What is a Trust?

What is trust - Incisive Law

A trust is created upon the transfer of assets (“the trust property”) by the settlor to a person (“the trustee”) on the basis that the trustee shall hold the assets for the benefit of other people (“the beneficiaries”).

The trustee is now the legal owner of the assets and has a fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries.

What is a Trust - Incisive Law

Vector Design by www.vecteezy.com

The settlor can settle most types of property into the trust, although there are exceptions such as HDB flats and CPF funds, amongst others. The trustee has management control of the trust property but it is the beneficiaries who are entitled to use and enjoy it.

There are two forms a trust can take. A fixed trust is one where the settlor has already allocated the proportions of benefits each beneficiary gets, with no discretion available to the trustee, while a discretionary trust is one where the trustee is granted the power to exercise discretion with respect to which beneficiaries benefit under the trust and the amount they get.

The benefits of a trust arrangement over a will are listed below.

Avoidance of Probate

Probate is the name given to the court document which certifies the authenticity and validity of your will and confirms the powers and authority of your appointed executors to administer your estate. It is compulsory to produce this document to be able to sell and transfer the deceased’s assets. This can be burdensome and inconvenient as many assets will be frozen pending the completion of the process.

However, in a trust arrangement, in the event of the settlor’s death, the assets settled into a trust will not form part of the deceased’s estate. Hence probate is not required on these assets and disputes over the assets can be avoided.

Protection of Assets

A trust is a useful tool to protect your assets and preserve them for the use and benefit of future generations. As the ownership of the trust assets is with the trustee and not with the settlor, a trust structure can protect a settlor’s assets from the grasp of the settlor’s creditors. However, if you are made bankrupt within 5 years after transferring assets to a trust, your creditors will be easily able to unwind the trust and claim the assets toward satisfaction of the sums due to them.

Family wealth planning

If there is a need to provide for financially irresponsible family members, a trust may be particularly useful. The beneficiary’s interest can be made terminable on the occurrence of a certain event, such as the beneficiary’s insolvency, at the trustee’s discretion.

Whether or not a trust or a will is more suitable for you depends on your individual concerns. We will be happy to sit down and discuss your options with you. Do drop us a message here.

Different Types of Wills


While I have gone through the reasons on “Why should I make a Will”, this article will introduce the different types of wills available:

Standard/Simple Wills

A standard will details the wishes of the testator (the person writing the will) regarding asset distribution upon the testator’s death. Generally, standard wills may be revoked or altered at any time prior to one’s death.

However, please note that the marriage of a testator who has made a will prior to his marriage will automatically render the will invalid and the testator will have to draft up a new will.

Mutual Wills

Mutual wills are usually drafted by married couples because they are founded on the agreement of both parties in the marriage that the surviving party will not change his or her will after the other dies. Mutual wills are therefore an exception to the law that wills can always be revoked. The agreement can be made orally or in writing on a separate document.

For a mutual will to be valid, both parties must demonstrate clear intent to create the same will, agree to the same distribution of their mutual assets, and agree not to revoke the wills.

The agreement will typically provide that:

  • each of the parties will leave their property to mutually agreed beneficiaries;
  • in the course of their joint lifetimes, neither party will revoke or amend their wills in any way without the consent of the other; and
  • upon the death of one party, the survivor cannot revoke the will or alter it so as to change the mutually agreed beneficiaries.

It is important that the beneficiaries are informed of the existence of the agreement, as they have the right to enforce the agreement.

Such wills may prove to be most useful in blended-family situations whereby both parties want certainty that the children will not be treated differently from what was previously agreed. Mutual wills are also particularly helpful to address concerns that the surviving spouse may remarry and leave nothing to the children of the first marriage. However, the clear disadvantage of mutual wills is the fettering of discretion of both parties with respect to asset distribution.

Mirror Wills

Mirror wills are two separate wills of a typically married couple, but the terms of each will are precisely identical to the other. However, the distinguishing factor from mutual wills is that each party is free to revoke the will at any time contemplated, without informing or obtaining the consent of the other party. This provides a lot more flexibility when one party pre-deceases the other, and the surviving party wishes to change the terms of the will, as compared to a mutual will.

Living Wills

A living will is known as an Advanced Medical Directive in Singapore which is a written statement that you do not want the use of any life-sustaining treatment to be used to prolong your life in the event you become terminally ill and unconscious and where death is imminent. You can find out more about an AMD here.

The type of will you may wish to have drawn up depends on your individual concerns and the unique circumstances in which you are in.

If you wish to find out what is the most suitable type of will, please feel free to drop an email to wills_enquiries@incisivelaw.com

Wills Registry – Making sure your will can be found

What is a Wills Registry?

In Singapore, there is no central storage area for wills, however the Public Trustee maintains a confidential Wills Registry which serves as a central information centre for all wills that are duly registered with it.

Why do we need the Wills Registry?

It is not compulsory for anyone to register information about his/her will. However, when the time comes, it is crucial that the loved ones left behind are able to locate your will in order to enforce your will.

For example, the next-of-kin or beneficiaries may believe that the deceased has drawn up a will but are unable to confirm that as they do not have a copy of the will in their possession.

Information kept by the Wills Registry

The following information is kept by the Wills Registry:-

  1. Details of the person making the will i.e. testator;
  2. Date of the will;
  3. Details of the person who drew up the will; and
  4. Details of where the will is held.

Please note that the Wills Registry does not keep a copy of the will itself and therefore the safe keeping of the physical will is very important.

How do I deposit my will information with the Wills Registry? 

The online deposit form can be found at https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/eservices/pto/welcome.xhtml under “Deposit of New Will Record”.

Who is entitled to apply to make a search for the information held by the Wills Registry?

All information deposited  in the Wills Registry is strictly confidential. Only the following people may make a search for information related to a will:-

  • The person who made the will (proof of identity must be provided).
  • The solicitor who is helping someone draw up any further will.
  • The solicitor acting for the estate of someone who has died (if they produce the death certificate).
  • The next-of-kin of someone who has died (if they produce the death certificate and documents showing their relationship to the person who has died).


Fees  (inclusive of GST) are shown below.

Payment for the deposit of will information must be made online via debit card, credit card or direct debit.

How do I carry out a search on will information with the Wills Registry?

You will need to access the online search form at https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/eservices/pto/welcome.xhtml  and click on the link “Search for Existing Will Record”.

How long will the registered will information be kept in the Wills Registry?

The will information will be kept in the system for 120 years from the date of birth of the person making the will.

If you have any question related to Wills, Trusts and Property Planning in Singapore, feel free to drop an email to wills_enquiries@incisivelaw.com.

Advance Medical Directive – A Living Will

In general, people tend to shy away from the topic of death, citing reasons such as superstition to a fear of confronting sad realities.

However, with the advancement of medical technology, life can be extended. Mechanical ventilation can now be used to support the body of a brain dead patient or medical procedures can be administered to a terminally ill patient to prolong the process of dying when death is imminent. As much as innovation in medical technology is welcome, there is a great deal of debate as to whether this is right or wrong. Many people therefore look to make living wills which tell doctors they do not want to be put on life support when they are terminally ill and death is imminent.

An important document for the terminally ill

In Singapore, the Advance Medical Directive Act (“AMDA”) was passed in 1996 to authorise the use of Advance Medical Directive (“AMD”) in Singapore. The law allows Singaporeans who are above the age of 21 and who are of sound mind, some control over their deaths by allowing them to sign an advance medical directive (“AMD”) declaring that he or she does not wish to receive extraordinary life-sustaining treatment in the event of terminal illness and unconscious or incapable of making rational judgement.

What is a terminal illness

Certification of “terminal illness” is a stringent process requiring unanimous agreement by 3 doctors. This is to ensure that treatment is not wrongfully withheld if a patient has a chance at recovery, attributable to a single doctor’s judgment. After all, this is literally a matter of life and death.

How does a AMD kick in

The making of an AMD must be witnessed by two persons of at least 21 years old, one of whom must be a doctor, who has the legal responsibility of ensuring the patient is clear regarding the medical implications of making an AMD.

To avoid any conflict of interest, witnesses must not be persons who stand to benefit from the death of the patient, so a family member cannot be a witness.

Guidelines prescribe that as a matter of good practice, doctors should encourage a person making an AMD to discuss his decision with his family so that they are not kept in the dark. In any case, a duly registered and witnessed AMD is binding in spite of the family’s objections.

Making an AMD

The AMD form can be obtained from your doctor’s or accessed free online or you can make provision through your solicitor.

In a medical emergency when a patient becomes terminally ill and is no longer in a position to articulate his or her wishes, conflict amongst family members as to terminating life-sustaining treatment is then likely to arise. In circumstances like this, the AMD form may come in handy for people who are absolutely certain they do not wish for extraordinary life-sustaining treatment to prolong their life.


Taking Care When Drafting Your Will

Marley v Rawlings is the case where an elderly couple – Alfred and Maureen Rawlings based in England – prepared , almost identical Wills in 1999 where they each left everything to each other with a gift to their ‘adopted’ son, Terry Marley.
Mr and Mrs Rawlings had two natural sons; however, because adopted son Terry had looked after them and both their natural sons had money of their own, they wanted Terry to be the sole beneficiary of their estate worth £70k.

Invalid Will

Due to a mistake by their solicitor, Mr Rawlings signed Mrs Rawlings’ Will and vice versa.
Mrs Rawlings died in 2003 and her estate passed to her husband with no-one noticing the mistake. But, when Mr Rawlings died three years later, his natural sons spotted the mistake and they challenged its validity. They argued that because of this mistake , the will was invalid and therefore Terry should not be entitled to receive the 70k. ( if the will was recognised as invalid , then under normal ‘rules of succession’, they would inherit everything)

The ‘Clerical’ Error

The natural brothers and stepson Terry all went to court to dispute this and the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Terry. The arguments revolved around whether this was a ‘clerical error.’ Under the existing law ( s.20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 (AJA 1982)) a will could be rectified if there was a ‘clerical error” but was this really an example of a clerical error? However, the court applied a fairly liberal interpretation and ruled that it was.
The supreme court said that in the same way as resolving a contract dispute, the court should look towards other evidence which would give an indication of the intention of the parties at the time they drafted the will . Looking at the big picture, Mr and Mrs Rawlings wills were signed on the same date, by a husband and wife, and they had the same witnesses. On this basis, their intention to leave the money to Terry was not in dispute.

This decision sparked a lot of discussion at the time as it was felt that the meaning of ‘clerical error’ had been widened and this undermined the strict formalities around drafting a will which are after all in place to ensure clarity and to prevent fraud.

Although this was a case in England , you may be asking what is the relevance of this in Singapore? Well, Section 28 of the new Wills Act in Singapore also allows a court to order rectification of a will due to clerical error!

As at the date of writing this post, no cases under section 28 in Singapore have been heard but no doubt this is just a matter of time.


What this does mean however, is that when you draft a will, you need to be absolutely certain that your instructions are correct and correct on paper – otherwise your beneficiaries could dispute it in a court and it could be held invalid.


A will may turn out the way one least expects it to, contrary to an expectation one may have had.

The general rule is that you can leave your property to anyone you want under your will. This encompasses electing to leave nothing to your family members.

However, in some situations, the will does not sufficiently provide for the welfare of the deceased’s dependants. The law therefore seeks to mitigate the harshness of a testator’s freedom to dispose property through the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act of Singapore (“the IFPA”), which was largely inspired by the United Kingdom’s Inheritance Act 1975 (“the IA 1975”).

IFPA offers a recourse to dependents who are inadequately provided for but only when extremely stringent conditions are met as the courts are cautious not to undermine testamentary freedom.

  • Firstly, only four classes of persons are considered as dependants for the purposes of the IFPA:
  • a wife or husband;
  • a daughter who has not been married or who is, by reason of some mental or physical disability, incapable of maintaining herself;
  • an infant son; or
  • a son who is, by reason of some mental or physical disability, incapable of maintaining himself.

It is noteworthy that illegitimate children are not entitled to apply under the IFPA.

Secondly, to highlight the strictness of the application of the IFPA, in APZ v (by his litigation representative MC) v AQA and another, the Court emphasized in 2011 that “the purpose of the IFPA is limited to the provision of reasonable maintenance; the legislation is not for the purpose of obtaining legacies out of the testator’s”.

The test of lack of reasonable maintenance, as noted by the Court, is completely objective and not subjective. Payments which facilitate the dependant’s ability to cover the cost of his or her daily living expenses at whatever standard which is applicable to him fall under “reasonable maintenance” but payments for luxuries would not.

More recently, on 15 March 2017, the IA 1975 in the UK was thrown into the spotlight when the UK Supreme Court in Ilott v Mitson [2017] UKSC 17 overturned a Court of Appeal decision and reduced the maintenance award to an estranged daughter by more than half. In doing so, the Supreme Court reiterated that the concept of maintenance “must import provision to meet the everyday expenses of living” and precludes furnishing the claimant with every resource which would be advantageous his or her quality of life.”

“must import provision to meet the everyday expenses of living” and precludes furnishing the claimant with every resource which would be advantageous his or her quality of life.”

Locally, in AOS v Estate of AOT, deceased [2012] SGCA 30, the testator executed a will which wholly excluded his surviving wife. On the facts, the surviving wife was the owner of several properties gifted by the testator of which she could collect monthly rental income from and was more than sufficient for her monthly expenses. The threshold of reasonable provision had therefore been met by the testator and the Court rejected stepping into the shoes of the testator to interfere with his clear and express wishes. The court reiterated that the discretion under the IFPA is one which should be sparingly exercised.
In deciding whether or not to make the maintenance order, the court will take into account several factors including but not limited to:-

  •  The dependant’s financial situation
  • The conduct of the dependant in relation to the deceased
  • The reason that operated in the deceased’s mind in not making provisions in the will

As such, one should be aware of the possible implications of the IFPA when making a will to avoid having the courts step in to provide for a disposition of one’s estate contrary to one’s intentions.


Yang Yin’s golden ticket went from being a ticket to becoming a millionaire at the expense of an elderly widow, to contributing to a nine year (and counting) “stay(cation)” in Changi Prison.
It all started when Mdm. Chung Khin Chun, whose assets are worth an estimated SGD 40 million, was introduced by a family friend to former tour guide Yang Yin in 2006. Subsequently, Yang Yin continued to act as Mdm. Chung’s private tour guide when she went for a holiday in Beijing in 2008 after she was widowed, and kept in touch with Mdm. Chung thereafter. In 2009, Yang Yin came to Singapore and moved into the elderly widow’s bungalow, claiming that Mdm. Chung wanted him to be her “grandson”.
In 2010, Yang Yin manipulated the elderly widow into making a will wherein Yang Yin stood to inherit everything, including Mdm. Chung’s bungalow, while in 2012, Mdm. Chung granted Yang Yin a Lasting Power of Attorney over her welfare and assets.
If one thinks back to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and at the risk of being a little too obvious, one will remember how Charlie’s golden ticket earned him a trip to the amazing chocolate factory. In like manner, we can be certain Yang Yin might have thought of Mdm. Chung’s 2010 will as a golden ticket to becoming a millionaire.

On screen: Peter Ostrum pictured as Charlie Bucket with a golden ticket in a scene from the film

However, after Mdm. Chung’s niece discovered that Mdm. Chung had granted Yang Yin a Lasting Power of Attorney, giving him full control over all her assets, the niece commenced a series of legal proceedings against Yang Yin.
Amongst a series of legal wins, a new statutory will was made by Mdm. Chung’s niece on behalf of her aunt, which new will was recognised by the Court in 2015. While Yang Yin contested the recognition of the new will, the courts recognised it as valid, based on evidence given by several witnesses that Mdm. Chung made the 2010 will under the undue influence of Yang Yin, among other factors.
Just last Friday, 3 March 2017, former tour guide Yang Yin’s six-year jail term for misappropriating S$1.1 million from Mdm. Chung, was increased from six to nine years, under charges of criminal misconduct.

To quote Judge of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang, “In every society, taking advantage of vulnerable persons in the community is completely unacceptable and utterly reprehensible.”

The icing on the cake: Mdm. Chung’s new will leaves most of her assets to charity and nothing to Yang Yin.

The lesson to be learnt: unlike in movies where swindling an elderly person can easily make one rich, Yang Yin learnt the hard way, by paying the price of his apparently golden ticket: a period of nine years behind bars: it is unlikely they will be made of chocolate.

How should we own our home? – Part II

When a couple, married or not, live in a property which is legally owned by one or both of them, questions can arise as to what their respective beneficial interests are. A simple example will make this clear.

H and W live in their matrimonial home, which is registered in H sole name. But W contributed fifty percent of the purchase price. The law recognises W’s contribution and she will have at least a fifty percent “beneficial” or “equitable” share in the property. In effect, H holds the property on trust for the two of them.

The mechanism by which this conclusion is reached is quite complicated and depends on the application of different types of trusts.

The idea is to discern what the couple’s intentions were when the property was acquired. The fact is that people do not really address this issue at the relevant time except in the most general way. The result is that if an issue arises as to the ownership of the property – because, for instance, one of the parties dies and a third party claims entitlement to his or her estate – the court has to fill the gap and decide what the parties’ respective intentions were when the property was acquired.

The solution is provided by the application of what are called resulting and constructive trusts.

Briefly, in the case of a resulting trust the law presumes what the parties’ intentions were when they acquired the property, by looking at the surrounding circumstances, in particular, their respective contributions to the purchase price. This is referred to as the presumption of a resulting trust. It does not operate if the parties’ intentions were, as a matter of fact, and law, made expressly clear at the time, but this is a fairly unusual scenario.

The point is that there is a presumption against gifts. This if A pays a million dollars for a property and gets it registered in the name of B, there is a presumption that B holds the property on trust for A, unless there is evidence to indicate that a gift was intended; that evidence can be used to rebut the presumption. It is different, though, if B is A’s wife, or child (even adult child). Then there is a countervailing presumption, the presumption of advancement, which can, again, be rebutted by evidence that no gift to the wife or child was intended.

An example might make this clear. In a Court of Appeal decision a few years ago, Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Thye Terence, an engaged couple purchased, as joint tenants, two properties, one the matrimonial home, and the other an investment property. Both parties contributed to the purchases, but not equally. When the husband died, the wife remained the sale registered owner of the properties because of the right of survivorship (explained in Part One). But the husband’s sons from his first marriage claimed that she held both properties on trust for his estate, on a resulting trust. The Court of Appeal disagreed. Although the presumption of a resulting trust was raised by the fact of unequal contributions to the purchase price, it was rebutted by the presumption of advancement in favour of the then fiancee. (The court’s decision was based, inter alia, on its consideration of the nature and quality of the relationship.) They were both legal and beneficial – equitable – joint tenants and the wife was now the sole owner.

Common intention constructive trusts are quite different. With a resulting trust, unless the plaintiff can rely on the presumption of advancement, he – or more probably she – is likely to be limited to a proportionate share of the property based on her contribution to the purchase price.

With the common intention constructive trust, on the other hand, the court examines the dealings and conduct of the parties at the time of the acquisition in order to discern what their common intention was; the party who contributed less may well have acted to his or her detriment on the faith of such a common intention, justifying a bigger “slice of the pie”.

This is an area of law where the Singapore courts have diverged significantly from their English counterparts. In England, the default approach – where the couple have bought a home together as joint tenants – is to presume that their beneficial interests are equal unless there are factors indicating an agreement to share on a different basis, applying constructive trust principles. There is an increasing tendency towards “fairness” – doing justice between the parties irrespective of their financial contributions. The resulting trust, and in particular the presumption of advancement, are thought to be out of step with contemporary social mores.

In Singapore, by contrast, the resulting trust is the default mechanism for resolving disputes concerning matrimonial or quasi matrimonial property. Only in special circumstances will the courts resort to the common intent – constructive trust.

In short, there is a considerable degree of uncertainty regarding the respective interests of cohabiting couples – whether married or not – in residential property that they acquire jointly. It makes sense for such couples, when contemplating the purchase of a property, to seek legal advice as to how they want the property to be divided in the event of same unforeseen event.


How should we own our home – Part I

Wills & Property Planning - Singapore HDB over river

It is a fact of life that most adults get married, or find a partner, and live together as couples.

In an ideal world they will buy a home together, a house, as private apartment or an HDB flat.

Wills & Property Planning, Singapore HDB

For most people, especially in land-scarce Singapore where – even in a depressed market – property prices are very high – their matrimonial home, or the home they share as partners – is likely to be their most valuable asset. How should they own it, and what is to happen when one of them dies?

The first question is one that is rife with legal and social issues. Historically it was not uncommon for the man – the husband – to be the sole breadwinner and for the family home to be in his sole name. That did not mean that the wife did not have what lawyers call a beneficial interest in the property. But it could make it more difficult for her to prove that she had such an interest if the issue became a subject of legal argument. (More about this later.) These days the parties are much more likely to be an equal terms.

I will not be saying anything about divorce. If a married couple get divorced, the court divides up the matrimonial assets which will of course include the home. I am talking about situations where there is no divorce. Instead, the husband or wife dies, or goes bankrupt. Or the couple are living together but not married, or siblings sharing a home. Then it becomes important to determine how the property is owned.


If two or more people own property together, irrespective of whether they are married, they are either joint tenants or tenants in common.


Joint tenants, to the outside world, are like a single person as far as their ownership of property is concerned. They do not have shares in the property; each joint tenant owns the whole thing, together with the other(s). Tenants in common, on the other hand, do own shares in the property: it’s just that those shares have not been physically divided between them.

There is one very important consequence to this apparently subtle difference. When a joint tenant of property dies, the surviving owner – if there is just one – becomes the sole owner. It does not matter that the deceased made a will leaving all his or her property to a third party: that will is ineffective as regards property held on a joint tenancy.

It is different with tenancy in common. Because each tenant in common has a notional “share” in the property, this will pass in accordance with the deceased’s will or the intestacy rules.

Most married couples, and probably most cohabitees, are probably content to own their property as joint tenants, happy to accept that their partner will continue to own the property after he or she has passed on. But the situation does require careful thought.

If there are children, can you ensure that they will inherit the property (if that is what you want)? Not if you are joint tenants. If H and W are joint tenants of their home, and have two children, and H dies, W becomes the sole owner of the (former) matrimonial home. They might each have made wills providing that if he or she, as the case may be, survived his or her spouse, the property would go to the children.

But a will is “ambulatory”: it is only effective on the death of the testator. W might remarry – which would in any event revoke any pre-existing will – and her children with H may end up with no interest in that property.

It would be different if H and W were tenants in common. Then H could leave his share of the property to the children. If the couple are joint tenants they can “sever” the joint tenancy and convert it into a tenancy in common. This way each party can be sure that the children will at least have a share in the property.

Why should I make a will?

Wills Blog - Sunset

It was Benjamin Franklin who said that nothing is certain except death and taxes.

Well, some people can avoid taxes, but there is no avoiding the Grim Reaper.

Wills Blog - Grim Statue

Nobody likes thinking about it but – unlike your golden retriever or your guinea pig – you know it’s coming: so there is really no excuse for not being prepared.

Just because you’re young and healthy, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make a will.

Do you travel a lot on business? Do you drive in Singapore, or use taxis, or a bicycle?

Statistically, most fatal accidents take place at home.

Go figure.

Do you have young children? What is going to happen to them if both you and your spouse or partner are in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Of course, the law does have rules for dealing with the situation where you do not make a will. There are special legal rules covering the general business of administering the estate and also the specific issue of distributing the assets.

The distribution process ordered by the court where you don’t have a will is a mechanical one dictated by the categories of relatives you have left behind. Nothing will go to friends or unmarried partners.

Surely it is better if your assets are allocated in precisely the manner you want them to be.

That is only going to happen if you make a will.

As regards administration, if you make a will you can nominate an “executor” (there can be more than one but no more than four), someone whose job it will be to “administer” the estate – get in all the assets, pay off the debts and distribute the balance in accordance with your instructions set out in the Will. If you got any sense you’ll speak to them and got them to agree to act as executor. Lawyers often act as executors, but it doesn’t have to be a lawyer.

If you don’t make a will, there is no executor. There will be an administrator, appointed by the court. It might be a relative – if they agree – or it might be an anonymous public official: either way, it will take a while to sort out.

It’s just more efficient to make a will.

Some things are not part of your estate and cannot be left in your will. If you and your spouse or partner own your home as what the law calls “joint tenants”, when one of you dies the house remains the property of the survivor. But if you both perish in a common disaster, the law says that the older person died first, so the house is treated as part of the estate of the younger person. For many people their home is their most valuable asset. It’s good to decide who is going to inherit it.

CPF moneys cannot be dealt with in a will. You should make a nomination and file it with the CPF Board.

The children? Your will should make provision for appointing a guardian. It’s really just a matter of peace of mind.

That is what it’s all about – peace of mind. And, even though every case is different, it needn’t be expensive.

NB (a) this is Singapore specific and (b) different rules apply to Muslims.

If you wish to make enquiries on Will writing services, contact us here.