There are presently no applicable treaties between the People's Republic of China (the "PRC") and Singapore, which provide for the mutual recognition and enforcement of each country's court judgments in the courts of the other state. Hence currently, only final monetary judgments of the courts of the PRC ("PRC court judgments") can be recognised and enforced in Singapore. Further, that process requires the commencement of a new suit in the Singapore courts.

目前，中国和新加坡之间没有相互承认和执行两国法院判决的相关条约。因此，目前只有中国法院的终局性金钱给付类判决(“中国法院判决”)才能在新加坡得到承认和执行。此外，这一程序要求在新加坡法院开始一个新诉讼。

Generally, a judgment of a foreign court  may only be recognised and enforced under the domestic laws of the enforcing state, unless that enforcing state is bound by enforcement obligations under a treaty (bilateral or multilateral). Presently, such treaties are given force of law in Singapore through the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap. 264, 1985 Rev Ed) ("RECJA"), Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (Cap. 265, 2001 Rev Ed) ("REFJA"), Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Cap. 169, 1985 Rev Ed) ("MOREA") and the Choice of Court Agreements Act (Cap. 39A, 2017 Rev Ed) ("CCAA").

一般而言，外国法院的判决只能根据执行国的国内法得到承认和执行，除非该执行国受条约(双边或多边)规定的执行义务的约束。目前，此类条约通过《英联邦判决互惠执行法案》(新加坡辅助性立法第264章，1985年修订版)（RECJA）、《外国判决互惠执行法案》 (第265章，2001年修订版) (REFJA)、《赡养令(相互执行)法案》(第169章，1985年修订版) ( MOREA)和《选择法院协议法案》 (第39A章，2017年修订版)( CCAA) 在新加坡具有法律效力。

RECJA applies to the judgments of the "superior" courts of 10 Commonwealth nations, being United Kingdom, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Windward Islands, Pakistan, Brunei Darussalam, Papua New Guinea, India (except Jammu and Kashmir) and Australia. In turn, REFJA applies solely to the judgments of the "superior" courts of Hong Kong SAR. The CCAA gives effect to the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (the "Hague Convention") —its ratifying states are the EU, Singapore, Mexico and Montenegro.

RECJA适用于10个英联邦国家的“上级”法院的判决，它们是英国、新西兰、斯里兰卡、马来西亚、向风群岛、巴基斯坦、文莱达鲁萨兰国、巴布亚新几内亚、印度(查谟和克什米尔除外)和澳大利亚。而REFJA仅适用于香港特别行政区“上级”法院的判决。CCAA为2005年6月30日《关于法院选择协议的海牙公约》(“《海牙公约》”)在新加坡的适用赋予效力，其批准国是欧盟、新加坡、墨西哥和黑山。

Absent an applicable treaty, a foreign final money judgment which is sought to be enforced in Singapore would have to be done by way of common law through the commencement of a fresh suit in the Singapore courts. Under common law, where a foreign court of competent jurisdiction has determined that a certain sum is due from one person to another, a legal obligation arises on the debtor to pay that sum. The creditor may bring a claim to enforce that obligation as a debt. This legal obligation to pay the debt is however separate from the underlying cause of action.

如果没有适用的条约，寻求在新加坡执行外国终局性金钱给付类判决必须通过普通法在新加坡法院提起新的诉讼。根据普通法，如果有管辖权的外国法院认定一人欠另一人某一数额的金钱，债务人就有法律义务支付该数额。债权人可以将该义务当做债以提出强制执行的请求。然而，偿还债务的法律义务与诉因是分开的。

In contrast, where a foreign judgment is sought to be enforced in Singapore under RECJA and REFJA, recognition and enforcement is substantially easier — the registration process is primarily a formalistic one. The default practice is to permit registration of foreign judgments unless certain formal features are missing. The onus is then on the judgment debtor to seek to set aside the registered judgment.

相比之下，在新加坡寻求根据RECJA和REFJA执行外国判决时，承认和执行要容易得多——登记过程主要是形式性的。默认做法是允许登记外国判决，除非缺少某些形式特征。一旦登记，则撤销已登记判决的负担在债务人。

Under REFJA and RECJA, registration of a foreign judgment shall be refused if it is not final and conclusive on the merits of the case as well as for a fixed or ascertainable sum of money. Other grounds for the refusal of registration and/or to set aside a registered judgment include:

根据REFJA和RECJA，针对案件实体问题，如果外国判决是非终局的，或相关金额非固定或可确定的，则应拒绝登记。拒绝登记和/或撤销已登记判决的其他理由包括:

·where the court giving judgment lacked jurisdiction over the judgment debtor

作出判决的法院对判决下的债务人缺乏管辖权

·the judgment debtor did not have proper notice of the proceedings under which the foreign judgment was pronounced

判决下的债务人未在外国判决宣告的程序中获得适当通知

·the foreign judgment being contrary to the public policy of Singapore;

外国判决违反新加坡的公共政策；

·direct or indirect enforcement of foreign penal, revenue or public laws

直接或间接执行外国刑法、税收法或公法

In contrast to the CCAA/Hague Convention, one of the key limitations of REFJA and RECJA is that there are currently only 11 contracting states whose judgments of their superior courts may be recognised and enforced pursuant to Singapore’s treaty obligations. Further, under REFJA and RECJA, only monetary judgments may be recognised and enforced. In other words, interlocutory and/or non-money judgments cannot be registered under RECJA or REFJA presently.

与CCAA及《海牙公约》不同的是，REFJA和RECJA的主要局限之一是，目前只有11个缔约国的上级法院的判决可以根据新加坡的条约义务得到承认和执行。此外，根据REFJA和RECJA，只能承认和执行金钱类判决。换句话说，中间判决和/或非金钱判决目前不能根据RECJA或REFJA进行登记。

The PRC is a signatory to the Hague Convention but has not ratified it. Further, there are currently no bilateral treaties between the PRC and Singapore for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of court judgments from each country.

中国是《海牙公约》的签署国，但尚未批准该公约。此外，中国和新加坡之间目前没有双边条约相互承认和执行两国的法院判决。

Nonetheless, there is a Memorandum of Guidance between the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China and the Supreme Court of Singapore on Recognition and Enforcement of Money Judgments in Commercial Cases signed 31 August 2018 (the "Enforcement Memorandum"). The Enforcement Memorandum sets out the basis on which a PRC court judgment may be recognised and enforced in Singapore i.e. under common law.

尽管如此，中国最高人民法院和新加坡最高法院于2018年8月31日签署了一份关于承认和执行商业案件中金钱判决的指导备忘录(《中华人民共和国最高人民法院和新加坡共和国最高法院关于承认与执行商事案件金钱判决的指导备忘录》，“《执行备忘录》”)。《执行备忘录》规定了中国法院判决可在新加坡得到承认和执行的依据，即普通法。

The Enforcement Memorandum sets out that the PRC court judgment to be enforced in Singapore must be final and conclusive as determined in accordance with Chinese law. In this respect, the Singapore courts may request the claimant seeking enforcement to obtain certification from the relevant PRC court that the judgment is final and conclusive. The Singapore courts may also seek assistance from the PRC Supreme People's Court to obtain such certification — the certification shall be regarded as conclusive evidence on the finality and conclusiveness of the judgment.

《执行备忘录》规定，根据中国法律，在新加坡执行的中国法院判决必是终局且确定性的。在这方面，新加坡法院可要求申请执行的原告从相关中国法院获得该判决是最终和确定性的证明。新加坡法院也可寻求中国最高人民法院的协助以获得此类证明——该证明应被视为该判决是终局且确定的决定性证据。

The Singapore courts will also not enforce judgments of the PRC courts that would amount to the direct or indirect enforcement of any foreign penal, revenue or public law.

如果相关判决直接或间接涉及何外国刑法、税收或公法，新加坡法院也不会执行该类中国法院判决。

The PRC courts must also have had jurisdiction to determine the subject matter of the dispute. The Singapore courts will generally consider that the PRC courts had jurisdiction over the judgment debtor where the debtor:

中国法院也必须拥有确定争议标的管辖权。如果债务人满足下述条件的，新加坡法院一般会认为中国法院对判决下的债务人拥有管辖权，

·was, at the time that the case was filed, present or resident in the jurisdiction of the court of the People's Republic of China; or

案件起诉时，该债务人出现或居住在中国法院管辖范围内；或者

·was the claimant, or counterclaimant, in the proceedings; or

该债务人是诉讼中的原告或反诉人；或者

·submitted to the jurisdiction of the court of the People's Republic of China; or

该债务人服从中国法院管辖；或者

·agreed, before commencement, in respect of the subject matter of the proceedings, to submit to the jurisdiction of the PRC courts.

在程序开始前，该债务人同意就诉讼标的服从中国法院的管辖。

A claim on a PRC court judgment may be challenged in the Singapore courts on limited grounds only. The PRC court judgment cannot be challenged on the merits of the underlying case or on the grounds that there has been an error of fact or law. Instead, the available grounds for resisting recognition and enforcement include the following:

对中国法院判决的执行请求只能以有限的理由在新加坡法院受到质疑。中国法院的判决在新加坡不能以所涉案件的实体问题或存在事实或法律错误为由提出质疑。相反，拒绝承认和执行的理由包括:

·the judgment was obtained by fraud;

判决是通过欺诈获得的；

·the judgment is contrary to Singapore public policy;

该判决违反新加坡公共政策；

·the proceedings were conducted in a manner which the court of Singapore regards as contrary to the principles of natural justice.

诉讼程序是以新加坡法院认为违反自然正义原则的方式进行的。

If the claim on the PRC court judgment is successful, the judgment creditor will then have the benefit of a Singapore court judgment and will be entitled to the enforcement mechanisms of a Singapore court judgment.

如果对中国法院判决的执行请求获得支持，判决下的债权人将获得一个新加坡法院判决，并有权获得等同于执行新加坡法院判决的执行机制。

Even prior to the signing of the Enforcement Memorandum, there has been at least one reported Singapore court decision in which a PRC court judgment was enforced through the Singapore common law process. In Giant Light Metal Technology (Kunshan) Co Ltd v Aksa Far East Pte Ltd [2014] 2 SLR 545, the Singapore High Court enforced a judgment made by the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court. The basis on which the Singapore High Court recognised the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court's judgment is as set out in the Enforcement Memorandum i.e. the common law rule that a foreign judgment would be recognised if (a) it was the final and conclusive judgment of a court which, (b) according to the private international law of Singapore, had jurisdiction to grant that judgment, and (c) there was no defence to the judgment's recognition.

即使在签署《执行备忘录》之前，至少有一个新加坡法院公告判例，该案中中国法院的判决是通过新加坡普通法程序执行的。在Giant Light Metal Technology (Kunshan) Co Ltd 诉Aksa Far East Pte Ltd一案（新加坡法律报告2014年第2卷第545页）中，新加坡高等法院执行了苏州市中级人民法院的判决。新加坡高等法院承认苏州中级人民法院判决的依据正如《执行备忘录》所载，即普通法规则——如果(a)外国判决是法院的最终和确定性判决，(b)根据新加坡国际私法，法院有权作出该判决，以及(c)对该判决的承认没有抗辩，则外国判决将得到承认。

Singapore’s Ministry of Law has recently proposed amendments to REFJA, to be effected through the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment) Bill (the "Amendment Bill").

新加坡司法部最近提议修订REFJA，将通过《外国判决互惠执行(修正)法案》(《修正法案》)生效。

The Amendment Bill seeks to consolidate both RECJA and REFJA under one statute i.e. REFJA — RECJA will be repealed.

《修正法案》旨在将RECJA和REFJA合并为一部法规，即REFJA，而RECJA将被替代。

The Amendment Bill would expand the definition of judgment and would permit the Singapore courts to reciprocally register and enforce a wider range of foreign judgments, including: non-money judgments, interlocutory judgments, and judgments from foreign "inferior" courts.

《修正法案》将扩大判决的定义，并允许新加坡法院互惠登记和执行更广泛的外国判决，包括:非金钱判决、中间判决和外国“下级”法院的判决。

The Amendment Bill would also impose limits on the Singapore courts' enforcement of a registered non-money judgment i.e. only if it is satisfied that such enforcement would be just and convenient. If not, it may grant the application what the court considers to be the monetary equivalent of the relief sought.

《修正法案》还将对新加坡法院执行已登记的非金钱判决施加限制，即只有在新加坡法院确信这种执行是公正和方便的情况下才会予以执行。若非如此，新加坡法院可以批准其认为与所寻求救济相当的金钱性请求。

There would also be new grounds for the Singapore courts to refuse the registration of or to set aside the registration of a foreign judgment, as well as to limit enforcement of a registered judgment. These include:

新加坡法院还有新的理由拒绝登记或撤销外国判决的登记，并限制已登记判决的执行。其中包括:

·where the foreign judgment has been discharged — the Singapore Ministry of Law here gives the example of a judgment discharged by virtue of bankruptcy;

外国判决已经被清偿——新加坡司法部在这里列举了一个通过破产而清偿判决的例子；

·the registration of a foreign judgment may be set aside if the notice of registration had not been served on the judgment debtor, or if the notice of registration was defective (proposed section 5(c)). However, the foreign judgment can still be subsequently (re)registered once the defects have been cured (proposed section 5(1A));

如果登记通知没有送达判决下的债务人，或者如果登记通知有缺陷，外国判决的登记可以被撤销(拟议的第5(c)条)。然而，一旦缺陷得到补救，外国判决仍可随后(重新)登记(拟议的第5节(1A))；

·there are additional grounds introduced on which a judgment debtor can rely on to demonstrate that it had not voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court and thereby resist registration or set aside the registration of that foreign judgment. The proposed amendments to REFJA would clarify that the following are not to be construed as cases where a defendant is deemed to have submitted to the foreign court's jurisdiction:

判决债务人还可以依据其他理由证明其没有自愿服从外国法院的管辖，从而拒绝登记或撤销该外国判决的登记。REFJA的拟议修正案将澄清以下情况不应被解释为被告被视为已服从外国法院管辖:

o protecting, or obtaining the release of, property seized or threatened with seizure, in the proceedings;

在诉讼中试图保护或申请解除法院保全被扣押或可能被扣押的财产；

o contesting the jurisdiction of that court; or

质疑该法院的管辖权；或者

o inviting the foreign court in its discretion not to exercise its jurisdiction in the proceedings.

提请外国法院酌情不在诉讼中行使管辖权。

It is expected that the Amendment Bill (in its present or further revised form) can be passed within 2019. Notably the Amendment Bill makes reference to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment) Act 2019.

预计《修订法案》(以目前或进一步修订的形式)将在2019年内获得通过。值得注意的是，《修正法案》所援引的名称是《2019年外国判决相互执行(修正)法》。