Speech by Minister for Law, Mr K Shanmugam, at the Arbitration Dialogue

10 JUN 2012

10 Jun 2012 Posted in Speeches

Chairman Singapore International Arbitration Centre, Professor Michael Pryles,
Distinguished guests,
Ladies and gentlemen,

  1. Welcome to Singapore.

  2. In my remarks today, I will try and sketch out for this very eminent audience, simply our philosophy and what we think we need to do, what we have done to try and create Singapore as a vibrant legal hub as well as an arbitration centre. I will keep my remarks very brief because many of these things will have to be said again tomorrow morning.

  3. For arbitration, since we took a very focused approach in 2007 and 2008, we have come some way. New cases handled by SIAC have effectively doubled as from 2007, through a period of considerable crisis. Unlike some of the other jurisdictions, we do not include local domain name disputes, local construction disputes. Tomorrow morning, I hope to share with you some figures which suggest that in the first quarter of this year, we probably have done better than any time in the past, and perhaps as much as doubled in terms of value of work done. I will share those figures tomorrow.

  4. This growth of the arbitration sector has occurred in tandem with the liberalisation of our legal services sector. Again, I will touch a little bit more on that tomorrow.

  5. We would say that our approach to make Singapore an arbitration hub has aligned with five main factors which have worked in our favour. First and foremost, a government which is knowledgable and supportive – we have moved quickly to put in supportive legislative framework, in the form of our International Arbitration Act (IAA), which is built on the Model Law. Second, our commercially experienced Judiciary, which has developed a very pro-arbitration jurisprudence. Third, our neutral venue, straddling both East and the West, India and China. Fourth, the connectivity that we have to the region and the world. Fifth, supporting infrastructure, for example, in the form of Maxwell Chambers that you are in. Though I tell my interlocutors, infrastructure can be built by anyone – it is the other surrounding eco-system that needs to work as well.

  6. Our own approach as a government is driven by the needs of the industry and the consult of the industry partners very actively. If the need arises, as it has, law, policies can be, have been and will be changed quickly.

  7. For example, if you take our International Arbitration Act (IAA), we have continuously updated since1995. We have based ourselves on the Model Law, and we have worked with the industry, and taken in industry’s comments to update it. Illustrations, for example, the definition of an arbitration agreement to reflect commercial realities, we have changed it in 2009 and we further expanded it this year. Empowering the court to order interim measures in support of foreign arbitrations – that was in 2009. This year, we amended the Act to allow judicial review of negative jurisdictional rulings. We amended the Act again this year in respect of emergency arbitrators and foreign interim measures. As an illustration of our approach, I have said that our Judiciary is very pro-arbitration. But once in a while, we do get cases that arbitration practitioners raise an eyebrow about. In one such case, we looked at it and said that this will not do, and within seven months, we amended the law. That is an ability that Singapore has, because we work with the industry and we look at what is needed. 1

  8. We do not aim to be a market leader in novel legislation, but we aim to support the industry in a way that it is comfortable with. Where industry takes a conservative view, we follow that as well. For example the 2006 amendments to the Model Law widened the definition of arbitration agreement. We consulted our practitioners. Most people at that time were not in favour of that wide a definition, so we held back. But by last year, based on further consultations, we felt that we needed to change so the amendments were made early this year.

  9. We take the same philosophy towards the legal services sector. The Prime Minister will speak a little bit more later this evening and I will also say about it a little bit more tomorrow. Our intention is to look at what is best for us in the region, and liberalise in a way that benefits Singapore as a whole. We have been liberalising since 1999; we took major steps in 2008 to allow foreign law firms to practise Singapore law. I have just announced that a second round of Qualifying Foreign Law Practice licences will be issued later this year. This was something that several lawyers from our major law firms welcomed. In fact, they were authors of a report in 2007 that welcomed this approach, and we continue to get the support of the profession and the industry for this.

  10. We will continue also to take an international approach. Last year, we hosted a Dialogue with Singapore-based arbitrators here. And of course today, the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA) gives us the opportunity to tap on the expertise of the world’s top arbitration experts, many of you here.

  11. I expect that today’s discussion will be wide-ranging, covering all aspects of legal services and arbitration in Singapore. I am glad to see so many of you here and look forward to hearing your views.

  12. Thank you.

[1] Dermajaya Properties Sdn Bhd v Premium Properties Sdn Bhd [2002] 1 SLR(R) 492.

Last updated on 25 Nov 2012