Closing Address by Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs Mr Edwin Tong SC at Chief Legal Advisors Forum 2026
27 August 2026 Posted in Speeches
Your Excellencies
Distinguished guests
Ladies and gentlemen
Introduction
1. Very good morning to all of you.
2. It is a great pleasure to be able to be here to welcome you, both our old friends as well as new ones, to the Chief Legal Advisors Forum (“CLAF”) 2026.
3. This second edition is held in conjunction with the Singapore Convention Week (“SC Week”). I know some of you have joined us in earlier editions of SC Week. For others, perhaps this is your first experience. We warmly welcome all of you back to SC Week.
4. As you know, this has become our flagship dispute resolution event. It is now in its seventh iteration.
5. We are very grateful that the event has grown from strength to strength, with the support of so many of our friends from around the world, and has become a key fixture on the international dispute resolution calendar. It brings together practitioners, representatives from dispute resolution institutions, academics, policymakers, government officials from all around the world. Not just to come together at formal settings like this to discuss policy, to discuss new ideas, but also to build relations, to network, and to establish links from across different jurisdictions around the world.
6. There is a particular significance to SC Week for Singapore.
1) At the inaugural edition of SC Week in 2019, Singapore hosted the signing of the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation – today, better known today as the Singapore Convention on Mediation.
2) The Convention’s connection to Singapore goes beyond the fact that it bears our name and was signed here – in fact, right here at this hotel some years ago.
3) Singapore participated actively in its negotiations, and a Singaporean chaired these negotiations.
7. The Singapore Convention therefore remains very close to our hearts. But at the same time, it also reminds us of what multilateralism can achieve, when countries with different backgrounds, different legal traditions and, indeed, very different interests come together to develop practical solutions to common problems.
The relevance of multilateralism and dispute settlement frameworks
8. This morning, as we close CLAF, I would like to speak about the continued relevance of multilateralism as well as the importance of having international dispute resolution frameworks and institutions that are respected and that continue to be trusted by users around the world. The Singapore Convention was negotiated and concluded at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”), which is one of the bodies in the UN system that has contributed significantly to a stable, rules-based international order.
1) UNCITRAL’s Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, which was first adopted in 1985 and revised in 2006, provided a blueprint for national arbitration laws. It has now been adopted by over 85 jurisdictions.
2) Amongst others, the Model Law mirrored the enforcement framework under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Through the Model Law and its other initiatives, UNCITRAL promoted the adoption of the New York Convention, which is now a well-established regime facilitating the near-universal enforcement of arbitral awards in any of its 172 signatories.
9. However, like many of the other bodies in the UN system and other international institutions, UNCITRAL would undoubtedly also have experienced the cascading ramifications of today’s more fragmented world.
1) States are departing from free trade agreements which have been, for many decades, the cornerstone of commerce and globalization.
2) The relevance of global institutions is increasingly questioned, as States mull over withdrawing from international agreements and institutions.
10. Ironically, this is happening at the same time when the demand for well-functioning and effective frameworks, particularly for international dispute settlement, has never been higher.
1) If you look at the International Court of Justice, it has been seeing an unprecedented caseload in recent years. Not only are there more bilateral party disputes, but there are also more multi-partite cases with several interested States intervening in the same case, and more requests for advisory opinions.
2) In the investor-State dispute settlement (“ISDS”) sphere, institutions like the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) and the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) have also similarly experienced a higher volume of cases. I think this will be the trend for some time to come.
11. So the lesson for all of us, I venture to posture, is that it is not that international institutions have become less relevant, or that parties can shy away from the framework that we agreed upon. If anything, the opposite is true. At a time of greater geopolitical complexity, States and investors need trusted platforms more than ever – platforms through which disputes can be managed peacefully, predictably and according to law. The real challenge is therefore not whether international institutions remain necessary, but whether they can continue to command confidence in a changing and fragmented world.
The impetus for ISDS reform
12. Yet, at the same time, the legitimacy of the ISDS regime is being tested, as I said, at a time when trusted dispute settlement is needed most.
13. The question that was posed to all of you in the opening debate of CLAF – Can investor-State arbitrations resolve disputes between investors and States in a fair manner – is, I believe, not merely a hypothetical, not merely for a debate, but it is a very real matter confronting all States.
1) States are regulating more actively in areas such as climate change, energy security, public health, technology and national security. I am sure, for each of you, as you go back, you advise on governments increasingly on these areas, and I think that is something that will continue, given the geopolitical issues around the world. At the same time, investors continue to seek stability, predictability and protection from arbitrary treatment. I think that tension between regulation, the need to intervene by governments, as well as the need to be attractive to foreign investments coming in, will not go away. It will continue to exist, if not, be stepped up.
2) As we gear up for more State regulatory action to be subject to challenge by investors, there must therefore be credible and effective mechanisms for both investors and State alike to resolve them peacefully.
3) It is not helpful, whether for investors or for States, if there is lack of trust in whether a tribunal would be independent or impartial; or whether a tribunal’s decision would be broadly in line with past cases involving similar legal provisions and similar fact patterns.
14. A credible and trusted ISDS mechanism matters especially to Singapore. Our interest is driven by necessity. Singapore is one of the most open economies in the world, and we are situated at the crossroads of some of the busiest international trading routes in Asia. Cross-border trade and investment are a lifeline for our economy. To date, Singapore is party to about 30 free trade agreements, of which 21 contain investment chapters, as well as party to 47 international investment agreements.
15. Therefore, Singapore has quite understandably attached great importance to UNCITRAL Working Group III’s ongoing work on ISDS reform, and our delegation has sought to contribute constructively as well as pragmatically. Our position is fairly straightforward and logical. If confidence in international dispute settlement is to be sustained, then reform must be accompanied by institution building. Because it is not the rules themselves that make for a peaceful settlement framework. It is the people and institutions that make this work. So, the question is not simply what rules we adopt, but what institutions we create to give those rules practical effect.
16. It is against this backdrop that I announced earlier this week that Singapore will be putting our bid to host the Multilateral Investment Tribunal (“MIT”). Because reforms cannot stop at simply having an agreement on text. It must also be capable of implementation. For Singapore, the MIT is ultimately not just about dispute settlement. It is about demonstrating that States remain capable of building institutions that are trusted, credible and responsive to today’s contemporary realities.
17. This reflects a broader approach that has guided Singapore’s continued engagement in international law and dispute resolution. As a small State with a deep stake in an open and rules-based international order, Singapore has long sought to serve as a bridge between different legal traditions, regions and perspectives. Our contribution is often not to just prescribe outcomes, but to provide trusted platforms where diverse stakeholders can come together and work together to develop practical solutions to shared challenges.
The way forward
18. Allow me therefore to offer Singapore’s perspective on the work ahead, drawing on the thoughtful and very candid exchanges that you have had in your dialogues. While views might have differed on institutional choices, several common priorities emerged.
19. First, we must resist going our separate ways and instead we should endeavor to act collectively. I think there is a power in being united and there is a power in the collective. Working Group III is addressing a common challenge: how to sustain confidence in ISDS and I think that is a question that requires a coordinated response.
20. Domestic priorities do not preclude multilateral action; nor does multilateralism require agreement from all of us on every point. Our discussions have borne this out. Delegations have approached the proposed reforms from different legal traditions, experiences, and of course all of us are at different stages of economic development. Some saw clear benefits in a standing mechanism; others raised concerns and urged caution about cost, correctness, institutional complexity and the risks of creating new forms of fragmentation. I think these are all valid considerations, and we must take all of these concerns into account. But at the same time, these differences are not reasons in themselves to disengage. They are precisely the issues that serious multilateral engagement must take care and effort to work through.
21. The discussions you had revealed common concerns, issues that continue to find a baseline amongst many of the nations that are represented here. In fact, the discussions I am told during the last two days disclose common preoccupations amongst us:
1) How do we ensure that settlement of investment disputes is fair, independent and effective?
2) How do we promote consistency and correctness, while at the same time, preserving legitimate regulatory space and State control over treaty interpretation?
3) How do we ensure that reform reduces, rather than adds, to cost, to delay, and to duration and administrative complexity, particularly for developing countries?
4) And finally, how do we build a coherent and enforceable system that can work alongside existing dispute settlement mechanisms?
22. All of these are very relevant and very important questions. In fact, they signal to me that this is a sign that these conversations that we started over the last two days must continue. We must continue to come together on common platforms, to discuss them, and find consensus to these questions.
23. Second, reform must be purposeful. As several delegations reminded us over the last two days, no single design in the context of the MIT is inevitable, nor can any institution be expected to answer every concern. Its value will depend on whether States make deliberate choices that produce a legitimate, effective, inclusive, workable as well as adaptable system.
24. The task is to decide how the Tribunal should function, whom it should serve and how it should fit in within the wider dispute settlement system. It should be:
1) Legitimate, with independent and impartial adjudicators selected through a credible, and transparent process that would engender trust;
2) Effective, producing greater coherence and predictability without losing sight of correctness.
3) Inclusive, reflecting different regional and developmental perspectives and remaining accessible in practice; and
4) Finally, workable, with sustainable costs, effective enforcement and appropriate interoperability with existing mechanisms that many of you as different States already have.
25. A practical theme emerging from the discussions was the need to secure the benefits of permanence without unnecessary duplication. Delegations also explored how coordination, shared services and the experience of existing institutions might reduce duplication and complexity. But efficiency must be accompanied by safeguards for independence, confidentiality, and of course, sound governance. The detailed design must be able to reconcile all of these concerns.
26. Inclusivity must extend beyond who is represented in the negotiations. It must shape the institution’s design, in fact, its very core DNA – in the diversity and expertise of adjudicators; in the extent to which the perspectives of States, investors and different regions are taken into account; and finally in whether States, particularly developing countries, have the financial and technical capacity of States, to participate effectively.
1) In the last two decades, Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean have seen marked increases in the influx of foreign direct investment inflows into their regions.
2) But importantly, this is driven by increased interaction amongst the Global South. For example, South–South trade has expanded tenfold in recent decades, growing much faster than the North–South trade, and now today, accounting for over a third of global commerce.
3) Our own experience in Singapore reflects many of these broader shifts. While small, we have the benefit of sitting at the intersection of Asia's major economic and trading networks and we have benefited from increasingly deep connections – not only with our traditional partners, but also with economies across Africa, Latin America and the wider Global South.
27. As investment flows diversify and South–South economic activity expands, dispute settlement institutions must be able to reflect and serve a broader community of users. This is not representation for representation sake, but I believe it is essential to legitimacy and confidence. If you look at the treaty disputes, the vast majority were commenced in the last 15 years, compared to the prior 30 years. This trend will continue as South-South and global trade increases. You will find that as these cases will increase, the need for an impartial, trusted, credible dispute resolution system is not just a matter of luxury, but I believe it is a matter of significant choice and necessity.
28. But ultimately, the outcome will be only as strong as each State’s engagement — in UNCITRAL, in all our respective capitals and of course in forums such as CLAF.
29. I therefore hope that all States, whether UNCITRAL members or otherwise, can remain engaged, participate constructively, give your voice, tell us and explain to all of us what the concerns are, what you hope to see from it, so that these can be considerations that will go into the design and architecture of the system.
30. The Singapore Convention on Mediation showed what sustained multilateral engagement can achieve. The Working Group III now offers another, perhaps harder, opportunity to show that practical cooperation remains possible in a more contested world. Where all the views of all States – concerns, benefits, outcomes, objectives that we hope to see from such a system – can be reflected in the DNA of the system.
Conclusion
31. In many ways, that is why we convened CLAF at this important juncture. It is to advance serious, practical and inclusive discussion on ISDS reform and the institutions it may require, and the conversations that you have had over the past two days reflect that. During the discussions over these two days, States have shown the value of bringing together State legal advisers. They have helped identify not only the principles that should guide reform, but also the practical questions that must first be resolved if future institutions are to be trusted and effective.
32. For Singapore, this is how a small State like ourselves can contribute: by convening partners, bridging perspectives and helping to turn shared principles into practical solutions.
33. We are especially glad that CLAF has brought together partners from around the world. If you look around the room today, the different flags that are represented here – including Latin America, Africa, Europe. We have deepened diplomatic, legal as well as economic ties across all these regions, and this is something that we are particularly happy about.
34. The systems we build today can give States and investors greater confidence in how disputes can be resolved tomorrow. In this regard, legal advisers have a very important role — not only in advising on the law, but also in convening partners, bridging perspectives and helping translate shared principles into workable solutions. If CLAF has clarified what is possible when we work together, I think it has served a really important purpose. But let it not be a conclusion today, but rather as a part of this continuing journey of dialogue, of openness, of conversation that brings us all onto a common platform. Let us carry that spirit forward — with resolve, with pragmatism and with confidence in what we can build together.
35. I sometimes make reference to this in my speeches, when I talk about travel: If you want to go fast, you go alone; and if you want to go far, then you go together. From my vantage point, looking at this room today, I think there is power of the collective that is already in this room – the power to go far together with all of you.
36. On that note, I hope you have a pleasant stay in Singapore. We thank you for being at CLAF, and we wish you all the very best. Thank you very much
Last updated on 27 August 2026