Singapore has proposed bringing payment institutions and future regulated stablecoin issuers into its independent financial dispute-resolution system. The Monetary Authority of Singapore opened the consultation on 16 October, seeking comments by 30 November 2026. The proposal would widen access to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre, or FIDReC; it does not create an immediate new entitlement.
All major and standard payment institution licensees would have to subscribe. Regulated stablecoin issuers would follow after their regulatory framework takes effect. Money-changing licensees would remain outside the proposed requirement. MAS plans industry discussions on fees and implementation during 2027. New subscribers would face an onboarding fee, alongside case fees and an annual levy. The amounts and implementation timetable are still to be discussed. Its consultation paper links the stablecoin proposal to holders’ envisaged ability to redeem directly from issuers.
How the stablecoin proposal fits
The licensing framework is a separate exercise. In a 1 September announcement, MAS proposed changes to the Payment Services Act covering Singapore-issued single-currency stablecoins pegged to the Singapore dollar or a G10 currency. The proposed safeguards address value stability, capital, redemption at face value and disclosures. The September consultation’s stated response deadline was 16 October, before the payment-dispute consultation closes.
MAS also proposed allowing joint Singapore and foreign issuance where risks are sufficiently controlled, and recognising a limited number of foreign-issued stablecoins regulated under comparable frameworks. Other proposed requirements concern stress testing, recovery arrangements and orderly wind-down. The September package also proposes prohibiting interest payments on regulated stablecoins and safeguarding customer money received before issuance. These remain policy proposals, rather than a claim that every stablecoin already has equivalent protection. Dalimss News has separately covered Singapore’s tokenised-bill settlement plans and stablecoin consultation and the FSB’s cross-border stablecoin monitoring concerns.
What the existing complaint process involves
FIDReC’s current consumer FAQs describe a process for eligible individuals, sole proprietors, small businesses and charities dealing with subscribing financial institutions. Consumers must first take the dispute to the institution itself. If that does not resolve the matter satisfactorily, the stated filing window is six months from the institution’s final reply. Filing the complaint is free, although choosing adjudication can involve a fee.
The existing early-resolution stage gives the institution ten business days to try to settle directly after the complaint is filed. FIDReC then processes the complaint unless told otherwise by the complainant. These are existing procedures, not new deadlines created by the October proposal. The FAQs also distinguish the centre’s dispute-resolution role from professional advice: it does not provide legal or financial advice to complainants.
A separate mediation guide hosted by FIDReC explains how the case manager examines submitted material and may request more information. The institution is asked for an investigation report. Discussions can happen by telephone, email, video or an in-person meeting, either jointly or with the parties separately. The aim is an outcome both sides accept, rather than an automatic order for compensation.
The guide asks participants to share relevant records in advance, including correspondence, invoices and contractual documents. A mediator’s preliminary indication is not binding. If the parties agree to settle, their signed settlement agreement binds them and ends the dispute. Private sessions are confidential; information shared there is not disclosed to the other party without permission. If mediation does not produce an acceptable proposal, the consumer can choose adjudication.
FIDReC’s separate adjudication guide describes an evidence-based decision by an impartial adjudicator. Written submissions should explain what happened and why the amount sought is justified, with references to relevant events and documents. Both sides submit their material, which is exchanged and provided to the adjudicator. A hearing or a documents-only process can be used.
The guide distinguishes unlimited mediation claims from the usual S$150,000 adjudication ceiling. A larger claim can proceed if the consumer reduces it to that ceiling or the institution agrees to a higher amount. Non-monetary claims cannot go to adjudication. These existing limits show why access to a dispute scheme should not be confused with a guarantee that a complaint will succeed.
