Singapore Property Agent Commission: Who Pays and the One-Side Rule

In this article

Written by

Kooky

Builder of Shaka, the payment router that pays every agent their commission on closing date.

About Kooky and Shaka →

Two questions come up in almost every property deal in Singapore: how much the agent will be paid, and by whom. A third follows quickly when only one agent is in the room: whose side is that agent on? The answers are not left to custom. They sit in the Estate Agents Act 2010, in the Estate Agents (Estate Agency Work) Regulations 2010 and in the guidance the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA), the industry regulator, publishes for consumers and for the trade.

This guide follows the money from the first conversation to completion. It covers how commission is set, what the written agreement has to record, when the fee becomes payable and to whom, what co-broking means for the bill, which payments an agent may not touch, and what happens when the fee is disputed. It also sets out the rule that surprises many newcomers to the market: in Singapore, an agent may act for one party to a transaction only, and may be paid by one party only. The forms themselves, and the agreements used by buyers and tenants, are a subject of their own and are only touched on here where they decide the commission.

Council for Estate Agencies consumer guidance and regulation 5 of the Estate Agents (Estate Agency Work) Regulations 2010, version in force from 1 January 2026.

There is no fixed rate in Singapore

The starting point is short. CEA's consumer page on buying or selling states that there are no fixed commission rates and no prescribed guidelines on commission amounts. Its page on what to take note of when engaging a property agent says the same thing from the client's side: commissions are not fixed, and the client is free to negotiate the amount or the rate.

That has a practical consequence for anyone reading about "the usual" percentage. No official figure for a typical commission exists on the regulator's pages. Whatever rate a seller, a buyer, a landlord or a tenant hears quoted is a market habit, not a rule, and CEA does not publish one. The figure that binds the parties is the one they write down.

CEA is equally clear about timing. The amount and the terms should be agreed with the agent before the agent starts work, not at the end when the deal is nearly done and the client's bargaining position has gone. For the agent, the same discipline avoids the most common argument of all: a client who remembers a different number.

What can be negotiated is wider than the rate. The prescribed purchase agreement, CEA's Form 6, shows the choices the parties make: a fixed sum in Singapore dollars or a percentage of the transacted price, whether goods and services tax (GST) applies, whether co-broking is authorised, and how long the appointment lasts. Each of these changes what the client finally pays, and each is covered below.

What the written agreement has to record

CEA publishes prescribed estate agency agreements, and its consumer guidance says the agreed commission should be recorded in one of them. According to the regulator's buying or selling page, the prescribed agreement is a binding contract that sets out the agent's scope of work and the commission, and it exists in exclusive and non-exclusive versions for sellers and for buyers. Extra terms may be added in the space provided, but they cannot conflict with or change the prescribed terms.

The commission clause of Form 6 gives two ways to express the fee: a fixed amount, or a percentage of the transacted price. The difference matters when the price moves. A worked example, with illustrative figures that are not market data: suppose a client agrees a commission of 2 per cent and the property changes hands at S$1.2 million. The commission is S$24,000. Had the same client agreed a fixed sum of S$20,000, the fee would be S$20,000 whether the price ended at S$1.2 million or anywhere else. A percentage follows the price up and down; a fixed sum does not.

The second thing the clause must show is GST. CEA's Practice Guidelines PG 01-11 on the use of the prescribed forms, issued on 29 June 2011, require the commission clause to state whether the estate agent is GST-registered and whether the commission is inclusive or exclusive of GST. The consumer guidance adds the rule behind it: only GST-registered property agencies can charge GST. A client is therefore entitled to know, before signing, whether the figure in the agreement is the whole bill or the bill before tax. In the example above, S$24,000 "inclusive of GST" and S$24,000 "exclusive of GST" are two different amounts to pay, and the form is designed so that the parties tick one of them.

CEA's advice to consumers is to ask the agent to go through the clauses and to sign only once they are understood, the commission clause in particular.

Exclusive or non-exclusive: when the fee is owed

The kind of appointment decides who can earn the commission and for how long. CEA's consumer guidance describes two.

The exclusive agreement is the one that needs careful reading, because it can create a fee without the agency closing the deal. During the validity period the client owes commission even if the transaction is concluded through another agency or by the client alone. Form 6 puts this in contractual terms for a buyer: if the buyer signs a binding sale and purchase agreement during the validity period, the commission is payable whether or not the appointed estate agent introduced the seller.

The period after expiry works differently. Under CEA's guidance, commission remains owed for three months after the agreement ends if the deal is done with a party the agency introduced during the validity period. Form 6 words the buyer's version this way: if the buyer buys the property within three calendar months after the expiry date, commission is still payable where the estate agent made the property's availability known to the buyer during the validity period. The tail protects the agency's work; it does not cover a property the agency never brought to the client.

An exclusive appointment does not roll on by itself. Form 6 says the agreement expires on the date stated or three calendar months after the commencement date, whichever is earlier, and that it can be renewed or extended only by a new prescribed form, each renewal running for no more than three calendar months.

A non-exclusive agreement removes both the validity period and the tail. The client may appoint several agencies and pays only the one that completes the transaction. The trade-off is one for each client to weigh; the regulator describes the two forms without recommending either.

When commission is paid, and to whom

Commission in Singapore is a completion fee. Form 6 makes it payable on completion, and CEA's guidance tells consumers that once the transaction is completed they need to honour the deal and pay the agreed commission.

The payee is the property agency, not the individual. CEA's buying or selling page says the agreed commission is paid to the property agency and not to the property agent, and the companion page advises consumers to make payment only to the agency. A salesperson works under a licensed estate agent; the client's contract is with that business, and the money goes there.

The prescribed purchase agreement also says when no commission is owed at all. Two cases appear in its commission clause:

• no commission is payable if completion falls through without fault on the part of the buyer;
• for a Housing and Development Board (HDB) property, no commission is payable if completion falls through because the buyer is ineligible to buy under HDB rules or regulations. PG 01-11 refers to the same protection for HDB transactions that fail on a client's ineligibility.

The first case turns on fault, which is a question of fact in each transaction. The second is narrower and easier to apply: an HDB purchase that cannot proceed because the buyer does not qualify produces no fee under the form.

A prescribed agreement can exist without any fee from the client. PG 01-11 says a prescribed form may be signed even where the client pays no commission. That is common sense once co-broking is understood: a client can be properly represented by an agent whose reward comes from a share of the other agent's commission.

One agent, one side: the dual-representation rule

Singapore does not allow one agent to act for both parties, even where both agree. Regulation 5 of the Estate Agents (Estate Agency Work) Regulations 2010, in the version in force from 1 January 2026, provides that no salesperson, and no estate agent who is a natural person, shall in respect of the same property have as clients both vendor and purchaser, or both landlord and tenant.

CEA's consumer guidance puts the rule in plain words: an agent represents only one party in a transaction and cannot be appointed by both buyer and seller, or by both tenant and landlord.

Three features of the rule are worth separating.

First, it is drawn around the property. The test is whether the same person has both sides as clients "in respect of the same property". An agent who sells one flat for a client and later helps that client buy another is acting in two transactions, each with one client.

Second, it is a criminal offence, not only a breach of professional rules. The penalty is set out in the table further down.

Third, it cannot be avoided by arrangement. PG 01-11 states that dual representation is prohibited whether or not co-broking is authorised, and that this includes dual representation disguised through another salesperson. Putting a colleague's name on one side of the paperwork while one person in fact acts for both is the situation the guideline describes.

One limit of this guide should be stated plainly. The regulation, as worded, addresses salespersons and estate agents who are natural persons. How the rule treats two different salespersons of the same agency, each genuinely acting for one side, is not spelt out in the regulation text consulted for this article. What the documents do show is a separate duty of disclosure: the prescribed purchase agreement requires the estate agent or salesperson to state whether there is a conflict or potential conflict of interest in acting for the client, to disclose in writing at once any conflict that appears later, and to continue only if the client, fully informed, consents in writing. The Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care, which forms a schedule to the Regulations, also requires conflicts of interest to be declared to the client.

Co-broking: two agents, one commission

If each agent has one client, how do two agents work on the same deal? The answer is co-broking. CEA defines it as two or more agents representing different parties working together on a transaction, and says an agent may share or receive part of the commission. The regulator adds that this sharing is strictly an agreement between the property agents involved.

That last phrase is what protects the client. Under Form 6, the buyer chooses whether or not to authorise the estate agent to co-broke with another agent. Where co-broking is allowed, the two agents may share the commission as they agree between themselves, and the buyer is not liable to pay the co-broking agent. The client's bill is the one in the client's own agreement, and nothing more.

To continue the worked example, on the same illustrative assumptions: a seller has agreed 2 per cent with the seller's agency, and the home sells for S$1.2 million, so the seller owes S$24,000. The buyer came through a second agent who has agreed with the seller's agent to split that commission equally. Each side of the co-broke receives S$12,000. The seller still pays S$24,000, once, to the appointed agency. The split is an assumption made for the example; CEA sets no ratio, and the agents settle it themselves.

Co-broking is also bounded by the one-payer rule. CEA's buying or selling page says property agents cannot collect commission from more than one party in the same transaction, and calls doing so an offence. It spells out the consequence: an agent who collects commission from the client cannot also collect commission or a co-broking fee from the other party or from that party's agent. In the example, the buyer's agent who takes S$12,000 from the seller's agent is not also charging the buyer.

One point in PG 01-11 concerns the "no co-broking" choice in the forms. According to the guideline, that option cannot be used to block joint marketing or co-broking with salespersons identified in advance. For sellers, CEA notes that co-broking may bring the property to more buyers; for buyers, it may open more listings through the agents' networks.

Helping the other party with paperwork

Many deals have an agent on one side only. A seller engages an agent; the buyer arrives alone. The buyer still needs forms completed and steps explained, and the seller's agent is usually the person at the table.

CEA allows this within tight limits. An agent acting for one party may help the other party with paperwork only with the client's consent, and must state clearly that the agent is neither acting on behalf of the other party nor collecting any fees from that party. The buying or selling page closes the loop: helping the other party with paperwork does not entitle the agent to fees from that party.

For an unrepresented buyer or tenant, two things follow. The help is administrative, not representation: the agent's duty remains to the client who engaged them. And the help is free: a request for payment "for the paperwork" from the agent of the other side runs against the regulator's guidance. The Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care makes the same point as a professional duty, stating that estate agents and salespersons must not solicit the payment of any reward, commission or fee from any person who did not engage their services.

The same rules in a rental

Everything above applies to leases. Regulation 5 names landlord and tenant alongside vendor and purchaser, so one agent cannot represent both in the letting of the same property. CEA's consumer page on renting or renting out repeats the payment rule for leases: agents may not collect commission from more than one party in the same transaction.

In practice this means a tenant who answers a listing placed by the landlord's agent is dealing with the landlord's agent. That agent can prepare the documents with the landlord's consent, on the terms described in the previous section, but is not the tenant's representative and is not paid by the tenant. A tenant who wants representation engages a separate agent, and the two agents may co-broke.

Leases also have one rule of their own on money. CEA says an agent may pay the stamp duty on a lease first and then seek reimbursement, for private and HDB properties alike, but must not collect the fee from the client before stamping.

Money an agent may not handle or receive

The rules on commission sit beside rules on other people's money. Regulation 7 provides that no estate agent or salesperson shall hold or handle any money for or on behalf of any party in relation to the sale or purchase of any property situated in Singapore, or the lease of HDB property.

CEA's guidance lists what that covers. For a sale and purchase: the option fee, the option exercise fee, the down payment, stamp duties, deposits and sale proceeds, and legal fees. For the rental of HDB property: rental deposits and monthly rent. The regulator advises paying the payee directly by verifiable means such as a bank transfer or a crossed cheque.

The regulation has two exceptions. An agent may deliver, on behalf of a party, a crossed account-payee cheque or cashier's order drawn in favour of another party to the transaction; the agent carries the instrument but cannot cash it. And an agent may receive remuneration or reimbursement for the management, repair or renovation of the property under a written contract or authorisation.

Commission itself is outside the ban. CEA states that valuation fees and agent commissions are, in general, not considered transaction monies. The fee is paid to the agency, as described earlier, not held on anyone's behalf.

Two further rules restrict where an agent's income may come from. Regulation 6 bars estate agents and salespersons from introducing, referring or recommending a client to any moneylender, and from receiving any commission, reward, fee or other benefit from a moneylender in respect of a moneylending transaction. And under the Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care, an agent must not accept a fee, commission or rebate for referring the services of third parties in connection with the client's transaction without the client's knowledge and prior written consent; the fact and the amount of the payment must be disclosed in advance, in writing.

When an agent cannot claim the fee

The written agreement protects the agent as much as the client. Section 44 of the Estate Agents Act 2010, in the version in force from 1 July 2025, allows an estate agent to bring proceedings for fees, or to recover outgoings, only under a prescribed written estate agency agreement, and only if the agent was licensed when the agreement was entered into.

PG 01-11 draws the practical conclusion for the trade: not using an applicable prescribed form affects the estate agent's right to claim against the client under section 44. An agent who works on a handshake, or on a home-made contract where a prescribed form applies, takes the risk on the fee.

The Act is stricter still about unlicensed work. Under section 28(3), no fee, commission or reward for unlicensed estate agency activity is recoverable. For a client, this is one reason the regulator's public register matters: the licence of the agency and the registration of the salesperson are what make the fee a lawful one in the first place.

Read together, these provisions describe a simple chain. A licensed agency, a prescribed written agreement and a completed transaction produce an enforceable commission. Take away one link and the claim weakens or disappears, depending on the facts.

How a commission dispute is resolved

Disagreements over commission do happen: whether the tail of an exclusive agreement applies, whether a deal fell through by the client's fault, whether GST was included. CEA runs a dispute resolution scheme for them. According to the regulator's page on the scheme, last updated on 28 August 2026, it is open to a client who has signed an estate agency agreement with a licensed property agency, for a dispute arising from the terms of that agreement. CEA encourages the client to approach the agency first.

The scheme names its centres. Mediation is offered by the Consumers Association of Singapore, the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers and the Singapore Mediation Centre. Arbitration is offered by the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators and the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers. CEA notes that it does not regulate these centres or oversee their proceedings.

A dispute also passes to arbitration if the client declines to mediate, fails to select a mediation centre or does not tell the agency that mediation is agreed. Arbitration has deadlines of its own: where the agency writes to ask about arbitration, the client replies within three weeks, and then starts proceedings at the chosen centre within three weeks of replying. If either step is missed, CEA's page says neither party is bound to proceed to arbitration.

Fees depend on the centre and on the size of the claim. As an indication, CEA's page lists the Singapore Mediation Centre's fee under the scheme as a flat S$600 for claims below S$30,000 and S$2,300 for claims from S$30,001 to S$100,000. On those published bands, the S$24,000 commission of the worked example would fall in the first. Each centre publishes its own scale, and the figures should be checked with the centre before a case is filed.

The dispute scheme deals with the contract between client and agency. Conduct is a separate matter. Under section 52(12) of the Estate Agents Act 2010, a Disciplinary Committee may impose a financial penalty of up to S$200,000 on a licensed estate agent and up to S$100,000 on a registered salesperson.

A commission in Singapore is whatever one client and one agency agree in writing, and it is paid by that client alone.

Kooky, from Shaka

Kooky edits Agents Estate and builds Shaka, the payment router he made for real estate professionals. One payment comes in, and every agent, agency and party in the deal receives their signed share on closing date.

About Kooky and Shaka →