INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 1/3LY
S ING A P ORE
SINGAPORE HA S SEEN STELL AR GROWTH A S AN ARBITRATION CENTRE OVER RECENT YE ARS. BET WEEN 2000 AND 2005, THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION C A SES FILED AT THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC) E VERY YE AR WA S 34. IN 2014, 222 WERE REGISTERED, WITH A TOTAL VALUE OF SGD 5.04 BILLION (USD 3.6 BILLION). Likemany arbitral centres, Singapore arbitration remains rooted in its domesticmarket. That is both natural – as parties are likely to choose locations which are culturally familiar and geographically close – and not necessarily indicative of a lack of diversity – Singapore is a long established hub for international trade. However, Singapore clearly has an international appeal, bothwithin and beyond the immediate geographical region. SIAC’s 2014 Annual Report notes that Singaporean parties (including Singaporean subsidiaries of international companies) appeared in 147 of the 222 new cases in 2014. Perhapsmore tellingly, it follows that 75 of the 222 did not involve a Singaporean party. After Singaporean, Chinese and Indian parties were the second and fourthmost numerous nationalities. Parties from the USA were third. So the Singapore arbitration story is one of growth: growth in numbers, growth in value, and growth in national diversity. What lies behind this growth? In terms of technical criteria that are important to arbitration’s consumers in an arbitral seat, Singapore ticks all the boxes. It has a generally pro-arbitration judiciary (Chief Justice SundaraeshMenon is a very supportive and visible figure in international arbitration); awell-regarded and efficient court system; an internationally-recognised and stable national law (based on the English common law); international arbitration legislation based on the UNCITRALModel Law; several official languages (four, including English) with links to other economically developed countries; and excellent transport links.
These factors are undeniably important, but they are not unique in global arbitration centres. The X-factor in Singapore’s successmight verywell be down to the decision taken by the Singaporean government to promote the growth of international arbitration as an industry in itself, its resolve in sticking to that decision and the depth of its involvement in the creation of the infrastructure of arbitration. SIAC’s foundation in 1991was followed by enactment of the International Arbitration Act (IAA) in 1994. Unlike some jurisdictions, this has not been the end of Singapore’s efforts. Significant amendments weremade to the IAA in 2001, 2002, 2009 and 2012. There is every reason to suppose that amendments will continue to keep pace with, or indeed lead, developments in international arbitration. The judiciary in Singapore, a common law jurisdiction, has been permitted to establish a number of lines of pro-arbitration jurisprudence. The SIAC Rules are in their fifth edition. If the enactment andmaintenance of arbitration legislation is normal governmental activity, the foundation of purpose-built arbitration facilities is perhaps less so. However, that is what the Singapore government – which provided seedmoney for Maxwell Chambers and retains an equity stake – has done in the colonial former CustomHouse. It was the first Asian government to do anything on this scale. Meanwhile a tax incentive announced in 2007 even allows qualifying law firms a 50% tax exemption on incremental income arising from international arbitration cases which culminated or would have culminated in substantive hearings held in Singapore.
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter