JUDGES' REMUNERATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.55 p.m.

The Minister for Finance (Mr Hon Sui Sen): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

It was announced in Parliament in March 1982 that officers in the Administrative and Professional Services would have their salaries revised from 1st April 1982 and that the gross salaries of Superscale officers in the Civil Service would be rounded up, It is the practice at the time of such revisions for the salaries of the Chief Justice and the other Judges also to be revised on the same basis as for the Super-scale officers. However, salary changes for the Chief Justice and the Judges of the Supreme Court require to be formally effected through amendment of the Judges' Remuneration Act (Chapter 7 of the Revised Edition). This Bill is now being introduced into Parliament for these salary adjustments for the Chief Justice and the other Judges.

The additional cost of these adjustments will come to about $5,730 a year with rounding up of the gross salaries of the Chief Justice from $18,767 to $18,800 per month and of the other Judges from $13,526 to $13,600 per month following consolidation of the National Wages Council awards for 1978 to 1981 into their salaries.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek a clarification from the Hon. Minister? I do not know whether I have got it all wrong but I see that the salary of the Chief Justice is being increased from an annual pensionable salary of $156,000 to $225,600 and the annual pensionable salaries of the other Judges of the Supreme Court are being increased from $112,440 to $163,200. If that is correct, I am afraid I am at a loss to understand that the extra financial expenditure is only of the order of $5,730 per annum. May I have a clarification from the Minister on that?

Mr Hon Sui Sen: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not quite clear where the figures come from, which the Member has quoted. The figure in clause 2 is the annual salary of $225,600 for the Chief Justice. As I have stated in my Second Reading speech, that is $18,800 a month, which means he has an increase of $33 a month, from $18,767. And in the case of the other Judges, the increase has been from $13,526 to $13,600 which is an increase of $74 a month per Judge. I do not know how many Judges there are, but if you add them all up, you will find that the figure is correct.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, what this Bill proposes to do is to delete the present section 2 of the Judges' Remuneration Act and to substitute it with this new clause. But the present section, unless it has been amended before I came to this House, is that the Chief Justice shall be paid an annual pensionable salary of $156,000.

Mr Hon Sui Sen: How was that brought in?

Mr Jeyaretnam: That was brought in in 1981, last year.

Mr Hon Sui Sen: Something is obviously wrong. What is happening now is that we are consolidating this figure, which the Member for Anson quoted, plus the National Wages Council increases which altogether come to $18,767 per month for the Chief Justice, and we are rounding this up, as I have shown. So we are already paying the National Wages Council increases over the years. What we are doing is to consolidate this figure and then add on a certain small sum to round up the figure to $18,800 a month. I hope this explanation is satisfactory.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indebted to the Minister for the explanation. It is a pity that the Bill does not explain that because the previous Amendment spoke of the Chief Justice's salary as being at $156,000 per annum. It is a pity that the explanation in the Bill does not say that they are taking into account the NWC awards and are bringing them into the annual pensionable salary now. But be that as it may, I am indebted to the Minister for the explanation which was, in turn, not evident to me looking at the Bill.

But may I speak on the Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Go ahead.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Before I do that, may 1, in view of your directions to me to be very careful in future, say that I do practise before the Judges of the High Court. I am there in my practice of the profession as an advocate and solicitor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say quite clearly that I am in support of the principle and of the need for our Judges to be paid a salary befitting their responsibilities and their powers and the dignity of the office that they hold. I would, however, draw the attention of this House to one or two things, and that is, that our Judges - I am not saying for one moment that they do not deserve the salaries but they are being paid far higher than any other Judges in this region. I have with me a comparison of the salaries that are being paid to Judges in Australia, for example. The Chief Justice of Australia is only getting a salary of S$195,300. And if we go across the border to our nearest neighbour, Malaysia, we find that the Lord President of the Federal Court is only drawing a salary of S$76,022, about one-third of what the Chief Justice in Singapore is being paid.

I would, however, commend to Members of this House that it would be wrong to think that the independence and the authority of the Judiciary can only be reflected in the salaries that are paid to them. The Judiciary has a very important role to play in our society. They are, along with this House, one of the organs upon which society rests for the attainment of law and order within it. There are, besides payment of salaries befitting the Judges, their position and their responsibility. There are one or two other things that must reflect the dignity and the authority of the court, and this is where I would urge the Government to pay full regard not only just to the salaries paid but to other aspects that reflect the dignity and the authority of the court.

One is the appointment of Judges. It is of the utmost importance, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a Judge should hold his post without any fear as to his tenure. That was the position when we inherited the 1958 Constitution - that a Judge appointed will hold office as a Judge of the Supreme Court until he reaches his retiring age. In 1969 this principle was breached, the principle that a Judge should hold office until he retires or he is removed for misconduct, without any fear for his tenure. In 1969 Mr Speaker, Sir, there was introduced into the Constitution the provision, by Article 52B I think, that the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister may appoint someone who is qualified to sit as a Judge, to act as a Judge of the Supreme Court, and the appointment may be for a specified period. Following that, we had one Judge who sat as a Judge of the Supreme Court for a number of years but whose tenure depended on it being renewed every time it came to an end. I think his appointment was for two years at a time. At the moment, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have seven Judges sitting in the High Court, of which four hold office permanently until they reach their retiring age and three of them hold office under this power - the President to appoint them for stated periods. Two of the Judges holding office under this power, of course, are Judges who have reached retiring age, but there is one other Judge who has not reached his retiring age and whose appointment is on a year-to-year basis. May I, Sir, commend to this House that it is undesirable that Judges should be made to hold office or that their tenure should depend upon it being renewed from time to time. It breaches the principle of the independence of the Judiciary, which is so vital in any society.

There is the other matter, and that is, the upholding by the Executive of its determination to maintain the authority and dignity of the court. I am sorry to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I have found that this Government has not always striven to maintain the dignity and authority of the courts.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, this Bill is on the remuneration of the Judges.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I realize that, Mr Speaker, Sir, but we are talking about the Judiciary.

Mr Speaker: That is not in the Bill. This Bill is on salaries for the Judges.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I accept your ruling. If you say that I should not proceed, I will not.

Mr Speaker: Perhaps you can bring it up some other time as a Question for Oral Answer, or something like that.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You say I should not speak. All right.

Mr Jeyaretnam resumed his seat.

Mr Barker: The Member for Anson has raised questions about the appointments and salaries of Judges. I think it would be odious to make a comparison of how much our Judges are paid with how much Judges in Malaysia or Australia or England are paid. Conditions are different. There was a time when our Judges were paid very low salaries. That was when I joined the Government. Ministers too were paid very low salaries. But wages have increased over the years. As for Judges, it is difficult to get Judges who qualify to sit on the Bench. That is because, as the Member knows, advocates and solicitors in Singapore make so much more money than Judges do. The last Judge who was appointed earned at the Bar about four or five times more than what he is being paid now. It was a sacrifice for him to leave private practice and be appointed to the Bench. There are not many who are willing to sacrifice their income at the Bar to sit on the Bench.

The Member says that the independence of the Judiciary should not be related to their salaries. Of course it should not. It has never been, nor will it be. As for the appointment of ad hoc Judges, he says that we have breached the cardinal principle of our Constitution. In fact, he said it as long ago as 1969 when the Ministry of Law issued a statement in reply. If you will bear with me, Sir, I will read the statement.

'Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam alleges (Straits Times, 1st September) that the Government is weakening the Judiciary by amending the law to appoint Judges from year to year. This amendment was passed recently at the specific request of the Chief Justice. He felt that he could not recommend one of the District Judges as a permanent Puisne Judge until after he had been given a chance to prove that he was qualified to be so. The main reason for this unsatisfactory state of affairs is because many senior members of the Bar who were offered appointments to the Supreme Court Bench by the Prime Minister, after consulting the Chief Justice, have refused to accept the appointments. They said that they could not afford it since their earnings at the Bar are five to 10 times what the Supreme Court Judges are paid and they had heavy family commitments.'

Sir, this was in 1969. The position has not changed, not as far as advocates and solicitors wanting to sit on the Bench or not wanting to because of their high incomes at the Bar.

The Member for Anson mentioned three of four Judges who were appointed on a yearly basis. I think I had better correct that wrong impression. There is only one Judge at present who has been appointed on a yearly basis. The others had retired when they reached the retiring age of 65. But because we were short of Judges and because they still had their wits with them, they were appointed either from year to year or on a two-year basis. The particular Judge the hon. Member referred to was appointed on a year-to-year basis from 1969. He retired five years after retiring age. Retiring age is 65. He was so useful that he was only retired at 70 years.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to prolong the debate. But may I ask the Minister for Law apropos his state- ment that leading members of the Bar had declined invitations for appointment to the Bench. May I know whether they were offered appointment as permanent Judges or whether they were merely offered appointments for fixed periods for one year or two at a time? One can understand the reluctance of members of the Bar accepting appointment under such conditions.

Secondly, may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is wrong and it is fallacious to try to equate the Judges' salaries with the salaries of those commanding high figures at the Bar. For one thing, they are two different things. A Judge of the High Court carries with him a prestige and a position of authority and responsibility that no money can buy and he is in a completely different position from a member of the Bar who may be earning five times or 10 times more. A Judge remains a respected member of the society, a man who is making his contribution and a man of responsibility and authority, whereas a member of the Bar can only be regarded as one who is eminent in his practice.

Mr Barker: Sir, to the first question, the offer was for permanent judgeship, not on year-to-year basis.

As for his second point, I do not argue with the Member. We cannot afford to pay our Judges the amounts that are being earned in private practice. We do raise their salaries but that is absolutely no comparison to what a private practitioner can earn at the Bar.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Hon Sui Sen].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.