Speech by Senior Minister of State for Law, Indranee Rajah, at the Litigation Conference 2015

16 MAR 2015

16 Mar 2015 Posted in Speeches

Mr Thio Shen Yi,
Honorable Judges, Sir Bernard Rix and Anselmo Reyes
Fellow Litigators,

I am honoured to be here as Keynote Speaker at this Litigation Conference.
This year we are celebrating SG50. 50 years of independence. In the last 50 years the legal industry and the legal sector have been transformed. Litigation today is very far from what it was 50 years ago. You only need to read the Law Reports to see the tremendous difference in the types of cases and the amounts litigated in our early years as a nation and now.
But having come so far, we are once again at a watershed. Lawyers may not realise it now, but we are standing on a cusp. We now need to move to the next level of legal services. This applies across the board to all areas of the law. We have already made major moves related to family justice and criminal legal aid, so today let me just talk more about civil litigation, and in particular, civil international litigation.
Civil litigation, and in particular, international civil litigation is an area in which we are making a transformative change. But this will require a transformative change in the way that disputes and litigation lawyers provide services.

A Global Scan
Let me just start with a quick global scan. Over the last 20 years, the volume of world trade has increased exponentially. Global trade has grown at an average of about 5.3% per annum from 1983 to 2013^[1].
Asia has outperformed the global economy, attracting an especially high percentage of international capital and trade:
1. Asia’s GDP has expanded steadily by more than 6% in both 2013 and 2014 and such growth is expected to continue.^[2]
2. In 2013, the ASEAN economies achieved a combined annual growth rate of 5%, compared to the estimated global economic growth rate of less than 3%. China’s growth rate for the same year was close to 8%.^[3]
3. A study by the Asian Development Bank suggests that by 2050, Asia could account for half of the world’s GDP^[4].
4. Investment growth is also robust, supported by government infrastructure spending to drive long-term development plans^[5], as well as foreign direct investment (“FDI”) inflows.
  1. Asia is the world’s top recipient of FDI inflows, accounting for nearly 30 % of global FDI inflows^[6].
  2. In Southeast Asia, nearly US$1 trillion of infrastructure investment will be required through to 2020^[7].
With the growth in international and regional trade and investment, as well as trans-national commerce, commercial entities like MNCs have increasingly been establishing their businesses across jurisdictional lines. They organise production, marketing and distribution channels on a global or regional basis, with national subsidiaries operating in various parts of the world.
In line with the strong growth in Asia, the collective centre of gravity of these international companies is shifting towards the region.
1. An Economist Corporate Network survey found that of 500 MNCs based in Europe or North America, more than half said that they will have at least one board member in Asia by 2017.^[8]
2. Home-grown Asian MNCs have also increased. Fortune’s “Global 500” list of Asian MNCs has grown from just above 100 in the early 2000s to close to 200 in the recent years^[9].
3. Today, four of the top ten companies in the world are Asian^[10].
Singapore’s Response to New Opportunities in International Commercial Litigation
My purpose is not to bludgeon you with statistics and figures, but really to highlight this, to bring to your attention, the significance of what this means, for you, and for the international commercial litigation landscape.
Obviously, with this spike of trans-national commerce in Asia, the number and complexity of cross-border disputes are going to increase. This is going to result in higher demand for timely and cost-efficient dispute resolution, and this dispute resolution will be more complex as parties will be from different jurisdictions, they will have to contend with different backgrounds, languages and legal cultures, all of which may act as obstacles to the successful resolution of the dispute^[11].
What does it mean for Singapore and for Singapore litigation lawyers in particular? Well, in a word, it means opportunities. To realise the potential afforded by these opportunities, we want to develop Singapore as a legal services hub. We have already embarked on plans to make it an IP Hub. We are now focusing on plans to make it a dispute resolution hub.
To succeed, we will need a Team Spore approach – government, judiciary and legal industry players, both private sector practitioners and in-house counsel. The government can provide the framework and the environment to access these opportunities, and in a few moments I will explain what we have been doing and what we will be doing going forward.
But unlocking the full benefit of these opportunities will require lawyers like yourselves to also rise to the occasion, and bring yourselves to the next level. More on that later as well.

Singapore as a Dispute Resolution Hub
Let me just say a few words about Singapore as a dispute resolution hub. There are three parts in our strategy to achieving this – first, developing our international arbitration, and we have been working on that in the past 15 years; second, international litigation, and third, international mediation – what I call our dispute resolution triptych.
1. First, international arbitration. We have been focusing on this sector, and I think it would be fair to say that we have succeeded in positioning Singapore as a hub for international arbitration:
  1. Singapore is now the third most preferred arbitration seat in the world after London and Geneva^[12].
  2. The caseload at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) has increased exponentially, from 58 cases in 2000 to 222 in 2014.
  3. The total value of disputes heard in the SIAC was S$5.04 billion and the average value of an SIAC dispute was S$23.65 million in 2014.
  4. SIAC’s caseload is predominantly international. The SIAC received cases from parties from 58 jurisdictions in 2014 and more than 80% of the cases filed were international in nature.
2. Second, international commercial mediation:
  1. As part of the effort to promote international commercial mediation in Singapore, two new institutions, the Singapore International Mediation Centre, or SIMC, and the Singapore International Mediation Institute, or SIMI, were launched in November last year. The SIMC focuses on providing quality international commercial mediation services for cross-border disputes while the SIMI is a professional standards body to set quality standards.
  2. The government will also be introducing a legislative framework for mediation, which will be set out in a new Mediation Bill.
3. Now, the SICC represents the third part of our strategy that will enable us to provide a full suite of dispute resolution services.
The SICC
The SICC, as you know, will be hearing international commercial disputes, including those governed by foreign law. Its objective is to grow the legal sector by bringing offshore work to Singapore through attracting parties and those cases which would not otherwise have come to Singapore to have their disputes resolved. I stress this, the fact that it is intended to attract work that would not otherwise have come here, because that is the entire lynchpin, the thinking, and the raison d’être behind the SICC.

Leveraging on Existing Strengths
How will the SICC, whose jurisdiction is established predominantly by consent between parties, attract foreign parties to have their disputes heard here?
The SICC has existing advantages which it can build on to become an attractive dispute resolution option. These include the strong reputation of Singapore, our judiciary and our legal services sector - yourselves.
1. First, Singapore’s reputation. Obviously, we are well known for good governance, low corruption, efficiency, rule of law and a trusted legal system. These are great strengths, and they are valuable to people who need disputes resolved.
2. Second, the Singapore Judiciary. Our judiciary is highly regarded for its legal expertise and jurisprudence, as well as its efficiency, competence and honesty. Its experience in handling commercial disputes internationally has been recognised. Our judiciary has consistently ranked highly in international surveys^[13].
3. Third, the Singapore legal sector. Singapore lawyers and law firms have also developed a reputation for providing high quality legal services. I like to believe we have an “Asian” advantage – we understand Asian context and culture, and that gives us an advantage in dealing with Asian clients. The presence of 37 of the top 100 law firms in the world has further augmented what Singapore has to offer in terms of legal services.
So we have a strong foundation of what it takes for the SICC to succeed, but a strong foundation alone is not sufficient.

Innovative Features of the SICC
Currently, foreign parties with international and commercial disputes already have the option of using the Singapore High Court. The High Court has jurisdiction under section 16 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to hear civil cases where the defendant submits to its jurisdiction. Where parties consent therefore, the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. But in the past, the number of purely international parties who chose to do so, however, were few. This means that the status quo ante the SICC was not enough in and of itself to attract such international cases. What this tells us is that it required something more.
As such, to attract international cases of the kind which have not hitherto come to us, a new approach was needed. The first step was to set up a court which is geared specifically to hear these kinds of cases - the SICC. The SICC was designed to offer not only the traditional and institutional strengths of the existing Supreme Court, but also new innovative features, that will be attractive to international litigants. Some have been adapted from arbitration. Other innovations are unique to the SICC.
Let me just touch on some of these features.
First, in addition to Singapore Judges, the SICC will have International Judges. Currently, 11 International Judges from various jurisdictions and legal traditions have been appointed[14]. These include present and former judges, as well as senior academics from the USA, Australia, the UK, Hong Kong, as well as the civil law jurisdictions, such as Austria, France and Japan. Further appointments are expected to follow in due course. This will add to the strength and depth of our Bench.
This means that as with arbitration, parties in the SICC will be able to have a specialist commercial bench, which could, if the judge is trained in the relevant law, also be tailored to particular legal and cultural dynamics of the case^[15]. This is particularly important as parties with international disputes are likely to prefer to have a judge who is well versed in the relevant law of their case.
Secondly, allowing parties in the SICC to be represented by foreign lawyers in certain circumstances. This is an innovation where, understandably, the local bar may have some concerns that allowing foreign representation in the SICC will affect local lawyers’ practice. So let me address these concerns.
Let me say at the outset that this is something that we were very mindful of, when the SICC was conceptualized. We were guided by the following principle, which I mentioned earlier: we wanted to attract cases which we are currently not getting. In other words, the intention is not to take away from the existing pie, but rather to add to the pie, or get access to another pie.
Attracting international cases that would not otherwise come to Singapore necessarily requires the support of international law firms and their clients. If a matter has little or no connection to Singapore, then it is quite natural, if you want the cases to come here, for foreign clients to want their foreign lawyers to be involved, at least at some level. Likewise, for the foreign lawyers, having a right of audience gives them a stake in bringing such cases to Singapore.
But at the same time, this has to be balanced with the rights of audience of Singapore lawyers. We therefore drew the parameters at what we think is a fair boundary. Foreign lawyers would have rights of audience, but limited to mainly two situations:
1. In offshore cases, that is, where the cases have no substantial connection with Singapore ; and
2. For the limited purpose of making submissions on foreign law, where proof of that point of foreign law has been dispensed with by the Court^[16].
Where the cases are substantially connected with Singapore, parties still have to be represented by local lawyers. It is essentially only offshore cases, those that would not have been heard in Singapore, but for the SICC, that foreign lawyers can be substantially involved in. So this effectively preserves what local lawyers are able to do today, but having the SICC will inevitably give local lawyers the opportunity to do more.
It does not follow that all offshore matters will necessarily and automatically go to foreign counsel. Why do I say this? Because ultimately, even if it is an offshore case and is subject to foreign law, the SICC is still a Singapore court with which Singapore counsel will be most familiar. At the very minimum, clients and foreign lawyers will need advice on procedural and jurisdictional matters. But it is also quite likely that foreign parties will want representation or co-representation by local counsel in a local court.
I say this with confidence, drawing from what we have seen from arbitration. Our efforts to open up international arbitration to foreign lawyers have thus far been beneficial, if not critical, to the success of the SIAC, which has in turn increased arbitration work for local practitioners.
Before 1992, when foreign law firms were not allowed to appear in arbitrations,^[17] there was actually a dearth of arbitration cases in Singapore. There was only one SIAC arbitration case each in the years 1991 and 1992.
In 1992, the Legal Profession Act was amended to allow foreign lawyers to appear in arbitrations (a) where the applicable law was not Singapore law; and (b) where the applicable law was Singapore law, on the condition that they appeared jointly with a Singapore lawyer. The number of arbitration cases in the SIAC increased, reaching past 60 cases in 2003.
The major spike in arbitration cases, however, only came post-2004, following full liberalisation of the sector, and all restrictions on the appearance rights of foreign lawyers in arbitration proceedings were removed. The number of SIAC cases ballooned to more than 200 in a short span of 10 years.
Obviously there were other things that we did to build up the arbitration framework, but you can see that there is a correlation, and Singapore lawyers have benefitted from the increase in the number of arbitration cases that have come to Singapore. So today:
1. Local law firms are involved in around half of SIAC arbitrations.
2. Looking at absolute figures, local law firms were involved in 100 SIAC cases in 2014, far more than the one case previously, back in the early 1990s, and double the number we had in 2003, when foreign representation was limited.
3. I am also pleased to note that Singapore lawyers are also getting a healthy share of appointments as arbitrators – over 60% of party appointments in 2014^[18].
So despite initial fears that opening up arbitration would not benefit Singapore lawyers, the contrary was the case. Singapore lawyers have benefitted, and continue to benefit the most, from opening up the arbitration sector.
The takeaway therefore is that rather than restricting access to a limited pie, it is better to grow the pie so that everyone gets something, and in that way, everyone gets more. It has happened for arbitration, we are confident that this will also be the case for the SICC.
Third, in terms of the features of the SICC, flexibility has been worked into the SICC’s court procedure. This flexibility allows parties to shape their own rules to adapt to the needs of their particular case and to reflect the traditions with which they may be more familiar.
1. One aspect of this procedural flexibility is with regard to evidential rules. The Evidence Act will apply by default, but consenting parties may apply for an order to replace Singapore evidential rules with other rules of evidence^[19]. So for example, parties can make an application for the Evidence Act not to be applied, and instead to apply the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence.
2. The approach to the determination of foreign law is also made more straightforward in the SICC. Parties can apply to have any question of foreign law be determined on the basis of submissions instead of the usual mode of proof^[20] - having to prove it as a fact.
3. General discovery which is applicable to the rest of the High Court has also been replaced with a document production procedure^[21] that is similar to that in the IBA Rules on Taking of Evidence.
The idea behind these innovations was really to allow more customization and flexibility, and this means that parties who are used to the procedural flexibility in arbitration will be able to enjoy similar flexibility in the SICC.

Key Differences between SICC and SIAC
So then, this brings me to the next question which many people have asked - why choose the SICC instead of arbitration, what’s the difference?
Let me start by saying that the SICC, and the SIAC, or international litigation, and international arbitration, should be seen as complementary rather than competing options. They are two different products in our suite of dispute resolution options and the one which the client chooses, will depend on what the client wants or needs. Understanding some of these differences will help identify which option is better for the client.
1. First, multiplicity of parties. Anyone who has done international arbitration, where there is a third party involved, knows the frustration of trying to get that third party to the table, because arbitration is purely consensual. In the SICC, however, the plaintiff and defendant have the ability to join third parties to the proceedings without the third party’s consent, similar to what you have now for litigation under the Rules of Court. As many complex transactions involve multiple parties, arbitration may not be suitable in this particular type of scenario and the SICC could be the better option for such cases which require joinder of other parties.
2. Second, selection of the adjudicators. Arbitrators are generally selected by parties in arbitration. However, in the SICC, the Chief Justice will assign the judge or judges to each case^[22].
3. Third, transparency. While arbitrations are heard confidentially, SICC proceedings will, by default, be heard in open court, though parties may apply for the case to be heard confidentially^[23], subject to the relevant criteria being met.
4. Fourth, availability of appeal. There will be a right of appeal against SICC judgments, unless parties contract otherwise. The availability of an appellate mechanism is an important safety valve in high value commercial disputes where parties’ desire for finality is relegated in favour of the correct application of their chosen law^[24]. However, if parties prefer finality, they can choose arbitration, where there is no avenue for an appeal and the grounds for setting aside such an award are very limited^[25]. If they wish to have the right of appeal, then the SICC is an option.
In a nutshell, the SICC is more suitable where the dispute involves multiple parties, or where parties prefer open court proceedings or want to have the availability of appeal, or wish to avoid party-appointed tribunals.
What it does therefore is to offer parties a specially modified litigation process that has some of the flexibility of the arbitral process, but combined with an international and independent judiciary.
Currently, parties involved in cross-border disputes in Asia rely on the courts in London or New York, if they do not want to arbitrate as there is no equivalent court of choice in Asia. The SICC, leveraging on its existing strengths and with these innovative features, is ideally positioned to become the neutral forum of choice for court-based litigation in Asia.

Concerns about the Enforceability of SICC Judgments
Another issue I would like to touch on is the enforceability of judgments, because for practitioners, this is a question that has cropped up again and again. As the SICC’s jurisdiction will primarily be consensual, we do not expect that many parties who have chosen to have their disputes adjudicated by the SICC will resist enforcement^[26].
Where parties are required to take up enforcement proceedings, however, there are available means of enforcement that may be utilised.
The SICC is still part of the Singapore Supreme Court. So, as judgments of the Supreme Court, SICC judgments can be enforced by registration in countries and/or territories scheduled under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act and the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.
Once registered, an SICC judgment can be expected to be enforced directly by the foreign court as if it were its own judgment.
Enforcement can also be achieved by commencing an action on the SICC judgment against the losing party in any common law country – you sue on it as a judgment debt.
For civil law jurisdictions, while the ideal situation is where treaty arrangements can be relied on for enforcement of judgments, there are civil law jurisdictions such as France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain and Switzerland, where foreign judgments may be enforced even in the absence of treaties if certain requirements are met^[27].
Each of these existing methods of enforcement are complemented by the deeming provisions in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act^[28], which provides that parties to an agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of the SICC shall be considered to have agreed to:
1. carry out any SICC judgment without undue delay; and
2. waive any recourse to any court or tribunal outside Singapore against any SICC judgment and the enforcement of such judgment unless they provide otherwise.
Ways of enhancing the enforceability of SICC judgments are also being pursued. Singapore will sign the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements[29] during a council meeting of the Hague Conference[30] later this month. This is the first of a two-step process for Singapore to become a party to the Convention[31]. The Convention essentially aims to create a legal regime for court judgments that is akin to the New York Convention and will enhance the enforceability of SICC judgments vis-à-vis the Convention parties. More details on the Convention will be discussed during the panel discussion on International Enforcement of SICC Judgments.
In addition, the government will also look at expanding the scope of our reciprocal enforcement legislation, so that SICC judgments can be enforced by registration in more countries or territories.
Parties who are primarily concerned about enforceability, where treaty arrangements are not available, may well prefer to choose arbitration. This is well understood. The SICC is targeted at court litigation that would not otherwise have come to Singapore. The real comparison is therefore not with arbitration, but with other courts, particularly other courts chosen as neutral, third party venues for the resolution of international disputes.
The “competition” as it were, for want of a better word, would be the London and New York courts, which are regularly chosen in dispute resolution clauses in cross-border agreements signed every day, all over Asia. These courts, like the SICC, also face issues of enforceability. So the real question is: what are the enforcement prospects for the judgments of each of these courts? Examined in this light, the SICC is a real and attractive option for parties wishing to have their international disputes adjudicated in Asia.

SICC as a catalyst for the use of Singapore Law
With the SICC as a new dispute resolution option, parties will have to think about it when putting in their dispute resolution clauses in their contracts. It is also likely that parties thinking about choosing the SICC, will also be prompted to think about whether or not to choose Singapore law as the governing law of the contract. We will continue on our efforts to promote the use of Singapore law, as this is an important corollary to making our vision of Singapore as a legal services hub come about.
Getting parties to choose Singapore law cannot be done overnight, but good progress has already been made. On the arbitration front, despite the fact that more than 80% of the cases filed in the SIAC in 2013 were international in nature and 48% had no connection with Singapore, Singapore law was stipulated as the governing law of the contract in disputes in close to half of the cases^[32].
The SICC will further these efforts. People who feel that the SICC is a forum where they can get justice which is well-administered, neutral and cost-effective are likely not only to use the SICC again, but to think about using Singapore law in the SICC.
The SICC will also provide a new platform for Singapore law firms and lawyers to gain international exposure and experience. There will be more opportunities to work on high value, complex cross-border disputes with foreign litigators and their clients, and to appear before eminent foreign jurists with vast experience in commercial law.
If we are able to successfully develop our international litigation and mediation spheres, while maintaining our status as an arbitration hub, we will become the centre of gravity for legal work in Asia and the local legal sector will be a direct beneficiary.

International Litigation: Horizon Scanning
For us to become the centre of gravity for legal work, we need to anticipate what the future of international litigation will look like and adapt accordingly.
What are some of the trends in international commercial litigation, and how might that impact on the future?
First, we see increasing internationalisation of law. Justice Steven Chong spoke about this at this same Conference two years ago. With the growth in cross-border litigation, the impact of foreign jurisprudence on domestic laws will also increase, since domestic courts will have to look abroad to ensure that their decisions are in line with international practice^[33].
Apex courts of many jurisdictions have been increasingly looking to foreign decisions not only in cases with cross-border elements but even those without.
This is also the case in Singapore where our courts are generally at ease with citing the views of foreign courts. In 2013, Singapore courts considered over 1,500 foreign cases, five times as many foreign cases compared with 20 years ago^[34]. Whereas we have traditionally relied on English decisions, judgments today also tend to consider a wider diversity of foreign judgments including those of Australia, Malaysia, Canada, India, Hong Kong, New Zealand, America, and even South Africa^[35].
Second, the use of technology has and will continue to be an integral part of litigation in this digital age.
As early as 2000, technology was grafted onto our Court filing system through the Electronic Filing System (EFS). Those who were in practice at that time will remember the pain it involved, but today it is almost like second nature. EFS enabled court documents to be prepared and filed electronically. There were other developments, such as the amendment of the Supreme Court Practice Directions in 2012 to introduce an option for parties to conduct discovery by direct exchange of electronic copies, with inspection deferred. This was followed by the introduction of the Integrated Electronic Litigation system, or eLitigation in 2013.
Technology has the potential to revolutionise litigation. Trends such as the increasing interest in online dispute resolution may change the way that disputes are litigated. It is even possible to mine litigation data to predict behaviours and outcomes that different legal strategies will produce. ^[36]
Third, clients will have increasingly high expectations of their lawyers. All of us in practice know this, but it will increase. While law used to be largely jurisdiction-bound, it is no longer tenable for lawyers to get by with a purely national focus. The expectation is that lawyers must be able to advise and manage trans-national deals, provide foreign investors with perspectives on foreign law and legal systems and also to resolve commercial disputes of an international nature in court proceedings, as well as before international arbitral tribunal^[37]. Lawyers are expected to advise not just on the technicalities of the law, but also to have an eye on the business issues.
While expecting more, clients at the same time are becoming more cost-conscious. They are now less willing to pay time costs charged by the hour and are instead looking for billing models that have become aligned to their needs. For example, capped and flat fees have become more common-place, while models which charge for the value of the work done, rather than time spent, are increasingly being considered.
Some clients are also disaggregating certain types of legal work. Not all of the legal work will go to traditional law firms and some of it will go to alternative legal service providers. These include legal process outsourcing firms, or LPOs^[38], and contract lawyers. To compete in this evolving market, law firms will need to innovate and develop new capabilities.

Responding to Challenges & Positioning Ourselves for the Future
To fully benefit from the opportunities presented by Asia’s growth and our plans to develop Singapore as a legal services hub, our litigators must up their game. You will have to transform from domestic lawyers to regional and international lawyers. I would say that currently different lawyers are at different stages of development towards this goal - a few have made that transformation, some are in the process, others are thinking about it but haven’t done anything yet, some may not think that there is a need. But if we want to get to the next level, then it is no longer a question of if, but when and how you make this transformation.
If you can continue to improve quality levels, position yourselves competitively, build collaborations with your foreign counterparts and leverage on technology, then you will be well on the way to making this transformation.
You will need to acquire multi-jurisdictional capabilities. In the climate of globalisation and increased expectations of clients, just being able to advise on domestic law is insufficient. I’m not saying you should abandon this – you really have to have a very good grasp of your domestic law, but you also need to be able to do more. There are different ways of acquiring this multi-jurisdictional capabilities - some through partnerships, some through the FLAs, some through collaborative networks with foreign law firms. Others may choose to hire foreign lawyers, some may open foreign offices. The modality is up to each law practice to decide, according to what suits you best. But acquire these capabilities you must.
International lawyers of the future will need to be adept at analysing issues through a comparative lens. You will need your local legal knowledge that is both suited to local circumstances and useful as a point of comparison for foreign jurisdictions^[39]. You will also need to be able to “code switch” back and forth between being a domestic lawyer with expertise in domestic law and an international lawyer well-versed in comparative laws and able to navigate cross-jurisdictional issues.

Complementary Skills
There is also a whole range of complementary skills to be acquired.
1. First, project management skills: With litigation becoming more international, the size and complexity of the disputes will increase. Managing mega cross-border litigation is going to require not only legal skills but also cross-jurisdictional co- ordination and project management capabilities. The ability to plan, organise and manage resources is essential to ensure the seamless delivery of legal services, if you look at it from the client perspective, because what the client wants is the one-stop shop that can deliver all of its needs. Lawyers must be able to strike that balance between cost and quality of delivery, and project management skills are essential to helping lawyers achieve that balance.
2. Second, the use of technology: Technology can be a friend, although it frequently feels like a foe. It can enhance your firm’s internal processes. Law firms can use document and practice management software to organise and streamline practices by automating processes and workflows. They can also adopt knowledge management systems to manage and institutionalise firm knowledge and share it seamlessly across the firm. Technology can also change the way legal services are delivered. For example, some law firms have started offering online subscription products over the internet and have developed mobile apps. Where law firms are investing in IT, they can leverage existing schemes like the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme, which allows firms to enjoy tax deductions and allowances.
3. Second, the use of technology: Technology can be a friend, although it frequently feels like a foe. It can enhance your firm’s internal processes. Law firms can use document and practice management software to organise and streamline practices by automating processes and workflows. They can also adopt knowledge management systems to manage and institutionalise firm knowledge and share it seamlessly across the firm. Technology can also change the way legal services are delivered. For example, some law firms have started offering online subscription products over the internet and have developed mobile apps. Where law firms are investing in IT, they can leverage existing schemes like the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme, which allows firms to enjoy tax deductions and allowances.
In the longer term, the skills required of litigators and the nature of legal practice itself may change even further. So how are we going to position ourselves for what the future might bring? The government is currently working with stakeholders from across the legal sector to think about the possible futures across the next 15 to 20 years, and prepare for them. There will be more on this at the forthcoming Legal Futures Conference, which the Ministry of Law and the Singapore Academy of Law will be organising in July 2015. I hope you will attend.

Conclusion
The future of litigation looks bright. But unlocking that potential depends on how we respond to the opportunities provided. I hope that this address has provided food for thought and that it will be a springboard for further exploration of the issues of international commercial litigation during the panel discussions ahead. I wish all of you a fruitful conference. Thank you very much.

^[1] World Trade Organisation press release, Modest trade growth anticipated for 2014 and 2015 following two year slump, 14 April 2014. https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres14_e/pr721_e.htm.
^[2]Focus Economics, Economic Snapshot for Asia, 25 February 2015. http://www.focus-economics.com/regions/asia-pacific.
^[3] Rajiv Biswas, Global Recovery Should Carry ASEAN Through Economic Headwinds, 19 Jan 2014, Forbes Asia. http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesasia/2014/01/19/global-recovery-should-carry-asean-through-economic-headwinds/.
^[4]Asia 2050 Report: Realising the Asian Century (Executive Summary) https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/28608/asia2050-executive-summary.pdf.
^[5] Economic Outlook for Southeast Asia, China and India 2014 – Beyond the Middle-Income Trap https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/economic-outlook-for-southeast-asia-china-and-india-2014_saeo-2014-en.
^[6] United Nations Conference on Trade and Development press release, Asia tops the world in foreign direct investment, according to new UNCTAD report, 23 June 2014.
http://unctad.org/en/Pages/PressRelease.aspx?OriginalVersionID=181 .
^[7] Statement made by Stephen Groff, regional vice president of the Manila-based Asian Economic Bank at the World Economic Forum on East Asia. http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2014/05/29/risk-or-reward-the-trouble-with-southeast-asias-infrastructure/?blog_id=203&post_id=4361&mod=wsj_valettop_email.
^[8] Yasmine Yahya, More MNCs moving their top managers to Asia: Report, 24 Oct 2013, The Straits Times.
^[9] Global 500 2014. http://fortune.com/global500/.
^[10] Global 500 2014. http://fortune.com/global500/.
^[11] Denise Wong, The Rise of the International Commercial Court[2014] 33(2) Civil Justice Quarterly 205 at p 205.
^[12] 2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration by White & Case
^[13] Singapore was ranked first in having an efficient legal framework for settling disputes out of 148 countries in the World Economic Forum 2013-2014 report. Singapore was also ranked fifth out of 152 countries and first among the Asian countries assessed, for its legal structure and property rights in the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World Report 2013.
^[14] See < http://www.sicc.gov.sg/Judges.aspx?id=30>.
^[15] Stamford Law Chronicle Issue 36, Singapore International Commercial Court: a New Brand of Litigation?, Jan 2015.
^[16] Section 36P of the Legal Profession Act read with rule 3 of the Legal Profession (Foreign Representation in SICC) Rules 2014.
^[17] Turner (East Asia) Pte Ltd v Builders Federal (Hong Kong) Ltd[1988] 1 SLR(R) 281
^[18] SIAC Annual Report 2014.
^[19] Section 18K of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act read with Order 110 Rule 23.
^[20] Section 18L of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act read with Order 110 Rule 25.
^[21] Order 110 Rules 14 to 21.
^[22] Article 95(9)(b) of the Constitution, section 9(4)(b) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
^[23] Order 110 Rule 30.
^[24] Stamford Law Chronicle Issue 36, Singapore International Commercial Court: a New Brand of Litigation?, Jan 2015.
^[25] Stamford Law Chronicle Issue 36, Singapore International Commercial Court: a New Brand of Litigation?, Jan 2015.
^[26] Claire Huang, Singapore’s Newest International Commercial Court Set to Thrive, 12 Jan 2015, The Business Times. http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/singapores-newest-international-commercial-court-set-to-thrive.
^[27] Samuel P. Baumgartner, How Well do US Judgments Fare in Europe? (2008) 40 George Washington University International Law Review 173.
^[28] Section 18F(1)(b) and (c).
^[29] Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements. The Convention has not entered into force. It will only enter into force after 2 parties ratify the Convention. Currently, only Mexico has ratified the Convention although EU and USA have signed it.
^[30] Meeting of the Council of General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law
^[31] Singapore will need to sign and ratify the Convention to become party to it.
^[32] SIAC Annual Report 2013.
^[33] Opening Address of Steven Chong S.C. at the Litigation Conference 2013 at para 19.
^[34] Goh Yihan & Paul Tan, Singapore law ready to influence development of law elsewhere, 18 Jan 2015, The Straits Times.
^[35] Opening Address of Steven Chong S.C. at the Litigation Conference 2013 at para 19.
^[36] Lex Machina - https://lexmachina.com/
^[37] Sundaresh Menon, “Transnational Commercial Law: Realities, Challenges and a Call for Meaningful Convergence” [2013] SJLS 231 at p 231-232.
^[38] In an Allen and Overy survey of around 200 in-house counsels’ attitudes towards new legal services models in May 2014, 63% of those surveyed said that they had used contract lawyers in the past two years. 74% said they already did or expected to do so in the next five years.
An RBS report in April 2014 observed that all the respondents of its survey of law firms expected their firm’s utilisation of legal process outsourcing (LPO) services to stay the same or increase within a year. Fifteen of the top 30 law firms by revenue either have a formal arrangement with an LPO supplier or have set up their own dedicated service centres. Research by LSE estimates the international LPO industry to currently be worth US$2.4 billion.
^[39] Goh Yihan & Paul Tan, Singapore law ready to influence development of law elsewhere, 18 Jan 2015, The Straits Times.

Last updated on 14 Jul 2015