SM Lee Hsien Loong at the Singapore International Commercial Court Conference 2025

The Honourable Chief Justice,

The Honourable Justice Philip Jeyaretnam, President of the Singapore International Commercial Court,

Honourable Judges,

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,

A very good evening to everybody.

I am happy to join you tonight at the Singapore International Commercial Court Conference. Let me first thank Chief Justice Menon for his kind words in his welcome address. I cannot claim credit for all that Singapore has achieved over the past two decades, because whatever success our nation has enjoyed is due to the hard work and collective contributions of countless others across all walks of life, including many of you who are here today. For which, I will long be grateful.

I would like to congratulate the SICC on its tenth anniversary – a significant milestone indeed. I am happy that SICC has done well, and has vindicated our decision to set up an international commercial court ten years ago.

This decision to create the SICC was rooted in Singapore’s overall emphasis on the rule of law, in both domestic and international affairs. And, arising from that, our ambition to build up Singapore as an international dispute resolution hub.

The importance of rule of law to Singapore

Domestically, the strong rule of law has been a cornerstone of the Singapore model, and has underpinned our progress as a nation. We require not just up-to-date, well-designed and well-drafted laws that meet our needs and suit our social context, but also we require laws to be soundly interpreted and effectively enforced. And that demands an efficient court system, with judges: Who are as able as the counsels who appear before them; who are incorruptible and act without fear or favour; and who can dispense justice reliably, consistently, and expeditiously. We inherited from our former colonial masters a fairly modern legal system based on English common law. With an independent judiciary, and the requirement that everyone be equally bound by the same laws of the land. But we developed and evolved the system over the years to suit Singapore’s unique context. We modernised and streamlined our court processes and rules, so that cases could be heard and cleared more efficiently. We created jurisprudence that is now cited internationally, even in English courts. We also staffed the system with capable officers. We ensured competitive and realistic remuneration for judges and legal professionals in the public sector. We created attractive career paths in Singapore’s legal and judicial services, including starting a Justices’ Law Clerk programme, to attract a steady flow of talent. As a result of these actions and policies, Singapore law does not exist only as a collection of abstract academic ideals and principles, looking good only on paper. But we built a practical, functioning legal and judicial system that delivers real justice for all. This was how our courts and our administration of justice earned acceptance, trust, and respect – both within and outside Singapore.

Today, the rule of law permeates every aspect of Singapore’s governance. Singaporeans enjoy law and order, and feel safe in their homes and on the streets. Citizens know their fundamental rights will be respected and protected, safe from the arbitrary exercise of government power. Businesses enjoy commercial certainty. They operate with confidence, knowing that contracts can be enforced, and will be honoured; and that disputes will be resolved expeditiously and impartially. Foreign investors trust their investments here to be secure; that commitments will be upheld, and assets will not be arbitrarily expropriated. At the same time, the Government has the freedom of action to do what it needs to do, to conduct public administration effectively. Yet complying with clear and practical laws and limits, so that it always remains accountable.

We did all this not to impress anyone, but because we are convinced Singapore’s success depends on strong rule of law, and strong institutions that can enforce the laws effectively.

Rule of law in international relations and commerce

Internationally, between nations, the rule of law is equally vital. As a small country, Singapore understands this acutely. All countries depend on a stable, rules-based global order: Where countries big and small can cooperate, compete, and resolve differences peacefully; within a framework of generally accepted rules; so that all states can improve the lives of their people and live in peace in this one world that we all live in. Ideally, disputes between states should be resolved peacefully and impartially, through established international fora such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), or the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The alternative – a world without rules, where might makes right – would be a troubled world, even for big powers. It would certainly be extremely challenging for small countries like Singapore, for whom rules and treaties are existential necessities, vital instruments for protecting their legitimate interests. That is why Singapore consistently speaks out in support of international law, and upholds rights and responsibilities codified in international agreements and treaties, like the UN Charter and UNCLOS (the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea). That is why Singapore is, for the first time, putting forward a candidate, Ambassador Rena Lee, to be a judge of the ICJ.

International disputes can also arise between states and non-state parties – for example, when an MNC invests in a foreign country. These MNCs may not prefer these disputes to be decided by the national courts of the host country. And often, they have the bargaining power to negotiate for alternative investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms before they commit to the project, for example under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Investment guarantee agreements between states sometimes explicitly provide for such ISDS arrangements.

There is one key difference, however, between the rule of law domestically, versus internationally. For domestic laws, the state is the ultimate enforcer. But in international relations, there is no ultimate enforcer. Every country declares their respect for international rule of law, and claims to act in accordance with it. But in practice, states interpret these international laws and norms to seek maximum flexibility and advantage for themselves. And because states are sovereign, ultimately, they themselves can decide whether to submit to the jurisdiction of international bodies – no other power can force them to do so. States are often wary of international adjudication or arbitration. They may fear that it would constrain their sovereignty. They may suspect that their legal case is not as strong as they proclaim. They may prefer to let an issue remain unresolved than to take the risk of litigation going against them. And the political cost of losing the case. This reluctance has only grown with increasing geopolitical tensions. Countries often refuse to bring intractable territorial or maritime disputes to arbitration or adjudication. They unilaterally invoke national security exceptions as defined by themselves to their WTO obligations. They hesitate to commit to ISDS arrangements with MNCs or in investment guarantee agreements. And these are worldwide trends.

Between non-state parties, in cross-border commerce, the rule of law is also important. Business is fundamentally about making and honouring deals. Contracts must be upheld, disputes resolved fairly, and judgements enforced effectively. Sovereign states may refuse to resolve disputes or subject themselves to international jurisdiction. But if businesses take this attitude, no business will be done. And if businesses do not uphold their obligations, their reputation will be worth nothing. Cross-border business therefore requires an international legal framework.

There are two broad ways the rule of law can facilitate cross-border commerce between businesses: First, through international rules and laws that apply to all, including rules on how disputes should be resolved. The UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) plays a key role in this. It has developed model laws and standards to harmonise trade laws across countries, providing a consistent basis for cross-border commerce. Including rules on how mediation can be used to resolve cross-border disputes. Singapore has recently contributed actively to this, in the negotiation and drafting of the Singapore Convention on Mediation for UNCITRAL. These frameworks and agreements are enablers of global commerce – they foster predictability, reduce friction, and enable trade to flourish. Second, beyond international rules and laws, there are options for businesses to make private arrangements to resolve their commercial disputes. For example, businesses may go for commercial arbitration, where parties agree to resolve disputes through independent arbitrators. They can also submit disputes to be mediated through independent mediation centres. A whole industry has developed around arbitration and mediation. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) support this industry. Alternatively, businesses can agree to have their disputes litigated in the national courts of a specific country of their choice. Or they can pursue international litigation before International Commercial Courts (ICCs), which several countries have established specifically to resolve cross-border commercial disputes.

ICCs have gained prominence over the past two decades. They offer neutrality and allow procedural flexibility. There are several ICCs around the world, so businesses can shop for jurisdictions and have a choice of which ICC they bring their cases to. This creates some Darwinian competition between the ICCs, which is a good thing. Naturally, businesses will prefer ICCs which command respect and confidence, have good track records, and are hosted in stable countries that themselves manifest the rule of law.

The role of the SICC

This is the context to our decision to create the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) ten years ago. We believed that the SICC would facilitate international commerce, by offering an additional forum for businesses to resolve complex, high-value, cross-border commercial disputes. The SICC could tap on Singapore’s strong foundations and reputation as an impartial and effective jurisdiction, where justice is administered fairly and efficiently. We hoped to persuade eminent foreign judges with expertise in international commercial law to join the SICC’s bench, and help it grow into a credible and attractive dispute resolution forum. The SICC, together with the SIAC, SIMC, the arbitration and mediation centres, and Maxwell Chambers, would provide a full suite of dispute resolution services, for international commercial parties to resolve their disputes in a trusted, neutral venue with high quality jurisprudence. This would enhance Singapore’s status as a leading international dispute resolution hub.

The SICC has fully lived up to these expectations. There are now 24 international judges appointed to the SICC, comprising eminent jurists from both civil and common law jurisdictions, with deep expertise in hearing commercial cases. Its caseload has been increasing steadily. Landmark cases heard by the SICC include: Its first case back in 2015, which concerned a $1.1 billion dispute between a Singapore subsidiary of an Australian company and an Indonesian firm. It was heard by two international judges and a presiding local judge. The first of two judgments in the case was described by international media as a “masterclass” in dealing with rules of interpretation, public policy and the implication of terms. Another significant case was heard last year. This concerned No Va Land, a financially distressed real estate developer, one of Vietnam’s largest. The company obtained the SICC’s approval for its cross-border restructuring plan, covering US$300 million in debts, within 15 days from filing, securing the company’s financial survival. This restructuring involved legal teams from different jurisdictions, including Singapore. The case was heard before an international judge in the SICC, applying Singapore insolvency law. It is a good example of how SICC can facilitate the speedy cross-border restructuring of foreign companies. The SICC has built on its success to appoint more respected and experienced international judges to its panel. And in turn, this encourages more parties to bring their cases before it, and will enable the SICC to grow even further. We are glad that the SICC has also found opportunities to work with like-minded partners, like the Bahrain International Commercial Court. This may offer a model for other future international partnerships.

All this has been made possible by the efforts of the people behind the SICC: Chief Justice Menon, who mooted the idea and pushed to establish the SICC, with the full support of the Government; Justices Quentin Loh and Philip Jeyaretnam, who helped set up and improve the SICC, and served successively as its President; The judges who served on the SICC, including our esteemed international judges, who believed in it and helped to build and strengthen it and members of the legal and judicial fraternity and the SICC staff, who have worked hard to make SICC a success. To all those who have contributed – a big thank you!

I described earlier how in the troubled geopolitical environment, countries have become less willing to resolve disputes by subjecting themselves to multilateral mechanisms and the jurisdiction of international fora. But even in such an environment, international rule of law still exists, though imperfectly. It is still important; in fact, it becomes all the more important and precious because countries still need to co-exist and work with one another. International business still needs to be done, and parties still need to agree on what rules apply, and how to resolve cross-border commercial disputes when these arise. Indeed, in this environment, when businesses decide where and how their contracts should be adjudicated and disputes resolved, the reputation and impartiality of a jurisdiction and its institutions become even more important considerations. The SICC should be well placed to take advantage of this reality. It will benefit from Singapore’s reputation and track record. It can count on the backing of Singapore’s mature, established and forward-looking legal system; and the support of a government that remains vested in the success and efficacy of the transnational commercial justice system.

Conclusion

I am confident that the SICC will adapt, thrive, and uphold your global standing in these challenging times. And that your work will enhance our legal system and culture, and raise Singapore’s value and standing in the world.

I wish SICC all the best in the years ahead, and happy birthday once again on your 10th anniversary. Thank you very much.