, such as the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL)-INSEAD Law Firm Leadership Programme, as well as specialist knowledge in the identified growth areas. Another significant group in the legal industry is the in-house counsel. We note Mr Patrick Tay's suggestion to develop the talent pool of in-house counsel in Singapore and for a mandatory competency framework. We agree that there should be continued efforts to develop the in-house sector. We have been working closely with the Economic Development Board to promote Singapore as a choice location for regional and global headquarters, including in-house counsel teams. Based on a study of Fortune Global 500 employment in corporate functions by Aon, Singapore has more in-house legal employees than Hong Kong and Shanghai in 2014. We are actively encouraging companies to anchor their decision-makers with global or regional mandate in Singapore. This includes the in-house legal functions. We also encourage in-house counsel to continuously raise their standards of practice. To this end, we will continue to work with the relevant stakeholders to make available programmes to help in-house counsel develop the appropriate skillsets and competencies to carry out their jobs well.”
“The UniSIM law school curriculum is practice-oriented to better prepare the students for practice when they graduate. We also want to develop future-ready legal professionals who will be able to pursue the new opportunities that will arise in high-growth areas while leveraging new technology and innovation. Dr Tan Wu Meng spoke about the need for our lawyers to possess cross-disciplinary skills and expertise. We agree. This is important, especially in today's increasingly complex business environment. To provide holistic advice, lawyers must have deep knowledge of their business and industries. This can be achieved through a more multidisciplinary and practice-oriented law curriculum, as well as targeted efforts in continuing professional development. For example, the UniSIM School of Law has a multidisciplinary curriculum where law students learn not only the law, but also have electives in social work, counselling, psychology, forensics and criminology. We will get feedback from the industry on the skills needed by young lawyers, study international best practices in legal education, and work closely with the National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore Management University (SMU) and UniSIM to update their law curriculum to better prepare our law graduates for the future economy. 4.15 pm Some of our law students have already taken the first step towards developing such multidisciplinary and practice-oriented skills. For example, a common interest in legal technology and innovation led a group of NUS students to start a ground-up initiative, called "Alt+Law". This initiative aspires to change the legal industry by exploring technological solutions for lawyers' tasks.”
“Mdm Chairman, I will address the rest of the Members' cuts. To ensure that our legal industry continues to be vibrant and competitive internationally, the key stakeholders of the industry must actively embrace disruptive changes and grasp the opportunities at hand. These include private practitioners, in-house counsel and law students. The Working Group on Legal and Accounting Services under CFE which I co-chaired with Mr Chaly Mah was set up to identify growth areas and develop strategies for the legal sector's growth and development. The Working Group report will be released next month. It contains several key recommendations to position the Singapore legal and accounting services sector for the future, in particular, the need to build thought leadership through driving standards and research and equipping legal professionals to be future-ready through deepening skillsets and industry expertise. MinLaw will be working closely with the legal industry to achieve the outcomes envisaged in the recommendations. Let me first elaborate on our efforts in capability-building. Last year, we established the UniSIM School of Law to address the projected shortage of family and criminal practitioners in Singapore. It took in its first cohort of 60 students in January 2017. Eighty percent of the cohort are mature students with work and life experience and seeking a mid-career switch to law. Their experience will stand them in good stead to deal with the emotional demands of family and criminal law. To help these mature Singaporean students who are not eligible for the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) tuition grant defray part of the tuition fees, we introduced the MinLaw-UniSIM Study Award. There are three award recipients this year.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolutions." [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Resolutions accordingly agreed to. (proc text)]”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has come to certain resolutions. [(proc text) First Resolution reported, (proc text)] [(proc text) "That the sum of $105,323,500 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017, contained in Paper Cmd 9 of 2017." (proc text)] [(proc text) Second Resolution reported, (proc text)] [(proc text) "That the sum of $464,478,600 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the public services shown in the Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017, contained in Paper Cmd 9 of 2017." (proc text)]”
“Sections 14(4)(a) to (e) each describes different circumstances of disclosure to the public that are to be disregarded during the determination of the "state of the art" which the examiner considers in assessing whether the invention is "new" and "inventive". Section 14(4)(e) is intended to extend the circumstances of disclosure that are to be disregarded beyond those stated in the current section 14(4)(a) to 14(4)(d). For all the grounds in section 14(4)(a) to (e), disclosure even to one person not under the obligation of confidentiality constitutes disclosure to the public. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“Being a PCT International Searching and Preliminary Examining Authority, IPOS is able to provide search and examination services to applicants who file in other jurisdictions via PCT. Besides Singapore, IPOS can do this PCT examination work for applicants from the US, Japan, Mexico, Indonesia, Vietnam and Cambodia. Further, given the large Chinese market, IPOS' ability to search Chinese patent documents can be an additional attraction for these PCT applicants. Through these measures, IPOS hopes to attract patent work to Singapore, even in cases where an applicant might decide not to file in Singapore. This will create more work for IP professionals, such as patent agents. Mr de Souza also asked whether we are adequately resourced to handle the increased workload from applicants switching to the local mixed routes: yes, we are. There are two aspects to this. First, the Ministry of Law and IPOS will continue to ensure that there is a sufficient pipeline of skilled IP manpower to provide patent agent services. In this regard, IPOS and the Singapore Institute of Management (UniSIM) have announced the launch of a Master in IP and Innovation Management this year. Graduates from the patent agent specialisation track of this programme can go on to take the Patent Agents Qualifying Examinations to become patent agents. Second, IPOS' patent search and examination unit has more than 100 examiners with expertise across a wide range of technologies. The unit will be able to handle the anticipated increase in work. From PCT statistics, IPOS is the top, out of 21 international authorities, in terms of timeliness to issue International Search Reports. Mr Louis Ng had a point for clarification regarding the new section 14(4)(e) inserted by clause 2(b) of the Bill.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken, for their support of the Bill. Mr de Souza asked about initiatives to ensure that Singapore remains an attractive place to file patents. IPOS has arrangements with patent offices around the world to allow applicants to use a Singapore patent examination report to expedite applications in other jurisdictions. First, there are the various Patent Prosecution Highways (PPHs) that Mr de Souza mentioned. These arrangements cover important markets like China, the US, Europe, Japan, Korea and Australia. IPOS is also part of a similar arrangement in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), known as the ASEAN Patent Examination Co-operation (ASPEC) programme. All in, the PPHs and ASPEC cover more than 30 jurisdictions. IPOS also has an agreement with Cambodia to allow the re-registration of a Singapore patent in Cambodia. Hence, with a Singapore granted patent, a business can access a combined market of over 20 million people. In February, IPOS also announced reductions in its patent search and examination fees. The fee for requesting a search and examination report will decrease by 25% with effect from 1 April. A further discount will be given when the applicant chooses to rely on the search report or preliminary examination report issued by IPOS as an ISA and IPEA under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). All these connections to larger markets outside Singapore are aimed at making Singapore an attractive place to file patents. In addition, we are also positioning Singapore to capture patent work, even when applicants are looking to file patents in other jurisdictions and not in Singapore.”
“This amendment aligns our patent system with that of major jurisdictions, such as the US, Japan and Europe, which do not provide for the foreign route mechanism and require all patent applications to be fully examined by their patent offices. IPOS has been actively engaging the patent profession on the closure of the foreign route. With this change, local patent agents and IP lawyers will adjust their practice to take on higher value work as all the patent applications they handle will have to undergo full examination by IPOS. The Patents (Amendment) Bill will also implement procedural improvements to the application process. Clause 3(c) will allow patent applications greater flexibility in switching between search and examination routes. This will make our patent application process more applicant-friendly. Clause 3(d) will allow IPOS to treat an application as abandoned if the applicant does not, after receiving a search report, request for an examination report within the prescribed timeframe. This will improve IPOS' operational efficiency. It will also facilitate the release of new ideas and technologies for the public's use if the patent applicant is no longer interested in obtaining protection. The Bill implements a number of improvements to the patent application process. It is part of our efforts to better support the national innovation agenda by helping companies protect and sharpen their competitive edge, grow and create good jobs in Singapore. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Let me explain how closing the foreign route improves the quality of patents granted in Singapore. Patent applications undergo search and examination before a patent is granted. There are currently three search and examination routes in Singapore. First, under the "local route", the full search and examination are conducted by IPOS. Second, under the "mixed route", applicants submit the search report issued by the foreign patent office for the same invention, and IPOS conducts only the examination. Third, under the "foreign route", applicants submit the full search and examination report issued by a foreign patent office for the same invention, and IPOS conducts only a limited-scope Supplementary Examination. The limited-scope Supplementary Examination does not cover the same grounds as a full examination. In particular, the invention is not assessed on the key requirements of being new and inventive. Thus, patents may be granted under the foreign route for inventions that would not have met the standards for patentability under the local or mixed route. This is because these foreign route patents were assessed to be new and inventive by a foreign patent office, whose standards may differ from Singapore's. Clause 3(a) of the present Bill, therefore, closes the foreign route option. For patent applications filed on or after the prescribed date, they must go through either the local or mixed route. Patents will be granted only after full examination based on Singapore's laws and practices. This will, therefore, ensure the quality of Singapore granted patents and increase stakeholders' confidence in the validity of these patents.”
“Advances in communication technology have connected people across the globe in ways not previously envisaged, and disclosures of technology occur in many situations not contemplated by the current Act. For example, inventors may need to reveal the invention to potential investors, or share it online to reach out to a larger community of experts. It should be emphasised that disclosing an invention before applying for a patent still carries risks. Not all jurisdictions have a similarly broad grace period provision. We would, therefore, strongly encourage inventors to always be judicious about disclosing their inventions before applying for a patent. IPOS will work with stakeholders and IP professionals to ensure that this message is conveyed clearly to patent applicants. I now turn to the amendments in clause 3 of the present Bill relating to the closure of the foreign route to obtaining a patent in Singapore. This is another step in our quest to improve the quality of patents granted in Singapore. In 2013, IPOS' in-house patent examination unit commenced operations, marking the first time Singapore had the capabilities to examine our patent applications. In February 2014, we tightened our patent system to only allow a patent to be granted if it meets the patentability requirements in our law. However, at that point of time, we allowed patent applicants to rely on foreign examination reports for the same invention to enter our system. We are now proposing to close this route so that all patent applications are fully examined by our examiners against our standards of patentability. This will increase the quality of our granted patents and marks the further maturation of our patent system.”
“The examiner then examines the invention in the patent application against the "state of the art" to determine whether the invention is, indeed, new and inventive. This is the standard practice for all patent offices around the world. Under this system, if an inventor publicly discloses his invention before applying for a patent, this information will form part of the "state of the art". So, when he subsequently applies for a patent, the invention may not be assessed to be new or inventive. The Patents Act contains a "grace period provision" that allows for limited circumstances under which the disclosure of an invention will not be considered part of the "state of the art". For example, if the invention is disclosed at one of the international exhibitions on a limited list, or is disclosed in the publication of a learned society, it will not be included in the "state of the art" if the application is filed within 12 months of the disclosure. This grace period provision encourages knowledge sharing and promotes learning while preserving the inventor's commercial interests. Clause 2 of the Patents (Amendment) Bill expands the situations covered by the grace period provision. Clause 2(b) will allow any disclosure of the invention originating from the inventor to be covered by the grace period provision. In other words, the grace period provision will not be limited to disclosures at specific international exhibitions or in a learned society publication. This broadening of the grace period provision is in line with practices in the United States (US), Australia, Japan and Korea. It updates our legislation so that our patents regime can be more consistent with modern realities and practices.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Innovation is crucial for our nation's continued economic growth. It allows our enterprises to create new products and services, and gives them a competitive edge over their rivals. Enterprises need to be able to effectively protect and commercialise their intellectual property (IP) to preserve their competitive edge. The Committee on the Future Economy recognised this when it stated that a strong IP ecosystem is needed to support innovation and technology adoption. The Patents (Amendment) Bill introduces several improvements to our patent system. These amendments allow our patent system to better support innovators. Madam, the main features of the Bill are as follows. First, we will broaden the grace period provision to better allow inventors to protect their inventions, while facilitating the spread of new ideas and technologies. Second, we will close the foreign route to obtaining a patent in Singapore to improve the quality and consistency of granted patents. Third, we will implement procedural amendments to allow applicants greater flexibility in the application process and to improve operational efficiency at the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS). Let me, first, touch on broadening the grace period provision for patent applications. To provide some background, let me briefly describe IPOS' patent search and examination process. Before a patent is granted for an invention, it must be "new" and "inventive". An IPOS examiner searches publicly available information at the time of the patent application to understand the current state of technology. This is known as the "state of the art".”
“In time to come, self-driving shuttles can be deployed in neighbourhoods to bring commuters from their homes to the train station, thereby improving first- and last-mile connectivity. Ongoing initiatives to trial self-driving buses, truck platooning and autonomous utility vehicles can alleviate the shortage of drivers. It is difficult to come up with a single measure of productivity increase in the Public Service. In terms of the public sector's share of the total labour force, it has decreased from 4.3% in 2006 to 4% in 2016. This is one of the lowest internationally, and is lower than in countries, such as Korea, 7.4%; New Zealand, 11.5%; and the United Kingdom, 21.4%. This has been a result of policies to constrain our public sector manpower growth, and efforts to leverage technology, including automation.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Public Service has been automating and computerising its processes and services since the 1980s. Automation has helped many agencies improve work efficiency and effectiveness, resulting in manpower and cost savings. As an example, in 1998, the National Library Board (NLB) was the first in the world to use radio-frequency identification to track its books. It is now using AutoSorters to reduce the manual effort needed to sort returned books. The AutoSorter piloted in Sembawang Public Library sorts about 2,500 items a day, a task which would otherwise require at least one person to complete. After this automation is rolled out to all 26 public libraries by 2018, NLB expects to save $780,000 per year. Another example would be the use of drones. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has found that using drones to take aerial photographs at its construction sites, to monitor and track progress has reduced the time taken by 75%. Automation is also helping the Public Service to enhance our service delivery standards and provide greater convenience to customers. Since end-2016, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) has equipped all motorcycle counters at the Woodlands and Tuas checkpoints with automated capabilities to clear eligible motorcyclists and pillion riders. They now enjoy about 30% faster clearance, and ICA is also able to redeploy at least 60 officers from the manual counters to other roles. Citizens can expect to see more automation that will benefit them in the years to come. The Ministry of Transport and LTA are working with partners from academia and industry to trial various self-driving vehicle technologies and concepts.”
“Madam, I thank the Member for his supplementary question. It is not so much a matter of establishing escrow accounts because the scenario painted by the Member is one where you have a main contractor and the employees, and then you have sub-contractors and they have their employees. Each company will have other creditors as well. So, it is very difficult to say that I put this aside only for the employees and it is difficult for the Government to do that. If the company itself sets aside monies in a certain escrow account and specifically stipulates that this is for employees, then that is something that the company can do. But it is difficult for the Government to step in and interfere with the contractors' own arrangements of its accounts.”
“Mdm Speaker, before contracts are awarded, Government agencies will take into consideration the financial standing of the contractor to ascertain whether he has the necessary resources to fulfil his contractual obligations. During the contract, Government agencies will monitor the contractor's performance. If the contractor faces cash flow difficulties, the Government agency can consider adjusting the payment milestones or delivery schedule. In the unfortunate event of a contractor going into liquidation, the Government, like any service buyer, will rely on the provisions of the law to provide remedy for the affected workers. As the Minister for Manpower has previously shared with this House, when a contractor goes into liquidation, the Companies Act provides for the apportionment of the unpaid salaries for workers. Unpaid salaries of workers will be accorded higher priority over claims by other unsecured creditors. Affected workers can lodge salary claims with the appointed liquidator, who is required to give such claims priority. The Minister for Manpower has elaborated in his parliamentary response on other forms of assistance available as well as additional measures being put in place to help affected workers.”
“Subsection 3A says that to avoid doubt, the section does not prevent a solicitor from introducing or referring a third-party funder to the solicitor's client, so long as the solicitor does not receive any direct financial benefit, and "direct financial benefit" is defined so that it does not include any fee, disbursement or expense payable by the solicitor's client for the provision of legal services by the solicitor to the client. In short, lawyers will continue to receive what they have always received, which is, their fees, disbursements and expenses. What they ought not to be getting is the financial benefit, for example, referral fees or a commission. In the scenario which Mr Dennis Tan described, where a funder takes an interest in the lawyer's litigation department or acquires the department, first, you would have to get around all the provisions of the Legal Profession Act, which will be very difficult. But even if you could get around that, I think the essential question would be: is the lawyer put in a position where he is beholden to the funder and cannot carry out his duties to the claimant? This is the sort of test which lawyers have to face all the time when they are deciding conflicts of interest and the lawyers in third-party funding situations will have to apply those strict standards to themselves. Madam, I believe I have answered the various queries and I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)] [Mdm Speaker in the Chair]”
“The nature of this kind of industry is that if one funder's terms are too onerous, there would be other funders available that the claimant can turn to. So, the market will find its own level. With regard to conflict of interest, Mr Dennis Tan asked what would happen if the lawyer found himself in a position of a conflict between the claimant and the funder. Again, this is not different from other scenarios where you have different parties and the question of conflict arises. Let me explain it in this way. Ideally, the claimant and the funder should have their own lawyers. If, for whatever reason, they start off with the same lawyer, which is probably not a good idea, but if they do, and if an issue crops up where it is quite clear that the claimant and the funder have different interests, then the lawyers should − as all lawyers in this scenario should do − either discharge themselves from acting for one, or for both parties. It is no different from a scenario where, let us say, you are acting for two defendants and, for some reason, the defendants' stories start to conflict. The lawyers know that in that scenario, they either have to discharge themselves or act only for one defendant. I think Mr Dennis Tan had one more question, which was on the meaning of "direct financial benefit" in new subsection 3A of section 107 of the Legal Profession Act.”
“For completeness, I would highlight that the third-party funding framework will only allow entities which meet the "qualifying third-party funder" criteria to provide third-party funding. Such criteria will be set out in subsidiary legislation. The criteria will help to ensure that only reputable, professional funders may fund international arbitration proceedings in Singapore. Non-compliant entities will not be able to enforce their rights under the third-party funding agreement. In other words, they will not receive a share of the proceeds should the claim succeed. This would be a practical and effective deterrent against non-compliance. Finally, I would like to touch on whether third-party funders will be liable for costs and whether this will include the making of adverse costs orders against third-party funders. These are matters best left to the parties and tribunals. In practice, cost orders against funders may be difficult as they are not party to the arbitration agreement. Feedback received during the public consultation process indicated that parties have sufficient levers, including seeking security for costs. I will now address some of the queries raised by Mr Dennis Tan. His first concern was whether there would be a transfer of control of the proceedings to the funders from the claimant. The overall philosophy to this is party autonomy. So, that is something that should be dealt with in the funding agreement. The claimant and funder should both have their own representation. So, in that way, you would have a lawyer who is acting in the best interest of the claimant and they can negotiate the commercial terms of the funding agreement in the same way as many other commercial agreements are negotiated.”
“Legal practitioners and legal practices will also be prohibited from holding any share or having ownership interests in relevant third-party funders and from receiving referral fees and commissions. This will also help prevent situations of conflicts of interest. The proposed approach to regulation would be in line with that in other jurisdictions. In Australia, the focus has been on avoiding conflicts of interest, coupled with reasonable transparency. In England, funders are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, but only in connection with their asset management activities, and not their conduct in relation to funding of proceedings. Nonetheless, some funders choose to become voluntary members of the ALF in England and Wales and self-regulate by agreeing to abide by a voluntary code. As mentioned, we expect similar self-regulation through the issuance of best practices or guidelines for arbitrators, lawyers and funders and the Ministry is already working with stakeholders to address this need. These "soft-laws" will cover issues, including the solicitor-client relationship, costs, confidentiality, legal privilege, withdrawal of funding, essential terms to include in third-party funding agreements, as well as control of the dispute by funders, which a number of the Members have raised. Lawyers must be mindful of their duty to act in the best interests of their clients, and industry promulgated best practices or guidelines will help to bolster the legislative framework and ensure that all stakeholders, including arbitral tribunals and institutions, are fully apprised of best practices and standards. This should address the very valid concerns and suggestions raised by Mr Louis Ng, Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Dennis Tan.”
“This would enable tribunals to handle potential issues on a more nuanced, case-by-case basis. From the experience of other jurisdictions, abuses typically arise from lack of transparency and conflicts of interest. The proposed third-party funding framework, therefore, seeks to address these issues by making disclosure the central tenet, while giving precedence to party autonomy and flexibility. This approach will allow for the regulation to keep pace with the changes in the industry and this would address the point raised by Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan. As mentioned earlier, amendments to the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules will be made to require legal practitioners to disclose if their client is receiving third-party funding, but not the commercial terms of the funding agreement. This will enhance transparency and allow the tribunal to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Also, with disclosure, parties are put on notice and can take steps to protect their own interests. The reason the obligation is placed on the lawyer instead of the funded party is to ensure that the disclosure requirement has practical and real effect since parties and funders are often outside our jurisdiction. That is the nature of international arbitration. The parties may be international so they may not be here, but the lawyers, when they come here, will be present in our jurisdiction. As for Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan's question about whether the disclosure requirement will affect the willingness of third-party funders to fund here, I am happy to share that disclosure received support from the majority of international professional funders who responded to our public consultation.”
“The issue of regulation of third-party funding was also raised, in particular whether we should do more to regulate funders and how to balance between the need for regulation while preserving party autonomy and flexibility. Other points raised include the protection of stakeholders' interests and how we plan to deal with the bad practices associated with third-party funding. Singapore is an international dispute resolution hub and, as such, a large number of parties, counsel, arbitrators and funders are not and will not be within our jurisdiction. A heavy regulatory framework will, therefore, have little practical effect and our approach should be focused on what is practical and effective, taking into account the nature of international arbitration. We also considered recent developments in the third-party funding market for international arbitration. The industry is gaining stability. Norms and industry practices are also emerging. There is now a high level of awareness and acceptance of third-party funding. Certain funders have established good reputations and have flourished. Bad practices have come to light and, with greater awareness, advisers and reputable funders have developed measures to curtail such practices. In the White & Case 2015 International Arbitration Survey conducted by Queen Mary University, 71% of the respondents indicated that third-party funding is an area which requires regulation. The preference, however, was for soft-law regulation, for example, through the International Bar Association (IBA) guidelines or collective self-regulation through a code of conduct. The survey also indicated that regulation of third-party funding should mainly focus on disclosure rather than on the creation of a prescriptive, substantive regime.”
“Mdm Speaker, may I thank all the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. Mr Murali Pillai asked about the scope of the third-party funding framework. Specifically, he asked if the amendments should be in the International Arbitration Act, rather than the Civil Law Act. As mentioned, we are first proceeding with third-party funding in the context of international arbitration and related proceedings. This is because we want to have the framework tested in a limited sphere, where those involved are typically well-advised, commercially sophisticated and better able to bear the reduction in damages. If the framework works well, as and when appropriate, the prescribed categories of proceedings may be expanded. The Ministry will consult closely with the profession and stakeholders on this, as we have been doing. So, that is why the amendments are to the Civil Law Act rather than to the International Arbitration Act. As a side note, I should mention that ATE insurance is a different product from third-party funding. While it takes many forms with varying features, typically, for example in the UK, it is used where a party pays a premium to insure itself against the risk of having to pay the opposing counsel's fees. As such, the policy considerations may overlap, but it differs from third-party funding. Mr Vikram Nair also asked about the implications of the proposed third-party funding framework for contingency fees and whether this opens the way for contingency fees generally to enhance access to justice. As part of the review of the civil justice system, event-triggered fee arrangements, including contingency fee arrangements, will be studied. Until such time, lawyers and law firms will continue to be prohibited from entering into contingency fee arrangements.”
“The framework will facilitate the use of third-party funding in appropriate cases, commencing with international arbitration proceedings. The amendments contemplated will level the playing field so that international businesses which arbitrate in Singapore are able to make use of the financing and risk management tools available to them in other major arbitration centres. At the same time, we will continue to monitor the third-party funding landscape here and abroad and will seek to ensure that best practices are adopted here. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“The funder would, however, be required to continue performing its obligation under the third-party funding agreement, including its obligation to fund the claim, as the Bill provides that the rights of any other party against the funder under the third-party funding agreement are not affected. To ensure fairness to the funders, the Court or Arbitral Tribunal may grant relief to the funders on their application, if the non-compliance was due to inadvertence or some other sufficient cause, or if it is just and equitable to do so. In addition, the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules will be amended to impose a duty on lawyers to disclose the existence of any third-party funding which their client is receiving. Disclosure of third-party funding is necessary to ensure there is no conflict of interest. It is anticipated that similar to other jurisdictions where third-party funding is prevalent, industry-promulgated guidelines or best practices will emerge. MinLaw is working with arbitration institutions and practitioners to initiate the production of such "soft laws". The Bill also makes a related amendment to the Legal Profession Act to clarify that lawyers are allowed to introduce or refer funders to their clients. Lawyers are also allowed to advise or act for their clients in relation to the third-party funding contract. However, the Bill provides that lawyers are not allowed to receive direct financial benefit from the introduction or referral of the funder. Direct financial benefit does not include legal fees paid to the lawyers for the provision of legal services. Lawyers can be paid for the provision of legal services to the funded party. Such payment can be made by the funded party or by the funder on behalf of the funded party.”
“The Bill makes clear that while the tort is abolished, contracts affected by maintenance and champerty will continue to be contrary to public policy or, otherwise, illegal. Third-party funding contracts will, therefore, still be unenforceable. It is only for certain prescribed categories of proceedings that a third-party funding contract will not be contrary to public policy or illegal by reason that it is a contract for maintenance or champerty. These categories will be specified in subsidiary legislation after the Bill comes into force. At the outset, third-party funding will only be permitted for international arbitration proceedings and related Court and mediation proceedings. This will allow the framework to be tested within a limited sphere by parties of commercial sophistication. The framework may be broadened in future after a period of assessment. Drawing from the experience of other jurisdictions which permit third-party funding, there will be limited but targeted regulation of third-party funders. The Bill provides that third-party funding may only be provided by an entity which meets the criteria set out in subsidiary legislation. The criteria in the subsidiary legislation will ensure that only professional funders whose principal business is funding claims, will be allowed. The Bill also allows requirements to be imposed on funders through subsidiary legislation. Entities that do not meet the criteria to fund, or funders who do not comply with requirements imposed on them, will not be able to enforce their rights under a third-party funding agreement. This would include their right to receive a share of damages, should the claim succeed.”
“As a leading centre for international commercial arbitration, Singapore is cognisant of the practices and business requirements of commercial parties, many of whom choose to arbitrate in Singapore, despite their dispute having no connection to Singapore. In this context, the Bill, which will introduce a framework for third-party funding in Singapore, will achieve the following outcomes. (a) It will offer businesses an additional financing and risk management tool when engaged in the relevant categories of proceedings. This includes the financing of valid claims which they may otherwise not pursue, due to financial constraints. (b) Businesses that seek to access third-party funding will typically have to undergo a rigorous process of claim assessment by the chosen funder. (c) Funders are known to be highly selective, given that they need to provide attractive returns to their investors. Thus, their due diligence process is designed to provide them with a degree of confidence that the claims they fund will succeed. (d) Offering third-party funding, which is already available in other international arbitration centres, will strengthen Singapore's position as a premier international commercial dispute resolution hub and a key arbitration seat in the world. This will benefit Singapore law firms and lawyers. I will now take the House through the main features of the Bill. The Bill provides a framework for third-party funding in Singapore. The Bill does the following in relation to the laws of champerty and maintenance. The Bill clarifies that the common law tort of champerty and maintenance is abolished in Singapore, as had previously been stated by the High Court in Jane Rebecca Ong vs Lim Lie Hoa.”
“Second, in return for the funds, the funder usually receives a share of the damages awarded if the claim succeeds. If the claim fails, the claimant does not have to repay the funder. This is the risk that the funder takes. Currently, in Singapore, agreements for third-party funding of dispute resolution proceedings are generally unenforceable as they fall foul of the laws of maintenance and champerty. Maintenance is the provision of assistance to a party by a person or entity that has no interest in the proceedings. Champerty is maintenance of an action in return for a share in the proceeds of the action. There are two aspects of champerty and maintenance. First, there is a common law tort of champerty and maintenance. Second, also, under contract law, agreements affected by maintenance or champerty are void as contrary to public policy. These laws on champerty and maintenance were inherited from English common law. They were originally developed in medieval times to protect vulnerable litigants and to guard against potential abuse of court processes. However, jurisdictions, such as the UK and parts of Australia, have decided that such protections are no longer necessary and have removed them. Third-party funding of dispute resolution has emerged, driven on the demand-side by business needs for such financing options and on the supply-side by well-capitalised professional third-party funders. These third-party funders raise capital from investors and use the money to fund claims. Their objective is to make an attractive return for their investors out of the proceeds of the claims that are successful. Today, third-party funding has become a feature in other leading arbitration centres, including London, Paris and Geneva.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As mentioned in my speech to introduce the Mediation Bill, Singapore is well poised to strengthen its position as a leading centre for cross-border dispute resolution. We will make a number of moves this year to grow dispute resolution work in Singapore to the next level, and these amendments for the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill are one of those moves. Compared to international commercial mediation, international commercial arbitration in Singapore is more developed. Our International Arbitration Act was introduced in 1994 and has been updated from time to time to be on the cutting-edge of international arbitration. SIAC is now amongst the top five most preferred arbitral institutions in the world. It set a record in 2015 for the number of new cases and dispute quantum. I am confident that in 2016, SIAC would have done even better. I look forward to a new record. Singapore is now one of the top five most preferred seats in arbitration in the world, alongside London, Paris, Geneva and Hong Kong. But we are not resting on our laurels. We will need to stay responsive to business and constantly adapt what we do to better serve their needs. One area where we can do so is in third-party funding in international commercial arbitration, where legal costs can be substantial and where there is today a growing body of reputable professional funders. There are two main aspects to third-party funding. First, as the name suggests, third-party funding involves the funding of a claim by a party who is unconnected to the dispute. The party, usually the claimant, uses the funds to cover its legal costs in the dispute.”
“I would like, once again, to thank them for their strong support for this Bill, which is yet another step forward in helping Singapore grow as a dispute resolution centre. Madam, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)] [Mdm Speaker in the Chair]”
“We have taken the 2002 Model Law into account in crafting the Bill. As the Member has noted, parts of the Bill take reference from the model provisions contained in the 2002 Model Law, which addresses procedural aspects of a conciliation or mediation. As for the ongoing work of UNCITRAL Working Group II, Singapore has actively participated in those discussions and will continue to do so. The upcoming 66th Working Group II session will take place in February, where the Working Group will be discussing both the form and substance of the proposed instrument. As regard to whether the Bill's restrictions on confidentiality will affect Member of Parliament or agency referrals to community mediation, the Bill will exclude community mediations, that is, those conducted under the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) or the Community Dispute Resolution Tribunal (CDRT). These will continue to be regulated by the legislation and rules that apply to those mediations today. For referrals to the CMC, Members of Parliament and agencies will be updated on the outcome of such referrals. In other words, CMC will update them whether the referred parties have agreed to attempt mediation and, if they do so, whether the mediation materialised in a settlement or otherwise. The terms of the agreement, however, remain confidential. For mediations which are governed by the Bill, as is the case today, confidentiality can be waived if all parties consent to disclosure. As regard to the "recording" of a mediated settlement agreement, under clause 12 of the Bill, it refers to recording of the mediated settlement agreement as a Court order, that means, in a written format. Madam, I believe that addresses the issues raised by Members.”
“On observations made by Mr Louis Ng on the proposal to extend the existing Legal Profession Act exceptions applicable to arbitration to mediation, I would like to clarify that the exceptions are not broad-based, but will only apply in the circumstances set out in the Bill. Mr Louis Ng also sought clarification on clause 12(4)(b) of the Bill, which states that the Court may refuse to record a mediated settlement agreement as an order of Court if "the subject matter of the agreement is not capable of settlement". Clause 12(4)(b) of the Bill provides that the Court can refuse to record the mediated settlement agreements if the subject matter clearly cannot be resolved through mediation, for example, if the subject matter is illegal. So, if you have a dispute and let us say, for some reason, the two parties agree that the way to resolve that dispute is to go and cheat a third person. That will clearly be unenforceable. No Court will condone that. Mr Louis Ng had a question on whether the mediation process will be affected by the proposed changes from the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill. Third-party funding under the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill will only be extended to mediation proceedings arising out of or in any way connected with international arbitration proceedings, but not to standalone mediation proceedings. Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan noted that some aspects of the Bill are a nod to the existing UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation 2002, the 2002 Model Law, and asked about our position on the ongoing work of the UNCITRAL Working Group II (Dispute Settlement) on the preparation of an instrument on the enforcement of international commercial settlement agreements resulting from conciliation.”