Electronic Conveyancing and Other Matters Bill

Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. I declare my interest as a lawyer that acts in property-related disputes and a partner at Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, a law firm that has a conveyancing practice.

This Bill introduces an important tool to simplify the conveyancing process. It provides users the option to deal electronically with the sale of property. Other jurisdictions such as England and Australia have also moved to permit electronic conveyancing.

Currently, the typical process for selling a property involves the sellers issuing an option to the purchaser in exchange for the payment of an option fee, usually 1% of the value of the property. This option must then be exercised by payment of an option fee, usually a further 9% of the price of the property. Once the option is exercised, the purchaser then has an interest in the property and the seller is under an obligation to complete the sale in exchange for payment by the purchaser of the remaining amount of the price.

Currently, all these processes take place with the exchange of paper documents. The options are issued in writing in paper. Payment to exercise the option is made either by cashier’s order or cheque, usually to the seller’s designated lawyers. Thereafter, if the purchaser is getting a loan or using CPF, the purchaser’s lawyers have to deal with the sellers lawyers, CPF Board and the bank and ensure that payments from all these parties along with the seller are ready for execution at the designated time for completion.

Generally, in property transactions, time is of the essence, and if any deadline for payment is missed, that will give the other party a right not to proceed with a sale and even ask for damages. In a fast moving property market, this can lead to significant claims against any party responsible for missing a deadline including purchaser, seller, lawyers, especially if a transaction does not go through.

Against this backdrop, having the option to perform various parts of the conveyancing transaction electronically should simplify the process. This Bill allows the seller to now issue an option electronically and for the buyer to exercise this option electronically. It is also possible for payments to be made into an electronic platform, obviating the need for cheques and cashier’s orders. Additionally, parties will have real time visibility over funds available from bank and in the CPF. So, this should reduce deadline jitters.

I envisage this Bill will be a valuable service that will align with the movement of the financial industry away from paper transactions. I do have a few suggestions in relation to this Bill and the electronic conveyancing process.

First, I note that the operative mechanism here is that any transaction in the electronic transaction mechanism will now satisfy the requirements of section 6(d) of the Civil Law Act for a transfer of property. This means that this rule is not intended to replace, but rather to supplement the existing methods of conveying property. This will mean a slightly more cumbersome process for parties in the industry as it means they still need to be familiar with the old processes. I would like to clarify with the Senior Minister of State if the intention is to slowly have this electronic transaction process replace the current system.

I think it is sensible to have both systems operating concurrently for a transitional period, but if the Government’s intention is to transition all transactions electronically, which I think is sensible, I would suggest this be telegraphed to the market and nudges be put in place to encourage more people to transact electronically in this transition process.

Second, where there are mistakes in the form or omissions, for example, if a selling party does not indicate the address of its conveyancing solicitor or indicates an incorrect address, under the law currently, as long as a buyer does everything in his power to indicate his intention to exercise the option, the court would generally uphold the transaction. In relation to paper options, sometimes the exercising solicitor’s name is even left blank.

I think it will be important for the electronic transaction system to also have some flexibility for parties to record their exercise of the option or intention to make completion payments, even if for some reason the seller may have made some mistakes in the electronic forms. Disputes have traditionally arisen around whether the formalities for exercise of the option were met where a seller may wish to avoid a transaction.

Third, the Land Register is generally taken as an authoritative record for the legal owner of a property. However, in a fast moving market, unscrupulous sellers may sometimes issue options to more than one buyer – a practice that has been the subject of several reported court decisions. In these situations, the first party to exercise and register his or her interest in the Land Register, would generally prevail over those who register later. One suggestion would be to see if this electronic transaction system can be linked to the Land Register such that if an option were issued in relation to the property, this may be automatically be reflected on the Land Register without the need to lodge a caveat.

All my suggestions are aimed at the future of electronic transaction system. I think this is an important improvement and I thank the Ministry and SLA for this initiative, which should make the conveyancing process simpler for everyone transacting in property.

On the electronic facilitation of the LPA process, this is also to be welcomed and generally, I agree that any process that makes it easy for parties to enter into an LPA, the better it is. The only small caveat I would add is that the Act envisions that where the power of attorney is donated in favour of a family member, this is one of the factors that suggest that the transaction is low risk. The only point I would make, which I am sure the Senior Minister of State is familiar with, is that based on the reported cases, most disputes around powers of attorney are disputes amongst family members. I hope that presumption will not be given too much weight if there are many other family members who are not involved in the process. Notwithstanding this comment, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I wish to speak about my concerns regarding clause 16 of the Bill. Before I begin, I would like to declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice who has witnessed and certified LPAs. I also conduct legal clinics on LPAs as part of my grassroots work.

Clause 16 changes how LPAs can be issued by the Certificate Issuer which could either be lawyers, psychiatrists, or selected doctors accredited by the Public Guardian. Currently, it is a requirement for the person giving powers under the LPA, called the donor, to be in the physical presence of the Certificate Issuer. This Certificate Issuer must directly witness the donor using his Singpass credentials to digitally sign the document.

The proposed amendment removes this requirement. The donor does not have to be in the same place as the Certificate Issuer to sign the document so long as two-way visual communication is maintained, such as through an online meeting application. I appreciate how remote signing is convenient if the donor and the Certificate Issuer cannot meet in person. This would especially help donors who have mobility difficulties, or perhaps live too far from the Certificate Issuer.

Sir, I believe the relevant Ministries are aware that the remote signing of LPAs can carry some risks, which explains why the Bill introduces some safeguards.

For a start, anyone who wishes to take advantage of the remote signing option will need to apply to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG). The OPG will then consider each application on a case-by-case basis. To qualify to make an application, the Bill stipulates certain conditions. The first two conditions are: one, that the donor must be under 75 years of age; and two, that the proposed donees must be either a professional donee working for remuneration, or be in specific family relationships.

Beyond that, the OPG also has to make an assessment that there is no significant risk in three aspects: one, that there is no significant risk of fraud or undue pressure on the donor to appoint particular donees; two, no significant risk that the donor lacks mental capacity; and three, no significant risk that the proposed donees will not act in the donor’s best interest.

While I support the Bill in its intentions to make it easier to assist donors who are immobile, I wish to raise some concerns when the LPAs involve donees who are family members.

It bears remembering that LPAs involve a substantial transfer of autonomy and are often done by older people. The donor is authorising a close relative to have lasting power over their personal property and also, to make personal or medical decisions, when the donor’s mental capacity is lost. There is thus always the risk that the donor's assets could be depleted by someone whom the donor is physically and emotionally dependent on.

For cases involving family members, it is straightforward to determine if the donor is under 75 years old and whether the proposed donees fall within certain categories of family relationships. However, any assessment about the risks is necessarily more subjective in nature. How does the OPG determine that there is no significant risk or fraud or undue pressure, and no significant risk that the proposed donees will not act in the donor’s best interest?

Practically speaking, given the workload and resources of the OPG today, does the OPG have the capacity to carefully conduct case-by-case enquiries into the family circumstances? Or would it be the case that the application process would be largely pro-forma – that so long as the documents are in order, the approval for remote signing would generally be granted?

In other words, how would the OPG be able to properly determine that there is no significant risk that an intended LPA will be to the donor’s detriment? It would be beneficial to get some clarity about what we can expect from the OPG in terms of specific measures and procedures.

Moreover, remote signing can also place the Certificate Issuer at a disadvantage in discharging his or her duty. The fact that the categories of Certificate Issuers involve people with medical or legal training suggests that a Certificate Issuer has to be more than a mere rubber stamp. Rather, there seems to be an implied responsibility for the Certificate Issuer to assess the competency and fitness of the donor to make an LPA.

In my own experience of certifying LPAs, I have found it helpful to not only pay attention to what the donor informs me, but to also observe the dynamics between the donor and donee, through their demeanour and body language.

If I believe that the donor is not able to speak freely, or the donor appears anxious or flustered, I have the option of speaking with the donor alone to confirm that the donor is not under any undue external pressure.

In the case of remote signing, however, the Certificate Issuer does not have the assurance of being able to talk with the donor alone or even verifying that there is nobody hovering around the donor. In all likelihood, the donee might even be sitting beside the donor to guide them through the remote signing, since the donor might not be tech-savvy to do it alone. Of course, these risks can also be present with an in-person signing. My point, however, is that remote signing increases these risks.

This risk is also compounded by the fact that unlike deputies appointed by the court, donees appointed by donors need not make regular reports to the OPG on the status of the donor’s assets. In an unfortunate scenario, any misuse of funds may go undetected for years.

On another note, Sir, I wonder if the OPG expects a high take-up rate for remote signing. Considering that the new law will still require both the donor and the Certificate Issuer to be in Singapore, it might still be much easier and faster to arrange an in-person signing, rather than making an application for remote signing and waiting for the OPG’s approval to proceed.

If the concern is to make the LPA procedures more convenient and accessible to donors, might I suggest the option of introducing more categories of Certificate Issuers be considered? In the UK, registered social workers can witness and certify LPAs. I am aware that many of our social workers have a heavy workload. But there may be some who may be interested to be Certificate Issuers. Perhaps the Government can open the option for them to receive training and accreditation from the OPG?

Another option is to hold more legal clinics and roadshows on LPAs in the neighborhood. I understand this has been ongoing in many constituencies and should continue. In Malay, Sir.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, one last point. In the previous Sitting, I filed a question about the demographic breakdown of LPA donors. The data says that 350,000 LPAs have been registered as of 15 August this year. However, out of the 350,000, Indian and Malay donors only accounted for 3% and 2% respectively.

Hence, other than the suggestions above, could the relevant Ministries also consider more vernacular outreach, perhaps through community organisations, to help more Singaporeans to understand the benefit of LPAs?

And for the Malay/Muslim community specifically, could the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) play a more active role in spreading awareness of the importance of making an LPA and also organising LPA information sessions. MUIS can also collaborate with our mosques on this matter. For example, MUIS has organised similar events in October 2020, by conducting a Fatwa Seminar on LPAs and Advanced Care Planning. These should be encouraged.

(In English): Sir, in conclusion, I appreciate the general trend towards conducting business and legal transactions remotely. However, I believe that, in the case of LPAs, we should go to where the people are.

Mr Speaker, I declare that I am a lawyer by profession and oversees the conveyancing department of a law practice that has indicated interest in signing up for the DCP as offered by SLA. I rise in support of the Electronic Conveyancing and Other Matters Bill.

I appreciate the objectives behind the introduction of DCP. It streamlines the conveyancing process, enhances convenience and minimises the risk of clerical errors, issues that are often only discovered at the completion stage. Such errors can lead to professional negligence claims, delays in buyers collecting their keys to commence the renovations and even for sellers receiving their proceeds later to purchase their next home.

That said, I seek clarification on the current take-up rate for DCP. Has SLA secured sufficient buy-in from all or if not, majority of the stakeholders, such as the real estate agents, property developers, banks that offer mortgage loans and law firms that provide conveyancing services? If not, what are the reasons and how will they be addressed?

My next clarification pertains to whether the DCP is intended to eventually be the only platform for conveyancing, the way how eLitigation is used today in the legal practice? If no, a real concern could be that old habits die hard. Without a mandated shift, certain stakeholders, such as banks and law firms, may be resistant to change their established workflows and standard operating procedures. This could lead to confusion. For instance, under current arrangements, deposits or conveyancing monies can be held in either: one, a law firm's conveyancing account; two, with the Singapore Academy of Law under its Conveyancing Money Service; or three, via DCP's Digital Conveyancing Account. Each of these options involve different workflows, timelines for deposits and procedures for releasing its funds.

To kickstart adoption of DCP, I suggest that the transactions involving Government agencies, such as HDB and the CPF Board, take the lead in using DCP. Additionally, the Singapore Academy of Law could consider sunsetting its current escrow fee arrangements with a view to eventually merging them into the DCP framework.

I also recommend that the SLA partner with institutions, like the Temasek Polytechnic's Diploma in Law and Management, Law Society of Singapore and Council of Estate Agencies, to organise workshops to train the relevant stakeholders, such as students, paralegals, lawyers and real estate agents, in DCP skills so that we can start developing a skilled workforce to support this transition.

My next point is in respect of the new section 16W of the Bill which, if passed, will allow deeds relating to immovable property to be executed virtually on PETS. Does this extend to Powers of Attorney for the sale, rental or general management of a real property? Currently, under section 48 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (CLPA), the original Power of Attorney, engrossed with a seal, must be deposited with the High Court. Will the virtual execution on PETS satisfy this requirement moving forward or will amendments to the CLPA be needed? In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] SLA's DCP makes property transactions seamless, transparent and secure for buyers, sellers, lawyers and estate salespersons. In this regard, I would like to ask the Government: how will the Government assure stakeholders, especially those SMEs and elderly who are not IT savvy, of the safety and security of DCP, in particular, what are the safeguards against abuse, scams or cybersecurity threats?

(In English): Notwithstanding my clarifications, Mr Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. This Bill modernises how Singapore manages property transactions and legal authorisations. It enables the use of secure electronic systems for conveyancing, allows remote witnessing of legal instruments and introduces important reforms to facilitate digital signing of LPA. These are practical, necessary changes, especially in a society that is increasingly digital in how we live, how we work and plan for the future.

Sir, today's conveyancing processes involves up to 17 stakeholders: lawyers, banks, CPF, IRAS, HDB, SLA and many, many more. Despite years of digital progress, much of this process remains manual, paper-based and prone to coordination issues. The amendments in this Bill provide a legal foundation for property transactions to be conducted fully through PETS. These include systems, like DCP, which is developed by SLA. This shift enables electronic contracts and deeds, secure digital signatures and the remote witnessing of execution.

I believe that these capabilities are not just about efficiency. They also reduce error, increase transparency and improve the overall experience for buyers, sellers and professionals involved. Stakeholders have long highlighted inefficiencies, from repeated data entries to the delay in cheque processing. Law firms and banks have spoken about how one mortgage transaction can take up to 50 minutes just to check and reconcile documents. This Bill addresses these bottlenecks meaningfully.

Sir, another welcomed provision of this Bill is the facilitation of remote witnessing of LPAs. This is an important step. As our population continues to age, more individuals are planning ahead to safeguard their care and decision-making. But the current LPA process still requires an in-person processing and witnessing which can be difficult for seniors with mobility issues or caregivers with limited time. This Bill allows eligible individuals under 75 with appropriate donees, to complete their LPAs via live audio-visual witnessing, under strict safeguards. This builds on the earlier digitalisation of the LPA process through OPGO. It is a meaningful reform that expands access, while preserving integrity.

Sir, as we move to a fully digital system, we must also pay close attention to readiness and trust. These are important issues to stand out. There are still segments of our population, particularly our seniors and our low-income families, who may lack digital access or confidence in the system. Therefore, we must ensure that no one is disadvantaged because they are unfamiliar with the new system. Similarly, not all conveyancing firms have equal digital capabilities. Some smaller practices may face resource constraints in adopting new workflows.

Mr Speaker, to that end, I would like to seek clarifications on the following. Will there be training or transition support provided for smaller law firms and service providers? What measures will be taken to ensure that the new systems are inclusive, especially for residents who may struggle with digital tools or with the language? And will there be community-based digital navigators or help channels for those who need assistance?

Sir, as we digitise legal documents and financial transactions, cybersecurity will continue and always become a critical issue.

This Bill rightly mentions and introduces safeguards, such as the clear definitions for secure electronic records and signatures, requirements for attestation in digital witnessing and provisions for error correction and cybersecurity incidents under the amended SLA Act. I believe these are all really important. But public confidence depends not just on what the law allows, but how risks are managed in practice.

So, may I ask to that end, what cybersecurity standards will the prescribed systems be subjected to? Will there be regular system testing or independent audits that can be regularly done and how will the authorities communicate these safeguards to the public to build greater confidence? When large sums and legally binding documents are involved, Singaporeans must know that the digital infrastructure is not just about convenience, but of course, trustworthy.

Sir, we have seen during COVID-19 how physical processes can become fragile in the face of disruption. Remote work, lockdowns and safe distancing rules revealed the limits of a manual, paper-dependent system. This Bill ensures that critical legal and housing processes can continue securely, even when in-person meetings are not possible. It is a future-proofing measure which I welcome because it is not just a tech upgrade. Sir, may I continue in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, I support this Bill because it modernises the property conveyancing process and improves access to important legal documents, such as the LPA.

This move will enhance efficiency, security and convenience for all parties, including senior citizens and families who require additional support. It is important that we ensure that in our journey towards digitalisation, no group is left behind. This includes seniors, whom I mentioned earlier, and those who are not fluent in English.

I welcome this measure and hope that its implementation will be inclusive and build public confidence towards this system.

(In English): This Bill supports a more efficient, secure and accessible conveyancing system, and expands legal access for those planning for their future care. As implementation begins, I urge the Government to continue working closely with stakeholders across the law, finance, tech and the community sector to ensure that this digital transition is smooth, inclusive and robust. Technology must not just make systems smarter. It must make them more humane and more accessible for all. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Electronic Conveyancing and Other Matters Bill. This Bill facilitates the implementation of a new DCP, allowing property transactions to be handled electronically. I welcome this step in our continued journey to become a Smart Nation. The new conveyancing portal makes our property transactions more efficient and further strengthens our place as a future-ready financial hub. Notwithstanding my support, I have four points of clarifications.

First, for our seniors. As more of our Government interactions enter the digital space, it comes at a cost to our seniors. Our seniors have gone through most of their lives without digital tools and now they find themselves in the midst of a rapid roll-out of new digital platforms in each part of their life. I have strong faith in the ability of our seniors to adapt and learn. But, I also worry that as the world becomes increasingly foreign, it can leave some feeling disempowered and disorganised. This is especially so for isolated seniors who do not have younger family members to help them.

In a 2023 study on Digital Literacy by the Centre for Research on Successful Ageing, only 54% of respondents were confident of using a new digital application on their own. So, it is our responsibility to make the Smart Nation transition as easy as possible for our seniors.

For the new DCP, can the Minister clarify what parts of these new systems would be accessed by retail property owners? Or would the platform be operated primarily by stakeholders, such as lawyers, bankers and property agents? Are these public-facing user interfaces designed with our seniors in mind? Support for multiple languages, visual impairment or simply good design thinking, this would go a long way in helping our seniors.

Second, digitalisation brings convenience and efficiency but also risks. In the last few years, we have all experienced how the rise of digital banking services has led to an increase in scams, cheating some seniors out of their retirement savings. In a recent survey by PEXA, Australia's version of a digital conveyancing system, 97% of respondents missed signs of fraudulent activity in their property transactions.

Has the Ministry assessed whether an electronic portal like this might increase the risks of scams, especially for our seniors? Is it possible for a scammer or even a family member exerting undue influence over a senior to abuse the system? Could the use of digital systems make it harder for stakeholders to detect when some improper conduct is taking place?

Third, the Bill creates a new process for the remote witnessing of donors executing LPAs. I welcome the increased convenience for executing LPAs and hope this will encourage more Singaporeans to get their LPA done early to prepare for life's events or old age.

I note that one condition for remote witnessing is that the donor must be under 75 years of age. I agree, in principle, that for older Singaporeans, more safeguards may be appropriate before allowing remote witnessing, but the choice of 75 years appears a little arbitrary.

Can the Senior Minister of State explain how the age of 75 was chosen? Could this be interpreted as a general rule that those above 75 have a higher risk of reduced mental capacity? Will this number be constantly and regularly reviewed as ageing trends in our society change?

Lastly, this Bill is a missed opportunity to go further and clarify other formalities and technical terms around executing legal documents in Singapore. For example, this Bill allows deeds, which have specific legal requirements, to be executed electronically. But why not abolish the concept of a deed entirely?

The difference between a deed and an agreement is a technical one that only lawyers are concerned with. There is some uncertainty whether a deed can be enforceable if it is not in wet ink or missing a red sticker. These are old practices that carry little meaning to those signing them, but also increases business costs.

So, as we become a Smart Nation, Sir, we can boldly abolish dated technical legal instruments and replace them with more intuitive processes that are more consistent with what we do in our modern world. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I am concerned about the impact on our elderly after the amendments.

The DCP is a new platform. Are these public-facing user interfaces designed with our seniors in mind? Support for multiple languages, visual impairment, or simply good design thinking, would go a long way to helping our seniors. Furthermore, whilst digitalisation brings convenience, it also brings risks. We all know the threat that scams pose to the public, especially to the elderly. I would like to understand whether this new platform will increase the risk of scams or abuse.

Finally, I welcome the increased convenience on standards to allow more people to complete LPA procedures online. However, one of the conditions is that the donor must be under 75 years old. I understand this may be an additional safeguard for older individuals, but I would like to know how the age of 75 was determined. Will it be adjusted in future based on changing social circumstances?

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill moves us in this direction and I hope to see the Government continuing on this momentum. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill marks a pivotal step in modernising Singapore's conveyancing process.

It will make property transactions faster, more transparent and more efficient, in line with our Smart Nation vision. Yet as we digitalise, we must remember that buying or selling a home is not just a legal exchange. It is a deeply human experience, a lifelong dream for some and an essential lifeline for others. As we move this process online, we must ensure it remains safe, inclusive and trustworthy for all, from young couples buying their first Build-To-Order flats to retirees unlocking equity in their golden years.

I have several clarifications on the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my first point is on digital inclusion. We have seen how initiatives, like Singpass and LifeSG, have set a new standard for convenience for many Singaporeans. Yet, we also know that not everyone is equally comfortable navigating digital platforms, particularly our seniors and small firms still reliant on paper-based workflows.

DCP will bring together up to 17 different stakeholders, from lawyers, to banks, to HDB and SLA, into one united ecosystem. That is an immense leap in efficiency. But it also introduces a human challenge. How do we ensure that no one gets left behind?

I urge the Ministry to consider assisted digital services at community touchpoints, such as libraries, community clubs and ServiceSG centres, where residents can receive guided in-person help from trained officers. Such digital assistance can make the difference between empowerment and exclusion.

Next, can the Minister assure the House that residents will not be burdened by new system charges and that measures, such as fee caps or subsidies, will be introduced, especially for first-time buyers or lower-income households? Furthermore, as many small law firms rely heavily on conveyancing work, can the Government share the onboarding and training programmes to help these firms transition smoothly to the new system? This will not only safeguard livelihoods but also preserve healthy competition in the legal sector. If the portal faces downtime on a critical completion day, what manual fallback or contingency processes will protect users from financial losses or penalties? Digital convenience must never become digital compulsion.

My second point, Mr Speaker, Sir, concerns remote witnessing. This is a forward-thinking feature. It allows individuals, especially seniors or persons with mobility challenges, to execute documents electronically without having to travel.

However, under section 16X of the Bill, remote witnessing is currently limited to witnesses physically located in Singapore. This may inadvertently exclude Singaporeans who are temporarily based overseas, for instance, those on overseas postings or students abroad. Could the Ministry explore secure extensions, perhaps through our embassies, consulates or accredited notaries, so that they, too, can safely participate?

Additionally, for residents who lack access to devices or who are not digitally confident, can we set up assisted witnessing stations at community hubs or HDB branches, equipped with secure connectivity and trained staff?

Most importantly, the rules governing remote witnessing should be designed with compassion and flexibility, accommodating medical or disability-related circumstances. Because for a hospitalised senior or a person with limited mobility, accessibility is not a convenience. It is dignity.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, I note that there have been instances where lawyers in property transactions falsely certified documents. One example is the case of Ms K Manickam, who attested that she had witnessed several signings even though the documents had not been signed in her presence.

Would the electronic system be able to ensure that individuals who are required to attest to the validity or correctness of documents do in fact fulfill this duty? In addition, electronic systems may create the false impression that digital transactions are somehow less formal or serious. Are there measures in place to ensure that all parties and stakeholders understand the gravity of these transactions and that, despite the electronic system, the expectation remains that everyone involved is accountable for the verifications set out in the relevant documents?

Mr Speaker, Sir, my fourth point is about redress and liability. Even the most secure systems can experience glitches or cyber incidents. Section 25 of the Bill rightly empowers SLA to correct errors or omissions arising from system malfunctions or cybersecurity incidents after notifying affected parties and allowing representations. This is a prudent safeguard. But for residents, especially families in the midst of completing a purchase, a few hours' delay can translate into real stress and financial penalties, especially when tax deadlines or stamp duties are triggered.

So, when a transaction fails due to no fault of the user, who bears the cost? Will there be an ex-gratia or compensation framework for affected parties, particularly home buyers who may face cascading penalties through no fault of their own? Furthermore, will SLA publish audit trails or digital transaction logs so that parties can easily verify what went wrong and when? As digital conveyancing scales up, what redundancy capabilities will ensure that the system can handle peak volumes, for example, after policy announcements that trigger surges in property transactions?

My fifth point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is on data privacy and scam protection. I believe Members earlier, like Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Lee Hui Ying, have raised similar issues. Property transactions involve highly sensitive financial and personal information. The Bill allows SLA and HDB to provide non-confidential data for transparency and analytics. This can certainly enhance policy planning and public understanding of market trends. But what exactly qualifies as non-confidential?

Can the Senior Minister of State clarify what data use limits and access safeguards will be in place to prevent misuse, such as bulk scraping or phishing attempts? Will individuals have the option to opt out of having personal data publicly accessible? Likewise, will any of the data in this portal be used to fight crime? What jurisdiction will be extended to the use of data in this portal without a resident's permission for criminal investigation?

I also urge the Ministry to anticipate the evolving threat landscape, including deepfake impersonations in remote witnessing and phishing attempts masquerading as official DCP communications. Given recent public sector data breaches, security assurance must be visible and continual, not just technical but also educational. Residents must know how to verify authentic communication from the system.

Trust is the currency of digital governance. Once it is lost, convenience means little.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I turn to record retention. Physical title deeds may soon become a relic of the past. But digital records raise a new set of questions. How do we ensure permanence, authenticity and accessibility across generations? Under section 23(5) of the amended SLA Act, records of conveyancing transactions must be retained for a prescribed period. But for many residents, property ownership extends decades beyond any prescribed timeline.

Can the Minister assure us that digital conveyancing records will be archived indefinitely and remain accessible to homeowners or their legal representatives, even after technology platforms evolve or vendors change? Can residents always download a verified, tamper-proof copy of their documents, free of charge, for their own safekeeping?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill moves us closer to a future where property transactions are seamless, secure and digital, where what once took weeks can now be done in days and where technology serves not as a barrier, but as a bridge. But let us also remember what this Bill truly represents. It is not just about faster processing or cleaner interfaces. It is about people, ensuring that every Singaporean, young or old, rich or poor, feels confident and included in this new digital journey.

We must build a system that is inclusive so that no senior or small firm is left behind. We must make it compassionate, with remote witnessing that understands the realities of caregiving, disability and distance. We must keep it accountable so that when things go wrong, there is redress, transparency and fairness. We must ensure it is secure because in a world of rising scams and cyber threats, trust is our strongest currency. We must make it enduring so that the records of one generation remain safe in the hands of the next.

If we can do all these, then this Bill will be more than just a technical milestone. It will be a statement of values. It will say that in Singapore, even as we digitalise, we do not lose our human touch. We use technology to lift people up, not to leave them behind. We build systems that are efficient, yes, but also empathetic, transparent and just.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the digital home we build today is not made of bricks or beams. It is built on trust, on the faith that when we click that button, sign that document or buy that first home, the system will stand by our side. So, let us build this new chapter of our Smart Nation with courage and care. Let us create not only a faster system, but a fairer one. Not just a connected nation, but a confident people. Above all, let us remember: a truly smart nation is not defined by how many systems we build, but by how deeply we keep faith with the people they are meant to serve. I support the Bill.

Sir, I thank Members for their support for the Bill and for the queries related to the amendments to the Mental Capacity Act. I am heartened by the positive reception to the proposed expansion of remote witnessing to more donors in the making of the LPA.

Since the introduction of the OPG online system in 2022, we have observed that monthly LPA registrations have almost doubled. In 2024, more than 95% of LPAs were made electronically. Many users have found the online LPA application process convenient and user-friendly.

To Dr Wan Rizal's concern that there are segments of our population who may lack digital access or confidence, we fully empathise and will continue with community partners and ServiceSG Centres to provide the necessary support.

I would like to assure Members that remote witnessing is intended to be an additional option, not the only one. Anyone can still visit a Certificate Issuer to do an in-person witnessing and n fact, we fully expect that some donors may still prefer to do so.

Ms Lee Hui Ying asked how we decided on the age criterion of 75 years. MSF is guided by the 2024 study on the Well-Being of Singapore Elderly (WiSE) by the Institute of Mental Health, which found that there is a significant increase in the prevalence of dementia amongst those aged 75 and above. This also corresponds with our experience in practice, with the number of alerts to the Public Guardian on the well-being of individuals aged 75 and above, is about 3.5 times that those aged 65 to 74. MSF will continue to monitor trends and if needed, propose adjustments to the age criterion to ensure its relevance.

Mr Fadli Fawzi asked about how the Public Guardian would ensure that there are no significant risk of fraud or undue pressure on the donor in the LPA making process, and that the donee will not act in the best interest of the donor.

Before donors can have the LPA's witness remotely, the Public Guardian must assess and approve only donors who meet the legislated criteria. These prescribed criteria ensure that donors with lower risk applications are eligible for remote witnessing.

On top of the age criterion raised by Ms Lee Hui Ying, remote witnessing is only extended to donors who intend to appoint donees who are family members or professional deputies and licensed trust companies. This is because family members are likely to act in the best interest of the donor and in addition, professional deputies and licensed trust companies are regulated, so there is a lower risk that they will abuse or exploit the donor.

Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Fadli Fawzi earlier raised concerns about LPA related disputes involving family members. Most disputes involve family members, because most appointed donees today are family members of the donor.

The whistle-blowing reports received by the OPG tend to come from other family members of the donor. We would like to underscore that, besides reviewing whether the donor's application meets the legislated criteria, the Public Guardian will also factor in other available information, such as the donor's history and past interactions with the OPG, as well as concerns raised by relevant individuals that may suggest that the donor is at risk of fraud or undue pressure.

During the LPA certification process, be it through in-person or remote witnessing, the Certificate Issuers play a critical role as gatekeepers of risk. At the point of LPA execution, Certificate Issuers verify that: one, no fraud or undue pressure was used to induce the donor to create the LPA; two, the donor understands the purpose of the instrument; and three, there is nothing else that would prevent an LPA from being created by the instrument.

Certificate Issuers must also be satisfied that during the session the donor is executing the instrument in private by requiring the donor to pan the camera around the room to show that there is no third party present and if the Certificate Issuer assesses that the donor may be vulnerable to fraud or undue pressure, the Certificate Issuer has the full discretion to require an in-person witnessing or to refuse to certify the LPA.

In addition, we have put in place administrative safeguards, such as having the Certificate Issuers document and submit to OPG records of the certification process, including the reason for any third party's presence and the identity of the third party in their notes. And this includes how they have assessed that the donor understands the purpose of an LPA and the scope of authority conferred under it.

We will also provide training to prepare to prepare Certificate Issuers for remote witnessing, so that they are fully equipped to offer this option.

Mr Fadli Fawzi also asked whether we could reach out to ethnic minority groups. Today, we already do so. Collaterals, such as those titled "Guides to the Lasting Power of Attorney", "LPA quick reference guides", for instance, are already made available in vernacular languages and there are also various LPA awareness workshops which are being conducted in vernacular languages.

Our collaboration with various community partners, including the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS), has thus far been positive and we will continue to work with them.

Dr Wan Rizal asked about cybersecurity standards that the prescribed systems will be subject to, as well as if there will be regular system testing or independent audits. The OPGO system used for online LPA applications is hosted on the Government commercial cloud, which has inbuilt cybersecurity measures. We would like to assure the Member that the system complies with the Government's cybersecurity and data protection standards, and there are also regular security audits, including penetration testing and vulnerability assessments.

Mr Fadli Fawzi asked about the anticipated take-up rate for remote witnessing. Based on earlier consultations, we anticipate that remote witnessing will be welcomed by members of the public who appreciate the greater convenience that it brings. To allow time for proper training and preparation, remote witnessing will start off with a smaller group of Certificate Issuers and donors before expanding to more Certificate Issuers. This gives us the chance to take in feedback from the users and further refine our processes and guidelines.

Sir, in conclusion, I echo Senior Minister of State Murali's comment that this Bill represents the Government's efforts to use technology to improve convenience and lives of Singaporeans.

Over the years, the Government has implemented several enhancements to the process of making LPA, and we hope that with the expansion of remote witnessing, more will come forward to make an LPA, and this will provide greater assurance of care arrangements to their family members and their loved ones.

Sir, I thank the hon Members for speaking and expressing support for the Bill and making very thoughtful suggestions too. Members have raised questions on three main areas in relation to the DCP and the proposed conveyancing-related amendments: first, ensuring effective user adoption of the DCP through training and engagement; second, the security and integrity of the digital system; and third, the safeguards available to ensure accountability and protection against fraud and scams.

Members have also raised various general clarifications such as the scope of the legislative amendments and the implementation approach for digital conveyancing. Let me now address these questions.

The hon Member Ms Hany Soh asked whether SLA has secured buy-in from stakeholders such as banks, law firms and real estate agents while the hon Members Mr Yip Hon Weng and Dr Wan Rizal asked about onboarding and training programmes to help law firms transition smoothly to the new system. The DCP was designed with extensive input from stakeholders. To date, SLA has conducted more than 40 engagements with a cumulative attendance of more than 600 participants from relevant stakeholders.

We recognise that stakeholders will need time to adapt to the new system. Training and support will be provided to practitioners to facilitate a smooth transition. For example, SLA is conducting industry briefings, training sessions and preparing user guides to help lawyers and conveyancing professionals navigate the DCP.

SLA will continue with their extensive engagement efforts to ensure a smooth transition.

Hon Members Mr Yip, Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Lee Hui Ying asked about the measures that will be taken to ensure that the DCP is inclusive, especially for residents who may struggle with digital tools. Mr Yip and Dr Wan Rizal suggested having assisted digital services and witnessing stations at community touchpoints and help channels for residents who require help on the use of DCP. Ms Lee also suggested that the DCP incorporate support for multiple languages and visual impairment. I thank Mr Yip, Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Lee for their valuable suggestions.

We will continue to work with all stakeholders in the design and implementation of the DCP to bridge the digital gap and ensure that the DCP is user-friendly to all users, including seniors. For instance, SLA had in fact considered visually impaired users and designed the DCP with mobile responsiveness and support for extra-large fonts. Lawyers will also continue to represent and assist buyers and sellers through the conveyancing process when the DCP is implemented.

Members have also raised the issue of DCP adoption and the cost of using the system. Hon Members Mr Vikram Nair and Ms Soh had asked whether the DCP is intended to eventually be the only platform for conveyancing, while Mr Nair suggested signalling to the market to encourage more people to transact electronically during the transition process. Ms Soh also suggested mandating transactions involving Government agencies, such as HDB, CPF Board to kickstart the adoption of the DCP. Mr Yip asked if fees will be charged for using the DCP.

While SLA is in discussion with the relevant agencies, there are no plans to mandate the use of the DCP at this juncture. As I explained in my speech earlier, the DCP is developed in phases, with a view to eventually covering all property transactions.

This measured approach will allow stakeholders to adapt to new digital conveyancing workflows progressively and enables SLA to incorporate practitioner feedback and refine workflows at each stage, resulting in a more robust and user-friendly system. SLA will also consider efforts to encourage the use of DCP.

There will also not be any additional fees or charges when the pilot is introduced. But this will have to be reviewed once the DCP is fully implemented as there will be a cost to providing the new service. When agencies review the fees that needs to be introduced in future, they will consider the benefits that the system brings to users as well as the overall affordability and accessibility of the system.

Mr Yip asked whether the electronic system would be able to ensure that individuals, like lawyers, who are required to attest to the validity or correctness of documents do, in fact, fulfil this duty. He also asked whether there are measures in place to ensure that all parties and stakeholders understand the gravity of the transactions.

To address this, the DCP has been designed to include clear warnings and confirmations at critical stages, requiring users to acknowledge the legal implications of their actions. SLA’s training programmes for legal professionals have also emphasised that electronic transactions carry the same legal weight and professional responsibilities as traditional processes.

Mr Yip, Dr Wan Rizal and Ms Soh asked about cybersecurity standards that the DCP is subject to and whether there are safeguards in place to prevent misuse, such as bulk scraping and phishing attempts. Dr Wan Rizal also asked whether there will be regular system testing or independent audits.

The DCP will operate on the Government Cloud Infrastructure and adopt security controls and processes in accordance with Government cybersecurity guidelines and best practices. Regular security audits and penetration testing will be conducted to maintain system resilience.

Mr Yip asked whether individuals can opt out of having personal data publicly accessible. There will be no personal data publicly accessible on the DCP. The DCP incorporates robust access controls to ensure information remains confidential and is only available to transaction parties, legal representatives and relevant authorities.

To Mr Yip’s question on what constitutes “non-confidential” data that can be provided for transparency and analytics, this refers to information that is publicly accessible, such as property addresses, purchase prices, and information in the Land Register, which can be found through public searches today.

The data will be used for better policy decisions and market analysis while ensuring that genuinely confidential information, such as personal financial details or private correspondence, remains protected.

To Mr Yip's question on what jurisdiction will be extended to the use of data in the portal without a resident's permission for criminal investigation, data in the DCP may be subject to existing legal frameworks that govern law enforcement access to information. Any use of portal data for criminal investigations would follow established legal procedures, including appropriate warrants or court orders where required.

Ms Lee asked whether the DCP might increase the risks of scams and whether there is a possibility of family members exerting undue influence over a senior to abuse the system. The DCP is designed with enhanced security features to reduce the risks of scams. For example, secure log in and secure electronic signing via Singpass or CorpPass will protect sensitive information and reduce the risk of fraud. In addition, lawyers must continue to ensure that their clients are not under undue influence from other persons when signing DCP documents using Singpass.

Mr Yip asked whether there are any manual fallback or contingency processes in the event the DCP faces downtime. The DCP is designed to ensure a high level of availability of services and includes mechanisms for data replication and failover to prevent data loss. In the unlikely event the DCP is unavailable, users may continue with their transactions using the current manual process. SLA will implement a business continuity management plan to enable online transactions to be completed offline quickly.

Mr Yip asked for assurance that digital conveyancing records will be archived indefinitely and remain accessible to homeowners or their legal representatives, even after technology platforms evolve or vendors change. The DCP will maintain all digital records and provide homeowners with access to download their documents. While this service is currently free, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, charges will have to be reviewed once the DCP is fully implemented as there will be a cost to providing this new service. Any such changes would be implemented with appropriate notice and clear guidelines about what constitutes chargeable versus free access.

Mr Nair raised the issue of mistakes in the electronic forms and suggested for the DCP to provide flexibility for such transactions to be upheld, similar to the current paper-based system. The DCP mirrors today's conveyancing process, particularly, during critical milestones in the transaction, such as the exercise of the Option. There should be thus similar flexibility under the DCP in the event of any mistakes in the form. The DCP is also linked to SLA's Singapore Titles Automated Registration System (STARS), which enables access to information in the Land Register.

Mr Yip asked whether it is possible to explore secure extensions, for example, through our embassies, consulates or accredited notaries, to allow Singaporeans who are temporarily based overseas to engage in remote witnessing. As not all jurisdictions currently have similar laws allowing for remote witnessing of the execution of documents, both signatories and witnesses have to be in Singapore, so as to maintain legal certainty and avoid potential conflicts with any foreign law requirement.

Ms Soh asked whether the new section 16W of the Bill will allow deeds relating to immovable property to be executed virtually and whether it extends to Powers of Attorney related to property matters. Ms Lee also spoke about reforming the law on deeds generally, including the abolishment of the deeds' regime.

Most common law jurisdictions still require a deed to be entered in many transactions and these must comply with the common law formalities for the execution of deeds. Similarly in Singapore, deeds apply in various aspects of our commercial activities. Other than real estate transactions, parties execute deeds in many contractual and non-contractual or legal arrangements. For example, an agreement, not for valuable consideration, is not enforceable unless in the form of a deed. Other examples include trust deeds, deeds of guarantees and deed polls.

The formalities required for the execution of a deed also raises the signature level of the documentation to the parties. Abolishing the use of the deeds may thus increase the incidence of fraud and affect how businesses deal with those from other countries on the common law system.

As far as we are aware, no common law country has abolished the use of the deed altogether, so while I appreciate that there is a need to update some aspects of the system, particularly from wet ink to electronic signatures and the usage of red seals, to abolish the deed system altogether, it is something which we will not take up at this stage.

The current amendments only enable deeds to be electronically executed on the DCP if they are required as part of the conveyancing journey. The Government is studying the feasibility of enacting legislative frameworks that will facilitate electronic executions of other instruments, including deeds.

Other than the benefits that will accrue to citizens, we are studying if and what safeguards are necessary to protect the integrity of the electronic execution process of each of these documents. I thank Ms Soh for her suggestions on partnering with institutions to build up a talent pool and merging the Singapore Academy of Laws escrow accounts into the DCP framework. SLA will study these suggestions. Sir, with that, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for providing some clarity about the remote witnessing of LPAs. I understand that Certificate Issuers must keep records of donors making LPAs, and this must be furnished as needed in the event of a dispute. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary confirm whether the remote witnessing sessions must be recorded or does it only involve a written report?

I thank the Member for the clarification. OPG actually will provide the Certificate Issuers with a standardised template for LPA certification. As part of this template, Certificate Issuers must document how they have assessed that the donor understands the purpose of the instrument, as well as the scope of authority that is conferred under this instrument, and that no fraud or undue pressure was used to induce the donor to create this LPA.

As of now, there is no requirement for provision or submission of a video recording to the OPG, but we do want to mandate that the Certificate Issuer make a declaration in writing of the entire process, as well as the points I have mentioned earlier.

Thank you, Speaker. I have three clarifications to MSF. First, I must declare that I am a practising lawyer in family law, who volunteers in the Law Society's Probate Practice Committee.

The first question is pertaining to the Certificate Issuer playing a critical role, to ensure that the donor signs the LPA without duress and in this case, in a remote situation, I think on the point that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has just mentioned about expecting written documentations and making sure that this whole process has taken place in a secured way without any duress, can I enquire, because at this point in time, I believe that the attendance notes that any Certificate Issuers would take may vary across between lawyers and doctors, and for example, the judges may feel that there is a higher expectation, from lawyers' point of view, to exercise extra caution and diligence in ensuring that the documents are signed without duress. So, may I suggest that whether MSF can consider issuing a guidance note unifying the expectations of Certificate Issuers, be it from the doctors or the lawyers, to make sure that we are all on the same page, and ensuring that a consistent standard of quality and services are being rendered to ensure and minimise the risk of any disputes that arise subsequently?

The second and third clarifications are on how we can help to increase the take-up rate of LPA. I agree with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary and wish to commend the efforts that, over the years, community partners, for example, Pro Bono SG, the Community Development Councils have been rolling out in the community to organise law awareness talks, particularly targeting the minority groups as well, and we even have the Family Justice Courts rolling out community law awareness talks in the community as well over the years to increase such awareness.

But at the same time, I can recognise that a lot of seniors, they understand that it is important to do a LPA, but perhaps this topic still remains as a morbid one. And in terms of doing a comprehensive legacy planning or estate planning, they may think that perhaps they can prioritise in doing the nominations for CPF first, but try to delay on the doing of a LPA and doing of a will. I can understand that over the years the Government has rolled out many initiatives, for example, the Legacy Portal.

So, my suggestion is whether we can consider how we try and increase awareness or encouragements of the take-up rate of doing a comprehensive estate planning in this aspect, which means encouraging more to sign up through the Legacy Portals, how the legacy portal can help to —

Yes, sure. So, on that point itself, whether the legacy portal can be able to be enhanced further, to serve this purpose in terms of the take-up rate. And finally, also, in relations to the take-up rate, the registration fee for Form One is currently free and waived until 31 March 2026. In view that we are now rolling out this additional measure of remote certifications, whether we can consider to extend the waiver.

Sir, I thank the Member for her clarification. On Certificate Issuers, indeed, it is a critical role that they are playing. That is why we are phasing out the implementation. We are starting with a smaller group of Certificate Issuers, we are providing training, we are giving templates just to be sure that the standards of recording are consistent across the board.

With regards to the second question, I think this is a case where sometimes the heart and the brain go in different directions. I fully understand that, but I guess, other than just increasing or re-designing the Legacy Portal, perhaps what might be most important would be to speak to the hearts of the potential target audience, which many of them are our seniors in the community, and what would they be caring about. I think they will be caring about their family members, their loved ones, especially when they themselves lose mental capacity, and therefore, their family members and loved ones' peace of mind.

And I think that is the biggest "sell" whenever we reach out to seniors, senior citizens in the community. That is, to pitch to them, that whatever they do actually adds to the peace of mind of their loved ones, and I think that is the key point that I would want to push across.

On the third point, we are having a conversation with the Ministry of Finance and we will share more details when we have them.