Opening Speech by Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs Edwin Tong SC at the SIAC China Conference 2025

30 JUN 2025

Dr Yu Jianlong, Vice Chairman of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT)

Mr Peter Tan, Singapore’s Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China

Ms Cui Yang, General Director of Beijing Municipal Justice Bureau

Ms Lucy Reed, President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration

All our distinguished SIAC Board and Court Members

Ms Gloria Lim, CEO of SIAC

Our many colleagues and friends, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen from the legal industry in Singapore and China

Introduction

  1. A very good morning to all of you.
  1. It is a real pleasure to be back in Beijing again. Some of you may know that we just had our General Elections last month. We have now a new term of government, and this is my first trip in this new capacity. I am delighted to see so many familiar friends gathered here today. Thank you very much for joining us.
  1. I thought I would speak a little on what it means to conduct arbitration in the context of being in Asia – what I call the “Asianisation of International Arbitration”.
  1. I will explore this topic in three parts:

a. First, what it means to be “Asianising” international arbitration in the context in which we see ourselves today - geopolitical tensions, economic tensions, but amongst all of that, opportunities for all of us.

b. Second, the challenges that might bring for us – both as an arbitral institution, as well as a jurisdiction interested in promoting dispute resolution, using arbitration as one of the primary means of resolving disputes.

c. Finally, the priorities for us as we embark on what I regard as a symbiotic and very synergistic relationship between Singapore and China, as we manage arbitrations and dispute resolution.

Exploring “Asianisation”

  1. In the last decade, as I alluded to, with the rise of geopolitical tensions and economic disruptions, we have seen different ways of doing trade, threats to multilateralism and uncertainty. But there has been one trend that has been very clear, and in my view, very certain, i.e. that the global economic centre of gravity has certainly shifted eastwards, and today, it is firmly anchored in Asia. Let me give you some proof points.

a. Today, Asia accounts for more than 40% of global GDP, and is home to amongst the world’s largest economies – China 2nd in the world, Japan 4th, India 5th, and ASEAN as a bloc, increasingly will, as far as we can find cohesion amongst the ASEAN countries, find place amongst the top five economies in the world.

b. Asia also accounts for about 39% of global exports, and 37% of global imports.

c. It attracts around 40% of the world’s foreign direct investments (FDI), and it accounts for 70% of such inflows to developing countries.

  1. Asia’s growth, in my view, is not just quantitative, but also very much qualitative in several ways, marked by increasing sophistication, innovation and global influence. Countries like China lead in areas, such as clean energy, e-commerce, fintech and AI. They are no longer just manufacturing powerhouses with a large manpower base, with big plants generating products, but really becoming key drivers of innovation and technology.
  1. So, if you look at this, given the economic heft, it is really no surprise that international arbitration has become more “Asianised”, because after all, law follows business. It is because there is a growth in business that opportunities in dispute resolution arise. I believe that this trend is not just anecdotal, but evidenced by very clear, measurable indicators.
  1. First, there is growing participation by Asian parties in international disputes.

a. To make this trend clearer, let us just look at the data from non-Asian institutions.

b. You take the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) for example. Parties from Asia-Pacific now make up 25% of the caseload, compared to about 12-15% just about two decades ago. So, the growth is about double over the last two decades, and it is picking up speed and momentum at a rate, which I believe, will become very material.

  1. Second, Asian cities are now among the most preferred seats of arbitration.

a. Gloria alluded to the Queen Mary University of London and White & Case’s International Arbitration Survey, just done earlier this year. 5 of the top 10 seats globally are in Asia – Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing, Shenzhen, and Shanghai, and the 11th is actually Guangzhou so they sit just outside the top 10.

b. In contrast, if you dial back 10 years, only 2 Asian cities were in the top 7.

c. Although Asian seats have perhaps, more recently, and more lately come into the mix, I believe they are rapidly closing the gap, which itself reflects the desire and the demand of the commercial sectors.

  1. Third, Asian arbitral institutions are not just rising in caseload, but I believe in global stature and standing, and also overall thought leadership.

a. The same survey ranks six Asian institutions among the global top 10 (or top 13, considering joint rankings) – Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA), Beijing International Arbitration Centre (BIAC), and Guangzhou Arbitration Commission (GZAC). In 2015, there were just two amongst the top 7 – Singapore and Hong Kong.

b. These institutions are being chosen even in contracts involving non-Asian parties. At SIAC, for example, cases filed in 2024 came from 72 different jurisdictions, two-thirds of those 72 came from outside Asia.

  1. Finally, Asian arbitrators are being appointed with increasing frequency, not only by both Asian institutions but also by non-Asian ones.

a. Their reputation for skills, expertise, competence, impartiality, and efficient case management is increasingly recognised globally, even in very complex investor-state disputes.

  1. So, this trend, which I believe, will continue to deepen, tells us historically, economic influence precedes legal influence. The UK led, before being joined by the US, and now, I believe, Asia is truly coming into its own.
  1. In my view, this “Asianisation”, as I call it, of international arbitration is not just a short-term trend. I believe it is the product of a deep, structural shift that offers tremendous opportunities for all of us in Asia. And for us in Singapore and China, I think it represents a particularly rich area of cooperation, particularly as both our countries are invested in growing international dispute resolution to support cross-border business.
  1. We both want to attract FDI inflows, and all investors will be concerned about the stability of the jurisdiction. They will know that with every investment, disputes become part and parcel of the investment. How you resolve those disputes become the key.
  1. But at the same time with opportunity comes responsibility. If Asian institutions are to meet the rising global business expectations, and indeed opportunity, then there must be several key challenges that will have to be overcome.

Exploring Challenges

  1. That brings me to the second theme that I would like to address.
  1. First, a few micro challenges.
  1. Parties in any arbitration simply want a process that ultimately delivers justice - fairly efficiently, cost effectively. Bottom line is, for all the things that we say about multilateralism, globalisation, rule of law, what parties want is for their case to be resolved quickly, expeditiously, transparently, and predictably.
  1. So, the first challenge, I believe, still is the age-old challenge of speed. I think we recognise that, because if you look at your programme today, the topic of the first panel is “faster than faster” - not just fast or faster, but you must be faster than faster. That underscores the point that time is often critical in resolving disputes, and this means institutions must have rules that are bespoke, that are innovative, that are evolving and reflective of mercantile considerations. They must help parties move their cases forward, not only by avoiding delays in their own administration, but actively encouraging efficiency in the process, and between counsel and tribunals alike.
  1. That is why procedural tools matter, and they matter a lot. They need to be flexible and innovative, so provisions like emergency arbitrator, early dismissal, as well as the expedited procedure, oftentimes help to accelerate the process – not just accelerating by way of timeframe, but oftentimes, crystallising the issue that needs to be resolved, and by the time you get to the arbitration proper, you will crystallise the key questions in dispute between the parties.
  1. SIAC recently introduced a streamlined procedure designed to be even faster than the expedited procedure for low value and less complex disputes. So again, not a one-size-fits-all, but one that is curated, one that looks at the nature of the dispute, size of the dispute, and attenuates the process to reflect them. These innovations, I believe, make arbitration more responsive ultimately to commercial and mercantile needs.
  1. Second, another age-old challenge – cost. Rising cost remains a concern. Arbitration users often point to increasing expenses across the board, whether it is from institutions, legal counsel, arbitrators, or sometimes the process itself being in different jurisdictions, in different countries.
  1. Whilst inflation, no doubt, is one key factor, I think the key solution lies in improving productivity. Faster processes will mean fewer man hours, reduced arbitral time, reducing overall expenditure. Ultimately, I think we all know if we want to stay attractive to business users, then if arbitration becomes too costly, businesses will look elsewhere. I believe that will be a missed opportunity, because arbitration remains one of the most effective, open and transparent manner in which a serious complex dispute can be resolved.
  1. Third, neutrality. If you look at the first name of any institution, it will reflect the geographical location at which they are anchored. Sometimes, there is a temptation to try to be nationalistic about it, to try to protect the institution – this institution is anchored in my home jurisdiction, let’s see what we can do to protect it, to enhance it. But I think that would be a mistake. If institutions are seen as favouring national interest only, they risk losing the trust of the very users that they seek to attract.
  1. In this way, SIAC has taken very careful steps to maintain an open and very international character. Its panel includes more than 700 arbitrators from over 40 jurisdictions, with different legal systems - common law, which we are used to, and civil law, which Singapore is less used to, but we know that our users come from many civil law jurisdictions.
  1. So, whilst it may be attempting to favour Singapore arbitrators, SIAC prioritises according to the most suitable person for the case, sometimes with the right legal, sometimes with the right industry, and also sometimes with the right cultural expertise to resolve the dispute.
  1. One question we often hear is why are there relatively fewer Chinese or Indian arbitrators appointed despite being SIAC’s top foreign users? Well, the answer is precisely because SIAC considers neutrality and also a range of case specific factors in getting the arbitrators appointed. It is about getting the best fit, and not necessarily the most familiar one.
  1. These are what I would regard as some of the micro-level challenges, but there are also some macro-level structural challenges that this community should address effectively, which we, in Singapore, look at very closely.
  1. One such challenge is regulatory fragmentation.

a. While many Asian jurisdictions are aligned with UNCITRAL Model Law, differences in its construction, application, and sometimes, basic interpretation still create uncertainty. So, a common legal framework is really only as effective as its consistent application. If what happens on the ground diverges from what is written in legislation, then the system will lose credibility.

b. In Singapore, our courts adopt a very pro-arbitration stance, offering maximum support, but minimum intervention. Party autonomy, party choice – the fact that you have selected arbitration as a process, the fact that you selected specific arbitrators – the awards are often given primacy, and it is not straightforward or easy to set aside such an award. In fact, they are rare and exceptional.

c. But to harmonise this further and to look at arbitration across Asia, I think we can strengthen regional collaboration to bring more thought leaders together, to think about the issues that each jurisdiction might face on its own and find solutions that are regional and straddle different jurisdictions.

d. So, for instance, forums of dialogue between judges, regulators and arbitration professionals and occasions like these can help. It helps to align interpretations, to encourage convergence and reduce inconsistencies in enforcement and procedure.

  1. The second macro challenge is in enforcement.

a. Although legal infrastructure in Asia has improved significantly, disparities still remain. Enforcement timelines, the ability to grant or to seek interim reliefs, court attitudes towards arbitral awards differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It may be certain within a particular jurisdiction, but it creates uncertainty across different jurisdictions, and that really is the core characteristics of international arbitration - you must exist within different jurisdictions.

b. Businesses must have confidence that awards granted in one jurisdiction can be upheld in another without undue delay, complication or re-litigation. I think that ultimately is the key. When a party chooses the modality of dispute resolution, the fruit or product of that modality is something that can be enforced, can be taken to another jurisdiction and enforced as seamlessly as possible.

  1. This brings me to my final section as I conclude, what our priorities should be.
  1. Today, the world is interconnected. I know there are trade barriers; there are people who look at multilateralism with some scepticism; they focus on friend-shoring or re-shoring, but I believe that today’s interconnected world, especially in the context of international arbitration, will stay. No jurisdiction can afford to operate in silo, whether you are an institution or you are a jurisdiction with national needs. By its very nature, international cross-border arbitration demands collaboration, so we need sustained engagement between policymakers, judges, practitioners and institutions, and the dialogue, if nothing else, builds mutual trust, fosters understanding, resolves friction, and reinforces shared values like neutrality and party autonomy.
  1. In this context, I believe Singapore and China are well-placed to drive this progress. Our deep and longstanding cooperation in legal and dispute resolution fields give us a strong foundation to set benchmarks, to foster innovation and to strengthen confidence in international arbitration. In fact, I would say the legal cooperation between Singapore and China is perhaps the closest amongst all our friends and partners around the world.
  1. My Prime Minister, Lawrence Wong, was just in China last week, and met with President Xi. Our legal cooperation features very prominently in our highest bilateral platform – the Joint Council for Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC) which is held every year, and also at the provincial level, such as the Singapore-Shanghai Comprehensive Cooperation Council, which I co-chair with Shanghai Mayor Gong Zheng.
  1. Our Chief Justices meet annually to share best practises, address cross border issues, such as conflicts of jurisdiction, and also more importantly, and increasingly, coordination of parallel proceedings. My Ministry holds a regular dialogue with the Ministry of Justice, and you might know that last week, we just signed an MOU on legal talent development with the Ministry of Justice.
  1. My colleagues and I make it a point to visit China often to engage with our counterparts, and through this personal interaction, to deepen our bilateral ties.
  1. Later this week, I will be meeting Chief Justice Zhang Jun, Prosecutor-General Ying Yong, Minister of Justice He Rong, as well as my various Ministry of Home Affairs counterparts, to put a face to a name, to have a dialogue, to open up channels, and to find ways in which we can bring the two jurisdictions closer together.
  1. I would say on that score, equally vital is the role of all of you - practitioners in the legal industry, whether in-house counsel or practising lawyers. All of you bring life to the legal framework. The legal framework is just a framework of rules, the nuts and bolts, but all of you bring life to how that framework can be applied case to case and uphold professional standards. We have had various exchanges, such as the Singapore-Shanghai Lawyers Exchange Programme, secondments, as well as events like this, where our lawyers not just learn from one another, but build networks and build bonds that benefit the broader ecosystem.
  1. On our part, Singapore is committed to strengthening this partnership, because we believe that by working together, we create a more resilient, more trusted and forward-looking arbitration landscape in Asia, and for Asian parties in particular. So, on this note, let me warmly invite all of you to Singapore for two events that will happen later this year.

a. First, our annual Singapore Convention Week, which will be held from 25 to 29 August this year; and

b. The 5th iteration of the Singapore-China International Commercial Dispute Resolution Conference that will take place on 12 and 13 November 2025.

  1. I welcome you to attend both of these. In fact, this year’s Singapore-China International Commercial Dispute Resolution Conference, co-organised by my Ministry and CCPIT, is a significant milestone. It marks the 5th edition of the conference as well as 35 years of diplomatic relations between Singapore and China, and also coincides with Singapore’s SG60 celebrations. We are planning some special features to commemorate this very special occasion.

Conclusion

  1. Let me end by saying this. I spoke about “Asianisation”, I spoke about the shift towards the East, to Asia, but I do not believe for a moment that “Asianisation” is about the East displacing the West. In fact, if anything, there has got to be a full suite of systems that exist in different jurisdictions, in different geographical locations, in different continents to support one another.
  1. It is about broadening the landscape of international arbitration, that is more reflective of the way in which global commerce is being practised to meet evolving commercial needs, which we know is changing very rapidly – to meet new, novel, and also disruptive ways of engaging trade. We want to see a system that is more reflective of diverse legal traditions – one that accommodates different legal systems and different nuances in each of the systems.
  1. Different systems reflect different ways in which we do business, which in turn, leads to different ways of resolving disputes, and one that is responsive to user’s needs. Ultimately, arbitration is about meeting user’s needs. If we cannot meet user’s needs, arbitration will fall away, and so users’ needs as they evolve will be something that we need to keep a very close eye on.
  1. Therefore, to succeed, it must be a collaborative effort in international arbitration. No single jurisdiction can do it alone, but together by sharing knowledge, by aligning principles, building mutual trust, having a system that talks to one another, and all of you integrated with one another, we can elevate the quality and consistency of international arbitration across the region and beyond. Then I think we will be ready to take on, have the ability to match opportunity with the system, and be able to take the occasion, as we look at trade flows, to be part of the system, to be ready to grow trade, and support it with our dispute resolution processes.
  1. I leave you with that thought, as we reflect on how far we have come, and how much more we can grow by working together. I invite all of you to think about today’s conference, not just as a way of gaining knowledge and insights on the latest of trends and developments and rules, but also use it as an opportunity to build networks, strengthen friendships across different jurisdictions. Overall, all of you will play a much bigger role in strengthening the Singapore-Chinese level of cooperation and strengthening the “Asianisation” of arbitration in Asia.
  1. Thank you.

Last updated on 30 June 2025