SUBORDINATE COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

12.42 pm

The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill is related to the other two Bills, namely, the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill and the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill. The amendments in these Bills are being enacted at the request of the Judiciary. Their main purpose is to increase the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Courts. At the opening of the Legal Year in 1985, the Chief Justice disclosed that the High Court had to cope with well over 100% increase in workload over the last five years. He also stated that the Courts will not be able to maintain the present waiting periods between the setting down and trial if the lower Courts' jurisdiction is not increased.

Turning to the provisions of the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill, Sir, the last time that the civil jurisdiction of the Subordinate Courts was increased was in 1976 when the jurisdiction of a District Court was extended from $5,000 to $10,000 and that of a Magistrate's Court from $1,000 to $2,000. The very considerable increase in the number of cases filed in the High Court in the last few years has resulted in a corresponding increase in the waiting period between the date of setting down and the date of trial of an action in the High Court.

This Bill will further increase the monetary limit of the civil jurisdiction of the Subordinate Courts and thereby help to ease the congestion in the High Court.

The Bill will increase the civil jurisdiction of a District Court from $10,000 to $50,000 in respect of actions founded on contract or tort and actions for recovery of money under any written law. In respect of actions for the recovery of immovable property, the Bill will increase the jurisdiction of a District Court to try such actions where the annual value of the property does not exceed $50,000 or the rent payable does not exceed $48,000 a year or $4,000 a month. The limit of the probate jurisdiction of a District Court is also being extended from $50,000 to $250,000.

The proposed increase in the jurisdiction of the District Courts will enable many cases presently dealt with by the High Court to be transferred to the District Courts where they can be dealt with more expeditiously. An additional number of District Judges will be appointed to deal with the corresponding increase in the work-load of the District Courts.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Minister indicated in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the purpose of this Bill and the other two Bills that follow is to reduce the workload on the High Court and to reduce the time lag between the setting down of a case and its hearing in court. Mr Speaker, Sir, we support any measures to reduce the time delay in the hearing of cases. It has been said that delayed justice is no justice and that it is important, especially for the business community, that cases should be heard and dealt with as expeditiously as possible. But what I am worried about, Mr Speaker, Sir, is, the shifting of the delay from the High Court to the Subordinate Courts. Now, the waiting time in the High Court is about 18 months to two years before a case can be heard. The waiting time in the Subordinate Courts, Sir, is seven to eight months from the date when dates are taken for the hearing of cases. But invariably three or four months would elapse, perhaps not as many as three to four months but at least two months, would elapse before dates are assigned for a hearing. So you have in the Subordinate Courts at the moment a waiting period of almost a year (11 months to 12 months) for a case to be heard from the date a summons is presented to the Subordinate Courts.

I understand from the Registrar of the Supreme Court, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I think it was also mentioned by the Honourable the Chief Justice at the opening of the Legal year that about 60% of the cases that have been listed for hearing in the High Court relate to claims under $50,000 and that they would be transferred to the Subordinate Courts once this Bill becomes law. That is going to increase the load of the Subordinate Courts to a considerable extent.

I am glad for the assurance made by the Minister that there will be steps taken to increase the number of District Judges and the Courts. This assurance was also given by the Honourable the Chief Justice at the opening of the Legal year. But may we know from the Minister a bit more about the increase in the personnel and the courts? It seems to me that we probably will need as many more District Judges as we have at the moment. Does the Minister think that there will be appointed as many more District Judges as there are at the moment? And do we have the court rooms for these District Judges? Perhaps the Minister could elaborate a little bit further on the measures that will be taken to increase the personnel and the court rooms in the Subordinate Courts. Because, Mr Speaker, Sir, if the result is simply to move the delay from the High Court to the Subordinate Courts, we are getting nowhere, and it will be discrimination against the smaller claims in favour of the larger claims. I do not see why the smaller claims should be discriminated just because they are under $50,000.

That is one aspect on which I wish to speak, Mr Speaker, Sir. The other aspect is perhaps of far more importance, and that is, about the appointment and tenure of District Judges under our Judicial system. Mr Speaker, Sir, the increase in the jurisdiction that is now being offered to District Judges under the Bill is five-fold. Their jurisdiction is being increased from $10,000 to $50,000. They are more or less, if I may say so, being equated to the High Court Judges. Their appointment, their promotion, transfer and discipline,is at the moment vested in the Legal Service Commission. Under the Constitution, the Legal Service Commission is the body responsible for the appointment, promotion, transfer and discipline of Legal officers. And District Judges come under the Legal Service of the Government.

The Chief Justice is the Head of the Legal Service Commission, and the next member of the Commission is the Attorney-General. After that, we have the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. Then we have a Judge and then not exceeding two other members of the Public Service Commission. So we have a Legal Service Commission that is predominantly composed of persons who are outside the Judicial Service. The Attorney-General is not a part of the Judicial Service. He is, in fact, a part of the Government, the Executive. The Judicial officers are just the Chief Justice and the one other Judge who is appointed by the Chief Justice to sit on the Legal Service Commission. They are responsible for the promot- ion, appointment, transfer and discipline of District Judges.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have several times in this House and outside tried to impress the supreme importance of the principle that the Judiciary must be seen to be immune from the displeasure of the Executive. In other words, they must be seen to be completely independent of any pressure from the Executive. That is cardinal in any administration of justice. If that principle is lost sight of, and there is a feeling that the Judiciary is not completely immune from the displeasure of the Executive, then, Mr Speaker, Sir, you have an erosion of confidence in the administration of justice in the country. And if you have an erosion of confidence, then it could only prove disastrous for the society in which justice is being administered. It is of the utmost cardinal importance that the Judiciary and not just the High Court but also the Subordinate Courts are seen to be immune from the displeasure of the Executive so that they may administer justice according to law and according to their conscience,without any fear of any displeasure from the Executive. But this is not possible, Mr Speaker, Sir, if they are aware that their appointment, their promotion, their transfer, depends not just on the Chief Justice and the Judge of the Supreme Court, but depend on whether the Attorney-General considers they are good enough or not; whether the Chairman of the Public Service Commission considers they are good enough or not; and whether the other two members of the Public Service Commission consider they are good enough or not. So there will be a tendency, and you cannot help it, for the District Judges to look over their shoulders and to worry whether they will be, in the discharge of their functions, incurring the displeasure of the Attorney-General or the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this has more poignance or significance when we come to the administration of criminal law and criminal justice in this country. I know there is another Bill which relates to the increase in the jurisdiction of the District Courts in the administration of criminal justice, and I will speak further on this when we debate that Bill. But I would commend to this Government that it is high time we took another look at our judicial system, particularly the Judiciary. I am not talking simply of the High Court but also of the Subordinate Courts. As I said, the District Judges, under the new Bill, are being given considerable jurisdiction, jurisdiction which has until today, or until this Bill becomes law, been exercised by Judges of the Supreme Court.

In England, Mr Speaker, Sir, the position is quite different. I do not know what the present jurisdiction of the county court judges in England is, but I venture to think that, with the increase in the jurisdiction granted to our District Judges under this Bill, our District Judges will probably have more jurisdiction than the county court judges. In England the county court judges are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor, although he may be a Member of the Cabinet, wears, as has been said, three hats, and one of these hats is as Lord Chancellor. He acts independently of the Cabinet and they have a long tradition in this. The Lord Chancellor alone is responsible for the appointment of the judiciary - the High Court, the County Courts, the Crown Courts - and there can be no suggestion of any pressure, or influence, by the Executive or from the Government. I would commend to the Government that they should consider very seriously now creating a subordinate judicial service, particularly for the District Judges.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is One o'clock now. This Sitting is suspended until 2.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was talking about the need for setting up a separate service for Judicial officers and particularly for the District Judges who would be a step higher than the Magistrates. I do not know whether I mentioned this morning that, as it stands at the moment, the District Judges, being members of the Legal Service, are freely transferable from serving as District Judges to either the AG's Chambers or to any other Government department. I mentioned, Mr Speaker, Sir, the position in England and was commending to the Government that it is time we thought of setting up a Judicial Service for Subordinate Courts; and if that is not considered necessary for all the Judicial officers in the Subordinate Courts, at least for the District Judges. We could have within that service itself avenues for promotion in that service and finally elevation to the High Court Bench.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a provision in the Constitution for the protection of the Supreme Court Judges. They may not be removed except for cause, either for misconduct or infirmity or whatever reason. They may also not be removed unless their case has been referred to a tribunal consisting of Judges, and for this purpose the President is empowered to recruit Judges from the Commonwealth. Forgive me that I should be talking about the British system and the Commonwealth. I hope I would not be accused of being an Anglo-phile but our judicial system stems from the British system, and this is why I refer to it.

It may be necessary, and I would commend it to the Government, that there should be a similar restriction placed on the removal of District Judges from their posts. This would then guarantee their tenure and make them less apprehensive about their future in the Service and to enable them the better to discharge their functions as judicial officers without any worry in their mind but to do their best according to their conscience.

There is the other point, and that is about the quality of District Judges. May it not be said or may it not be thought for one moment that I am trying to detract from the quality of our present District Judges, but their jurisdiction will be increased, as I said, fivefold. Under the present Act, the only qualification is that they should have five years as a qualified person either in practice or in the Legal Service. The Government may consider the time has come perhaps to increase the period before qualified persons qualify themselves to be appointed District Judges. I see that in England even the Registrars of the County Courts have to have at least seven years' experience before the Lord Chancellor appoints anyone to the post.

Then, finally, of course, there is the question of remuneration. If we are going to create a service exclusively for District Judges, then we have to see that they attract the best men into that service and that they be paid not excessively but adequately so that they may not feel the need to look to other pastures but will be quite content to stay within that service until retirement or until elevation to the High Court Bench. I would ask the Minister and the Government to give these matters their consideration.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not much experience in the law and neither have I any personal experience in appearing before the Subordinate Courts as the Member for Anson does. But can I take this opportunity to seek some clarification?

With the passage of this Bill, does it mean that if, for instance, some political party owes us Members of Parliament money as a result of a libel action or otherwise, we are able to get judgment faster and get paid sooner, and not like the former Member for Paya Lebar who has to wait for years before he can see his money?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may comment on the points raised by the Member for Anson. His first point relates to the question whether, with the passage of this Bill, the delay in hearing cases in the Supreme Court will be transferred to the Subordinate Courts. In reply, I wish to say that I have discussed this very question with the Registrar of the Supreme Court and I have been assured that this will not be the case because seven new judicial posts will be created. They have been approved by the Ministry of Finance and, in addition, six new courts will be added and these should be ready by the middle of this year.

As to his long speech on the Subordinate Courts and the District Judges, it really boils down to this. In his view the Magistrates and District Judges are appointed, transferred, and emplaced by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, and that although the Judicial and Legal Service Commission has a special place in our Constitution,and although it is chaired by no other than the Chief Justice, he is against the system because he considers that it is not immune from the displeasure of the Executive. This is, of course, an innuendo that the District Courts and District Judges are not independent, a view which was pervaded not long ago, as Members will recall, by a newspaper, the Asian Wall Street Journal, and which led to contempt proceedings, a view for which the person responsible for the Asian Wall Street Journal apologized to the Court. So I need not say anything more except to add that this system of Subordinate Court Judges being appointed by the Legal Service Commission chaired by the Chief Justice has been in operation for a very long time. It has worked satisfactorily and there are no good reasons why we should change that now, notwithstanding what the Member for Anson has said.

He has referred on many occasions during his speech to the system in the United Kingdom, and he has pointed out that County Court Judges in the United Kingdom are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor in England is a Member of the Cabinet. So I take it that from his approving reference to this that he would prefer the Minister for Law in Singapore to be in charge of appointment -

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is the Minister not aware that I said that the Lord Chancellor wears three hats and that in his appointment of Judges he does not appoint them as a Member of the Cabinet?

Prof. Jayakumar: We can also give other hats to the Minister for Law to make him on par with the Lord Chancellor in England.

The Member for Anson has also commented on the quality of District Court Judges. I do not think it is just a question of increasing the number of years of service. It is a question whether the Legal Service Commission is able to attract the best for the District Courts.

Finally, his question on remuneration. This is, of course, tied up with his other point and proposal of the Subordinate Court judiciary, and therefore I need not comment on that.

As to the point raised by the Member for Queenstown, hopefully, the answer is yes.

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. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 1 -

The Chairman: The citation year will be altered from "1985" to "1986".

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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