Source: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/investor-state-arbitration-laws-and-regulations/singapore
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:23:51+00:00

Document:
Singapore currently has 41 (Ministry of Trade and Industry, “International Investment Agreements”, https://www.mti.gov.sg/MTIInsights/Pages/IIAs.aspx (accessed 5 September 2018)) bilateral treaties (“BITs”) and 17 regional investment agreements and free trade agreements (“FTAs”) (Excluding the China-Singapore FTA (1 January 2009)), which incorporates the provision of the ASEAN-China FTA (15 February 2010) by reference) with investment chapters in force (“Investment Agreements”). (See also, Enterprise Singapore, “Singapore Free Trade Agreements”, https://ie.enterprisesg.gov.sg/Trade-From-Singapore/International-Agreements/free-trade-agreements/Singapore-FTA (accessed 5 September 2018).) Where there is an overlap in coverage between the various Investment Agreements, the later treaty would typically specify that it is to operate the earlier treaty without prejudice. As a result, rights and obligations under the various Investment Agreements would remain in force. (See, e.g., ASEAN-China FTA (15 February 2010), Article 18.) For example, the investment relationship between Singapore and China is governed by the Singapore-China BIT (7 February 1986), the China-Singapore FTA (1 January 2009) and the ASEAN-China FTA (15 February 2010).
However, one exception is the Singapore-Peru FTA (1 August 2009). Article 10.20 thereof provides that “all the rights and obligations derived from [the Singapore-Peru BIT (27 February 2003)] will cease to have effect on the date of entry into force of this Agreement”.
Separately, Singapore ratified the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (“CPTPP”) on 19 July 2018. (Ministry of Trade and Industry, “Singapore Ratifies the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership”, press release on the CPTPP (19 July 2018) https:// www.mti.gov.sg/MTIInsights/Pages/CPTPP.aspx). The CPTPP is an FTA between 11 members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (“APEC”). It will enter into force 60 days after six of the 11 ratify the Agreement. As of 5 September 2018, Singapore is the third nation to do so after Mexico and Japan.
In addition, Singapore has also signed BITs with Colombia, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria and Rwanda, but these agreements are not yet in force.
Singapore has not developed a model BIT. However, it has been noted that the format and language of its BITs since the early 1990s appear “remarkably similar”, and generally adopt the substantive provisions developed by the world’s leading capital exporting nations. (Samuel Wordsworth, “Investment Treaty Arbitration” in David Joseph & David Foxton, Singapore International Arbitration: Law and Practice (LexisNexis, 2nd Ed, 2018) ch 13 at para [2.4]. The learned authors however note that the Singapore-Mexico BIT (3 April 2011) “repeatedly and significantly departs” from this apparent similarity and trend. See also, Paul Stothard et al, “Investment Protection and International Dispute Resolution in Singapore” in Arbitration in Singapore: A Practical Guide (Sundaresh Menon & Denis Brock eds) (Sweet & Maxwell, 2014) ch 20 at paras [20.063] and [20.064].) This set of key common provisions includes protections related to fair and equitable treatment, full protection and security, unlawful taking and expropriation. Many of Singapore’s BITs also include provisions regarding compensation for loss after war or other armed conflict, subrogation and transfer of investments. Consistent with international practice, Singapore’s BITs also utilise broadly drafted definitions for terms such as “investment” and “investor”.
The Singapore Government has not published any official commentary concerning the intended meaning of treaty or trade agreement clauses. However, it has been noted that these treaties are “designed to promote greater investment flows between two countries”, and provide a “legal framework setting out investment norms and protection while investing in the other country”. (Enterprise Singapore, “International Agreements” https://ie.enterprisesg.gov.sg/Trade-From-Singapore/International-Agreements (accessed on 5 September 2018).) Such expressed intention is likely relevant in interpreting the treaty or trade agreement clauses.
Singapore is a party to the New York Convention and the Washington Convention, but not the Mauritius Convention on Transparency.
There are no specifically designated domestic investment laws or an Investment Act in Singapore. However, Singapore enacted the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act to implement the ICSID Convention and the International Arbitration Act to give effect to the Model Law and the New York Convention.
Failure to adhere to these registration requirements could exclude an otherwise eligible investment from protection under the treaties. (Yaung Chi Oo v Myanmar ASEAN ID Case No ARB/01/1, Award 31 March 2003.) Investors are thus well advised to check the requisite administrative preconditions to ensure that qualifying investments are registered at the outset.
In Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic  5 SLR 536, the Singapore Court of Appeal confirmed that the rules of interpreting a BIT are governed by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; particularly, the process of interpretation under Article 31 is a holistic one, embracing the three aspects of ordinary meaning, context, and object and purpose (at ).
Subsequently, the Singapore High Court in Kingdom of Lesotho v Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd  SGHC 195 (“Lesotho”) further observed that “Article 32 of the VCLT ‘cautiously qualifies’ the textual approach enshrined in Article 31 by permitting recourse to further means of interpretation in certain circumstances” (at ). Unfortunately, there was little opportunity for the Court to elaborate further on this issue based on the facts.
Singapore has long indicated its intention to “steer Singapore’s overall development and growth as a hub for international dispute resolution, including in the area of investment arbitration”. (Mahdev Mohan, Nominated Member of Parliament, “Written Answer by Minister for Law, K Shanmugam, to Parliamentary Question on Proposed Reforms to Investor-state Arbitration Regime”, parliamentary response on Proposed Reforms to Investor-State Arbitration Regime (7 November 2017) https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/content/minlaw/en/news/parliamentary-speeches-and-responses/written-answer-by-minister-for-law--k-shanmugam--to-parliamentar9.html.) To this end, policies and regimes are implemented to poise Singapore as an ideal option for investor-State arbitration both as a venue for ICSID arbitrations and as a seat for non-ICSID investor-State arbitrations. Pertinently, the SIAC promulgated its Investment Arbitration Rules in 2017, becoming the first private institution to introduce a specific set of arbitration rules for investment arbitrations.
By contrast, national treatment clauses are less common in Singapore’s Investment Agreements. (Ibid, at para [4.11].) In Singapore’s recent FTAs and regional investment agreements, the tendency has been to extend national treatment obligations to the “establishment” of investments. (Ibid.) This extension is significant as foreign investors are entitled to make investments on the same basis as local investments. As a result of such provision in the Singapore-US FTA (1 January 2004), US investors do not have to pay the higher rate of stamp duty on land acquisitions levied on other foreign buyers.
Fair and equitable treatment (“FET”) clauses feature in almost all of Singapore’s investment treaties with a notable degree of consistency – most require investments be accorded as “fair and equitable treatment” and shall enjoy “protection and security” (Singapore-France BIT (18 October 1976), Art 2(1); Singapore-Hungary BIT (1 January 1999), Art 3(2)) or “full protection and security” (Singapore-Oman BIT (12 October 2008), Art 4(1); Singapore-UAE BIT (8 April 2012), Art 3(2)).
Moreover, many of Singapore’s FTAs supplement FET and full protection and security using the wording “in accordance with customary international law”. (Two exceptions are the ACIA, Article 11 and the ASEAN-China FTA (15 February 2010), Art 7.) Such reference likely allows some flexibility in the FTAs to take into account the evolving standards of protection under customary international law.
One of Singapore’s more recent Investment Agreements include transparency clauses. For example, Art. 39 of the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement provides that “the disputing Member State may make publicly available all awards, and decisions produced by the tribunal”, subject to the redaction of confidential information. The EUSFTA appears to go further. Art. 3.16 read with Annex 8 thereof states that proceedings before the Tribunals will be fully transparent. All documents will be made publicly available and all hearings will be open to the public. Interested third parties will also be allowed to make submissions in proceedings before the Tribunal.
No. However, Indonesia notified Singapore of its intention not to renew the Singapore-Indonesia BIT which expired on 20 June 2016. (“Indonesia Not Renewing 2005 Bilateral Agreement” TodayOnline (5 June 2015) https://www.todayonline.com/world/asia/economic-ties-strong-despite-jakarta-not-renewing-treaty (accessed 5 September 2018).) Nonetheless, Indonesia is a member of the ASEAN and remains a party to the ACIA and Investment Agreements and FTAs concluded by ASEAN.
Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic  5 SLR 536 arose out of an UNCITRAL arbitration seated in Singapore, brought by a Macanese investor against Laos under the China-Laos BIT. One of the issues was whether the BIT extended to Macau, which was handed over to China after the conclusion of the treaty. The Tribunal concluded that the BIT applied and it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Dissatisfied, Laos sought to set aside the Tribunal’s decision before the Singapore courts. In a formidable and comprehensive judgment, the Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed Laos’ application on the following grounds: (1) the China-Laos BIT applied to Macau and the claimant qualified as an “investor”; and (2) the claim fell within the dispute resolution clause of the BIT.
More recently, Singapore heard its first case in which an investor-State arbitral award was sought to be set aside on the merits in Kingdom of Lesotho v Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd  SGHC 195. The arbitration was administered by an ad hoc tribunal constituted under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and Singapore was elected as the seat of arbitration. Following an exhaustivereview on the issues of jurisdiction and admissibility, the Singapore High Court found that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and set aside the entire award. As of 5 September 2018, the appeal is pending before the Court of Appeal.
There has not been any reported investor-State award made against Singapore.
No. There is yet to be a reported ICSID case involving Singapore.
There has been no satellite litigation arising from an investor-State arbitration involving Singapore, save the observations in question 4.1 above.
The Singapore courts have shown that it will not shy away from performing their functions under the IAA, even if it is to interpret and apply treaties to which Singapore is not a party. In this regard, Singapore has adopted a de novo standard of review for investment arbitration awards, thereby rejecting the argument that a more deferential standard of review should apply vis-à-vis commercial arbitration awards.
Unfortunately, there is a dearth of data on the extent of arbitration funding within Singapore given that this new framework is in its infancy stages. Indeed, the Singapore Ministry of Law recently issued a public consultation to seek feedback on the third-party funding framework. (Consultation Period from 3 April 2018 to 15 May 2018. See, Ministry of Law, “Public Consultation to Seek Feedback on the Third-Party Funding Framework”, https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/content/minlaw/en/news/public-consultations/public-consultation-third-party-funding.html (accessed 5 September 2018).) Therefore, continued refinements to the third-party funding regime in Singapore should be expected.
Regardless, it is encouraging to note that Singapore saw its first (and seemingly, only) reported instance of arbitration funding in July 2017 (merely three months after it was allowed). (KC Vijayan, “First Third-Party Funding for S’pore Arbitration Case”, The Straits Times (1 July 2017).) Additionally, it is indicative that notable third-party funders have since launched offices in Singapore. Such developments foreshadow the growth of arbitration funding in Singapore.
This issue has not arisen in the Singapore context. The answer would necessarily depend on a plethora of considerations, such as the specific nature and subject matter of the complaint, the terms of the Investment Agreement relied upon and the governing arbitral rules.
Consistent with Singapore’s position on minimal curial intervention, procedural issues should be dealt with by the Tribunal. In this regard, the Tribunal’s procedural orders/directions are not only “insulated” from judicial challenges (insofar that they are not susceptible to being set aside), they may be enforced as a court order. (International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) (“IAA”) s 12. See also, PT Pukuafu Indah v Newmont Indonesia  4 SLR 1157.) That said, it remains open for a party to seek interim relief from the Singapore courts under limited specified circumstances; (IAA (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) s 12A) e.g., if the case is one of urgency or the Tribunal has no power or is unable for the time being to act effectively.
Section 6 of the IAA mandates a stay of court proceedings in respect of any matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement.
Yes. In such event, any party may request the President of the SIAC Court or such other persons appointed by the Chief Justice of Singapore to “take the necessary measure, unless the agreement on the appointment procedure provides other means for securing the appointment”. (UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (2006 Amended) Art 11(4), read with IAA s 8. The Model Law, with the exception of Chapter VIII thereof, have the force of law in Singapore.) In making the appointment, the designated authority shall have regard to the matters set out at Article 11(5) of the Model Law.
By contrast, a non-ICSID investor-State award shall be one that is “a decision of the arbitral tribunal on the substance of the dispute and includes any interim, interlocutory or partial award but excludes any order or directions made under section 12”. (IAA (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) s 2(1). S 12 of the IAA deals with the tribunal’s powers on procedural orders and interim measures.) Furthermore, such award must satisfy the following formal requirements: (Model Law. supra n 38, Article 31).
It shall be made in writing.
It shall be signed by the arbitrator, or where the tribunal comprises two or more arbitrators, by all or the majority of the arbitrators, provided that the reason for any omitted signature is stated.
It shall state reasons, unless the parties agreed that no reasons are to be given or the award is an award on agreed terms.
It shall state its date and the place of arbitration.
The signed award must be delivered to each party.
The Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act is silent and does not provide for any other separate basis for resisting an ICSID Award outside of the enforcement/annulment framework contained in the ICSID Convention.
A party to the arbitration agreement in pursuance of which the award was made was, under the law, applicable to him under some incapacity at the time when the agreement was made.
The arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, in the absence of any indication in that respect, under the law of the country where the award was made.
The applicant was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case in the arbitration proceedings.
The award deals with a difference not contemplated by, or not falling within the terms of, the submission to arbitration or contains a decision on the matter beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. However, the award may be enforced to the extent that it contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration.
The composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place.
This specific issue has not arisen before the Singapore courts. Nonetheless, the Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Maldives Airports Co Ltd v GMR Male International Airport Pte Ltd  SGCA 16 is instructive – it was held that the Singapore courts had the jurisdiction and power to grant provisional relief (here, an injunction) against States which have submitted to arbitration.
The Singapore Courts have not had the opportunity to consider whether and in what circumstances should the corporate veil of a State-owned entity be pierced, such that its assets may be used to satisfy an award against the State.

References: Art 2
 Art 3
 Art 4
 Art 3
 Art 7
 Art. 39
 Art. 3
 Art 11