Perspectives for 2026 – Economic, Legal and Regulatory trends

“By observing what has passed, one foresees what is yet to come (见出以知入，观往而知来)” - Confucius (Kong Zi)

As we stand at the start of 2026, we reflect on the past year and share our perspectives on what lies ahead – economic, legal and regulatory trends, and shape of tomorrow’s commercial landscape. 

Preparing for uncertainties in the coming year

Trade tensions and tariff debates dominated the headlines last year, amidst a fragile geopolitical landscape. These tensions disrupted shipping routes, heightened energy and commodity price volatility, and amplified sanctions and regulatory risks. The latter half of the year, however, brought glimmers of optimism as engagement efforts led to de-escalation in trade tensions among the major economies. Singapore’s trade performance reflected these dynamics. The Singapore Ministry of Trade and Industry upgraded its GDP growth forecast for 2025, citing front-loading activities driven by the temporary pause in reciprocal US tariffs and easing trade frictions. In his New Year message, Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong also noted the stronger-than-expected growth in 2025. 

As we move forward in 2026, global and domestic economic sentiment continues to be cautious. The International Monetary Fund anticipates subdued global growth, noting an overall volatile environment (its October 2025 report projected annual GDP growth of 3.1% in 2026). Domestically, the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s quarterly survey of professional forecasters (in the December 2025 survey results) cited geopolitical risks and trade tensions as the downside risks to the outlook for Singapore’s economy but noted expected growth in the Artificial Intelligence space for 2026.

The anticipated volatile environment in 2026 poses renewed challenges for organisations seeking to implement effective risk management strategies. We share some considerations for businesses navigating what lies ahead. 

Supply chain resilience will be critical. Companies must anticipate potential disruptions and reassess supplier relationships and contractual terms based on geographic exposure, regulatory risk, and cost implications. This requires a thorough review of new and existing contracts for flexibility and an evaluation of whether, in relation to existing contracts, renegotiation or future amendments may be necessary. In particular, exit and termination clauses, price adjustment provisions, and cost-sharing mechanisms are expected to remain in sharp focus. Some businesses may favour short-term or spot contracts to maintain agility and mitigate the impact of sudden regulatory changes, while others may prefer long-term contracts to preserve stability in price and supply. At the same time, some market participants may benefit from volatility, as trade dislocations enhance negotiating leverage and exert upward pressure on prices.

Beyond contractual considerations, strategic jurisdictional planning may gain prominence. We expect to see increased push towards possible relocation of businesses and setting up of new business locations as companies leverage jurisdictions “offering” preferential tariff treatment to reduce production costs and potentially to optimise shipping routes. The fluidity of tariffs, however, will likely make it difficult for businesses to make long-term plans. Some businesses may instead opt to pivot their market focus onto other geographical regions such as Asia in order to reduce uncertainty arising from tariff exposure. Given the rocky geopolitical landscape, it is also anticipated that sanctions will remain topical, driving up the cost of compliance. This trend underscores the need for cross-functional coordination between legal, procurement, and finance teams to ensure compliance while maintaining operational efficiency.

Singapore regulatory trends 

Recently enacted legislation on corporate transparency will face its first real tests in practice this year. 2025 marked a noticeably more assertive regulatory enforcement environment in Singapore as authorities intensified efforts to strengthen financial integrity following the unprecedented money laundering scandal uncovered in 2023. That scandal, which involved billions of dollars in illicit funds and implicated multiple sectors – including real estate, luxury goods, and financial services – served as a wake-up call for regulators and industry players alike. In response, Singapore rolled out a comprehensive suite of mitigation measures and compliance enhancements, anchored by significant corporate transparency reforms. 

Among the most notable were the Corporate Service Provider Act 2024, which came into effect on 9 June 2025, and the Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2024, effective 16 June 2025. These reforms aim to strengthen the gatekeeping role of corporate service providers.

Some of the key reforms included:

• Mandatory registration of Corporate Service Providers (CSPs) with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) for entities offering corporate services such as acting or arranging for directors or secretaries, providing registered offices, and related services.
• Customer due diligence (CDD) obligations on CSPs to combat money laundering, terrorism financing, and proliferation financing, alongside stricter regulatory compliance requirements.
• Restrictions on nominee directorships, prohibiting individuals from acting as nominee directors by way of business unless appointments are arranged through registered CSPs and the nominees have been assessed as fit and proper.
• New obligations for foreign companies, including maintaining registers of nominee directors; a requirement that did not exist prior to these amendments.

Alongside these legislative reforms, the Singapore courts have also introduced a tougher sentencing framework for nominee directors who fail to exercise due diligence in overseeing the company affairs. Under this framework, custodial sentences are now the starting point for errant directors in certain circumstances, signalling a strong deterrent against passive or negligent conduct. 

In PP v Zheng Jia [2025] SGHC 76, a professional director was sentenced to imprisonment by the High Court for his failure to exercise proper oversight over the companies in which he was registered as director. The professional director was a chartered accountant who operated a business of incorporating companies, primarily on behalf of foreign clients. As part of the services offered to his clients, he also acted as the local resident director of those companies and would assist in opening bank accounts in his clients’ names. The professional director, however, exercised no supervision over the companies’ affairs and did not review their banking transactions. As it were, the bank accounts of two companies were used to transmit proceeds of scams. In sentencing the errant director, the High Court's stance was clear - directors, regardless of whether they are executive, non-executive, or nominee directors, cannot simply lend their names for incorporation purposes without assuming any responsibility. 

Looking ahead, the reforms coupled with a more stringent judicial posture are expected to fundamentally alter how businesses operate. Every player in the corporate lifecycle, from investors, directors and corporate services providers cannot afford to ignore these changes; proactive compliance, robust governance frameworks, and continuous monitoring will be critical to mitigating enforcement risk in this tighter landscape. While these measures may increase the cost of doing business in the near term, these reforms ultimately seek to strengthen Singapore’s market integrity by ensuring that businesses can operate with confidence and by reducing the risk of engaging with illegitimate counterparties and exposure to illicit activities in the market. 

Stronger employee protections in Singapore

Two key employment bills were passed in 2025:

• Workplace Fairness Bill – 8 January 2025
• Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill – 4 November 2025

We had previously written on the Workplace Fairness Bill in an earlier Helmsman publication (https://www.helmsmanlaw.com/knowledge/workplace-fairness-act). As noted, under this new legislation, employers are prohibited from making an adverse employment decision on the ground of a “protected characteristic” and are required to implement grievance handling procedures. This marks a paradigm shift from the existing use of guidelines to regulate discriminatory practices in the workplace. The current regime seeks to encourage fair employment practices through the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices but these guidelines do not have the force of law. The new legislation will put in place hard obligations on employers and impose penalties for non-compliance.

Complementing this, the Workplace Fairness (Dispute Resolution) Bill introduces a structured framework for addressing workplace discrimination claims in an amicable and expeditious manner. Employees are strongly encouraged to raise disputes through internal grievance handling procedures first before resorting to external channels. If internal resolution fails, both parties must attempt mediation through a third-party mediator before any claim can proceed to the Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) or the High Court for adjudication. Importantly, given the sensitive nature of such disputes, all workplace discrimination claims will be heard in private at both the ECT and High Court. This creates a safe space for parties to present their case without fear of public misrepresentation or sensationalism.

These laws are expected to come into force in 2027. With the introduction of a statutory tort of discrimination and the jurisdiction of the ECT increased up to SGD 250,000 for workplace discrimination claims, we expect to see more employment-related disputes being brought once the laws comes into force. It would be prudent for employers to use the intervening time to prepare for compliance by introducing or strengthening their grievance handling procedures and training their managers and HR on managing such claims.