Answer ... Domestic arbitration in Singapore is governed by the Arbitration Act (Cap 10) and international arbitration is governed by the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A).

An arbitration agreement must be in writing (Section 4(3) of the Arbitration Act; Section 2A(3) of the International Arbitration Act), and may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or a separate agreement (Section 4(2) of the Arbitration Act; Section 2A(2) of the International Arbitration Act). The writing requirement is satisfied if the content of an arbitration agreement is recorded in any form, including through electronic communication, irrespective of whether the arbitration agreement or contract has been concluded orally, by conduct or by other means (Sections 4(4) and 4(5) of the Arbitration Act; Sections 2A(4) and 2A(5) of the International Arbitration Act). The arbitration agreement must express a clear and unequivocal intention to arbitrate.

For more information about this answer please contact: Alvin Yeo and Koh Swee Yen from WongPartnership LLP

Answer ... See question 1.1.

The Arbitration Act applies to any arbitration where the place of arbitration is Singapore and where Part II of the International Arbitration Act does not apply to that arbitration (Section 3 of the Arbitration Act).

Part II of the International Arbitration Act applies if the arbitration is ‘international’ or if the parties have agreed in writing that Part II of the International Arbitration Act or the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (without the 2006 amendments) applies (Section 5(1) of the International Arbitration Act).

An arbitration is ‘international’ if:

• at least one of the parties to the arbitration agreement, at the time of conclusion of the agreement, has its place of business in any state other than Singapore; or
• one of the following places is situated outside the state in which the parties have their places of business:
• • the place of arbitration if determined in, or pursuant to, the arbitration agreement; or
  • any place where a substantial part of the obligations of the commercial relationship is to be performed or the place with which the subject matter of the dispute is most closely connected; or
• the parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country (Section 5(2) of the International Arbitration Act).

For more information about this answer please contact: Alvin Yeo and Koh Swee Yen from WongPartnership LLP

Answer ... The Arbitration Act, which governs domestic arbitration, is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. The Court of Appeal has observed, in the context of the Arbitration Act, that there is a clear legislative intent to align the Arbitration Act with the Model Law (LW Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd [2013] 1 SLR 125).

As to the International Arbitration Act, which governs international arbitrations, the Model Law – save for Chapter VIII – has the force of law in Singapore (Section 3 of the International Arbitration Act).

For more information about this answer please contact: Alvin Yeo and Koh Swee Yen from WongPartnership LLP

Answer ... The Arbitration Act and the International Arbitration Act do not expressly identify any of their provisions as being mandatory. However, according to Section 15A(1) of the International Arbitration Act, any rules of arbitration that the parties have agreed to adopt shall be given full effect, to the extent that this is not inconsistent with a provision of the Model Law or Part II of the International Arbitration Act, from which the parties cannot derogate.

Although there is no exhaustive list as to which provisions parties cannot derogate from, this would generally relate to matters that are fundamental to the proper conduct of arbitration. For example, the Singapore courts have pronounced that Article 12 of the Model Law relating to the independence or impartiality of arbitrators is mandatory (PT Central Investindo v Franciscus Wongso [2014] 4 SLR 978).

For more information about this answer please contact: Alvin Yeo and Koh Swee Yen from WongPartnership LLP

Answer ... In June 2019, the Ministry of Law launched a public consultation to seek views on proposals to amend the International Arbitration Act, to enhance the current framework with a view to providing arbitration users with a broader suite of options to suit their unique purpose. The key proposed amendments include:

• providing for the default appointment of arbitrators in multi-party situations;
• allowing parties, by mutual agreement, to request the arbitrator(s) to decide on questions of jurisdiction at the preliminary award stage;
• empowering arbitral tribunals and the courts to support the enforcement of confidentiality obligations in arbitration; and
• allowing a party to appeal to the High Court on a question of law arising from an award made in the proceedings, provided that the parties have opted in to this mechanism.

Other proposed amendments include:

• whether parties should have the option to limit or waive, by agreement, the grounds on which an award may be set aside as set out in Section 24(b) of the International Arbitration Act and Article 34(2)(a) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, but not those set out in Section 24(a) of the International Arbitration Act and Article 34(2)(b) of the Model Law; and
• whether legislative amendments should be introduced to empower the court to make an order providing for costs of the arbitration following a successful application under Section 24 of the International Arbitration Act or Article 34(2) of the Model Law to set aside an award, whether wholly or in part.

The public consultation period is over and the proposed amendments by the Ministry of Law are still under review.

Another recent legislative change is the passing of the Intellectual Property (Dispute Resolution) Bill in August 2019, where consequential amendments were made to the International Arbitration Act, among other things. These amendments confirm that:

• IP rights disputes are arbitrable; and
• an award made in relation to an IP rights dispute (whether in Singapore or in a foreign jurisdiction) is not in conflict with the public policy of Singapore (see Sections 26(D) and 26(E) of the International Arbitration Act), regardless of whether the IP right is registered or subsists in Singapore (Section 26A(2) of the International Arbitration Act), or whether another court, tribunal, administrative or executive body, or any other entity, has jurisdiction to decide the dispute (Section 26B(3) of the International Arbitration Act).

For more information about this answer please contact: Alvin Yeo and Koh Swee Yen from WongPartnership LLP

Answer ... Yes, Singapore is a signatory to the New York Convention. Singapore acceded to the New York Convention on 21 August 1986, with the reservation that, on the basis of reciprocity, it will apply the convention only to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards made in the territory of another contracting state to the convention.

For more information about this answer please contact: Alvin Yeo and Koh Swee Yen from WongPartnership LLP

Answer ... Singapore ratified the International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) on 14 October 1968. The Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1968 was enacted to implement the ICSID Convention.

Singapore is also party to a number of bilateral and multilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements which include arbitration as a mode of dispute settlement – for example:

• the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Comprehensive Investment Agreement, which entered into force in March 2012; and
• the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which entered into force on 30 December 2018.

For more information about this answer please contact: Alvin Yeo and Koh Swee Yen from WongPartnership LLP