Public Consultation on Remote Witnessing and Electronic Signing of Statutory Declarations
Last updated 25 July 2025
This article has been migrated from an earlier version of the site and may display formatting inconsistencies.
Ministry of Law
Consultation Period: 05 Jul 2024 - 02 Aug 2024
Status: Closed - Summary of Responses
Consultation Outcome
RESPONSE TO FEEDBACK RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE FRAMEWORK FOR ELECTRONIC STATUTORY DECLARATIONS
The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) sought public feedback from 5 July to 2 August 2024 on the framework for remote witnessing and electronic signing of statutory declarations.1 Amongst other things, the proposed framework will provide individuals, businesses and service providers who execute statutory declarations with the option of remote witnessing in place of an in-person meeting, and electronic signing in place of wet-ink signing, as long as both the declarant and service provider are physically present in Singapore. This will bring greater convenience and efficiency for individuals and businesses in Singapore.
The Government received 35 responses. Respondents were generally supportive of the proposals for remote witnessing, with some submissions suggesting adjustments to the proposed safeguards. There were mixed responses to the proposed “hybrid” approach towards electronic signing (which would allow declarants to use any electronic signature, but require the service provider to use Sign with Singpass).
MinLaw will work with the Singapore Academy of Law (“SAL”) to implement the framework in a manner that takes these feedback into consideration. A summary of the key feedback received, and our response can be found below in Annex A. MinLaw would like to thank all contributors for their feedback and suggestions.
Ministry of Law
25 July 2025
Annex A
A. Remote Witnessing
Most respondents agreed that the proposed statutory requirements strike an appropriate balance between convenience and efficiency, as well as the integrity of the process. As summarised by one respondent, the proposals “allow for modern remote interactions while implementing necessary safeguards to prevent fraud and ensure compliance with legal standards”. Another respondent noted that this approach follows the broad steps for the taking of affidavits, without being overly onerous.
A few respondents raised concerns relating to: (i) the risk of fraud or undue influence; (ii) the integrity of the document being signed; (iii) the availability of and familiarity with the relevant technology (including the videoconferencing platform); and (iv) the administrative burden placed on a service provider. MinLaw has been working closely with SAL to address these concerns.
Prior to operationalisation, the SAL will update the Manuals applicable to the various service providers.2 These updated Manuals will include guidance on the videoconferencing platform, and set out how service providers may:
Verify the identity of the declarant;
Ensure that the declarant is not acting under duress or undue influence;
Ensure the declarant has the mental capacity to make a declaration;
Ensure the integrity of the document witnessed; and
Verify the physical location of the declarant.
Some respondents also observed the importance of proper record keeping by the service provider. For example, some respondents suggested that the service provider takes “a screenshot of the declarant”, records the videoconferencing session, and stores it for a period of time. MinLaw agrees with the importance of proper record keeping, and will work with the SAL to update the relevant Manuals in this respect.
MinLaw would also like to clarify that remote witnessing will be an option for service providers and their clients; and will not replace in person witnessing.
Declarants may continue to opt to travel to the offices of the service provider for in person witnessing, as is currently the practice.
Further, service providers’ overarching duty to exercise due care, skill and diligence remain unaffected by their use of any electronic means of communication. As such, should they assess that remote witnessing is not suitable in the circumstances of the case (e.g. because the declarant appears to be having difficulties understanding the nature of his declaration; or because the video-link is not sufficiently clear), they can immediately put a stop to the remote witnessing, and require that it be done in person instead.
It is also worth reiterating that the framework is intended to be enabling, while not being unduly prescriptive. Service providers should not be obliged to adopt any particular electronic option. MinLaw and the SAL will continue to monitor the situation after implementation, to ensure that the framework and its associated safeguards are kept up-to-date, and continue to strike an appropriate balance between convenience and efficiency on one hand; and the need to safeguard the integrity of the process on the other.
Finally, as suggested by one respondent, MinLaw will work with the SAL on a sample jurat for use during remote witnessing.
B. Electronic Signing
Respondents who agreed with the “hybrid” approach were generally of the view that it will “strike a balance by leveraging the flexibility of electronic signatures while maintaining robust security measures through Singpass”, and thus “potentially enhance efficiency and trust” in the process. Such an approach would also be more inclusive, especially for the older declarants who may not be so “tech savvy to learn how to use the Singpass app as well”.
Some respondents expressed a preference for requiring both the declarant and service provider to sign the statutory declaration using Sign with Singpass. They considered it to be the “safest method”, which best reduces the risk of fraud and potential tampering with the document being signed.
A few respondents supported allowing the use of any electronic signature. They preferred a less prescriptive approach that allows parties to choose their preferred signing option.
MinLaw has carefully considered the feedback and will, in consultation with the SAL, adopt the “hybrid approach”. This is for the following key reasons:
This approach is more inclusive, bearing in mind that declarants may come from a variety of backgrounds – for instance, a declarant may be a foreigner without a Singpass account; or he may be less technologically savvy and thus may face difficulties using the Singpass application.
The service providers are bound by an overarching duty to exercise due care, skill and diligence. Where they have doubts as to the authenticity of the document or have reason to suspect fraud, they should put a stop to the remote witnessing and request that it be done in person instead. This duty would be reinforced by the respective Manuals, so that the various service providers will be aware of and equipped to mitigate these risks. This addresses the risks of fraud and document tampering/ integrity before the service provider signs the document (since the service provider can and should refuse to proceed if the risk of fraud or document tampering is high).
There is little risk of fraud and document tampering/ integrity after the service provider signs the document, because the service provider is required to use “Sign with Singpass”. Once the document has been signed with Singpass, the document is “locked”, and it will be clear if the document is subsequently altered.
As with remote witnessing, MinLaw will continue to monitor the situation after implementation to ensure that the framework and its associated safeguards are kept up-to-date, and continue to strike an appropriate balance between convenience and efficiency on one hand; and the need to safeguard the integrity of the process on the other.
Other feedback
A respondent asked if Commissioners for Oaths will have to affix any form of “stamp” or “credential” alongside an electronic signature (just as is currently the case for wet-ink signatures). MinLaw clarifies that Commissioners for Oaths will be required to affix an electronic “stamp” as part of their electronic signature. SAL will be developing an electronic “stamp” which will be issued to all Commissioners for Oaths.
1 The press release on the public consultation can be found at www.go.gov.sg/e-stats-dec-pc-pr, and the full public consultation paper can be found at www.go.gov.sg/e-stats-dec-pc.
2 Examples include the Notaries Public Manual and the Commissioner for Oaths Manual.
Detailed Description
1. The Ministry of Law is seeking feedback on the framework for remote witnessing and electronic signing of statutory declarations.
Background
2. A statutory declaration is a written statement that a person signs, and solemnly declares to be true. It has to be made before an authorised service provider, such as a Commissioner for Oaths. This is an in-person, paper-based process and usually involves the use of wet-ink signatures.
3. On 2 August 2023, Parliament passed the Oaths, Declarations and Notarisations (Remote Methods) Act 2023 (“ODN Act”). The ODN Act amends the Oaths and Declarations Act 2000. Once the ODN Act comes into force, it will, amongst other things, provide individuals, businesses and service providers who are executing statutory declarations with the option of remote witnessing in place of an in-person meeting, and electronic signing in place of wet-ink signing, as long as both the declarant and service provider are physically present in Singapore.
4. We seek the public’s feedback on the specific requirements that should govern the remote witnessing and electronic signing process for the execution of statutory declarations. These requirements will be set out in subsidiary legislation.
Public Consultation Paper
5. The public consultation paper can be accessed at the bottom of this page.
Invitation to Provide Feedback
6. Please submit your feedback by 2 August 2024 via FormSG using the following button / link:
Have any thoughts and views on this?
7. Your feedback is important to us. All comments received will be considered. However, we seek your understanding that we will not be able to individually acknowledge or address every comment. To maintain confidentiality, we will anonymise and aggregate the results of this engagement exercise in any public disclosure.
8. Thank you.