Response by Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong at the Committee of Supply Debate 2023

27 FEB 2023

27 Feb 2023 Posted in Parliamentary speeches and responses

Mr Speaker,

Madam Chairman, good evening.

We are living in a time of change.

(a) Spurred by profound developments in the world, including all the experiences Members have been speaking about:

(i) Geopolitical tensions;

(ii) Reconfiguration of economic value chains;

(iii) Technological developments;

(iv) Sustainability and climate change; and

(v) The recently passed COVID-19 pandemic, of which we have seen the worst of and hopefully, it has been put behind us.

(b) And within Singapore as well –

(i) An ageing population; and

(ii) An increasingly educated and skilled workforce.

All of these factors inter-twined together, developing and reshaping the way we live, work and also interact with one another.

To ensure that Singapore continues to thrive amidst these changes, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) is working on various fronts.

The scope, as I think you can see from the breadth of topics raised by Members, is diverse:

(a) Increasing access to justice;

(b) Enhancing the legal processes;

(d) Assisting businesses with protecting their intangible assets and intellectual property, and finding a platform for these to be commercialised and leveraged, for the industry to grow.

While the work is wide-ranging, our vision is singular: Bettering people’s lives, creating value jobs, and advancing our economy and society, through laws and policies. That ultimately is the bottomline and the topline of what we do at MinLaw

This perhaps is best encapsulated by our response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which Mr Murali Pillai – thank you very much – commended.

Our efforts provided reprieve to the affected businesses and individuals.

(a) We amended various pieces of legislation and also enacted the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act, which itself was amended eight times since it was passed, to refine Singapore’s response to the evolving and developing situation as we faced COVID-19, and its impact on businesses.

(b) These measures covered a broad range of issues, such as adjusting contractual obligations, providing rental relief, and supporting distressed entities through insolvency.

Many of these steps are unprecedented and novel, but also highly necessary.

Mr Pillai said we could chronicle our efforts as we went through these different challenges to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. We have accumulated that experience, and will do so, and In fact, we will capture the gains that we have already made.

(a) For example, we have made permanent, the powers of the Courts to conduct proceedings through electronic means such as video-conferencing in a variety of fashion, as Mr Pillai knows.

(b) We are also considering whether some features of the Simplified Insolvency Programme can be adopted permanently – something I spoke about in Parliament not long ago.

Moving forward, my Ministry will work along three broad thrusts:

(a) First, enhancing the trust, relevance and accessibility of our legal system for society;

(b) Second, contributing to and supporting economic activity in Singapore – by identifying and seizing new opportunities in the legal and intellectual property sectors; and

Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu Mahzam and I will address these themes and also address, as far as we can, the cuts that have been raised by Members.

I. Enhancing Trust, Relevance and Accessibility of our Legal System

Last year, we saw the culmination of various initiatives that improved the efficiency, effectiveness and also the accessibility of our legal system. This included:

(a) Establishing the Sentencing Advisory Panel and the Public Defender’s Office; and

(b) Passing the Post-appeal Applications in Capital Cases Bill 2022.

We will continue in this vein to drive reforms, and SPS Rahayu will elaborate on these programmes.

Community Dispute Management Framework (CDMF)

Let me start by addressing the queries on the Community Dispute Management Framework (CDMF) which various Members have raised, including Mr Pillai, Mr Patrick Tay, Mr Derrick Goh, and Mr Dennis Tan, amongst others, about the framework and its role in resolving community disputes.

As Members are aware, an inter-agency committee led by the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), together with the Ministry of National Development (MND), is conducting a comprehensive review of the CDMF.

The goal is threefold: first, to encourage pro-social behaviour; second, to facilitate amicable resolution of disputes between neighbours; and third, to deal with this, as far as possible, at an early stage.

To achieve this, we are looking at enhancements in three broad areas.

(a) First, early intervention – by building consensus through community norms.

(i) This will set shared expectations on acceptable community behaviour; set out standards, to help shape normative behaviour in the community.

(ii) SMS Sim Ann will share more details of this when she speaks at MND’s COS.

(b) Second, and I think we all know this; despite setting these norms and having these norms in the community, nuisance might and would still likely occur. Perhaps at a reduced rate. The overall aim is to encourage conciliation between neighbours, as much as possible. We live in an environment where we are close to one another and the best solution to dealing with neighbour disputes, is to find an amicable, mediated position.

(i) We are therefore going to be looking at setting up a team of dedicated personnel to leverage stronger laws and more active facilitation to help neighbours resolve issues upstream, before matters escalate and relationships deteriorate to such an extent that matters become intransigent or deadlocked.

(ii) In the appropriate cases, personnel from this team may conduct investigations to understand the nature and root cause of the problem, and might require, in the right cases, residents to attend a mandatory mediation, or require them to stop the actions that are causing the nuisance, pending mediation or resolution downstream by the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT).

(iii) More details for this process will be shared in MND’s and MCCY’s Committee of Supply in due course.

(c) But let me explain MinLaw’s work in the third area, which is in enhancing and improving the dispute resolution framework.

(i) Even as we look at steps to enhance and improve this process, we intend to channel as much of these disputes as possible through the mediated conciliatory route – that I think, we all accept is the best way of resolving a neighbour dispute.

(ii) But given that there will be a number of these intransigent cases, we will work towards strengthening the powers and processes of the CDRT, which some Members spoke about – so that it can provide faster and more effective relief in appropriate cases.

Mediation can preserve, and even strengthen the relationship between neighbours, by providing them with a platform, in the hands of a trained mediator, to resolve their disputes amicably, in very much a win-win-fashion.

Our experience has shown us that mediation is not just effective, but also quicker and cheaper.

The data shows that mediation has been, by and large, successful.

We therefore believe that most community dispute cases will benefit from mediation.

(a) More than 80% of the voluntary mediation cases handled at the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) were successfully settled.

(b) Now, this number of course, has got to be taken in context. It is for parties who voluntarily go to mediation. So they might perhaps be more predisposed to having amicable resolution between themselves. But nonetheless, this statistic tells us putting mediation, as the first port of call, will likely yield effective results.

(c) Part of the problem is that these voluntary cases handled at the CMC represent a minority of cases, as many neighbours do not make this attempt at mediation. To provide specific figures, less than 30% of such voluntary cases proceed to mediation. In other words, of all cases that go to the CMC on neighbour disputes – usually on noise – less than 30% go on to voluntary mediation and of this, 80% of that number of cases are resolved amicably.

(d) This, as I said earlier, could in part be because mediation is currently voluntary.

(e) And in addition, parties may:

(i) Think that there is no issue to mediate; or

(ii) They might think it is not effective at resolving the disputes between the parties; or

(iii) They might decide to escalate the matter to CDRT without first attempting mediation.

So, to improve the take up of mediation at an early stage, we plan to mandate mediation for three categories of cases.

(a) First, mediation will be mandatory for certain types of community disputes. Penalties will be imposed for not attending mandatory mediation. So, for instance, if you are required to go through mandatory mediation and you do not, then the case will not proceed at CDRT.

(b) Second, for voluntary mediation cases previously mediated and settled at the CMC, but the mediated issues have resurfaced or there was a new dispute related to what was mediated previously, the CMC will be able to mandate re-mediation.

(c) Third, we will, in general, require disputing neighbours to undergo mediation before they can file a claim to the CDRT. This will prevent disputes from escalating unnecessarily to a court process.

After we make mediation mandatory, the 80% figure that I said earlier may well come down, it may not be as high because you will now be including in this group of mediated cases, those cases where parties do not want or do not wish to find a solution amongst themselves.

Nonetheless, it is important to provide parties a platform to seek an amicable resolution; and it can still be highly effective in the hands of a good mediator, and with some public education. Many Members in this House, as Mr Dennis Tan said earlier, see many of these cases in the course of their rounds when they visit their residents and their encouragement to refer these to mediation will help.

To give mediation more standing and teeth, we will also create a mechanism for settlement agreements mediated by the CMC to be registered and enforced as a CDRT Order, provided certain conditions are met. We will set out those conditions after we have studied this.

To Mr Pillai’s query on forward deploying mediation services:

(a) We believe that in the hands of a very good mediator, many of these disputes can be resolved very amicably. In many cases, part of the reluctance to go to mediation is because you have a dispute with a neighbour who lives three feet away and you do not want to get into a bus, all the way down to the CBD area about 45 minutes away,to do mediation.

(b) I am pleased to share that the CMC has begun offering mediation services at six satellite locations at selected ServiceSG Centres and Community Clubs, some placed within the precinct where the two neighbours live, or at least close by.

(c) We will also offer online mediation for suitable voluntary neighbour dispute cases in two GRCs, as a pilot to start with and we will decide if it works, and perhaps look at scaling that up. So, it removes the geographical difficulties that they might face in going down to mediation when the party they should be speaking to is only three feet away.

To support these efforts, the CMC has begun to increase the number of mediators on its panel of accredited community mediators and will look at growing this pool as quickly as possible.

Despite what I said, some disputes will remain unresolved despite early intervention, best efforts at mediation, and all the efforts we make at making mediation more accessible.

For these cases, the CDRT will continue to serve as an avenue of last resort.

(a) We will make improvements to address feedback that laypeople face difficulties in collecting evidence, and navigating the CDRT’s process and procedures. MND’s initiatives, which SMS Sim Ann will speak about later, will complement the mediation and the CDRT process.

(b) In addition, we are studying how best to address cases where a person’s act of nuisance may be linked to an underlying mental health condition.

Lastly, we are also taking steps to ensure that residents are, in fact, aware of and have the resources to help them utilise these tools to help themselves resolve these disputes.

Residents may have questions such as:

(a) What is mediation?

(b) Or how do I explain my concerns to the mediator?

We are, thus, working with partners in our community to provide residents facing such disputes with advice and guidance, and possibly also, legal representation in the more complex cases.

One example is what Mr Raj Joshua Thomas spoke about, the new Community Law Centre (CLC) run by Pro Bono SG. It was launched recently in January 2023, and this effort brings legal services right into the heartlands. For the first time, full-time community lawyers will serve the community through the CLCs, providing legal advice and assistance on a whole range of different issues.

To Mr Thomas’ point on the CLCs, Pro Bono SG does indeed have plans to expand the CLCs beyond the pilot that is currently at Tian De Temple. We are supportive of the work that they do, and the Government will assess at an appropriate juncture how best to support this expansion.

II. Boosting Singapore’s Economy with a Forward-Looking Legal Services & IP Hub

Madam, I turn now to how we are strengthening Singapore as a legal services and intellectual property (IP) hub.

We continue to push ahead in enhancing Singapore’s hard-earned position and reputation as a leading legal services and IP hub. This, I think Members will appreciate is necessary, not just to grow the legal and IP sectors, but also to support Singapore’s broader status as a centre for commerce, banking, and finance.

A. Expanding legal technology capabilities and equipping our legal workforce to meet today’s and tomorrow’s needs

But as Members have noted, there will be challenges ahead.

As Mr Zhulkarnain, Mr de Souza, and Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin pointed out, our society and our economy are evolving. This will have an impact on our legal needs, and consequently, on law firms and lawyers. As Mr Thomas noted, law firms are being disrupted by technology and innovation.

Mr Thomas asked about the progress of the initiatives under the Professional Services Industry Transformation Map (ITM). MTI will be providing more details of the refreshed ITM during their COS.

Let me share what MinLaw is working on. I will touch briefly on two aspects: One, on infrastructure; and two, on manpower development.

Infrastructure

First, on infrastructure. Technology has changed how judicial and legal services are delivered and consumed. Our courts and law firms need to equip themselves with the necessary tools.

Courts and Technology

The Courts have in place measures, to ensure the case management systems can deal with an increasing caseload – a comment raised by Mr Zhulkarnain. The Courts have various electronic filing systems to deal with different types of cases. Each of these case management systems are constantly reviewed and enhanced, where necessary, to ensure that they meet the caseload. The product teams for each system also track the utilisation rates of the servers, to anticipate necessary hardware and software upgrades, and also, the occasional surge in demand. This approach has, by and large, served the Courts well.

While there are occasional disruptions due to unforeseeable hardware failures, software and servers are progressively being shifted to the latest cloud infrastructure to reduce such occurrences.

Where future challenges are concerned, the Courts have planned various enhancements to cater for an increasing need to allow citizens to file applications directly, so that they can cut out the intermediary process and be able to do so on their own. SPS Rahayu will elaborate on this.

Together with other efforts, the Courts are ready to meet future challenges and will continue regular dialogue with stakeholders, to better address user needs.

Enhancement of the Legal Technology Platform

For law firms, we recognise that it will be challenging for them, especially the small and medium-sized Singapore law practices (SLPs) – More difficult for them to curate, customise and perhaps develop their own IT solutions, mainly due to the lack of economies of scale. MinLaw has therefore taken on this role, and launched the Legal Technology Platform (LTP) in July last year.

The LTP is a matter management and collaboration tool, customised for legal workflows. In other words, developed to intuitively fit the legal workflow process that each firm, particularly a smaller firm, might need and require at the backend and it progressively also deals with needs at the front end. Through the LTP, SLPs can manage and collaborate on matters more seamlessly internally and also with their clients externally. They can also access data from commonly used practice and document management systems, such as Tessaract, Clio, TessaCloud and NetDocuments.

Mr Thomas asked about the reception of the LTP. As of January 2023, the LTP has been adopted by 27 Singapore-based firms, with around 550 Singapore-based users.

Let me perhaps illustrate the point with reference to one firm’s example and experience. This firm is Albakri LLC, a small SLP. Instead of copying and pasting from past MS Word documents, the firm created its own matter templates and listed all the tasks relevant to a particular matter on the LTP. This enables its new associates to familiarise themselves independently with the firm’s processes and workflow. It not only frees up the partners’ time to supervise and train the associates, but also helps to institutionalise the firm’s know-how and knowledge bank. The firm’s templates are now in a cloud-based repository, instead of the email archives of the individual lawyers, so that there is more institutional knowledge even when lawyers leave the firm and new ones come in. This has saved 50% of the onboarding time for new matters. Seeing its usefulness, the firm has also contributed a matter template on probate. This is now publicly available through the LTP. So, firms after seeing how it works for them, can decide that they want to contribute a template which will then be shared across on LTP. Other firms can access this, and eventually level up using these best practices that are shared on the LTP.

Moving forward, we plan to enhance the LTP with more features desired by SLPs. We have constantly taken soundings from them, to check on how they have used it, and what else they would like to see. For example, come April this year, the LTP will be able to process information from systems, such as eLitigation and ACRA; and also integrated with Sign with SingPass.

Legal Industry Digital Plan

To complement the LTP, we have worked with IMDA and our industry partners to develop the Legal Industry Digital Plan (IDP). This will be an additional resource, to guide SLPs on how the LTP and other tools work together complementarily to support their digital transformation. It will also provide guidance on how SLPs can shore up their cybersecurity and data protection measures.

Manpower Development

The second aspect I wish to speak about is manpower development – a point touched on by Mr de Souza, Mr Zhulkarnain, Ms Nadia, and Mr Thomas.

As Members have recognised, technology is an enabler, which helps our law firms and lawyers to work more efficiently and effectively. But it cannot replace human beings; it cannot replace the human lawyers.

For example, in family and criminal cases, we are dealing with a range of emotions. It is not just the legal considerations or what the law might say but what are those special peculiar idiosyncrasies and emotions that go behind each decision that might be made, particularly in family and criminal matters.

In complex cases, we are dealing with different contexts, different nuances, and perhaps also, the context of business done in Singapore or through Singapore. This business context, the Asian way of doing business, and the particular experience that a lawyer has with his or her client – all that is not something that an AI, like a chatbot, can easily replicate.

(a) Indeed, ChatGPT, the most invoked chatbot tool that we have seen in recent times, did pass the law exams, with a C+. It is an apt example. Reports say that it may be helpful at producing a first draft for lawyers to consider.

(b) But as I said, it does not deal with the range of emotions that might lie behind why a client might choose a certain course of action in a range of cases. And it will also struggle with the most classic components of law exams, such as spotting the potential legal issues and deep analysis applying the legal rules to the particular situation and nuances of a particular case; and also, appreciate the human dynamics and personal idiosyncrasies which may lie behind even the most complex of complex corporate transactions.

Therefore, what we need to do, and in fact, we have to do, is to re-double our efforts on developing our human talent, as much as we need to invest in technology.

Legal Secondment Programme and Lawyers Exchange Programme

We will be launching an industry-wide secondment programme, which aims to deepen the capabilities of lawyers in important markets, as well as new or high growth areas, such as sustainability, technology and M&A.

We are targeting to have an intake of 30 lawyers a year, at a steady state.

We are also exploring exchange programmes with foreign Bar associations.

The objective being to help Singapore lawyers build networks externally. Because of globalisation, transactions are now very much cross-border, and relations that we develop with other lawyers from other jurisdictions will give our lawyers a leg-up. They will also gain a deeper understanding of the work in priority markets through overseas attachments or study visit opportunities.

Legal Education Reforms

Next, let me touch on legal education reforms. As the Chief Justice announced, at the Opening of the Legal Year (OLY) this year, a Working Group, comprising: MinLaw, members of the Judiciary, the profession, law schools, and legal education providers, has been formed to conduct a holistic review of our legal education system.

This will take into account the evolving needs of our society and economy, very much the various points raised by Members earlier about taking on board today’s context, evolving needs, what we foreshadow and forecast that we might need for tomorrow’s profession. This will include areas of practice which are new, emerging or growing, for example, in technology and civil law; and applies to law schools and also to continuing professional development.

Mr Thomas suggested reviewing the Bar exam syllabus to incorporate harnessing technology. Based on feedback from the industry, the current generation of law students are generally technologically-savvy.

Nonetheless, as part of the Singapore Institute of Legal Education’s recent review of the Part B Syllabus, contemporary legal issues, such as law and technology, and the use of technology in practice, have also been incorporated to better prepare candidates for practice.

This will no doubt equip law students and lawyers with the knowledge and skills they need for practice, and prepare them for the challenges ahead.

This will also hopefully allow them to develop a more sustainable career in the legal industry.

Attrition

Legal practice is tough. Long hours, demanding clients, transactions that need to be done quickly and overnight. There is a lot of stress, whether it is from clients, sometimes from judges when you appear in Court, and fellow practitioners. The competition can be intense.

As the President of the Law Society, Mr Adrian Tan, noted in his speech at the OLY: in 2022, it had its first membership reduction in half a decade.

I looked at the numbers that Mr Tan cited. He cited them as of 31 August 2022. Shortly before that, a batch of new lawyers for the year were mass called and introduced to the Bar.

If we take this into account, then there would, in fact, have been a gradual, small increase in the total number of Singapore-qualified practising lawyers over the years. To give Members some idea of the numbers: from around 5,400 practitioners in 2017 to around 6,400 practitioners in 2022. That said, when we looked at the trends and did a more granular review, it is apparent that although it is increasing, but the rate of increase of the number of qualified practising lawyers has come down. So, it is increasing, but the rate of increase has slowed. And in part, this is due to a decrease in the number of returning overseas law graduates, and also, as Mr Tan pointed out, an increase in attrition.

But at the same time, I would say attrition from private practice is not new. I think those of us who are lawyers and have been in practice for a while would have seen the trend, even from before. It is not a new phenomenon. Lawyers now, in fact, today, have more options than in the past and can leave private practice, but still contribute within the legal sector. They can join the government, legal tech companies. They can enter academia. And like Mr Patrick Tay said earlier, greatly boosting legal services as in-house corporate counsel. And the lawyers who leave practice carry with them that experience from practice into these other fields which are adjunct to practice but still serving the legal industry. This is not necessarily a bad outcome, because we need legal talent to support all aspects of our economy and our society.

Ms Nadia referred to young lawyers experiencing burnout. Making private practice sustainable is something that the Government cannot alone achieve. It has to work with bodies like the Singapore Academy of Law, Law Society, and even the firms. It requires effort from all these parties, because the work environment, we know, has a direct impact on the well-being of the lawyers.

I am heartened to note that on this score, the Law Society has a number of support schemes available for mentorship, guidance on career-related issues, or support with stress management. One example is the Members’ Assistance & Care Helpline, a one-stop referral and information service that Law Society members can turn to when faced with issues at work.

Supporting in-house counsel and paralegals

Our efforts also extend to other professionals within the legal industry. Mr Tay asked how we are supporting them.

For in-house counsel, we work closely with the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association (SCCA), of which Mr Tay is an honorary member, to promote community building and to roll out training and development initiatives. Examples include a mentorship programme and courses for targeted upskilling for corporate counsel. MinLaw also supports training providers in the development of programmes that build up capabilities of the legal community. These are also made available to in-house counsel.

For paralegals, we are studying how paralegals can take on more functions to support the work of lawyers and law firms. This is part of the legal education reforms that the Working Group, which I had mentioned earlier, is also studying.

Changes to the admission regime

Finally, Ms Nadia Samdin touched on the upcoming changes to the admission regime, as recommended by the Committee for the Professional Training of Lawyers.

MinLaw had previously announced the uncoupling of admission to the Bar from the completion of a practice training contract, and also the lengthening of the Practice Training Period from six months to one year. This was to take effect from the 2023 session of the Part B of the Singapore Bar Examination onwards.

However, MinLaw noted feedback from the industry that the COVID-19 pandemic – work from home and other such measures – had caused disruptions to work. With the recent resumption of travel and business activities, more time is needed to prepare for these changes. Therefore, these changes that were announced previously, will be deferred and implemented from the 2024 session of the Part B of the Singapore Bar Examination onwards. More information will be available from MinLaw and other stakeholders in due course.

B. Building upon the Singapore IP Strategy (SIPS) 2030 to prepare businesses for the future

I would like to circle back to the point about our changing world, which Members had underscored. Our world is evolving, in no small part, because of digitalisation and new technologies.

This heightens the importance of protecting intangible assets (IA) and intellectual property (IP).

Therefore, let me share briefly our IP strategy that aims to prepare our businesses as they digitalise and innovate in the global economy, which is intrinsically linked with IA.

Update on SIPS 2030 to support enterprises in their IA/IP needs

MinLaw, MOF and MTI are driving the Singapore IP Strategy 2030 (SIPS 2030).

SIPS 2030 is a ten-year blueprint to strengthen and cement Singapore’s position as a global IA, and IP hub.

As part of SIPS 2030, we have been working to support businesses to leverage their IA and IP for growth.

This year, we will be introducing the Intangibles Disclosure Framework. The intention is to provide a consistent basis for businesses to disclose and communicate details of their intangibles. A framework so that everyone speaks the same language, and can understand what that disclosure is meant to describe. This will provide stakeholders with comparable information about the businesses’ intangibles, so that more informed assessments of the business and financial prospects can be made.

This will in turn facilitate intangible asset commercialisation, transactions and financing.

In addition, we will launch GoBusiness IP Grow. It is an enterprise-centric online platform which will help businesses understand their own IP needs based on their business activities; match businesses to appropriate IP services providers based on the particular business model they are practising and using, and also provide one-stop access to enterprise IA and IP-related resources.

Review of land allocation & pricing framework for Places of Worship

Finally, let me now turn to address the review of the land allocation and pricing framework for Places of Worship, raised by Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Jamus Lim.

The Government is aware of these issues, as Ms Lim had noted in her speech.

We had in fact given a previous Parliamentary reply which Ms Lim also noted, and it was noted then, and let me just reiterate, that we have been reviewing the land allocation and pricing framework for places of worship, to see how the prices can be mitigated, bearing in mind the concerns that the Member raised. We have given our response previously, and we have been looking at this.

As Members would appreciate, this has been the subject of careful study, given its implications on land allocation and pricing.

This study is still ongoing and details will be released when we have completed the study.

In the meantime, the Government has been working with affected religious organisations to assist them in mitigating the increase in land prices. So for instance, this would include offering the religious organisations a short-term tenancy extension, pending the outcome of this review that we are undertaking. This is so that these organisations would not be compromised by entering into a long-term lease arrangement on the present framework before the review is completed.

Conclusion

Madam, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Rahayu will cover the other cuts.

I thank Members for support of MinLaw’s work, for their speeches, and look forward to their continued cooperation, support and also for their continued feedback that they give to MinLaw that helps us to sharpen each of our policies, and ensure that the last-mile delivery is carried out in the way which it is intended.

Last updated on 27 February 2023