Debated in Parliament on 27 Feb 2026.
Head R, Ministry of Law. Mr Vikram Nair.
Chairman, I move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100".
I declare my interest as a practising lawyer. Over the years, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has played a critical role in strengthening the foundations of our legal system. Today, I wish to focus on two aspects of the Ministry's work. First, its initiatives aimed at enhancing Singaporeans' access to justice; and second, its efforts to grow Singapore as a trusted and leading hub for legal services.
First, access to justice. This is not an abstract ideal. It concerns the ability of ordinary Singaporeans and businesses to understand and assert their rights in a meaningful way. A strong legal system must serve not only large corporations and sophisticated litigants, but also parties who do not have deep pockets.
In recent years, MinLaw has taken important steps in this direction. For example, in 2022, reforms were studied to improve family proceedings so that they would be simpler, more efficient, more affordable and less acrimonious. This included enhancements to the process of enforcing maintenance orders aimed at helping to litigants in person.
Similarly, in response to feedback that the existing process was expensive and difficult to navigate for the enforcement of judgments, steps were taken to simplify this process too, making enforcement more accessible and cost effective.
Most recently, in 2026, MinLaw launched a new taskforce to better support persons with disabilities and mental health conditions in the criminal justice system. This taskforce will examine how the Government can better support such individuals who are at risk of offending or who may interact with the system, including accused persons and victims. This reflects a holistic approach to justice which takes into account real circumstances and vulnerabilities of everyday Singaporeans.
Beyond structural reforms, we must also consider how technology is reshaping access to justice.
The increasing availability of artificial intelligence (AI) tools presents an interesting conundrum. On the one hand, it empowers lay persons to conduct legal research on their own and has the potential to reduce legal costs. On the other, it introduces new risks.
For one, lay persons may be tempted to rely on AI tools for legal advice but they may not realise that it is risky for them to do so.
In one reported case, the Court found that a litigant in person who relied on AI tools to generate legal submissions cited six fictitious cases. The Court described this as a very serious matter, even for a lay person.
While there are ongoing initiatives to provide guidance to practising lawyers on the responsible use of AI, we should also consider providing guidance aimed at laypersons and litigants in person. For example, there could be court notices or online resources aimed at lay persons which explain the limitations of AI tools. True access to justice must also include access to reliable and accurate information.
I turn now to the second aspect: the continued development of Singapore as an international hub for legal services.
This ambition cuts across multiple domains, including the strengthening of our dispute resolution system and institutions, such as the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, the Singapore International Mediation Centre and the Singapore International Commercial Court. Together, they form a complementary and attractive ecosystem for parties involved in international commercial disputes.
I wish to focus on two components of the vision to develop Singapore as an international legal hub: talent and technology.
First, talent. The sustainability of legal practice has come into sharp focus in recent years, particularly with concerns about attrition and the long-term viability of private practice. At the Legal Profession Symposium 2025, the Honourable Chief Justice described the sustainability of private practice as an "urgent" issue.
In my own practice and experience, I have noted a higher turnover amongst young lawyers in recent times, to the extent that young lawyers are leaving legal practice but remain in the legal profession, such as by going in-house. I do not think that is a loss to the legal industry as a whole but in fact, helps the legal industry because a thriving pool of in-house talent is necessary for Singapore's success both as an economic and legal hub. However, we would like to keep young lawyers in private practice too.
Last year, the Ethics and Professional Standards Committee recommended that the Singapore Academy of Law develop a core set of workplace principles aimed at maintaining the sustainability of legal practice. Most of these guidelines are well considered and it will be important for both law firms and other stakeholders to adopt practices which support professional development and well-being.
Second, technology, in particular the responsible and forward-looking use of AI. Last year, MinLaw conducted a public consultation on a proposed Guide for Using GenAI in the Legal Sector. The aim is to support the legal sector in harnessing opportunities, while navigating the challenges associated with using AI technology and being mindful of professional obligations in the delivery of legal services. This initiative is timely and necessary.
The impact of AI on the legal sector cannot be understated. As the honourable Chief Justice observed at TechLaw Fest 2025, GenAI will bring about a paradigm shift in the practice of law, and the legal sector must take this development seriously.
We have seen reports both in Singapore and other jurisdictions, where lawyers have cited fictitious authorities in their submissions because they relied on AI tools. As the Court observed in one case, such actions by lawyers cast a shadow over the legitimacy and honour of the legal profession and its role as a custodian of justice in Singapore.
Therefore, the question is not whether lawyers should use AI, but how AI can be used responsibly. With clear guidance and training, legal professionals can improve productivity with AI while safeguarding the accuracy of work products and their confidentiality and ethical obligations. This is important as we continue to position Singapore as a leading international hub for legal services.
Chairman, ultimately, access to justice and the growth of Singapore as a legal hub are mutually reinforcing goals. I am grateful for MinLaw's efforts on these fronts and look forward to the continued development of its initiatives.
Question proposed.
Chairman, in November last year in Manila, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states signed up to the ASEAN Treaty on Extradition. According to its preamble, there is a desire among all member states to "strengthen ASEAN's resilience and capacity to combat crime, particularly transnational crime by enhancing effective legal cooperation in the field of extradition within ASEAN to ensure respect for the rule of law."
In recent years, we have felt the limitations of existing extradition arrangements. During the MinLaw's Committee of Supply (COS) debate eight years ago, I spoke about the case of Canadian David Roach, who robbed StanChart Bank at Holland Village in 2016. He fled to Thailand but could not be extradited to Singapore. It was only two years later when Roach arrived in London enroute to Canada, that Singapore could make an extradition request to the UK government.
While it certainly makes sense to have an ASEAN Extradition Treaty, I have two questions.
First, I understand that the treaty is not yet enforced, as it requires six member states to ratify it. What needs to be done before ratification, and has Singapore indicated its ratification? Second, extradition arrangements need to take into account differences in legal systems and ASEAN countries are a mix of common law and civil law jurisdictions. The region also has varying levels of corruption among public officials. MinLaw has previously stated that there is a need to protect Singaporeans before agreeing to any extradition arrangements. What protections are there?
Chairman, I declare that I am a practising lawyer and my areas of practice include estate matters.
The Government's national legacy planning campaign is commendable, and we should build on this momentum to help even more Singaporeans plan ahead. A Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) protects a donor while alive but ends upon death. Then, a will is essential to legally express the testator's wishes.
My first proposal is to waive the $50 registration fee and the $50 update fee for every will deposited with the Singapore Academy of Law's (SAL's) Wills Registry. This fee deters many, unlike the successful LPA fee waiver by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) that drove higher uptake. Free registrations would encourage more deposits and transforming the Wills Registry into a reliable comprehensive database. Today, we lack accurate data on how many Singaporeans have made wills, or whether a found will is the latest one. A no fee system would address these gaps, just as the six-year LPA fee waiver did.
Second, as we encourage more will making, we must also strengthen safeguards. Feedback from the lawyers and the public highlights concerning experiences with non-legal providers offering wills writing courses or services. I raised a Parliamentary Question in October on regulating such businesses. The Ministry replied that wills and probate courses are not restricted to lawyers, but non lawyers cannot give legal advice or perform solicitor services. Doing so risk criminal liability under the Legal Profession Act.
Yet, can we fairly expect an average Singaporean to discern whether a course provider is rendering a legal advice or not. Without registrations or mandatory professional indemnity insurance, vulnerable individuals risk relying on flawed advice with little recourse. Unscrupulous operators also risk tarnishing the reputation of our legal professions, which has upheld high standards for decades. It is our duty to protect Singaporeans from such risks and ensure legacy is both encouraged and safe.
Sir, the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals serve as an avenue of last resort for neighbour disputes. Between 2020 and 2024, only 1,031 claims were filed, a fraction of the 2,500 neighbour dispute cases reported to HDB monthly.
Having observed residents attempting to navigate this process, I have seen how digital and financial requirements can be a deterrence and could account for the relatively low utilisation of this channel.
The mandatory pre-filing assessment requires a 17-question checklist, where the system repeatedly persuades applicants to seek alternative channels. For residents who have already exhausted these channels, such persistence redirections can be frustrating. Completing the five-part form is equally taxing. Residents who do not know their neighbours name must pay $5.25 at the Integrated Land Information Service portal before even paying that $150 filing fee. The English only interface and the assumption that all residents can manage PDF downloads and the digital evidence create massive barriers for those with lower digital literacy.
How many individuals has the State Court Service Hub assisted to successfully file applications each of the last three years, and will the Ministry consider reducing the initial filing fee to $20, with only the unsuccessful party paying the remaining $130?
Chairman, in October last year, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) announced that the President had reappointed the Attorney-General (AG) for a fourth term of three years until January 2029. That was the extent of the information disclosed.
Due to the high constitutional office of the AG and the significant powers he is entrusted with, I believe that the Prime Minister can and should be more forthcoming about the selection process for the AG. Hence, I filed my cut with the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), but it had been redirected to MinLaw.
The AG occupies a uniquely sensitive position under our Constitution. He has the direct discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any criminal proceedings. For instance, he can decide to treat co-accused in the same case differently, or to let someone off with a warning. His discretion is practically unfettered, unless he is found to have acted in bad faith or irrationally. Unlike Judges who have to make pronouncements in open Court, his decisions need not be explained publicly and are not subject to appeal. The most the public can hope for is a voluntary media release from the AGC, giving reasons for prosecutorial discretion decisions that are deemed controversial.
Sir, on the one hand, it is important that the AG can act unencumbered by political pressure. However, on the other, it is equally important for the AG to be consonant with public values so that he can act in the public interest. The selection process is critical.
However, the appointment process required by the constitution is currently thin. It merely says that the Prime Minister should consult the Chief Justice and the incumbent AG before making a recommendation to the President, and that the President has discretion to disagree. There is no requirement for public disclosure about any of these deliberations.
Sir, but the public would have an interest in knowing more about the selection process for such a critical post. For example, in the present case, the AG has had a distinguished legal career in private practice, but the fact is that he will turn 75 at the end of this current term. On the other hand, there appear to be many qualified persons for the post. Did the Prime Minister shortlist other candidates before recommending the reappointment of the AG for a fourth three-year term?
It will also be instructive to know what experience each new AG brings to the post, in the light of the fact that the AG is expected to perform several roles. He is the public prosecutor and has the right of audience in any Court or tribunal in Singapore in precedence to others. So, experience in related areas of practice would be very useful. At the same time the AG is the Government's chief legal advisor, so experience in other areas like civil law and business practice are also relevant.
Sir, addressing these issues publicly would promote greater trust in our legal system. I therefore invite the Prime Minister to provide more clarity on the selection process both now and for the future.
Mr Christopher de Souza, please take your two cuts together.
The global commons is a shared space to be nurtured and contributed to. Singapore, in its humble way, has consistently contributed to the international legal order with a degree of humility, with a degree of credibility and its strong sense of responsibility. For example, the appointment of Mr Darren Tang as Director-General of WIPO as well as his successful reappointment for a second term reflects the strength of Singapore's legal and IP ecosystem, and that our ability to produce thought leadership organically from within our own system and our own country. It also signals international confidence in Singapore's values and competence.
In addition to WIPO, we should continue to try to play a small part in the global commons. For example, we have put up ambassador Rena Lee as our candidate to the International Court of Justice. This reflects our deep and humble commitment to the rule of law and peaceful dispute resolution in the world. It speaks well of Singapore as a society that wants to contribute towards the good of the global commons. How will MinLaw continue to support opportunities for Singapore and Singaporeans to make meaningful legal contributions internationally?
The Singapore Convention on Mediation is an excellent piece of work showcasing Singapore's commitment to peaceful dispute resolution and the global commons. The legal service officers involved behind the convention and the Singapore Convention Week are to be commended. Today, Singapore has become a trusted and preferred destination for mediation. Many jurisdictions are now talking about the convention, thereby positioning Singapore as an ideal mediation hub. Here I declare that I am a partner in a legal private practice.
To propel our status as a hub, Singapore will need infrastructure, such as exhibition facilities, to showcase mediation capabilities, breakout rooms, bilateral mediation hearing rooms as well as printers, laptops and screens for settlement agreements to be typed out. Could the Minister provide an update on the number of countries that have ratified the convention, the take up of mediator disputes under it and how MinLaw will continue to rally international support to strengthen Singapore's role as a global mediation hub?
Mr Chairman, I rise to speak on a subject that is close to my heart. I am a practicing advocate and solicitor, and I run my own law firm. 80% to 82% of law firms in Singapore are classified small firms, meaning there are only between one to five lawyers in the firm. This means that a good number of practicing lawyers are also small- to medium-sized business owners.
For some time now, we have been witnessing a hollowing out of the legal profession, because young lawyers entering the profession are not staying and moving up in experience and seniority. At the Opening of the Legal Year last month, our Chief Justice shared that surveys of newly minted lawyers in the last two years showed that around 60% of respondents said they were likely to leave legal practice in the next five years. They cited reasons, such as excessive workload, poor work-life balance affecting their mental well-being, a lack of flexible work arrangements and poor workplace culture. Some leave for better pay and challenging work in foreign firms.
The starting salaries for newly qualified lawyers in Singapore are considered pretty high, which is why staff remuneration now accounts for much of the operating costs of running a law practice. Despite this, after a few years of practice, for many firms the exodus begins. Even the large law firms are complaining that after investing in the training of their best and brightest, these young lawyers are leaving for foreign firms who pay even more.
Some may say, if lawyers are indeed able to find other employment, what is the issue? If we are unable to retain talent, this will have a profound implication in the longer term. Singapore has a strong and trusted legal system that supports our economy, provides stability, builds investor confidence and attracts foreign investment. It fosters a pro-business environment and positions Singapore as a leading global legal and financial hub. To continue delivering an excellent standard of legal services, we need to retain talent within legal practice, and we need advocates who have honed their craft over time who can assist our Courts on challenging cases and develop our own Singapore jurisprudence. Not unlike our Total Fertility Rate, the profession's inability to replace itself in the future, is an existential crisis for all of us, because so much of our success depends on the confidence commanded by our legal system, our judiciary and a flourishing legal sector.
Our Chief Justice has announced a slew of initiatives to address these challenges, and he will be co-leading with our Law Minister in setting the direction of the Future of the Legal Profession Committee to help the legal profession meet these challenges ahead.
Like many of my brethren at the Bar, I look forward to seeing what new plans will be rolled out. We recognise that we all need to play our part, but we also the Government's support. I want to acknowledge that MinLaw has pushed out programmes to help law firms embrace technological solutions to future-proof and deliver enhanced legal services. But embracing legal tech and AI can only do so much. It could add to the stress that young lawyers are experiencing, wondering which aspect of their work will now be replaced and how they will cope with a redesign in their roles and responsibilities.
The digital age has quickened the pace of practice and demands from clients have grown exponentially. This is often what young lawyers complain about. The revamping of our Rules of Court and the push towards mediation as an alternative mode of dispute resolution has also taken away some of the opportunities for Court advocacy and development of Court craft from our lawyers. We may encourage lawyers to take pro bono cases to gain advocacy opportunities, but the realities of running a practice are such that paid work comes first. Law firms who are prepared to give their lawyers protected time to take on access to justice cases, receive no financial incentive or tax breaks. And if lawyers still have to carry a full caseload, they are unlikely to heap pro bono on their plate.
I believe that at the heart of a lot of the stress within the profession, is simply the financial stress of running a business, which is then shifted onto the shoulders of the lawyers who work there. Law is a tough business. We cannot simply focus on the firms that are prepared to make sizeable financial commitments toward modernising their practice. Let us not forget that most of our law firms are small businesses, who have far fewer resources and may need a lot more help.
It is my hope that in looking to future-proofing the legal profession and to retain and nurture talent, we will look at more than technological solutions, and understand that the issues relating to morale, career insecurity in the age of AI, financial and business stress are just as important.
Mr Chairman, I declare my interest as legal counsel in an accounting firm.
At the Opening of Legal Year, the Chief Justice noted a key challenge: attrition driven by fundamental shifts in the practice. Clients now expect higher-quality work, delivered faster. This is placing real pressure across the profession. At the same time, our legal sector is more open than before. With more international firms and regional competition, there are pressures to do more, faster and at lower cost. These pressures will only intensify as AI becomes embedded in legal practice.
I wish to speak on three areas: (a) maintaining a Singapore core; (b) the evolving role of lawyers in the age of AI; and (c) support for in-house counsel.
First, maintaining a Singapore core. The Committee Report on the regulatory framework for law practices proposed changes to Qualifying Foreign Law Practices (QFLPs) and caps on Singapore lawyers in FLPs. These proposals reflect a concern: sustaining a strong pipeline of local legal talent. In essence, local firms build Singapore law capability, while foreign firms deepen foreign law expertise.
The Ministry has yet to respond, with consultations just closed. This raises a key tension: openness versus preserving a Singapore core. Some of the young lawyers and law students that I have spoken to shared their anxieties with me. They are not sure where they fit in the larger plans that the Ministry has for the legal profession. How does the Ministry intend to balance market forces with regulation to protect that core? And how will the Ministry ensure Singapore lawyers continue to access high-value international work?
Second, on the evolving roles of lawyers in the age of AI. Senior and mid-career lawyers are not AI-natives. They did not grow up with AI, and it may not come naturally to them to use AI. We must consider carefully the impact of AI on our mid-career professionals. What is the Ministry's plan to ensure that senior and mid-career lawyers are equipped to learn AI skills, reskill and redesign their job roles?
At the same time, how do we train young lawyers, when AI can already do so much that juniors do today, but faster? Junior lawyers must learn to think like lawyers, grounded in legal rigour. But they must also interpret technology, review AI outputs critically and exercise human judgement in complex cases. How does the Ministry plan to support new training pathways so young lawyers build fundamentals, while learning to work alongside AI? We need a sector-wide approach to job redesign so that the whole profession moves together. I encourage the Ministry to take the lead.
Third, support for in-house legal counsels. The Ministry of Law said at the APAC Legal Congress 2024, that the Ministry of Law is committed to better support in-house legal counsel. In-house counsels play a critical role in supporting business and strengthening Singapore's attractiveness as a regional hub. Yet their needs are often under-emphasised.
Against this backdrop, I ask the Minister: What are the Ministry’s plans to better support in-house legal counsels, especially in AI adoption? Will the Ministry support access to AI tools and target upskilling so that in-house legal counsel can continue to deliver value in an AI-enabled economy?
Mr Chairman, as a society and economy, we must harness the potential of artificial intelligence to drive innovation and progress. But we also must ensure that the systems that are in place have to safeguard what makes us human, such as the unique contributions of our creatives that shape our national culture and identity.
The training and use of generative AI (GenAI) continues to raise concerns among stakeholders, particularly those in the creative sectors. At Committee of Supply 2025, then-Minister of State for Law Murali acknowledged the impact of GenAI and said that MinLaw was studying suggestions it had received. These included approaches to improve transparency on how copyrighted material is used for AI training and ways to strengthen the control that rights-holders have over their material.
Would MinLaw and IPOS be able to provide an update on the work done, and how the Government has responded or will respond to these concerns?
Mr Chairman, I declare my interest that I am a practising lawyer.
In March 2025, a report was jointly commissioned by MinLaw, the Economic Development Board and Enterprise Singapore, and independently researched by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC), titled "Sustainability Ready Singapore Lawyers". It identified Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) as a key area of growth in our legal sector.
In response, the Ministry introduced the ESG Legal Secondment Programme, allowing Singapore-qualified lawyers to be seconded into corporate sustainability teams to gain hands-on experience. This is timely as ESG advisory is becoming increasingly relevant in green finance, carbon markets and sustainability reporting.
However, secondments may not be feasible for all firms, particularly small and medium-sized practices.
I would therefore like to seek an update on the development of ESG capabilities within our legal sector. Would the Minister provide a snapshot of this programme, including the level of uptake and feedback thus far? It would also be helpful to understand where these lawyers have been seconded to, given that this remains a nascent area of growth.
In addition, what other pathways are being developed to support lawyers who are unable to participate in secondments? For example, are there structured ESG training frameworks, accreditation programmes, short industry attachments or collaboration platforms with financial institutions and sustainability professionals?
Chair, I start by declaring my interest as the president of a National Sport Association.
Over the years, Singapore has positioned itself as a global destination for major sporting and cultural entertainment events, hosting the Singapore Grand Prix, the Women's Tennis Association (WTA Finals), and most recently, the World Aquatics Championships, alongside major concerts and entertainment productions. As we build on this trajectory, there may be scope to consider how our legal and land-use architecture can further support Singapore's evolution into a regional sports and entertainment hub.
First, on event hosting. As we continue attracting global competitions and productions, are there plans to periodically review whether our legal and intellectual property frameworks remain fully competitive and fit for purpose? Legal certainty is often a key consideration for organisers and rights holders.
Second, on dispute resolution. Singapore is already a respected arbitration centre. Could we further develop specialised capabilities in sports and entertainment arbitration and mediation, positioning Singapore as a regional hub for related commercial disputes?
But global ambition must ultimately rest on strong local participation. In a land-scarce and tropical environment, usability is often constrained by heat and rain.
Working with agencies such as SLA, could we explore greater tenure certainty for organisations that demonstrate clear community impact? And could structural shading or lightweight roofing for open-air spaces be more systematically considered to enhance climate resilience and expand all-day, all-weather use?
If we want world-class events, we must also ensure world-class everyday access. Both events and daily access are essential to a thriving sports, arts and cultural entertainment ecosystem.
Chairman, beyond the broader discussion on enterprise competitiveness, I would like to raise two specific issues – accelerating intellectual property (IP) commercialisation for SMEs and strengthening IP financing.
On commercialisation, many SMEs struggle to translate publicly funded research into market-ready products. The gap is often not invention, but execution – bridging laboratory innovation to deployable solutions.
There have been recommendations to strengthen structured attachments of scientists and researchers to SMEs – not merely short-term consultancy, but deeper co-development partnerships. Such models can accelerate technology transfer, reduce execution risk and build internal innovation capability within enterprises.
Could the Government elaborate on whether there are plans to expand and scale such attachment schemes, particularly for growth-oriented SMEs seeking to commercialise IP?
On financing, IP remains difficult to value and underwrite. Without tangible collateral, SMEs often struggle to leverage their IP for expansion capital.
Would the Government consider calibrated state-backed risk-sharing mechanisms to catalyse IP financing so that financial institutions are more willing to lend against viable IP assets while risks remain prudently managed? If we want to move from research excellence to enterprise scale, commercialisation pathways and financing frameworks must evolve alongside IP creation.
Chairman, the rule of law is one of Singapore's greatest strengths. It gives investors confidence, keeps our society stable and helps Singaporeans trust our system. But for it to stay strong, it must remain accessible to our people and respected around the world.
Today, I would like to speak on two areas: first, strengthening access to justice through civil legal aid and socio-legal support; second, strengthening Singapore's position as a trusted global intellectual property hub in a fast-changing technological world.
Chairman, in a written reply to a Parliamentary Question on 26 September 2025, the Minister explained the current framework for civil legal aid. The Legal Aid Bureau provides support to Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents who meet the means test and the merits test. The means test was last revised in 2024, with the per capita household income raised to $1,050 and the annual value threshold to $21,000. There is also flexibility through the Means Test Panel for deserving cases.
Those who do not qualify can turn to Community Law Centres run by Pro Bono SG as well as schemes such as the Family Justice Support Scheme and the Ad Hoc Pro Bono Scheme. These are important avenues.
But Chairman, the question is whether this is enough in today's more complex and costly legal environment. Civil cases today, especially family, employment and debt matters, are becoming more complicated. Legal costs have increased and processes are becoming more demanding.
So, I seek clarification on four points.
First, does the Ministry consider the current $1,050 per capita income threshold sufficient, given rising costs? Are there plans to review it regularly to keep pace with economic conditions?
Second, while the Means Test Panel provides flexibility, how often is it used? And is it enough to help those who fall just outside the eligibility criteria?
Third, for those who rely on Community Law Centres and pro bono services, is there enough capacity, especially for family and employment disputes?
Fourth, as cases become more complex, has the Ministry considered strengthening early legal advice and triage so people can get proper guidance before problems escalate?
Access to justice must not just exist. It must remain practical, affordable and effective.
Next, I will touch on growing Singapore as a trusted global IP hub. Mr Chairman, Singapore's future competitiveness depends increasingly on intangible assets such as intellectual property and innovation. Under the Singapore IP Strategy 2030, we have set out a strong vision. But as technology advances, especially in AI, IP policy is no longer just legal policy. It is also economic policy.
Businesses today need more than IP registration. They need strong enforcement, proper valuation, financing support and trusted dispute resolution.
So, I ask, how are MinLaw and IPOS helping businesses, especially our SMEs, build stronger IP capabilities so that IP becomes a real business asset, not just legal protection? As we move into the next phase of IP Strategy 2030, what more can be done to strengthen Singapore as a global hub for IP dispute resolution, valuation and licensing, especially in new sectors?
Finally, with concerns about generative AI using copyrighted works, can the Ministry update us on how it is studying transparency and balancing innovation with protecting creators? This clarity will be important for trust and confidence.
Chairman, cost-of-living pressures have tightened budgets for many Singaporeans. And when life hits, retrenchment, separation, caregiving strain, debt and legal problems do not come with a warning. In these moments, access to justice cannot become what we call a justice tax.
For lower-income Singaporeans, legal aid is sometimes not optional. It is the difference between getting timely advice and being forced to navigate complex processes alone.
When families are already stretched, they should not be priced out of basic legal protection. But accessibility is not just about whether a scheme exists. It is whether residents can actually use it when they are under stress, worried about bills, juggling work, caring for family and trying to keep life together. If the system feels out of reach, people delay, disputes worsen and the eventual outcome is often more painful for everyone.
Sir, I also want to flag a growing group we see on the ground – the lower-middle-income families. They may fall outside the legal aid threshold, but they, too, struggle to afford private legal fees.
They are not asking for special treatment. They are asking not to be stuck in a gap where they are told they do not qualify yet cannot realistically pay for help. This matters because when the squeezed middle cannot access advice early, problems escalate, creating avoidable stress for families and greater strain on the system later.
So, Sir, I have two questions for the Minister. Given cost-of-living concerns, how will the Ministry continue to ensure that legal aid remains accessible to lower-income Singaporeans? Secondly, will the Ministry also review whether there is a growing access gap for lower middle-income Singaporeans who may not qualify for legal aid, but cannot afford private legal representation, and how can we prevent them from falling through the cracks?
PAPERCUTS