Articles for PracticeForte’s The Brief
Morning with National University of Singapore School of Law Mediation Class. Affiliate member and Adjunct Professor, @ Marcus Lim teaching mediation advocacy with co-founder, @ Susan Tay sharing her perspectives of a mediation advocate in an international setting. Thank you, PracticeForte adviser and Professor @ Joel Lee and @ Marcus Lim for the opportunity and the amazing lunch and wine, and to @ Mylene Chua who never fails to take the most candid pics.
By Lim Seng Siew, Director OTP Law Corporation
Tik-tok, Facebook, Instagram, even Twitter (notwithstanding recent problems) are popular. All wishing to encourage the listener or viewer, to adopt a particular behaviour or view. Sometimes to promote a political or social agenda. Other times to influence the viewer’s buying habits. Such influence pedaling have existed for years, if not centuries; beginning with coffee shop talk about social or political issues of the day, leading on to advertisements on TVs, newspapers and magazines.
Why then the ‘undue concern’ with online social media? What makes the Cambridge Analytica scandal different from the many other scandals involving journalists or newspapers being ‘bought’ by politicians? Without waiting for the conclusion of the analysis of the influence of social media, many countries have put in place regulations to govern the conduct of the ‘social media influencer’. While some regulations have the force of law, others set out norms of behaviour or guidelines.
Like many other countries, Singapore has legislation that govern the conduct of the platforms themselves. To name a few: the Online Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act and the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act.
This article focuses on the individual social media influencer. Please bear in mind that this article is not a comprehensive, all-encompassing review of all applicable laws but only highlights some of the key ones. There are also sectorial specific regulations. As examples: MAS has regulations and guidelines for advertisements in the financial sector. All professionals (like lawyers, doctors, accountants, engineers, architects etc) have regulations and guidelines governing publicity and advertising of their professional services.
The Influencer Market
The influencer market in Singapore is expected to grow strongly in the next few years as Singapore has a large internet base of users. According to Statista Research, in 2022, the internet penetration rate in Singapore is at 92% of its population. To tap this market, many Singapore brands have an online marketing budget. The influencer market spans from key opinion leaders or KOLs (who have a large following as they are trusted as the expert or the authority in a particular field) to the nano-influencers (who have a strong impact on very targeted segments of internet users), with a whole lot of others in between. The market divides these ‘in-betweens’ into: mega-influencers, macro-influencers, mid-tier influencers, and micro-influencers. Some market experts predict that for 2024, the influencer market will hit S$2.59 billion.
The most used social media platforms in Singapore for 2022 are WhatsApp and Facebook with Instagram coming in third. It is expected to remain the same for 2023.
ASAS Guidelines for Interactive Marketing Communications & Social Media
Follow the Guidelines by disclosing that the content is sponsored and don’t artificially boost your followers!
In August 2016, the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS) issued, as part of the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice (SCAP), the Guidelines for Interactive Marketing Communications & Social Media (Guidelines). In addition to the Guidelines, guidance notes (in Annex B) on how to interpret the Guidelines were also issued by ASAS. In particular, the guidance notes clarify the types of sponsorship arrangements that require disclosure and the form such disclosures should take.
While the Guidelines do not have the force of law, non-compliance can lead to industry-level sanctions. Such sanctions, in order of severity, are:
a) Informing the advertiser to amend or remove the advertisement in question.
b) Withholding advertising space or time from advertisers.
c) Publishing details of the outcome of its investigations, ie naming and ‘shaming’ the advertiser and the breach, with the consequential adverse publicity.
d) Referring the matter to the relevant authorities for action under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act.
From Aug 2016 to 2020 there were 10 breaches of the Guidelines, mainly relating to the lack of disclosure of sponsored content. Once notified by ASAS, the postings were amended by the influencers concerned to comply with the Guidelines.
The Guidelines do not cover ‘earned media’, ie media that is driven by consumers’ sharing and engagement and it not sponsored. Examples include using ‘likes’, ‘re-tweets’ and reviews (and similar content) that is not paid for.
Sponsorship is not limited to money sponsorship. It includes benefits-in-kind. So free meals, goods, vacations, samples, ‘friendly favours’ and ‘special invites’ provided by a company that guides the creation of the content is considered sponsorship.
If a marketing post is paid for or sponsored by a company, the influencer who endorses the product or service must distinguish such marketing post from other postings where the influencer is merely expressing his or her own opinion of the product or service.
The marketing post:
a) must indicate, in clear and simple language and in an easily seen location, that there is a commercial relationship between the influencer and the company or that the content is sponsored;
b) should reflect the true feelings of the influencer for the product or service;
c) must not be misleading;
d) must not claim that the product or service is endorsed by an organisation or individual when it is not;
e) must not appear to be impartial when it is in fact created to promote a product or service; and
f) must indicate clearly the fee or price for the product or service and state clearly sale conditions that are likely to influence the consumers’ purchase decision.
If the marketing post is directed at children (ie 12 years old or younger), the content must be appropriate and suitable for the age group of the children the post is targeted at.
The Guidelines also prohibit an influencer from using fraudulent means to boost user engagement. Such fraudulent means include bulk purchasing of ‘likes’, creation of fake accounts and the use of bots that generate page views. A study in 2019 suggested that 47% of Singapore influencers used artificial means to boost their followers.
As earlier stated, one of the sanctions that ASAS can take is to escalate the non-compliance of its Guidelines by referring the matter for action under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA). Section 6 of the CPFTA allows a consumer to take action against the supplier of the goods or services who engages in unfair practices. A “supplier” in the CPFTA is defined wide enough to include someone who promotes the sale or use of that product or service, ie an influencer.
Intellectual Property Rights
Respect the creative work of others! Don’t claim as yours what is created by others.
An influencer who uses someone else’s photograph, art, writing or other types of creative works as the influencer’s own infringes the copyright of the owners of the work. This will expose the influencer to civil liabilities, fines and even imprisonment.
Be aware that works that you find on the internet or even on websites that claim such works are ‘royalty free’ may not in fact be ‘free’. After all, that website may itself infringe the copyright of the true owners of the works.
Tax
Pay your taxes!
The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) has a document called “Essential Tax Information for Social Media Influencers such as Bloggers and YouTubers” to guide influencers on their income tax obligations.
All payments and benefits derived from the carrying on of blogging, advertising and any other activity performed on social media platforms as a trade or business constitute gains or profits from a trade or a business and is therefore taxable. Non-monetary benefits-in-kind are taxable. Income earned on a part-time basis is also taxable.
However, because of the practical difficulty with recording and tracking small value non-monetary goods or benefits, IRAS does not require influencers to declare such non-monetary benefits if (a) the product or service is given on an ad-hoc basis for one-off consumption or testing; and (b) the value of each product or service does not exceed S$100. If the product or service exceeds S$100, the full value must be declared. If the supply is a recurring one over a period of time, the full value of the benefit must also be declared.
Crimes
Don’t use your platform to engage in online harassment or cyberbullying!
An influencer with a large following can use such influence for the wrong purposes. Making threatening or insulting statements about others with the intention of harassing them is an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). Such statements may also be defamatory, which can give rise to both civil and criminal liabilities.
Cyberbullying is a term that actually encompasses a number of criminal offences. Unlawful stalking is an offence under section 7 of POHA. Criminal intimidation is an offence under section 503 of the Penal Code. Transmission of obscene images electronically is an offence under section 292 of the Penal Code. Doxxing is an offence under sections 3 and 5 of POHA.
Cross-Border Nature of Social Media
You may also need to comply with the regulations of other countries!
Because of the cross-border nature of social media, an influencer may also have to be aware of the regulations of other countries. This is especially so if the product or service can be bought by consumers in those other countries. As an example, the UK Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) has Advertising Guidelines for influencers (Sep 2018) and Transparency Guidelines for influencers (Jan 2019) that makes hidden advertising illegal in the UK.
Financial Sector
Know your products’ business sector!
Being an influencer in the financial sector, or “finfluencer”, has many more regulatory compliance issues. Social media postings that contain financial or investment ‘advice’ to viewers or followers, even if not sponsored, is regulated.
In Feb 2021, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Singapore Exchange (SGX) issued a statement warning investors about trading securities incited by online discussion forums and social media groups, the ‘pump and dump’ activities. Finfluencers who exploit such ‘pump and dump’ activities for their own benefit can be prosecuted for market misconduct under the Securities and Futures Act.
In Jan 2022, MAS banned the advertising of digital token products to the public on any media, including social media, to protect the general public from the risks associated with cryptocurrency trading.
You, as a finfluencer, posting on social media about the financial sector should keep up-to-date with the latest in a rapidly changing regulatory environment if you wish to avoid breaching any of its rules.
Platform Rules
Follow the Platform Rules!
Many, if not all social media platforms, already have terms of use or community standards that require their users to comply with disclosure requirements. Some have changed their user interfaces with standardised advert disclosure placements so that its users cannot feign ignorance. Also, the use of artificial means to boost user engagement is often a breach of such terms of use or standards.
The result of a breach can be suspension or deactivation of an influencer’s account (and thus, revenue) on that platform.
Contract
Follow the contract!
Brands (or their campaign agents), especially the larger more established ones, will have standard contracts that they require influencers to sign. They usually set out: (a) what are the influencer’s deliverables; (b) the outcomes or metrics of success; (c) the compensation for the influencer; and (d) the general obligations and conduct expected of the influencer.
Understand what you are signing. If you are not clear, ask. If something troubles you, ask that they be changed. If they cannot be changed, think seriously whether you want to sign.
Conclusion
Being an influencer trying to promote yourself and your brand’s products and services is not easy. There are many influencers who ‘do the quick and dirty’ and give the industry a bad name. Singapore has taken the approach of using ‘soft-law’ to regulate the influencer market, in part because the regulators do not want to stifle a growing and fast changing environment.
We will have to see if the ‘soft-law’ nature of Singapore’s attempts to regulate influencer marketing and protect consumers are working or if ‘hard law’ will be required.
My 3-week internship with OTP Law Corporation during my short winter break was truly an eye-opening and nourishing experience. I rekindled my passion and interest in family law and felt uplifted by the people I was working with.
I am sure a lot of law students can relate to this, but law school can be quite daunting sometimes (if not, all the time). The readings, assignments and finals are intense, and the competition is fierce. Given this, I often question my decision to take this degree and whether law is the right career path for me.
Although I am still not 100% sure whether law is right for me, I found myself gaining more interest in the practice during my internship. I was fortunate to have had a more hands-on approach where I was given the opportunity to interact with clients and draft correspondence and legal documents. I even managed to sit in a meeting with a Child Representative as well as a case conference.
Throughout my internship, I worked closely with Isabel, the associate director. I really admire the way she juggles all her responsibilities from mom duties to legal work and the way she handles clients. As I watched her in action, a seed inside me started to grow. I started to develop a strong desire to better myself and work on becoming a great lawyer. She inspired me, and gave me the motivation to leave the rut I was in.
Apart from being amazing role models, the people at OTP made this entire experience nourishing for me because they truly cared about my well-being and growth. I remember feeling a little nervous and apprehensive before meeting Susan, the co-founder of OTP. I was worried that she would ask me a law question that I cannot answer as I barely had the time to look at the news to see if there were any changes in the legal landscape. However, my worries were for nothing. Instead of grilling me with law questions, she spent an hour and more getting to know me. To my pleasant surprise, I was able to be completely myself when I spoke to her about the struggles I faced in law school and the things that I am passionate about. A lot of my fears regarding the legal industry were quashed after the conversation I had with her. The most life-changing thing that she said to me was that I have to take care of myself first before I can take care of others. As clients often come to lawyers when they are in distressing situations, lawyers need to have the capacity to hold space for them and this can only happen if they take care of themselves first and foremost. It matters a lot that this is something that the firm believes in, as it makes the working environment that much more fulfilling and warm.
All in all, my internship experience with OTP was a pivotal moment in my life. I am immensely grateful that my friend recommended me to this firm knowing that I would enjoy my time here, which I did. I am also extremely thankful to have crossed paths with the people at the firm, and look forward to coming back.
If you are just like me, lost and confused as to whether law is for you, take this as sign to give OTP a try.
Year 4 Law Student at Singapore Management University, Eileen Lim
by Lim Seng Siew, Director OTP Law Corporation
Introduction
The most recent Singapore Cybersecurity Landscape Report 2021 lists phishing attempts as one of the more prevalent methods of cybersecurity attacks. What is phishing? What are the consequences if I have been wrongfully used to launch a phishing attack? And what can I do to avoid being a victim of a phishing attack?
In this first part, we will talk about what happens if you are a victim of a hack.
What is Phishing?
Phishing is a method hackers use (a) to fraudulently obtain a victim’s personal and financial information such as their login details, bank account numbers and credit card details; (b) to cause a victim to transfer money to the hacker; or (c) to cause malware to be installed. The hacker disguises himself as a legitimate individual or reputable organisation (such as a lawyer or law firm) in emails, instant messaging, and other communication channels to trick the victim. Once the hacker obtains the victim’s personal information, they could gain access to the victim’s online accounts, and even impersonate the victim to scam the people around the victim, such as their family, friends, and business partners.
Closely related to phishing is spoofing. Spoofing is when a hacker makes use of computer techniques to trick even computer systems and their users by hiding or faking the hacker’s true identity. The email may look as if it is from a legitimate server but is in fact not.
Consequences to an organisation if they are used to launch a phishing attack
Of course, if an organisation’s systems have been hacked and subsequently used as an intermediary to launch a phishing attack onto others, its reputation will be affected and customers’ and business partners’ confidence in the organisation’s ability to keep their customers’ information confidential will be called into question. Rebuilding that reputation will take much time and resources.
In addition, where the cybersecurity incident or data breach involves personal data of a significant scale or causes significant harm, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) must be notified under the Personal Data Protection (Notification of Data Breaches) Regulations 2021 (“NDBR”). A breach can occur even if no data is stolen (or exfiltrated). A breach occurs so long as personal data is wrongfully accessed or used. If the PDPC finds that the organisation had not taken reasonable steps to secure personal data, the organisation can face a financial penalty of up to S$1m or 10% of its annual Singapore turnover, whichever is the higher limit.
Under the NDBR, the data breach is of a significant scale if it involves personal data of 500 or more individuals (who can be customers, staff, or other parties) and causes significant harm if it involves a prescribed list of personal data. Such prescribed personal data includes (a) an individual’s name, login identities, passwords, or similar information, (b) financial information; (c) health information; (d) information concerning vulnerable individuals such as children, young persons, vulnerable adults, or adoptees.
In the next part of this series, we will discuss about what to do if you are a victim of a hack.
If you have a need to seek legal advice on your cybersecurity situation or just require legal assistance in any way, please reach out to us at enquiries@otp.sg or +65 64383922.
By Susan Tay, director of OTP Law Corporation
The Uncertainty of Litigation Series
You, as a client, would have constantly heard from us, as lawyers, how unpredictable the outcome of litigation can be.
The Uncertainty of Litigation Series highlight, with articles about previous court decisions, and about the experiences of lawyers and clients, how common this unpredictability is when cases are fought in court.
With all this uncertainty, we advocate resolving your dispute through methods where the parties are the ones making the decisions. You can do this either by negotiation, mediation or conciliation. If you place your fate in the hand of someone else, his decision will never be entirely in your control. So why not, place your fate in your own hands?
Part 1 – Disputes Between Co-Owners of A Property And A First Right of Refusal To Buy Over The Other’s Share
The Uncertainty of Litigation Series starts with disputes involving properties co-owned by two or more persons.
In such disputes, it is very common for one party to want the first right to buy over the other party’s share in the property before the property is sold in the open market. This is what is called “a first right of refusal”. This is especially common in divorce proceedings where the matrimonial property is co-owned by spouses who contemplate a life separate from each other after the divorce.
This article is a short study of 3 Singapore cases (in 2016, 2019, and the latest in 2022). These cases centred or touched on the court’s power to grant a 1 st right of refusal to a co-owner to buy over the other’s share in a property.
An interesting point to note in the latest 2022 case is when the judge commented that his preferred route is not to have to decide on the case but for the parties to come to an amicable agreement concerning their dispute. This reflects the key message of The Uncertainty of Litigation Series.
We start off with the case which said that a court has NO such power.
Tan Chor Heng v Ng Cheng Hok is a 2019 High Court decision. In that case, the plaintiff, Mdm Tan, and the defendant, Mr Ng, bought a 5-room HDB flat under the Joint Singles Scheme in the proportion of 95:5 in favour of Mdm Tan. They bought the flat in 1997.
They were complete strangers. Through a mutual friend, they got to know each other shortly before the purchase of the flat. Soon after the purchase, they then lost contact. Mr Ng moved to Japan and spent 18 years in prison there. He only returned to Singapore in December 2018.
On financial contributions, Mr Ng made 1 payment of about S$7,900 from his CPF account toward the purchase price. A few days later, he received $5,000 in cash from Mdm Tan. Mdm Tan also paid for everything else, including all mortgage repayments for the HDB mortgage loan.
After Mr Ng’s return, Mdm Tan and Mr Ng quarrelled over the flat. Mdm Tan then applied to court for the flat to be sold in the open market and for the sale proceeds to be divided between her and Mr Ng in the ratio of 95:5. She also wanted sole conduct of the sale and to be allowed to buy over Mr Ng’s share directly at valuation price in lieu of putting the flat up for sale.
Mr Ng did not object to the sale of the flat but objected to Mdm Tan having sole conduct of the sale and to her being given the right to buy over his share at valuation price. Mr Ng also claimed to be entitled to 43.4% of the sale proceeds.
Eventually the court ordered that the flat be sold with Mdm Tan having sole conduct and the sale proceeds splitting 95:5. However the court decided that it has no power to grant an order giving her the right to buy over Mr Ng’s share.
The court gave the following reasons:
a) the lawyers could not give any precedent cases to say the court has such a power; and
b) the words in the written law, paragraph 2 of the 1st Schedule of the Supreme Court Judicature Act (“SCJA”), which gave the court power to order a sale did not give the court power to allow one co-owner to compulsorily purchase the other co-owner’s share.
The decision in Tan Chor Heng’s case was not followed in the most recent November 2022 case of Sun Yan Yuan v Ng Yit Beng. Mdm Sun and Mr Ng are co-owners of a HDB flat. Mdm Sun had inherited her 30% share from her late husband. Mr Ng is her late husband’s brother.
After the husband’s passing, acrimony between Mdm Sun and Mr Ng escalated so badly that Mdm Sun had to take out a personal protection order against Mr Ng. According to Mdm Sun, there were many times when Mr Ng promised to sell the flat but these promises were not kept. She then had to seek the court’s help to sell the flat following the broken promises.
Mr Ng said that selling the flat would disrupt his and his family lives. It also prejudiced his interest as a 70% owner and would deny him the right to buy over the flat. He therefore suggested that instead of immediately selling the flat, he be given the 1st right of refusal to buy the flat within 6 months.
Mdm Sun relied on the earlier case of Tan Chor Heng, to say that Mr Ng cannot be given the 1st right of refusal to buy over the flat.
In his decision, the High Court Judge noted that a 1st right of refusal to buy over a co-owner’s interest in a property must be a common order sought between co-owners. The Judge decided that the court had the power to give a co-owner of a property the 1st right of refusal to buy over the share of the other owner. He gave 3 reasons for not following the decision in Tan Chor Heng. The first reason was based on previous decisions (what lawyers call “precedent”). The second based on basic principles of law and the last based on policy reasons.
One the first reason, the Judge cited an even older court decision in 2016 called Sumoi Paramesvaeri v Fleury, Jeffrey Gerard where an order granting the first right of refusal was given for one co-owner to buy out the other co-owner’s share in a property.
The brief facts of Sumoi’s case are as follows. Mdm Sumoi, a widow, moved in with her daughter and son-in-law after her husband passed away. From the sale of a flat, the three of them bought a private property (1st property) which was then sold to buy a second property (2nd property). Mdm Sumoi used her CPF money to contribute to the purchase of the 1st property. When the 1st property was sold, the three of them used its sale proceeds to buy the 2nd property. Mdm Sumoi was registered as having a 10% legal interest in the 2nd property.
The relationship between them then deteriorated and Mdm Sumoi eventually sued her daughter and son-in-law. She wanted the court to declare her interest in the 2nd property to be more than the stated 10% and for the 2nd property to be sold. The daughter and son-in-law said that her interest was in fact zero. One of the reasons given was because Mdm Sumoi had repeatedly said she was going to give her share to this daughter when she dies.
Eventually, the court decided that Mdm Sumoi’s interest in the 2nd property was indeed only 10% and ordered a sale of the property with a right of first refusal to be given to the daughter and her husband to purchase the property. The reason given why they were entitled to such a right was that “they are in occupation of the greater portion of the property”.
Sumoi’s case is thus a previous case (or precedent) which decided that a court does have the power to order a 1st right of refusal for a co-owner to buy over the share of the co-owner.
Commenting further on the ‘precedent’ reason, the Judge in Sun’s case further said, “In any event, I do not view the lack of a precedent (even if true) as a determinative factor, since a court’s statutory power is ultimately derived from the power-conferring legislation, as opposed to prior case law.”
On the ‘principles of law’ reason, the Judge relied on s 18(2) of the SCJA read with paragraph 2 of its First Schedule. He concluded that the words in the Act “… and to give all necessary and consequential directions …” are wide enough to allow the court to order a first right to buy over the flat.
Lastly, as a matter of policy, the court said that an order for the sale to be made to a particular party does not prejudice the seller if the court has considered all the circumstances of the case. In fact, it might be appropriate in certain cases.
To conclude, the 3 case studies in this article perfectly exemplifies the unpredictability of litigation and how you should not take for granted that the court will grant one co-owner a 1st right of refusal to buy over the other party’s share in a property.
Co-owners must therefore understand the perils of co-owning a property with family or friends and especially with people you hardly know. You may not be able to buy over the other person’s share or the other person may not agree to sell the property when you want to.
Even if you have the best of relations with the person you want to co-own the property with, the next generation may not share the same relationship and disputes can arise.
From the 3 cases, we see too that both parties did not get what they hope for even after the court made the final orders. In Tan Chor Heng, both parties, being unhappy with the Judge’s decision, appealed. In Sumoi, the mother did not get more than 10% interest in the property.
We hope that you found this article helpful. If you are contemplating or going through a dispute or are looking for alternative solutions to your dispute, or just require assistance in any way, please reach out to us at enquiries@otp.sg or +65 64383922.
Susan Tay is the founder and director of OTP Law Corporation. She has been in practice as a lawyer since 1989. Her expertise is dispute resolution with a special focus on family law. Wearing many hats, Susan is also a parenting coordinator, a collaborative family lawyer, a certified mediator and especially, a trained mediation advocate. Susan believes in the peace mode and hopes to build an eco-system of dispute resolution outside courts as much as possible.
The opportunity to get to know OTP was as much a result of coincidence as it was a stroke of luck for me. After graduating from law school in Germany, I enrolled in a double Master’s program with Berlin and Shanghai in order to learn about the legal systems in both countries and to experience life abroad. As the first semester was organized online out of Singapore, I then asked around if someone in my network knew anyone in Singapore. Right away, the lawyer and family friend Christoph Paul and the mediator Christian von Baumbach both independently told me about a very good law firm that I should get in touch with. Much to my surprise, both were referring to the same one. So, with not one but two recommendations I reached out to Susan Tay and thus began my time at the firm.
Right before stepping onto the plane to Singapore, I received a warm invitation from Susan to participate in a class on mediation advocacy taught by Andrew Goodman. This turned out to be a deeply impressive experience. Andrew, along with the participants and OTP lawyers, inspired me to dive deeper into ADR and mediation. Furthermore, I was given the opportunity to receive some practical training by regularly visiting the firm of OTP over the course of six weeks. To get a grasp of the Singapore legal system, I reviewed documents, learned how affidavits and statutory declarations are written, and sat in meetings with clients and internal conferences. I was thrilled to see the straightforward communication and high-level effectiveness in the office.
Also, it was a great experience for me to learn about the workflows in a different legal system. There are noticeable differences in working here compared to Germany. First, the manner a court is addressed is incredibly polite and respectful. This is not to say that the German judges are treated disrespectfully, but in Singapore they are addressed with much more gravitas than at home. Second, the office worked almost completely paperless – a huge improvement to the mountains of paper binders I found myself surrounded by in German offices. Last, I was deeply impressed by the extraordinarily positive work culture in the law firm. It leads to a very friendly as well as highly productive working day. Again, the German law firms’ atmosphere is not unfriendly or unproductive, but it can at times be more stressful and matter-of-fact. I will certainly take this home with me as a motivation.
Another factor that really made me enjoy my time was the personal relationship the team members of OTP established with me. Each of them made sure I gained interesting insights into their field of work. And also outside of work topics, the interactions and talks I had with them were sincere, kind and inspiring. From getting advice about the best places to see in Singapore to hearing wonderful stories about work and life here and to being taught Singlish lessons (lah!), I always felt welcome and included.
For all these reasons, I am thankful for the coincidence that led me to get to know the OTP team who taught me a lot in a short period of time and made me feel very welcome in a new country. I sincerely hope I will be able to work with them in the future.
1) Learning in a good working environment
Before starting my internship at OTP Law Corporation (OTP Law), I was terribly nervous. Would I have a good relationship with the folks there? How do I leave a good impression? Would I perform well at the firm despite average grades? With these questions weighing heavily on my mind, I started my first day with great trepidation.
My fears were quickly allayed. During my first meeting with the directors, there was no mention of my GPA at all. Instead, they were more interested in finding out about me as a person – what my personal interests were and my time in law school, for instance. I was assured, albeit in jest that there is no need to memorize the entire rules of court to fulfill my responsibilities as an intern.
Additionally, they stressed that so long as I have a good attitude and a willingness to learn, that was all that they wished from me.
Amongst my “missions” seemed also to be “By the end of this internship, your goal is to gain 3kg!”. True to that, the whole of my internship was laden with food.
It was through these interactions that I was able to experience how the firm prioritized their colleagues’ welfare. This is a testament to OTP Law’s stellar work culture, which embodies empathy and treating one another like family.
OTP Law’s environment is also very nurturing. The directors were always encouraging me to ask questions and were always challenging me with questions of their own. I remember having intense in-depth discussions with them about a particular issue concerning a freezing injunction, and who exactly was the proper plaintiff to proceed with the injunction application. Despite my struggles to communicate my points, they were very patient with me. They told me that it was good to slow down, think through so to better frame my arguments. Under their tutelage and close mentorship, I found myself increasingly critical and organized in the way I deal with legal issues.
2) Learning about the law and practice
In addition to its impeccable work culture, OTP Law also has expertise in a wide range of practice areas. While the firm may be better known for its family law matters and civil disputes or even tech practice, a surprising field that piqued my interest was real estate/conveyancing. The firm has a very experienced conveyancing paralegal, who was very patient. She guided me through the various conveyancing procedures and explained how the conveyancing industry worked. While conveyancing may seem boring to most, the certainty and practicality behind the procedures made conveyancing something that I might consider doing in the future. Hence, OTP Law having a broad scope of practice areas enriched my internship experiences.
3) Learning about running a business
Beyond learning about the law, interning at OTP Law also taught me about running a law practice: dealing with clients; promoting the practice; and adapting the practice to the digital age.
I learnt that a good law firm is highly client centric. I learnt also that most clients call upon lawyers when face with distresses and uncertainties. it is therefore important for lawyers to be patient and empathetic so to better assuage the concerns of clients.
During my internship, I was lucky enough to experience the re-designing of the firm’s website. Something I really enjoyed. That experience taught me how much resources are needed to promote and develop a law practice. Given that I hope to set up my own firm in the future, this experience was particularly insightful.
Another big lesson for me was how what used to be a traditional law firm which was completely reliant on paper adapt to the digital age. At OTP Law, paperless was the way to go and the lack of physical files, the norm. If most firms go this way, the number of trees saved in the process would be immense. Virtual meetings and WFH also meant tremendous saving of time and resources on travelling as well. Looking at how OTP Law adapts shows the importance of flexibility and quick adjustments to the current times and the need to take the initiative to be ahead of the curve. In a way, that made me excited at the possible changes the next generation can bring.
4) Learning about what it means to be a lawyer
Interning at OTP Law made me consider a very fundamental question – what does it mean to be a lawyer?
I had three takeaways: First, a lawyer has duties to the court and to the client. Second, a lawyer must not simply do what a client wants us to do. He must always look ahead and properly advise the client on all the consequences including potential legal pitfalls of that course of action. Lastly, lawyering is not just a job, but it is a calling that requires constant reflection and self-development.
A lawyer has a duty both to the courts and their clients. The directors at OTP Law always emphasized that as lawyers are officers of the court, they uphold a sacred duty to ensure that justice is meted out fairly. Thus, lawyers must maintain a high standard of integrity and professionalism, including not misleading the court or inciting clients to provide inaccurate evidence. Weighing on the other side, lawyers must also act in their clients’ best interests. A case dealing with the mental capacity of a deponent to an affidavit made me realise these.
Professionalism, I was told, is also in the way we conduct ourselves and how we treat lawyers in opposing camps. Courtesy is another must. One case demonstrated why even though litigation can be an incredibly competitive environment, it is no reason to disrespect your opposing counsel, all the more so when you are in front of the judge.
Next, we are not mere mouthpieces of clients. A lawyer must not simply do what the client asks of him. Lawyers owe a duty to their client to point out the potential legal pitfalls and consequences that might befall them.
Lastly, a lawyer is about constant reflection, self-development and learning. The law is always changing, and lawyers must constantly keep themselves abreast so to better advise their clients. There is no doubt that this is arduous, but it is necessary. It will be a lifetime of never resting on our laurels, but a constant strive to learn and improve. A lawyer must also have a strong centre, to do what’s right and not be tempted to waver to the wrong.
5) Learning to not confine myself to the law
This I learnt by example from Mylene, the co-director at OTP Law and the co-founder of PracticeForte Pte Ltd (PracticeForte). Just because I am studying the law does not mean that I am confined to just becoming a lawyer. Mylene had a vision of banding small professional firms and in pursuit of that vision, started PracticeForte and PracticeForte Advisory. Today, the Advisory comprised of other law firms, forensic accountants and investigators, counsellors and mediation professionals. A law degree does not have to define what I do. It is what I do with it.
Also, just because OTP Law handles a lot of civil and family disputes does not mean they believe all problems have to be resolved with litigation. They are big believers and firm advocates for trying settlements through mediations, negotiations and other ADR methods.
6) What could I have improved on?
In terms of things that I could have done better, I believe I could have taken more initiative on updates, more diligence to meeting datelines and more prompt in asking for help. I have the habit of keeping quiet when I get stuck, but I vow now to ask for help when it happens again. Also, a gentle reminder to myself not to let perfect get in the way of good. It is better that we get something out so that we can at least discuss and then refine and then get better.
7) Recommendations
It has been a blast working at OTP Law, and I will definitely recommend the firm to my friends seeking internships. The work environment, learning opportunities and people are wonderful, and any interns learning here is sure to experience tremendous growth.
8) Shoutouts
I’m really grateful for my time in OTP Law, and I’d like to thank everyone working there for teaching me!
* Isabel – For being a fighter and juggling all her responsibilities and never complaining – and yet still willing to pull me into OTP Law and mentor me
* Shukrina – For showing me the importance in fighting for a cause, even when things look bleak
* Sandra – For patiently teaching me conveyancing, and looking over my everyday needs
* Susan – For teaching me how to balance being tough and showing compassion. Additionally, thank you for showing me that law is not just a job but a calling
* Mylene – For inspiring me to chase my passions and not being afraid to break free from the mold
* Mr Lim Seng Siew – For teaching me to give the clients not just what they want, but what they need; and to putting the client’s interest above our own
* Chloe – For showing me how to be more efficient in my work and how to properly engage with clients
At the time of writing, Matthew Chu is a law 4 student at the Singapore Management University. He interned with OTP Law Corporation in mid 2022.
By Chloe Chua of OTP Law Corporation
To most couples, their matrimonial home is simply the place where they reside together. The legal concept is straightforward: a matrimonial home is one where a couple has purchased a property in which they subsequently stay in for an extended period of time during the marriage.
However, it gets complicated when the property in question is co-owned by others outside of the marriage e.g. one of the spouse’s family members.
This issue of whether co-owned family property can be considered a matrimonial home liable to the division of assets was decided in the ground-breaking case of VOD v VOC and another appeal [2022] SGHC(A) 6. (This is also the case of the S$1 million red packet that has recently taken the local news scene by storm.) The facts relating to the Property are as follows:
a. The Husband’s father had financed the Property solely and had registered the Husband, his mother and brother as joint tenants. It was undisputed that the Husband had a one-third share in the Property. The Husband’s family has resided in the Property since it was purchased, prior to parties’ marriage.
b. The Wife moved into the Property after the marriage. In preparation for the arrival of parties’ son, two bedrooms in the Property were renovated for the parties. The renovations were paid for by the Husband’s father.
c. The Wife moved out with the son after residing in the Property for 33 months i.e. almost 3 years.
The Wife sought to include the Husband’s one-third interest in the Property as part of their matrimonial assets in their divorce proceedings. Her basis was that the parties had lived together in the Property, and it had functioned as their matrimonial home. She also alleged that much effort and moneys were expended to renovate the two bedrooms for their exclusive occupation.
Conversely, the Husband’s stance was that the Property was his parents’ matrimonial home and therefore not that of the parties. According to him, parties only stayed there while they continued to search for their matrimonial home.
The Court held that the Property was not the matrimonial home of the Parties, for the following reasons:
a. The Husband’s one-third interest was a pre-marital gift from his parents which falls outside the definition of “matrimonial asset” as stipulated in Section 112(10) of the Women’s Charter (1). The Wife did not allege that either party had made substantial improvement to the Property during their marriage. Her claim was that parties had resided there for 33 months as their matrimonial home. To this, the Court’s finding at [42] was that “A legal interest coupled with residence will not necessarily mean that the property in question constitutes a matrimonial home” and that “mere residence alone is generally not enough.”
b. The Court found that parties were living in an extended household where the Husband’s father and mother were the true “master” and “mistress”. The parties did not have dominion or make financial decisions regarding the property or the running of the household. As such, the Property was found to be the father and mother’s matrimonial home. The Court has introduced an unprecedented consideration at [39] that “Whether or not other people have lived in the property and how it was used such that it served as their home instead of a matrimonial home for the parties is a relevant circumstance.”
This sudden added requirement of “control” or “dominion” does not sit well with most laypersons’ (and even most legal practitioners’) understanding of a matrimonial home.
From the facts, this was not a case where the parties had little to no say over the Property. The Wife was involved in corresponding with contractors regarding the renovation of their bedroom and the son’s nursery in the Property. It was acknowledged that these 2 rooms were for the couple and their son’s sole occupation. The Husband was also unable to prove that their living arrangement was temporary. Yet, their involvement was deemed as “limited”, which discounts their control over the Property.
This notion implied that a property can only be the home of one couple or even one person who exercises dominion over the household is rather unsettling. It discounts situations where there are multiple couples and single persons staying in a large property, where they might have control over their rooms in the house. From a policy perspective, this might discourage multi-generational or shared living arrangements.
The case of VOD v VOC challenges the understanding that legal interest coupled with residence in a property makes it a couple’s matrimonial home. They must now also have a strong element of control/ dominion over the property. Therefore, be cautioned that the house you and your spouse are living in may not necessarily be your matrimonial home.
At the time of writing, Chloe Chua practices with OTP Law Corporation as a lawyer focusing on family law.
——————–
(1) In this section, “matrimonial asset” means —
(a) any asset acquired before the marriage by one party or both parties to the marriage —
(i) ordinarily used or enjoyed by both parties or one or more of their children while the parties are residing together for shelter or transportation or for household, education, recreational, social or aesthetic purposes; or
(ii) which has been substantially improved during the marriage by the other party or by both parties to the marriage; and
(b) any other asset of any nature acquired during the marriage by one party or both parties to the marriage,
but does not include any asset (not being a matrimonial home) that has been acquired by one party at any time by gift or inheritance and that has not been substantially improved during the marriage by the other party or by both parties to the marriage.
