Lending into Singapore

The business of moneylending in Singapore is generally governed by the Moneylenders Act 2008 of Singapore (the “Moneylenders Act”). Any person who lends a sum of money in consideration of a larger sum being repaid is presumed, for the purposes of the Moneylenders Act, to be a moneylender carrying on the business of moneylending. We will highlight the Moneylenders Act is intended to target unlicensed moneylending to individuals (as opposed to restricting financial arrangements between corporate entities).

As such, while foreign lenders that lend into Singapore are presumed to be carrying on the business of moneylending, they would usually seek to rely on the relevant exceptions under the Moneylenders Act. In particular, a foreign lender will commonly rely on the exception under the Moneylenders Act as an “excluded moneylender” if it lends solely to corporations, limited liability partnerships, trustees or trustee-managers of business trusts, and trustees of real estate investment trusts for the purpose of the real estate investment trusts.

Foreign lenders can also apply to the Monetary Authority of Singapore to be “authorised under a licence” to lend into Singapore, where such licence is valid for a period of 12 months or such other prescribed period specified therein. Another approach is for the foreign lender to apply to the authorities to be prescribed as an “exempt moneylender” to lend into Singapore for a limited period, although such prescription appears to be on an exceptional basis.

Taking Security in Singapore

Generally, there are no regulatory approvals required to take security over assets located in Singapore. Nonetheless, registration with the relevant authorities is required for the taking of certain securities. This will be explored further in Question 8.

Licensed moneylenders under the Moneylenders Act must not charge an interest, including a late interest, that is higher than four per cent. a month. A licensed moneylender who falls afoul of the interest limit runs the risk of facing sanctions. This includes setting aside either wholly or in part any security given for the loan, imposition of a fine, and even imprisonment. That said, this is more pertinent to personal loans.

In the realm of corporate loans or financing arrangements, the four per cent. limit on interest does not apply to a lender who lends on the basis of being an “excluded moneylender” or “exempt moneylender” under the Moneylenders Act. There is no statutory limit on the maximum interest rate that they can charge on their loans. Interest rates will be predominantly driven by commercial factors and the respective bargaining power of each party to the loan.

Lenders should note a contractual provision (such as default interest) will be held to be an unenforceable penalty where: (a) it creates a secondary obligation triggered by a breach of contract that (b) requires the defaulting party to pay an amount of money that seeks to hold the defaulting party in terrorem to their primary obligations (ie to deter a breach of loan agreement).

Conversely, if a default interest rate is not extravagant in comparison to the greatest foreseeable loss arising to a lender due to contractual breach, then such clause is unlikely construed as a penalty.

There are no exchange control regulations in force relating to the disbursement of loan proceeds into Singapore or repayment of foreign currency loans from Singapore.

Repayment of principal sums are not subject to withholding tax. However, interest, commission and fees under finance documents (the “Income Payments”) are subject to withholding tax at a rate of 15% if (1) the Income Payments are deemed to have derived from Singapore and (2) such Income Payments are due to a person regarded as non-resident in Singapore for Singapore tax purposes, provided that the applicable rate of withholding tax may be reduced or subject to other concession or relief under any applicable treaty for the avoidance of double taxation.

Security documents are generally governed by the lex situs (law of the place) principle, meaning the creation of security interests over Singapore assets should be pursuant to Singapore law security documents.

a. Real Property

Security is commonly granted over real property. Registered land pursuant to the Land Titles Act 1993 of Singapore (the “LTA”) is secured pursuant to a legal mortgage in the statutorily prescribed form and registered with the Singapore Land Authority (the “SLA”). Where the mortgagor is a corporation registered in Singapore, the mortgage must also be registered with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority of Singapore (the “ACRA”) pursuant to Section 131 of the Companies Act 1967 of Singapore (the “Companies Act”).

Under the LTA, a mortgage over registered land takes effect as security only and does not transfer title nor possession of the land. The mortgagor retains the equity of redemption, entitling the mortgagor the right to discharge the mortgage when the debt is satisfied.

Lenders can further review the lease documents which may sometimes restrict mortgage creation, save with the consent from SLA. Such consent is generally given by SLA subject to a nominal fee.

Where title to the land has not been issued (for instance for JTC properties under construction), lenders can obtain security by way of a deed of assignment over the sale agreement relating to the land accompanied by a pre-signed mortgage-in-escrow, whereby such mortgage-in-escrow will be registered with SLA once the title is issued. Lenders are keen to effect the mortgage registrations with SLA as soon as possible because a registered mortgage is generally considered indefeasible, prevailing over unregistered interest or equitable claims.

b. Plant, Machinery, and Equipment

Security over plant, machinery, and equipment is typically taken by way of a fixed charge (or by way of debenture – see Question 6). Charges may be fixed or floating. They give the creditor a security interest, but neither title nor possession, in the property by agreement. Upon the occurrence of a prescribed default, the chargee can enforce the security and realise its proceeds for debt recovery.

A fixed charge is where the charge attaches to specified asset that are identified and ascertained at the creation of the charge. A fixed charge is thus suitable for plant, machinery, and equipment permitting the chargor’s use of charged assets but restricting disposal in the ordinary course of its business. Since fixed charge holders rank in priority to floating charge holders, a fixed charge is the preferred method of taking security over plant, machinery, and equipment.

On the other hand, floating charges are usually taken over a pool of assets that could be ever-changing, which remains under the general control of the chargor where the assets charged may be removed or added to this pool. It is common to take security by way of floating charge over goods and inventories which are to be sold and replaced.

The labelling of a charge as fixed or floating is not conclusive of the nature of the charge. The key feature distinguishing a floating charge from a fixed charge is whether the chargor is able to deal with the assets without consent from the chargee.

c. Inventory

Security over inventory is typically taken by way of a floating charge. A floating charge is a charge over a class of assets that would be changing from time to time in the ordinary course of business of a company. It does not attach to the individual assets until crystallisation (the occurrence of some event crystallising a floating charge into a fixed charge). The floating charge is thus useful as security over inventory, which the chargor can dispose and replace in its ordinary course of business, without the charge’s consent.

Similarly, floating charges which fall under the requirements of the Companies Act must be registered with ACRA.

d. Receivables

Security over receivables is typically created by way of an assignment. Assignment by way of security can be categorised into two types: legal assignment or equitable assignment.

A legal assignment must fulfil the following conditions: the assignment must (1) be absolute; (2) be in writing under the hand of the assignor; (3) not purport to be by way of charge only; and (4) be given by express notice in writing to the person against whom the assigned right is exercisable (the “Counterparty”).

An equitable assignment is created if any of the 4 conditions above are not met, which commonly arise from the non-service of notice to the Counterparty pursuant to commercial negotiations.

The practical difference is at enforcement, a legal assignment allows the assignee to sue the Counterparty directly in its own name, while an equitable assignment requires the assignor to be joined in legal action.

In addition, lenders should ideally insist for service of notice to be delivered upfront and obtain a legal assignment, because priority between competing assignees is determined by the order by which the notice of assignment is delivered to the Counterparty. On the other hand, an assignor may resist serving notice taking into consideration the administrative burden and possible negative perception from the Counterparties of the assignor. The timing of service of notice can also be delivered after an enforcement event subject to parties’ agreement.

Assignments, be it legal or equitable, must be registered with ACRA. In addition, an assignment of receivables is often coupled with a fixed charge over the bank account which the proceeds of such receivables are to be paid into.

e. Shares

The procedure for taking securities over shares differs depending on whether the shares are certificated shares (usually for private companies) or book-entry securities (for shares listed on the Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited).

Security over certificated shares is taken by way of a legal mortgage or equitable charge. A legal mortgage is granted by way of a share mortgage, having the shares registered in the mortgagee’s name and retention of share certificates in the mortgagee’s name while the mortgagor retains an equity of redemption. The more common practice is for certificated shares to be subject to an equitable charge, accompanied by pre-signed blank transfer form and lenders retaining the original share certificates. Furthermore, the constitution of the charged company should also be amended to remove restrictions (such as pre-emption rights) or director’s discretion to refuse share transfers.

The form of taking security over book-entry securities depends on the status of the lender. Where the lender holds an account directly with the Central Depository (Pte) Limited (the “CDP”) security over book-entry securities may be taken by way of statutory assignment or statutory charge pursuant to prescribed forms under the Securities and Futures (Central Depository System) Regulations 2015. Under the statutory assignment, the CDP will transfer the book-entry securities to the assignee by way of an off-market transaction (i.e. the assignee lender will be considered the registered shareholder for which it has to account in its annual reporting as part of its shareholding). Under the statutory charge, CDP will ear-mark the shares so that they may not be dealt with, transferred or sold by the chargor.

Due to the inflexible nature of the prescribed forms for the above statutory security, which must further be executed in the presence of a lawyer, notary public or such party acceptable to CDP, the more usual practice is for lenders to take common law security pursuant to regulation 21 of the Securities and Futures (Central Depository System) Regulations 2015. The common law security over book-entry securities is created by executing a charge document and the following pre-requisites have to be met: (1) firstly, the chargor has to maintain a securities account indirectly with CDP through a sub-account with a depository agent; and (2) secondly, the lender in favour of whom the security is created also has to maintain a securities account indirectly with CDP through a sub-account with the same depository agent. A notice of the charge is also delivered to the depository agent instructing such depository agent to abide by the instructions of the lender.

The main disadvantage of a common law security is that it loses priority to a statutory security (whenever created).

For completeness, it is not possible to create both common law security and statutory security over the same book-entry securities and lenders have to elect to create either a common law security or statutory security.

f. Other assets

In addition to the above, security can also be taken over various other forms of assets, such as over intellectual property and ships. Care should be taken to follow the prescribed formalities for these assets. Generally, for intellectual property, the agreement to give security should be in writing and signed. For ships, security must be in the prescribed form and registered with the Registry of Ships.

A Singapore incorporated company can grant security over its future assets. This is commonly done by way of an all-asset debenture, including a floating charge over current and future assets.

Additional steps are needed for security over certain asset types, such as the provision of new share certificates to the chargee for new share issuances. Notices of assignment may also be required to be served for new contracts to create a legal assignment.

A Singapore incorporated company can grant security to secure future obligations.

In general, a single security agreement can be used to take security over all of a company’s assets. This is commonly done through an all-asset debenture over all of the borrower’s current and future assets. However, individual agreements conforming to the relevant prescribed forms are needed to take security over certain specified assets. These include a legal mortgage over registered land in Singapore, mortgages over ships, and statutory assignments and charges over book-entry shares. These are discussed in question 4 above.

There are generally no notarisation or legalisation requirements for loan agreements or security documents in Singapore, save for a legal mortgage over real estate which is usually signed in the presence of a Singapore solicitor pursuant to Section 59 of the LTA.

For personal guarantees where a spouse is guaranteeing the obligations of the other spouse, lenders typically require the individual guarantor to obtain independent legal advice accompanied by attestation to ensure that such individual guarantor understands the risk. Such approach forestalls issue of undue influence that may adversely affect the enforceability of the guarantee.

While not legally required, it is not uncommon for lenders to require execution of security documents to be attested by a solicitor or notary public for evidentiary purposes and avoid fraudulent signatures.

Charges granted by a Singapore company that falls under the following categories under Section 131 of the Companies Act have to be registered:

(a) a charge to secure any issue of debentures;
(b) a charge on uncalled share capital of a company;
(c) a charge on shares of a subsidiary of a company which are owned by the company;
(d) a charge created or evidenced by an instrument which if executed by an individual, would require registration as a bill of sale;
(e) a charge on land wherever situate or any interest therein but not including any charge for any rent or other periodical sum issuing out of land;
(f) a charge on book debts of the company;
(g) a floating charge on the undertaking or property of a company;
(h) a charge on calls made but not paid;
(i) a charge on a ship or aircraft or any share in a ship or aircraft;
(j) a charge on goodwill, on a patent or a licence under a patent, on a trade mark or a licence to use a trademark, or on a copyright or a licence under a copyright or on a registered design or a licence to use a registered design.

That said, it is common market practice for charges to be registered in ACRA even if it does not strictly fall within one of the registrable categories in Section 131 of the Companies Act.

Charges must be registered within 30 days (if the charge is executed in Singapore) or 37 days (if the charge is executed outside of Singapore). Time is of the essence in registering the charge, as a failure to do so would render the charge void as against liquidators, administrators and creditors of the company upon the company’s insolvency or liquidation. Failure to register in time would also render the company and the defaulting officer of the company liable on conviction to a fine and a default penalty.

Security over personal chattels by an individual or a partnership are also registrable under the Bills of Sale Act 1886 of Singapore. Registration is done by filing the security document as a bill of sale with the Registry of the Supreme Court. Failure to do so would render the security document void in respect of the personal chattels comprised therein.

Mortgages over registered land under the LTA must be in the prescribed form and registered with the SLA.

Mortgages over ships must be in the prescribed form. They are to be registered with the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, which will record the mortgage in the register in the order in time which they are registered.

For patents, trade marks, and registered designs, any security interest in such intellectual property must be registered with the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore for the intellectual property rights to be enforceable against any other person who subsequently acquires a conflicting interest in the intellectual property.

A foreign company registered in Singapore under Division 2 of Part 11 of the Companies Act that creates charges will similarly have to comply with registration requirements under Section 131 of the Companies Act.

Finally, where the grantor of security is a foreign company, lenders should also consider if there are registration requirements in the jurisdiction where the foreign company is incorporated.

Common costs in relation to taking security include fees to register a charge with ACRA and the paying of stamp duties on security documents for certain assets.

The cost of registering a charge pursuant to the requirements of Section 131 of the Companies Act is S$60 per charge.

Stamp duty is payable on mortgage documents over immovable property, stocks or shares at a rate of 0.4% of the amount secured, subject to a maximum duty of S$500. For an equitable mortgage over immovable property, stamp duty is payable at a rate of 0.2% of the amount secured, subject to a maximum duty of S$500.

Dutiable documents must be stamped within 14 days (if executed in Singapore) and within 30 days from the date such document is brought into Singapore (if executed outside of Singapore).

Upstamping is not common. Where additional facilities are granted, lenders typically require fresh securities ranking behind the existing securities securing the original facility, and such fresh securities will be stamped in accordance with the third paragraph above.

A company can guarantee and secure the obligations of another group company, provided the provision of such guarantee and security is in the commercial interest of the company. Otherwise, the directors may in breach of their fiduciary duties.

Corporate benefit is more readily established for companies guaranteeing or securing obligations of its subsidiaries. For upstream or cross-stream guarantees, the market practice is for shareholder’s resolutions to be obtained (in addition to directors’ resolutions confirming existence of corporate benefit). Notwithstanding shareholder’s resolution, a liquidator may challenge such guarantee and security on the company’s insolvency.

Companies should also ensure that there are no restrictions in its company’s constitution prohibiting such an act.

 

The Companies Act prohibits a public company (or its subsidiary) from providing financial assistance for the acquisition of its own shares, the shares of its holding or ultimate holding company. Financial assistance is widely defined to include the giving of a guarantee or the provision of security but excludes the distribution of dividends lawfully made.

A target which is a subsidiary of a public company has to carry out a whitewash procedure to approve the giving of the financial assistance.

The long form whitewash procedure involves, among other things, obtaining special resolutions passed by the shareholders of the target, while complying with the relevant notice requirements for calling such meetings. The resolutions would need to be published in a daily circulating newspaper and a 21-day period be given for objections to be lodged to the court. Any objections raised would need to be resolved before a court prior to the provision of the target security and/or guarantees.

The short form whitewash procedure requires directors’ and shareholder’s resolutions of the target to be passed approving the giving of the financial assistance. Additionally, it requires all directors to make a solvency statement which includes a statement on the ability of the target to pay its debts as they fall due over the following 12 months. This may not be an attractive option for a target needing to undertake a whitewash procedure, as there are penalties for directors who are found to have provided a solvency statement without having reasonable grounds for the opinions expressed therein.

Alternatively, the target may rely on the “no material prejudice” whitewash procedure. To utilise this exception:

(1) the giving of the assistance must not materially prejudice the interests of the target providing such assistance, or its shareholders, or the target’s ability to pay its creditors; and

(2) the directors of the target must pass a resolution stating that the target should give the assistance, and that the terms and conditions under which the assistance is proposed are fair and reasonable to the target, setting out the full grounds for their conclusions.

A copy of such resolution must then be lodged with ACRA.

For completeness, private companies may provide financial assistance for the acquisition of shares without any whitewash procedure, except where they are subsidiaries of public companies.

The concept of agency and trust are both recognised in Singapore. It is market practice for a security trustee to be appointed to hold Singapore security on behalf of a group of lenders. It is also common for a facility agent to be authorised by lenders to act on their behalf in legal or arbitration proceedings to enforce the lenders’ rights under a loan document. Nonetheless, lenders should be aware of cross-border elements in their facilities which might affect this analysis. For instance, the concept of trust may not be recognised in civil law jurisdictions.

Not applicable.

The Singapore courts will generally recognise and give effect to express choice of law clauses to govern the terms of any agreement entered into by a company, provided that the intention to select such laws are bona fide and legal, and that there are no reasons for avoiding the choice on the ground of public policy.

Judgments of the courts in other jurisdictions are enforceable by the Singapore court provided certain specified criteria are met:

(a) Where the judgment is for a specified sum of money, and is issued by a superior courts of Brunei, Australia, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, and the United Kingdom, the successful party may make an application under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959 for the judgment to be registered and enforced in the same manner as a judgment issued by the Singapore court.

(b) Where the judgment is issued by a court of a Contracting State to the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, the successful party may make an application under the Choice of Court Agreements Act 2016 (the “CCAA”) for the judgment to be registered and enforced in the same manner as a judgment issued by the Singapore court, subject to the limitations and exclusions provided for by the CCAA.

(c) Where the judgment is for a specified sum of money, and is issued by court of a state which has in place a Memorandum of Guidance on the recognition and enforcements of money judgments in commercial cases with Singapore (for example, the People’s Republic of China), the successful party may make an application following the procedure prescribed in the relevant Memorandum of Guidance for the judgment to be registered and enforced in the same manner as a judgment issued by the Singapore court.

(d) Where none of the above statutes or memorandums apply to the judgment of the foreign court but the judgment is for a specified sum of money, the successful party may still apply under common law principles for the judgment to be recognised and enforced in Singapore.

In respect of arbitrations awards, Singapore is a member of the New York Arbitration Convention and arbitration awards are enforceable by the Singapore courts, subject to limited grounds on which the enforceability of arbitration awards may be challenged as prescribed under the Arbitration Act 2001 or the International Arbitration Act 1994.

The insolvency process in Singapore is fully governed under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 of Singapore (“IRDA”). The IRDA and its relevant subsidiary legislation sets out the procedures and rules governing both corporate insolvency (liquidation) and personal insolvency (bankruptcy).

Broadly, both corporate and personal insolvency may either be (1) court-ordered, or (2) voluntary.

Court-Ordered Insolvency

Court-Ordered Insolvency is initiated by an application to the court. For corporate insolvencies, the IRDA prescribes a list of persons who may make the application, which include creditors, any director of the company, and a contributory of the company. For personal insolvencies, either a creditor or the debtor himself may make the application.

The applicant must satisfy the court that the prescribed circumstances for winding up / bankruptcy have been met. Most commonly, applicants will rely on the prescribed ground that the company or the debtor is unable to pay its debts. A company or debtor is presumed to be unable to pay its debts if the company / debtor neglects to pay or secure a demand by a creditor for a sum exceeding S$15,000 to the reasonable satisfaction of the creditor.

When making an application to court for a winding up / bankruptcy order, the application must be advertised in an English local daily newspaper and the Government Gazette. A deposit of the prescribed sum must also be paid to the Official Receiver (for liquidation cases) / Official Assignee (for bankruptcy cases) at the time the application is made. The applicant should also nominate a licensed Insolvency Professional to act as the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy, as the case may be.

Once the court makes and order that the company be wound up / debtor be made bankrupt, the licensed Insolvency Professional will be appointed as the liquidator / trustee in bankruptcy, and will take over management of the company’s / debtor’s affairs, with a view towards collecting all of the company’s / debtor’s assets for distribution to the creditors. Creditors will be required to file proofs of debt to the appointed liquidator / trustee in bankruptcy.

Voluntary Liquidation

In the case of corporate insolvency, the IRDA provides a procedure for the company to be wound up voluntarily, either through a member’s or creditor’s voluntary liquidation. The former is a solvent liquidation, whereby the majority of the directors of the company must sign a declaration of their opinion that the company will be able to pay its debts in full within 12 months after the commencement of the liquidation. The company must pass a resolution at a general meeting that the company be wound up voluntarily. The latter is in insolvent liquidation. In the latter, the company must cause a meeting of the creditors of the company, at which the resolution for voluntary winding up is to be proposed. Following the acceptance of the voluntary winding up in both member’s and credit’s voluntary liquidation, a liquidator will be appointed, and the insolvency process will proceed as in a court-ordered liquidation.

Generally, the insolvency process will trigger the secured creditor’s right to enforce its security under the relevant security agreements. The secured creditor may realise its security in accordance with the terms of the relevant security agreement. If the security is insufficient to satisfy the entire debt owed to the secured party, the secured party may file a proof of debt for the unsatisfied amount.

In a company insolvency, certain transactions of a company may be voidable on its insolvency, which unwinds the transaction by mandating a claw-back of property transferred by the transaction or a reversal of the transaction’s effect. These include:

(a) a floating charge created within six months of the commencement of the winding up (except as to the amount of any cash paid to the company in consideration for the charge);

(b) transactions at an undervalue (the value of the consideration given by the company significantly exceeds the value received by the company);

(c) transactions of an unfair preference (company giving a preference to the recipient influenced by a desire to put the recipient in a better position than it would have been in the event of the company’s insolvency);

(d) extortionate credit transactions (terms requiring grossly exorbitant payments to be made for the provision of credit, or terms harsh and unconscionable or substantially unfair against ordinary principles of fair dealing);

(e) onerous property transactions (property or contractual obligations that impose onerous burdens, are unprofitable, or not readily realizable);

(f) disposition of property after the commencement of a winding-up (at the time of the making of the application of the winding up for court-ordered liquidation, or at the time of the passing of the resolution for voluntary liquidation); and

(g) transactions defrauding creditors.

Each category is subject to a look-back period generally between 6 months to 3 years. Creditors may also challenge a liquidator’s application to void or unwind a transaction.

Similar provisions apply to a personal insolvency.

Generally, set off is recognised on insolvency so long as the creditor can prove that there have been mutual credits, mutual debts or other mutual dealings between a company and creditor, and the debt claimed by the creditor arises from these mutual credits, debts and dealings. This applies to both company insolvency and personal insolvency.

The general rule in Singapore is that a secured creditor will be paid first out of the assets that have been secured in their favour upon a company’s insolvency. However, where the creditor takes security in the form of a floating charge, preferential claims as set out in Section 203(6) of the IRDA will have priority over the claims of such secured creditors under the floating charge. Such preferential claims are, in order:

(a) costs and expenses of the winding up incurred by the liquidator of the company;
(b) other costs and expenses of the winding up, including the remuneration of the liquidator;
(c) costs of the applicant for the winding up order;
(d) all wages or salaries, subject to prescribed limits;
(e) amounts due to employees as a retrenchment benefit or ex gratia payment under any contract of employment;
(f) amounts due in respect of contributions payable by the company as employer relating to employees’ superannuation or provident funds; and
(g) remuneration payable to any employee in respect of vacation leave, subject to prescribed limits.

At this point of time, there are none which we are cognisant of.

For the whole of 2025, the Singapore economy expanded by 4.8 per cent., extending the 4.4 per cent. growth in 2024, driven by an easing global interest rate environment. From market trends, we have experienced a strong business outlook for traditional bank debt instruments. At the same time, we have also seen renewed momentum for capital market activity, with significant listing of Centurion Accommodation REIT in September 2025 and UI Boustead REIT in March 2026 on the Singapore Exchange. We anticipate selective capital deployment from private credit lenders focusing on asset-backed financing.

One notable emerging trend in the Asia Pacific loan markets is that of data centre financing, driven by a surge in the demand for cloud computing and a corresponding growth of data centres in the region, attracting complex financing solutions involving both traditional and innovative financing structures. In 2025, the Singapore-based Princeton Digital Group raised more than US$2.5 billion utilising a combination of preferred equity investment, green loans and project financing, and holding company loans to fund their expansion of their data centre operations.

Separately, Singapore-based Bridge Data Centres announced plans to invest up to SGD$5 billion to accelerate the development of its artificial intelligence technologies across Asia. As the data centre sector continues to scale up in Singapore and the region, banks and institutional investors will continue to boost their participation in data centre financing.

At this point of time, there are none which we are cognisant of.