You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

August 30, 2019

Why Myanmar Should Sign the New Singapore Mediation Convention

Subscribe to Updates
The Myanmar Times

One of the problems international businesses face in doing business in Myanmar is dispute resolution. The Myanmar court system is opaque and extremely slow, and local litigators charge surprisingly high fees. Arbitration is an obvious solution to this problem, and following the Myanmar Arbitration Law (2016) (AL) almost all commercial contracts of substantial value now contain arbitration clauses, usually for arbitration abroad-most commonly at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). This is because the AL allows for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards where the award was made in a state that is a signatory to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958), in all but a limited range of circumstances. The AL also paves the way for domestic arbitration, although I would imagine it will be several years before the arbitration centre recently established by the Union of Myanmar Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (UMFCCI) finds its feet.

However arbitration, particularly foreign arbitration, can remain an extremely expensive method of dispute resolution. Now, as a result of the Convention, mediation is likely to become a more popular alternative dispute resolution method in many countries.

Mediation is much cheaper and faster than litigation or arbitration, and therefore is worth carefully considering as an option, particularly in relation to smaller disputes. Legal advice is required, as it will not always be appropriate. It works in this way. Following the process of mediation facilitated by a mediator, the parties come to an agreement to settle their dispute. The problem in the past has been that there has been no simple way to enforce such a settlement agreement at the end of the mediation process. The Convention changes this.

Note that under the Convention the settlement agreement must be international, in the sense that at least two parties to the settlement agreement have their places of business in different States, or the State in which the parties to the settlement agreement have their places of business is different from either (i) the State where a substantial part of the obligations under the settlement agreement is performed or (ii) the State with which the subject matter of the settlement agreement is most closely connected.

Forty-six countries have already signed the new Singapore Mediation Convention, including Singapore itself. The Convention provides that a party to the Convention shall enforce a settlement agreement in accordance with its rules of procedure and in accordance with the Convention.

As with foreign arbitral awards, there are limited circumstances in which a settlement agreement may not be enforced. For example, the settlement agreement is not final according to its terms, or there was a serious breach by the mediator of applicable standards without which that party would not have entered into the settlement agreement, or granting relief would be against public policy.

Myanmar has made great progress in terms of arbitration. It should not be left behind with the potential of mediation as another form of alternative dispute resolution.

 

This article was originally published in the Myanmar Times and is reproduced here with permission and thanks. The original can be viewed on the Myanmar Times website. 

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More
January 8, 2026
Doing business in Thailand means operating under a strict regulatory framework. From time to time, companies may receive unexpected administrative orders from government authorities that restrict their operations, impose new compliance obligations, or levy fines and penalties. When this happens, a business may challenge the order under Thailand’s administrative law system. The primary concern in pursuing administrative litigation is timing, as strict statutory deadlines apply and missing them can permanently affect a company’s rights. First Step: Administrative Appeal Many companies assume the first step is to immediately bring the matter before the Administrative Court to seek revocation or suspension of the order. Some even attempt to request an interim injunction to stop the order from taking effect. However, Thai law generally requires that the company first challenge the order through an administrative appeal with the same agency that issued it. Only after this process is complete can the matter be taken to court. Seeking an interim injunction at this stage is also not possible. This is because Thai law does not allow a standalone application for an interim injunction; an injunction can only be requested together with the underlying complaint filed with the Administrative Court. Since a court complaint cannot be filed until the administrative appeal process has been exhausted, an injunction is usually not available at the early stage. What Are the Timeframes for Administrative Appeal? Thailand applies a two-stage administrative appeal process. The appeal must first be submitted to the same authority that issued the order, which will review its own decision. If that authority affirms its decision, the appeal is then escalated to the relevant higher authority for further review. In most cases, both stages must be completed before a company is allowed to proceed to court. The timeframe for filing an administrative appeal is very
Read More
December 19, 2025
Prior to the dissolution of the House of Representatives, Thailand’s cabinet approved a draft amendment to the Administrative Procedure Act, following review by the Council of State. If enacted, this reform will fundamentally change how state agencies process business applications and appeals by imposing enforceable timelines and legal consequences for inaction. The draft directly targets a longstanding commercial frustration: applications and appeals that vanish into administrative silence, stalling investment and foreclosing judicial review across sectors ranging from real estate and manufacturing to healthcare and finance. The “Silence Means Yes” Rule for Applications At the core of the reform is a new automatic “approval by implication” for applications subject to statutory processing deadlines. If an official fails to notify an applicant of a decision within the legally prescribed period, the application will be deemed approved as a matter of law. This presumption shifts the costs of delay from businesses to the bureaucracy and gives applicants a definitive legal position once time expires. The mechanism applies to routine licensing and registration matters governed by explicit consideration periods in existing statutes or ministerial regulations. Officials may extend the decision period by up to thirty days, but only if they notify the applicant before the original deadline and substantiate that the delay arises from genuinely exceptional circumstances beyond their control. Certain sensitive applications are expressly excluded from automatic approval, including those that may significantly affect national security or defense, public safety and health, the environment or natural resources, or national cultural heritage. Once the deadline passes without a decision, businesses can proceed with deployment of capital and operations—construction, hiring, procurement, and market entry—without waiting for formal permission that may never arrive. For time-sensitive projects, this materially reduces regulatory timing risk. The “Deemed Rejection” Rule for Appeals The draft introduces a parallel “deemed rejection”
Read More
December 12, 2025
Similar to other types of corporate disputes, tax-related conflicts often begin with an earnest attempt to resolve matters outside the courtroom. The prospect of engaging in tax litigation can be daunting, given the potential strain on commercial relationships, the legal expenses, and the uncertainty surrounding its resolution. However, there are instances when tax litigation becomes the sole avenue for seeking redress. For individuals and entities contemplating the pursuit of tax-related legal remedies, the Thai legal system offers an accessible, impartial, and equitable platform for dispute resolution. Tilleke & Gibbins’ latest update to Tax Litigation in Thailand provides an outline for navigating tax-related disputes within the Thai legal framework. It aims to equip readers with a fundamental understanding of procedures and practices within the Thai tax litigation landscape. The full guide is available through the button below.
Read More