JUDICIAL COMMITTEE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Previous debates

The question whether appeals to the Privy Council should be abolished partially or completely has been debated in this House recently on two different occasions.

In January, this House debated the Constitution (Amendment) Bill and the Internal Security (Amendment) Bill. These amendments which were approved by the House provided that there will be no more appeals to the Privy Council in respect of any acts or decisions taken under the Internal Security Act as well as on questions of interpretation of Part XII of the Constitution which dealt with emergency powers and powers to deal with subversion.

Then in February, this House approved amendments to the Legal Profession Act to provide that in disciplinary cases affecting lawyers, there will be no appeals to the Privy Council from a decision of the Court of three judges.

Parliament told of other aspects of appeals to Privy Council being considered

Members will recall that during the debate in January, I said that the Government's concern was not only with regard to security matters but that we had been concerned also for some time with the question as to how long we could really continue with this system of appeals to the Privy Council. I pointed out that there were also other areas, particularly of public law and administrative law, where our courts must have the final say. This was because the political, social and economic circumstances of a country are crucial factors in interpreting and applying of laws by judges of a country. I said that the Government would decide on these matters after careful consideration. So Members may well have anticipated this Bill which deals with appeals to the Privy Council on matters not covered in the earlier proceedings.

Key considerations

Before I go into the provisions of the Bill, it may be useful, Sir, to recapitulate some of the reasons why we cannot continue with appeals to the Privy Council in the way we have had them for so many years.

First, very few Commonwealth countries retain their links with the Privy Council. In Asia, apart from Brunei, Singapore is the only independent country to have appeals to the Privy Council. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Malaysia have a long time ago cut off appeals to the Privy Council. In the South Pacific, Australia has done away with appeals and New Zealand, whose culture, heritage and political system is most akin to United Kingdom, is also proposing to do away with appeals to the Privy Council.

On 16th September 1963 when Singapore's direct administrative links with Britain were severed upon our joining Malaysia, our economic, social and political developments have been on divergent paths when compared to the United Kingdom. This underscores two points. First, our laws must meet the problems and conditions of Singapore's circumstances. Secondly, these laws are best understood and interpreted by judges who are a part of our society and who share our history and our culture.

True, we have allowed Privy Council appeals to continue from colonial days because we valued the ability and erudition of their judges. But we have to recognize that because judges of the United Kingdom have no experience of our own circumstances, it is inevitable that they must draw on their own history, their own culture when reviewing our cases. Furthermore, judicial attitudes and values in our respective societies have also diverged as a result of different circumstances, including the fact that the United Kingdom has been affected by important constitutional changes, important to the United Kingdom but really irrelevant for Singapore.

First, United Kingdom's entry into the European Community. The divergence between United Kingdom and Singapore's legal systems has increased over the years especially since 1973 when the United Kingdom joined the European Community, and when it did so, the European Community law became automatically part of United Kingdom law and was directly applicable in United Kingdom, creating rights and duties for individuals. And where there is inconsistency between Community law and the law of a member state of the European Community, Community law prevails.

Second, constitutional change. The United Kingdom House of Lords is subject to the European Court of Justice. This supremacy of Community law is emphasized by this fact that the House of Lords in United Kingdom is no longer the court of final appeal in the United Kingdom. In matters concerning the interpretation of the European Community treaties, the validity and interpretation of acts and statutes of the Community institutions, it is the Court of Justice of the European Communities which is now the supreme tribunal. Its decisions in these areas are binding on all United Kingdom courts including the House of Lords.

Now, Singapore is not in Europe and all these developments which have affected United Kingdom legal trends arising from its membership of the European Community are not relevant to us and are totally different from our situation.

Let me now explain the main changes which these amendments seek to bring about. First, I will deal with civil appeals. Under the amendments, appeals on civil cases will henceforth lie only as between those parties to the proceedings who have consented in writing to be bound by an appeal to the Privy Council. They can agree at any time, before or after the commencement of proceedings, but they must have so consented before the Court of Appeal in Singapore hears the case.

I should clarify, Sir, that this new subsection (3) to Section 3 of the Act does not require that the consent of all the parties to the proceedings must have been obtained. For example, if there is one plaintiff and ten defendants in a case, but one defendant does not agree that the case can be appealed to the Privy Council, even though the plaintiff and the other nine defendants have agreed, then, as between those parties who have agreed, an appeal to the Privy Council can lie. Members will note that there is an express provision that an appeal to the Privy Council in such a case will not affect any party to the proceedings who has not consented.

Why have we adopted this approach of consent? Let me say that the Government had considered whether we should do away with appeals altogether to the Privy Council in civil cases. We did consider an option. However, we also considered and took into account various views and suggestions expressed in this House as well as outside this House, in particular the view that we should not completely cut off access to the legal store of knowledge and expertise of the Privy Council in commercial matters. The practice of the banking and the shipping community is almost standard throughout the world. So there is little risk of local conditions being misunderstood or misinterpreted by British judges even though they have never visited Singapore. With this approach, banks, financial houses, shipping companies can now contract to retain the Privy Council as their final court of appeals. Of course, another advantage in this approach is that any party who does not wish to incur the additional costs of an appeal to the Privy Council cannot now be compelled to do so.

I have distributed statistics (Cols. 127 - 130) (two pages) of cases heard by the Privy Council for the period 1978 to 1988. Members will note that for the past 11 years, the Privy Council heard only 45 appeals, of which the majority (25) were dismissed; 8 other cases are pending. statistics - APPEALS TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL, NO. OF CASES FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM 1979 TO 1988 (Cols. 127 - 130)

If I may turn to criminal cases. The approach on criminal cases is that appeals to the Privy Council will lie in cases where the offence is punishable with the death penalty or life imprisonment. This is subject to the condition that such appeal will lie only if the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal is not unanimous.

Again, I should point out here that whether an appeal will be allowed is not dependent on the actual sentence imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, but the approach in the Amendment Bill is whether under the law the offence is punishable by death or punishable by life imprisonment.

Why did we limit appeals only to offences punishable by death or life imprisonment? First, these are the offences where the accused is liable to receive the most severe penalties that can be imposed under our law.

Secondly, if we look again at the statistics of cases (the second page) heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Singapore, most of these cases involve the death penalty or life imprisonment. Out of 126 appeals heard during this period of 10 years, 105 were such cases.

Thirdly, Members may also note from the statistics of appeals to the Privy Council for the past 11 years, that, of the 55 criminal cases, 54 involved the death penalty and one case life imprisonment. Members may also note that special leave was granted only in three cases out of 47 cases decided so far, and even in those few cases, appeals were dismissed.

Now, the requirement that decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal is not unanimous. The reason for this is that we think it is fair that the accused is afforded the right to appeal where the Court of Criminal Appeal is not unanimous. It means that at least one member of the Court had a serious doubt about the decision. Since there is no unanimity, it is fair that he be allowed to appeal to the Privy Council.

I may also refer Members to the transitional provision (clause 4) which ensures that any appeal to the Privy Council, or any application for leave or special leave to appeal, under the existing Act will not be affected in respect of any decision of the Court of Appeal or Court of Criminal Appeal given before the commencement of this Amendment.

To explain, Sir, let me give an example. If these amendments, once approved by the House, were to come into force, shall we say, on lst May, a losing party can still appeal to the Privy Council against a decision of our Appellate Court if the decision is given before that date.

Finally, Sir, the amendments leave intact most of the other requirements and conditions presently contained in the Judicial Committee Act, such as requiring the leave of the Appellate Court and the minimum quantum value of the matter in dispute in civil cases. But these provisions will now be subject to these amendments before the House.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Davinder Singh (Toa Payoh GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, coming in the wake of speculation that all appeals to the Privy Council will be abolished, this Bill comes as a pleasant surprise. However, it is not without difficulties and I would like to highlight some concerns about problems which might arise from the operation of this Bill when it comes into law.

I appreciate that the purpose of the Bill is to give contracting parties the option to agree to go all the way up to the Privy Council. But that is not an option which is available to all parties because, as it is proposed, it does not cover a certain segment of contesting parties who are presently parties to legal proceedings in the High Court. It is too late for them to come to any form of an agreement which usually comes into effect before proceedings are commenced. And if the matter has not come up before the Court of Appeal, it is not a case of simply coming to terms on going to the Privy Council. It becomes a tactical move. One party looks at the other party, determines how Round 1 went, and then decides whether it will agree to give its consent or not. It can be a very risky business because if one party decides against consenting and then loses at Round 2, he does not get a chance to go to Round 3 (the Privy Council), and he may lose a very valuable right.

In addition, there are other parties, and in this regard I would like to declare my interest, who are already before the Court of Appeal and decisions have not been made. It is too late for them to agree because by the wording of the Act, the agreement must be given before the commencement of the hearing before the Court of Appeal. So if you have pending hearings before the Court of Appeal today, there is no way for you to agree that you will go up to the Privy Council, and that option is therefore foreclosed.

I would respectfully suggest that the rules not be changed mid-stream, that we should not affect rights of parties who are already engaged in legal battle. Parties may have chosen the Singapore forum for a number of reasons, but one reason may have been the avenue of appeal to the Privy Council under the present law. If we change that now, it is going to pose some difficulties to these parties, especially in complex commercial cases where one party may feel that it is appropriate to go all the way to the Privy Council for a definitive ruling. I would therefore suggest that the rules be changed prospectively, that there be a time lag between now and when the Act comes into force, so that institutions or any contracting parties have the opportunity of putting that clause into their agreement and so that the Act only applies to proceedings commenced after a particular date. Therefore, existing rights, existing avenue, are not affected.

The other concern I have is the impact of such legislation on lawyers and parties generally. Let me paint this scenario. Round 1 (at the High Court), one party wins; the losing party then writes to the other party (the winning party) to say, "Look, would you agree, we'll go to the Privy Council." The winning party is obviously going to go to his lawyer and he is going to say, "Look, should I agree or not? I would only agree if I will lose in the Court of Appeal (round 2)." The lawyer looks at it. There is no way that the lawyer can be sure what the Court of Appeal is going to decide and how it is going to rule. Therefore, there is a likelihood that the lawyer may go wrong. The client gives up a right of appeal to the Privy Council purely on the basis of that advice.

What are the consequences? Lawyers will protect themselves by getting QC's opinions. The cost will go up. Even QCs cannot be sure. Therefore, is it right that parties' avenue of appeal to the Privy Council should be determined by whether they get good or bad advice? And if they get bad advice, there is a possibility that because an avenue of appeal is closed to them on account of that advice, they can then commence legal proceedings against the lawyer for negligence.

The third concern I have is in relation to the development of the law. Take the case of a complex commercial matter where the Court of Appeal rules by a majority. In other words, two Judges go one way and the third the other. When this law comes into force, it will be within the power of one party to decide or to stop an appeal to the Privy Council. The question I have is: is this in the interest of the development of the law? Is it in the public interest that it should be within the power of one party to stop an appeal to the Privy Council on what may be a very complex commercial issue which calls for an affirmative ruling? I would therefore respectfully suggest that appeals for commercial cases where the sums involved exceed $100,000 not be affected. Because in relation to these appeals, the local circumstance, our cultural background, our historical background, is not such a relevant factor in cutting off appeals. Also, as the Hon. Minister has said, we get the benefit of the legal knowledge that the Privy Council has acquired all these years in commercial matters and it helps us to keep abreast of developments in the banking, shipping and corporate fields.

I would therefore urge the Minister to consider these concerns in the light of the amendments.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, during the parliamentary debates earlier this year, I had expressed the view of my GPC and Resource Panel that Singapore should work towards the setting up of a permanent Court of Appeal. This Bill before us today makes it more urgent that we should have our own Appellate Court. This would be in keeping with our effort to establish a financial centre second to none in Singapore, and will provide the judicial infrastructure for the convenience and reassurance of foreign investors.

The Bill before us today deals with two specific aspects of law. Firstly, criminal law; secondly, civil law. This Bill proposes changes to our present system of appeal to the Privy Council.

Sir, first, with regard to criminal law. In criminal law cases, appeal to the Privy Council is only allowed where:

(a) the offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life; and

(b) the decision of the Appellate Court is not unanimous. The intention here is clear, for it restricts appeal to serious cases where decision of the Appellate Court is not unanimous.

In my mind, the provision provided here is adequate as it is borne out by the statistics circulated by the Hon. Minister. Appeals to the Privy Council in the last 11 years show that the number of petitions for leave was 55; and the results, dismissal 44; granted, 3 (the substantive appeal in all these 3 were subsequently dismissed). And there are 8 cases pending. The statistics thus bear out.

In civil cases, Sir, my understanding of this amendment is that the purpose is to allow the parties involved in civil matters to decide for themselves as to who should be their final arbiter. The spirit of this Bill is laudable.

I wish to seek the Minister's clarification and views regarding the following issues:

First, what is the position regarding all the agreements already entered into, ie, prior to this date? How will this Bill affect the rights of the parties involved? This is a cause for concern as some may have entered into agreement on the premises that the Privy Council will be the final arbiter.

Second, what is the standing in our Courts of judgments already passed by the Privy Council prior to this amendment? Are they still binding on our Courts.

Third, will this amendment precipitate businessmen to insert a clause to ensure that their matters are resolved according to English law and by English court, such as the insertion of a clause similar to one such as this: "this agreement shall be governed by the law of England, and the parties agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English court". In other words, will businessmen in future opt for English law or other foreign law to be the "proper law" of their contracts? If they opt for English law or any other foreign law to be their "proper law", will they then not opt for English courts or other foreign courts to be their forum? What will be the impact of this on Singapore as a financial and commercial centre?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has said that this Bill is a follow up of the recent amendments to the Constitution, the ISA and the Legal Profession Act. But may I correct him, Sir. I say it is more correct to say that it is a follow-up of Government's reaction to the Privy Council's judgment on J.B. Jeyaretnam's appeal. If you remember, Sir, a whole series of amendments have been brought up because of the Privy Council's judgement on J.B. Jeyaretnam's appeal. And the Government in defence of its action has said that it wishes to uphold Singapore's indepndence and sovereignty. Well and good, Sir, if that was true,although today the Minister has not emphasized too much on that aspect of it. But this argument rings rather hollow, in view of the fact that it was never brought up earlier, eg, in 1965, but only recently following the judgement on the appeal of J.B. Jeyaretnam. Therefore, many jpeople can see that all these amendments have come about as a result of knee-jerk reactions to what has happened recently.

And I ask, why the unseemly haste about this Bill? We received this Bill last week. It was not then in the Order Paper. It was not there. I received today's Order Paper this morning, and I suddenly discovered that the Bill is at the top of the list. I was misled by the Order Paper that was sent to me before. I am suggesting, Sir, that such a thing should not happen again. The Opposition and all the other Members should be informed of any change well beforehand. At least, that would give us some time for preparation and allow us an opportunity to consult other opinions which may be very useful to the Government.

Prof. Jayakumar: On a point of order, Sir. Can I interrupt?

Mr Speaker: Yes. It is a point of order, Dr Lee. Please resume your seat.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, it is important for me to interject at this stage. The Bill was introduced at the last sitting. When it was introduced, I was asked, Sir, by you when would the Second Reading take place. And I said at the next available sitting. Today is the next available sitting since the last sitting and the required period provided under the Standing Orders was complied with. The notice of introduction of the Bill was circulated to all Members and the matter appears on the Order Paper today. So I cannot see how Dr Lee or any other Member could not know that at the next sitting following the last, this Bill would be taken up.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: What the Minister has said may be true, Sir.

Prof. Jayakumar: It is true.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Nevertheless, I think all Members of the House should be adequately informed well before-hand.

An hon. Member: They are.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I think Government will benefit a lot from consultations with the Law Society or with other people. It will get more valuable opinions.

However, let us consider the Bill itself. According to the Explanatory Statement,

'The Bill seeks .... to restrict appeals to the Privy Council in any civil matter to parties to the proceedings who at any time before the hearing of the case by the Court of Appeal have consented to be bound by such an appeal;'

Two previous speakers have touched on this issue. Naturally, Sir, only the multi-national corporations, all the big companies, will have this safeguard. They always have this safeguard. Whenever things go wrong, they want to make sure that if there should be any dispute, then the final arbiter is the Privy Council. But what the Minister has not mentioned is: what happens to the ordinary citizen, the ordinary man-in-the-street? What happens when he has a case against the Government, when he is a critic of the Government, when he is a political opponent, when he is picked up by the Government and he has to go to Court against the Government? Is the Government saying that all such cases will be denied appeals to the Privy Council? Do not forget that the Government is a party to the litigation. And under those circumstances, just to limit appeals only to big companies and MNCs is patently unfair. If it is only limited to big companies, I must ask: why the discrimination against the common man? Is he not more important than some big company? Is he saying that the common man means nothing to the Government? And as the Constitution says, Sir, everybody is supposed to be treated equally before the law. But it does not appear that this amendment is intended to allow that.

Sir, in the case of criminal matters, the Explanatory Statement says:

'The Bill seeks ... to restrict appeals to the Privy Council in any criminal matter only to cases where the offence is punishable with either death or imprisonment for life [all right, let us go on that] and the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal is not unanimous.'

The Minister has passed round two sheets of paper which tell us of the number of petitions of appeals registered and the number of appeals heard. But has he also given us the number of the unanimous decisions in the Court of Criminal Appeal? How many of them have given different decisions? Does the Court always give a unanimous decision?

Sir, I understand that in Singapore it is very often that only one judgment, is given, and by one single judge, and usually the other two judges merely concur. If that should be the case, it amounts to only one single judgment. If this system should continue, it only means that the ordinary man, in future,will never have a chance of appeal. Unless, of course, if the Government intends to make sure that in future each single judge of this Court of Appeal must deliver his own judgment. Then at least we have three judgments in the Court of Criminal Appeal and not, as I have been told, usually only just one judgement with the other two judges merely concurring. Therefore, Sir, this means something that is very unfair and unjust to the ordinary man. And if such life and death cases are allowed to go on in this manner, then it reflects very badly, I think, on the moral judgment of the Singapore Government. It only shows how much value it places on the life and librty of the common man. Recently, Sir, Government has been speaking a lot about moral values and core values. What about the core value for the protection of the life and liberty of the common man? Is the Government interested in that?

The Minister has tried to explain to us why Government has embarked on this new Bill and why we cannot keep on appealing to the Privy Council. The main argument here is, I think, that the local conditions here are different from those elsewhere. But what are the local conditions here that are different? Are we in the jungle? Or are we in the Arctic or the Antarctic? Why are we different? We have the same things over here, we have the similar judges, we have the same facilities, cars, TV, everything els. The only difference, Sir, is that we have a Government that has continued to be the Government for the last 30 years, and a Government that imposes its authority over many many aspects of our life. So, as far as we can see, there are no real differences between our local conditions and those elsewhere.

The other argument which the Government usually brings up, and has today lightly touched on, is that the local conditions are best interpreted by judges who are part of the local culture and so can review cases not based on a culture. And also that the UK is now affected by constitutional changes as a result of its entry into the EEC. Sir, justice is the same justice the world over. It is the same whether it is in Singapore, or in the EEC, or in Japan,or in UK. Why should it be different? In fact, three or four days ago, the King designate of Malaysia made certain remarks and his remarks (he was the Lord President of the Federal Court) were to the effect that it is untrue to say that Malaysian courts apply the English Common Law in giving judgment in Malaysia. I believe the same holds true in Singapore. Unless the Minister tells us that in Singapore there is no such thing as common law. Or that we have had no time to develop it in spite of all these years, and that everything else is different. Therefore, Sir, such an argument is a fallacy. It is wrong.

From what the Minister has said, it would appear that many things too are wrong. May I remind the Minister again, Sir, what he once said although he tried to counter that himself, namely, that the Privy Council is a litmus test of judicial independence. I have got a photostat copy here, Sir. It says:

'the litmus test of judicial independence, said Home Affairs and Second Law Minister, S. Jayakumar.' And may I also refer to what the Prime Minister himself has said. Referring to the Singapore judiciary:

'Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew told Parliament last year "in Singapore we have an extra supervision on them. When they write their judgments they know that they could go up to the Privy Council."' Sir, the issue here today is plainly whether the Government intends to uphold justice or not uphold justice. That is the key argument and the key ingredient in the present Bill.

Let us also remind the Minister that recently there have been a number of misjudgments in the Singapore courts. Therefore, one must ask: is it opportune to abolish appeals to the Privy Council at this juncture? If confidence in the judiciary has been shaken, I think Government should not try to shake this any further. We should try and make sure that everybody is happy with the judgments here, and that those who are dissatisfied with what has happened, at least have a chance to go up to the Privy Council, either in civil or in criminal cases.

Finally, Sir, let me just ask again, why has the Bill been suddenly pounced on the House? Is it because Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam has announced his intention to take his case to court that he had been wrongly convicted? I do not know, Sir. The facts are there. Of course, it is up to the Government to explain. And we would like to hear what the Government has to say.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Batok): Sir, I rise to support the amendment Bill.

First, I want to refer to what Dr Lee Siew-Choh said about the sameness between Singapore and England. I think we should not pretend that we can be the same. We cannot pretend to be Englishmen. We can speak Singapore English or some form of English but we cannot pretend to be speaking like Englishmen and try to put on a stiff upper lip like the Englishmen. We are different.

Sir, when the Internal Security (Amendment) Bill was debated and passed by this House, some quarters outside speculated that what would follow would be the complete removal of appeal to the Privy Council in all other cases,"a wholesale slaughter" according to some.

Sir, they have reason to expect that this would be the line of action. Indeed, some members of the public urge that we should completely abolish appeal to the Privy Council. It is a colonial legacy, a relic of the past, an anachronism. After all, only Singapore, Brunei and Hong Kong in this region still retain the Privy Council. Hong Kong is a Crown colony and by 1997 it will be handed back to mainland China, and this link will also be cut. Australia has abolished it. Malaysia has abolished it. New Zealand is thinking of abolishing it. As we develop as a sovereign and independent state, we should also abolish it and cut the apron strings. As we grow up, it is time to be ourselves, to be our own men, to be on our own.

Sir, one could imagine the pressure on the Minister for Law, as he gave due deliberation to all factors, weigh the evidence and ponder over the course of action. If I may misquote Shakespeare: "To Privy Council or not to Privy Council, that is the question."

I am glad that after due deliberation, Sir, the Minister and the Government have come up with a measured step by step approach, and taken all factors and opinions into consideration. The sceptics again have been proven wrong. It is not a wholesale abolition nor an abortion, but I think a selective application, tailor-made to suit our local needs and local conditions. Allowing appeal to civil cases will be reassuring to foreign and local companies, to foreigners and citizens alike, and indeed to the common man that there is a higher court for appeal. And allowing appeal in criminal cases involving life imprisonment or the death penalty would be a compassionate act.

I must say that this measured and moderated approach makes the task of Backbench MPs more difficult, as we explain the policy to our constituents. It is easier to present the case if the Government were to go the full hog and abolish the Privy Council once and for all. Selective or part measures would appear to be contradictory or even illogical. But explain and support this Bill we must for, I believe, it is the right measure.

Sir, I support the amendment Bill.

Mr K. Shanmugam (Sembawang GRC): Sir, listening to Dr Lee on the proposed amendments, one would get the impression that the entire legal system and the judicial system in our country is breaking down. However, much of his arguments are based on the presumption that there are no rights to the Privy Council. That is, however, not the case with the proposed amendments. They seek to provide for appeals between consenting parties.

He then dealt with equality before the law. Again, I think the concepts are slightly confused because all the equality before the law means every person within Singapore has an equal right under the law. The law does not say MNCs can appeal or anyone else cannot appeal. Everyone has an equal right to consent to an appeal. By virtue of economic power, MNCs may be in a better position to insist that right of appeal to the Privy Council be retained. But that is a question of economics and not law.

Secondly, the question of local conditions. From the time when we received English law in 1823 under the Charter of Justice right until the recent decision of the Privy Council, if Dr Lee were to read these legal material, including the judgments of the Privy Council, he will see the phrase "local conditions" repeated over and over again. Law cannot be distinct from the cultural context of any civilization of any country. We live in a multi-racial society which is different from England. And local conditions has a definite meaning. For example, laws in sedition, laws as on freedom of speech when it infringes upon toleration of other races, religious beliefs and so on, will have to be enforced with greater strictness in Singapore than perhaps in England. Thus, we have to take into account local conditions. The question is not whether local conditions differ but whether they necessitate the present amendments.

Sir, on that, whenever amendments are proposed to the judicial system, the question always is: does this in any way affect the independence of the judiciary? The Minister can argue with some conviction that the amendments do not affect the independence. Rights to the Privy Council are not abolished, in civil cases consenting parties can appeal, in criminal cases where serious penalty of death or life imprisonment is involved, and where at least one judge of the Court of Criminal Appeal dissents, there is a right of appeal.

I agree with the basics of that argument. However, there is one aspect which, I think, requires more consideration, the question of investor confidence in Singapore, an excellent legal framework which dispenses speedy justice is important for business and for business investor confidence. In fact, Beri, in its recent survey, when ranking Singapore as the fourth best place to invest, cited our excellent legal framework as putting us in a better position than Taiwan or South Korea. Investors who come in to Singapore know that there is a sophisticated legal system to facilitate business. It is my view that there is an important aspect for a foreign investor - the existence of the unrestricted right of appeal to the Privy Council.

Let me make myself clear. I do not suggest that our courts are in any way unable to dispense justice. But we who deal with the system in Singapore know the constitutional position and understand that. It would not be accurate to expect or to assume that a foreign investor will have as much knowledge or confidence in the judicial system of a developing country, unfair as it might be. The Minister can say, "Well, such a foreign investor knows the law and can ensure that his right of appeal to the Privy Council exists simply by making it a term of the business when he invests." That may be so, but doing business in Singapore is more than just the initial investment. After the investment, there will hopefully be a long association with Singapore and it is impractical to expect such investors to continually ensure that all their business contract dealings specifically provide for automatic right of appeal to the Privy Council. Disputes can arise over a wide spectrum between the investor and his bank, between the investor and his local supplier. Not all of these contracts are automatically in written standard forms.

I would therefore urge the Minister to consider amending subsection (3) so as to make a distinction between civil cases which are commercial in nature and those which are not. Automatic rights of appeal can be retained for civil cases which are commercial in nature. The present proposed amendments can apply to all other civil cases. This, in fact, ties in broadly with the present position of applicability of English law in Singapore. The Minister will note that under section 5 of our Civil Law Act the commercial law of England automatically applies to Singapore, and that is an important selling point. When people in business ask, "What is the law of Singapore in banking, insurance, and on any commercial law?" we say,"It is the same as English law", immediately the businessman knows what we are talking about.

The Minister may then say the applicability of the law should be distinguished from who is to administer it. English law can apply, but our courts should be the only ones to administer it unless the parties agree otherwise. I would urge him to look at it from a different point of view. We could say to an investor, "Our law in commercial matters is the same as English law and in all commercial matters there is an unrestricted right of appeal." If, of course, English commercial law moves along lines that makes it unsuitable for applicability in Singapore, then we can always consider amending it. In fact, I think this principle about the importance of tapping onto the legal resources available in England is already recognized by the Minister in his opening speech because he said that all rights of appeal to the Privy Council were not abolished because we wanted to retain such rights in commercial matters where local conditions do not really play a part. Commercial law, shipping law and so on are more or less the same, be it in England or Singapore. If the rights of appeal are to be retained, I say, why not retain the full rights of appeal in commercial law? I do not think the example of India, Ceylon or Malaysia may be relevant in this context because we rely on foreign investors to a far greater extent, I believe, than these countries. That, Sir, is my main point.

I have three other short points. The second point, and here I declare my interest as a lawyer, has been quite well put by the Member for Toa Payoh GRC, Mr Davinder Singh, ie, there are any number of cases that are presently pending before our High Court and Court of Appeal which were commenced because the parties believed that they had a right to go up to the Privy Council. To introduce an amendment mid-stream, as it were, and cut off the rights to the Privy Council may cause and does cause concern in those cases. Perhaps a saving provision could be considered.

The third point, Sir, is a technical point. The Minister will realize that under certain technical rules of precedent our Singapore Court of Appeal considers itself bound by all its previous decisions. The English House of Lords and the Privy Council do not consider themselves bound. They consider themselves free to reverse their previous decisions. That makes for keeping the law alive, so to speak. As circumstances change the courts can reconsider the position and consider that they have made a wrong decision previously. That is not the position with the Court of Appeal which in many cases now will become the final court as far as Singapore is concerned. That will potentially have the effect of seriously outdating our law and, if this amendment is considered, the Minister ought to consider amending our Supreme Court of Judicature Act so as to allow our Court of Appeal, or give it powers, to reverse itself from its previous decisions. The Court of Appeal recognizes that it has the right to reverse itself but in very limited circumstances. If it effectively becomes our final Court of Appeal, then perhaps it should be given liberal powers to reverse itself and keep the law up to-date.

My final point, Sir, is that at least some sections of the public may question and, in fact, Dr Lee has questioned the reasons for the amendment. It may be argued that the Government does not wish itself where it is the litigant to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Privy Council in civil cases. That, Sir, is a sensitive point and will not go away. It will be in the minds of at least some people and I hope that the Minister will take steps to clarify the position and the reasons for the amendment, paying perhaps particular attention to that point.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, this amendment is really a momentous event. It has been said that we have the British system of law in Singapore since 1823, I believe, over a century and the final appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has always been part of our system. I take the point of Dr Lee Siew-Choh that in fact we should really be given more time - I think the Singapore people should be given more time - to discuss and air this matter, especially relevant bodies like the Law Society, to give their views. What we are really doing is in effect to cut out appeals to the Privy Council. Basically that is what we are doing.

Sir, the reasons have been given by the Minister and, as I sat there and took note of the reasons, I am not convinced at all that there is a compelling reason to abolish or almost abolish the Privy Council from our judicial system. The most relevant reason is that the Minister should convince this House that at this point of time the Privy Council is not relevant to our judicial system. If he says so and convince us, then I think we will support him. Look at his reasons. He says few Commonwealth countries have this link to the Privy Council. It does not mean that if other countries do not have that link, we also, should cut off the link with the Privy Council. This is not a reason at all because countries like Australia, India, Pakistan, from their point of view the Privy Council is no longer relevant or, for nationalistic reasons, they feel that they want to build up their own independent judicial system.

It is strange that the countries in Asia retaining links with the Judicial Committee are rather small countries - Hong Kong, Singapore and Brunei. Probably they do not have the means to support that many judges. So this is not a good reason. It does not mean that other countries have taken away the Judicial Committee as their final appeal, we should do the same.

Then the Minister goes on to say that now there are divergent paths taken by England and Singapore. What divergent paths? Basically, our laws are still the same. The only point I can think of is in regard to internal security matters. That we have taken divergent paths. The law in England requires that in cases of such matters the courts want to have a look at the reasons or the circumstances given by the Executive whether or not in fact it is justified to detain a person without trial. I think that is very basic and that is really divergent. But I think liberty of a person, freedom of a person is important and I think we should adopt the path taken by England and other Commonwealth countries. I think we should not take away the freedom of a person without really telling the person why or the public wants to know why that person is detained.

We have heard of local conditions, judicial attitudes, values are also divergent, and we have heard there are constitutional changes in England because of the fact that England is joining the European Community, and that even in England the House of Lords is no longer the final court of appeal in regard to certain matters under the enlarged European Community laws. Singapore is not an isolated country. It has been declared that our policy is to make Singa- pore a global international city. We do our business with the whole world and not with the region. So what is wrong with opening even new avenues of law into the European Community? I think it will benefit us in the long run. It will, in fact, be an improvement and not a retrogressive step. There is no harm, in fact, in enlarging our laws to take into account laws in Europe.

Sir, I had a good look at the statistics given by the Minister. Maybe in criminal cases, it is relevant to take away appeals to the Privy Council because out of the three all three failed. It is just like in Malaysia. Apparently, all cases that went to the Privy Council had the same result as that decided in the court of appeal in Malaysia. But we should ask the Minister the reasons why so many of these criminal cases were not granted leave of appeal to the Privy Council. I think there is still something lacking there. The statistics are very flimsy. In fact, only three cases were allowed to go to the Privy Council and three were dismissed.

An hon. Member: 44.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Allowed there and they were dismissed. Sir, under the Civil Cases are the cases involved with the Internal Security Act and the Legal Profession Act grouped in these statistics as Civil Cases? Can the Minister please tell us. I think the appeals to the Privy Council are very relevant. I am just looking at the statistics given by the Minister. They are very relevant because many of them were allowed by the Privy Council. If you look at the left-hand corner, starting with the earliest date (1978), you will see: 4 cases went up to the Privy Council, 3 were allowed; only 1 was not allowed. In 1979, 5 appealed, 2 allowed; 1980, 6 appealed, 1 allowed; 1981, 7 appealed, 2 allowed; 1982, 10 appealed, 1 allowed (1 in 10); and 1983, 5 appealed, 3 allowed. I think it is important that we go to the Privy Council for civil cases. And then in 1984, 15 appealed, 6 were allowed. I wonder whether these included all the lawyers who have appealed to the Privy Council in disciplinary proceedings and whether all were allowed. Sir, 1985, 2 appealed, and both were withdrawn; 1986, 3 went on appeal and 1 allowed; and the rest are still pending. But in 1988, 4 are pending and 1 is allowed.

So according to statistics, appeal to the Privy Council is very relevant in our case. I think the Minister has to convince this House why he is taking away the appeal to the Privy Council.

Sir, this amendment is really a disappointment. It appears to me to be just an expedient move or an ad hoc amendment. I do not believe the Government has really given proper thought and made the amendment in greater detail. In effect, this amendment is to take away appeals to the Privy Council in both civil and criminal cases, although it has been said that consenting parties can still litigate in civil cases. But if one of them refuses, then the other will have no chance. Normally, of course, the person who feels that he is going to lose will not consent. And it has just been mentioned by Mr Shanmugam that there are sensitive cases involving the Government. Will the Government automatically consent? There are so many cases involving Government - administrative cases, immigration cases, land acquisition cases, passport cases - you name them. So will the Government give their word that they will consent for parties to appeal to the Privy Council?

And as regards criminal cases, we see that there must be an unanimous decision. I have been in the Bar for 13 years or so, I have not come across a dissenting case in capital cases. So probably in capital cases there will be no appeals to the Privy Council.

Sir, I think if we want to take away appeals to the Privy Council, there must be an alternative, a good alternative - appeal court, perhaps a permanent appeal court. We cannot just remove a thing without really replacing it with something else. In fact, we are taking a major benefit away from the people of Singapore without giving them something in return. It would appear to me - now in my second term in this House - that the Government really has got no long-term policies. They only change the law when it is necessary.

Mr Chandra Das: Don't change unnecessarily. Change when it is necessary.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is necessary to them, politically I would say. When something has happened and it annoyed or embarrassed the Government, and then it quickly changed the law. We have seen it. We have seen how this Government changed the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act just because the Government thinks that Mr Jeyaretnam was talking too strongly in this House. Then we had amendment to the Legal Profession Act just because the lawyers were giving their opinions and challenged the Government on certain new legislation. And when the foreign reporters were reporting on Singapore which displeased the Government, the Newspaper (Printing Presses) Act was accordingly amended, allegedly to stop interference in local politics. And then, more recently, we have seen the two amendments to the Judicial Committee Act where ISA cases are involved. So those detainees no longer have a chance to have their matters heard in the Privy Council, and also in regard to lawyers when they were subject to professional discipline.

As I have said, this amendment really has got no compelling reason. The most compelling reason I can think of, from the point of view of the Government, has already been mentioned by Dr Lee Siew-Choh. Probably, the Government is angry with the Privy Council's judgment in relation to Jeyaretnam's appeal which was allowed in regard to his disbarment from practice as a lawyer. You will remember that the judgment of the Privy Council was, in fact, a scathing attack on the political/legal system here.

In that appeal, their Lordships looked behind, just the appeal, and looked into the original four convictions of not only Mr Jeyaretnam but also Wong Hong Toy. So I think it is worthwhile to read part of that judgment and probably you will know why the Government is very angry. This is what their Lordships said in their judgment:

'Their Lordships have to record their deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgments the appellant and his co-accused Wong have suffered a grievous injustice. They have been fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which they were not guilty. The appellant, in addition, has been deprived of his seat in Parliament and disqualified for a year from practising his profession.

Their Lordships' order restores him to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore. But because of the course taken by the criminal proceedings, their Lordships have no power to right the other wrongs which theappellant and Wong have suffered. Their only prospect of redress, their Lordships understand, will be by way of petition for pardon to the President of the Republic of Singapore.'

Sir, this judgment really points to only one direction and that is, we must not, in fact, at this juncture take away the right of appeal to the Privy Council. Our courts have erred not once, not twice, but a series (according to the judgment here), a series of injustices. Sir, if we are saying that we are promoting justice in order to take away appeal to the Privy Council, I will support all for it. But according to this judgment, it does not appear so.

Sir, Mr Shanmugam has spoken of probably an escape route by allowing litigants to appeal to the Privy Council if they consent, because to promote investors' confidence. But, as I understand it, this is only apparent, because I believe all these foreign business people who have got offshore loan agreements have already got into their agreements the jurisdiction which is not based in Singapore. They probably agree among themselves, if there is any dispute, to have their dispute resolved in courts in England or elsewhere.

Sir, I think this is going to be a retrogressive step because it has not been properly worked out. And if the Minister can say that after 30 years, our judicial system has reached a stage where we have to stand on our own two feet and not, as Members have said, our judicial system still tied to the apron strings of the Privy Council, and if we are able to stand on our own two feet, and let us work out a proper system, a new judicial system, then I will agree with it. But with this ad hoc amendment, I do not think it will serve the interest of the public of Singapore.

The Minister for National Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me speak on this Bill basically as a layman and to give some of my personal views. I have listened to some of the arguments here in the House, both from our own Backbenchers as well as from Members of the Opposition, as well as the views which others outside the House have, since the Bill was published, expressed to me.

I think the views expressed are a mix of relief that the appeal to the Privy Council has not been completely cut off and fears that the change proposed will affect the quality of justice in Singapore. I am personally very surprised that after almost 25 years as an independent nation, our minds seem to be still shackled and we still expect others to protect our interests and to ensure a high quality of justice in Singapore.

What is the unspoken fear, the underlying thought behind these various reservations? I think the unspoken fear is this: that we do not have men of competence and knowledge, of integrity, character, men with a strong sense of justice to ensure that our courts deliver judgments which are in accordance with the highest standards of justice and fair play. I think this may be putting it very bluntly. But I think this is the unspoken fear. The fear is that our judges or magistrates are constantly looking over their shoulders to assess what would please the Government and therefore their judgments are coloured by this desire to please the Government. I think that is the thought behind all the nice arguments and words, diplomatic words, that we have heard.

I think this is not the case with our magistrates and with our judges. But even if it were so, even if it were the case, that the cream of our society, some of the best educated in our society, some of the leaders of our society, do not have the courage, sense of justice, the gumption, the spine, to do what is right and not what will please the Government, even if it were so, I would still support the proposal to cut ourselves off from the Privy Council. Because if we, as a society and as a people, can only have people at the very top of this calibre, of this lack of a sense of justice, of courage, then we as a people deserve our fate. Do we still want to be tied, as the Member for Potong Pasir said, to the apron strings of the British? Do we want others to look after our interests? Or do we think that we are mature enough people to look after our own interests? And that if we cannot look after our own interest, we should throw up people within our own society who would look after our interests. How long do we want others to look after our interests? How long do we want others to ensure that the quality of justice in Singapore is what we as a people deserve? I say that if we cannot stand up as a people after 25 years of independence, then we deserve our fate.

My view is that we should be completely cut off immediately for all appeals to Privy Council. But I can see why some interim measures are needed; that this cannot be done away with immediately. I think the suggestion that the Member for Potong Pasir made is a good one, that we should have a substitute, maybe a full-time Court of Appeal. And that certainly I am sure is something that my colleague, the Minister for Law, and the Cabinet will look into. But that does not mean that we should not already take steps to be a truly independent people. I know I am expressing a layman's view. But I think this is a view that we ought to think about carefully. Do we want to continue to depend upon others to look after us? Or do we think that we are ready to look after our own interests? And, if necessary, force our society to throw up leaders who would look after our interest.

I am in favour of the proposals made in the Bill. I would even go further - I think it is about time we took the steps to become a mature people.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank Members who have spoken. It is clear that we have a spectrum of views. There are some like my colleagues, the Minister for National Development and Dr Ong Chit Chung, who would have favoured immediate cutting off of all appeals. There are others who felt that the provisions perhaps go too far. This shows that perhaps the approach taken in the Bill is a good balance.

Let me now deal with the various points raised by Members. I will try to take them in the order of the speakers. First, Mr Davinder Singh made several interesting observations. First, he did not agree with the approach taken, with regard to the transitional provision, and would advocate an approach which would allow appeals for all proceedings which have been commenced, whether at High Court stage or Court of Appeal stage. In other words, all pending appeals should be caught by the transitional provision. My first comment is that this will mean that there will be a considerable delay in the practical operation of the new law. I think he himself pointed out that it takes many years for cases to be heard.

Secondly, I wish to point out that the transitional provision which we have is not too different from the transitional provisions of some other countries. We have looked at the transitional provisions in Malaysia when they cut off appeals to the Privy Council and the transitional provisions in the Australian legislation when they abolished appeals to the Privy Council. The approach taken in our Bill is, in fact, similar to the approaches taken by Malaysia and Australia. In fact, we can say that our approach is wider.

The third observation I would like to make is that obviously where the Court of Appeal gives a decision, the losing party is unlikely to get the winner's consent. That is why we have taken the approach in the transitional provision that if the Court of Appeal's decision is given before the commencement of the operation of this Act, then appeals without consent can still proceed. But the point I want to underline is that the approach taken in our transitional provision is not unprecedented, as there are good models on which they are based.

Another point is what I would call the argument of intolerable burden placed on lawyers. I have listened with interest to his exposition of this point. But first I think it is necessary to emphasize that the consent approach in this Bill is not giving consent if you lose. It is consent given in advance to a system. In other words, the parties agree before the matter is heard by the Court of Appeal that the consent to the dispute going to the Privy Council without knowing whether they are going to win in the Court of Appeal.

I do not quite understand his point. I will disagree with his proposition that this places a special or impossible burden on lawyers. He has asked how will a lawyer advise a client who comes to the lawyer and says, "Should I consent in a particular case?" I would assume that if a client approaches a lawyer and asks for advice as to whether he should consent, I would expect that the lawyer would advise him to the best of his ability, outline the risks, advantages, disadvantages, pros and cons of the law. But the final decision is up to the client. And the client then will instruct the lawyer. I do not see how this situation is different from the countless other situations which a lawyer is faced everyday. Clients come and ask for advice. "Should I sue? Should I institute action in the courts?" And if he institutes action in the courts and he loses, he comes and asks for advice, "Should I institute an appeal to the Court of Appeal?" Or if he is offered settlement for a lower sum, "Should I accept the settlement which is of a low value or should I appeal?" In all these cases, the lawyer really has no crystal ball. Neither the lawyer nor anyone can guarantee what the outcome of litigation will be. Litigation has its risks. And I cannot see any lawyer guaranteeing to his client, "Yes, you will win." If that is the case with the countless situations which lawyers are faced when clients come and ask for advice, I do not think this situation is very different. Nor is it different from cases, which are plentiful now, where existing contracts may have provisions for arbitration and a client asks for advice, well in advance of any dispute arising, whether he should consent to this particular provision. In all these cases, including the case presented by Mr Davinder Singh, I think the lawyer would have to advise to the best of his ability and the client would have to make up his own decision.

The other point raised by Mr Davinder Singh was his observation that this approach in the Bill means that a development of the law is not in the hands of the court but of the parties in this sense, that if there is a complex or complicated question of law which might deserve a hearing and exposition of the law in Privy Council, it really is dependent now on both the parties, which means one party can prevent it from going out. That may be so. But I do not see how that is really a serious objection to the approach. Because even as it is now, whether a case involving interesting or complicated or a novel point of law, whether it goes up to a higher Court of Appeal or to the Privy Council really is dependent on the parties. And the losing party whether he appeals or not is going to decide on a variety of factors, not only on the basis of the advice he gets on the probabilities of his success but on other factors, costs, tactical considerations and so on. But he is probably going to decide on the basis of what is in his own interest rather than whether he is going to contribute to a great development of law in a particular branch of law in Singapore for future litigants.

May I now turn to points raised by the Chairman of the GPC, Dr Arthur Beng. His first point was what would happen to existing agreements. My answer to that is, first of all, we cannot assume that all those who entered into existing contracts had entered into those agreements on the assumption that Privy Council would be the final Court of Appeal. But in any case, the important point is that we are not stopping the parties to those existing agreements from still agreeing under this new Bill for the disputes to be resolved by appeals to the Privy Council. It is still open to them. We are not restricting them and they can subsequently still agree by supplementary agreement.

Secondly, as to Privy Council judgments already given, whether they would be still binding on our courts, if I am not mistaken, the previous judgments will still be binding on our courts.

The third point that he raised was this. Will businessmen be prompted or prodded into inserting provisions on choice of law? And they might make choice of law in the United Kingdom or other countries and resulting in more disputes being heard in the United Kingdom. Whether this will happen or not, I am not sure. But I would assume that for local contracts, I do not see why they would want to insist that the choice of law would be United Kingdom. For international contracts, the present practice is, in fact, that the parties are already inserting provisions as to choice of law.

The important thing to note is that the amendments proposed before the House do not circumscribe the existing practice. In other words, whatever is the practice of choice of law provisions, they are still free to continue with the practice. And if they want, they can agree that the matter can go up to the Privy Council. I think it may be necessary for me to make a distinction between provisions in contracts on choice of law and where the dispute is going to be heard. These are two different points and one does not follow from the other necessarily. In other words, if contracting parties decided that it will be United States law or New York law which shall govern the contract,it does not automatically follow that the courts in New York will have jurisdiction because whether the courts in New York will have jurisdiction would be dependent on many rules governing the jurisdiction in the United States' courts, whether the cause of action arose there and so on.

Then I refer to the points raised by Mr Shanmugam. He has dealt with many of the points raised by Dr Lee Siew-Choh. He referred to investor confidence and my reply to his comments on that is that it is precisely because of considerations like that that we have not completely abolished appeals to Privy Council and we have provided for a mechanism where investors and others who consider it important for them to have appeals to Privy Council to arrange their agreements and other documents in such a way that they can still retain appeal to the Privy Council.

He raised a technical point as to whether there is a need to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. This is a matter which I would obviously have to take up with the Attorney-General and I assure him that it will be looked into.

But the major substantive point which Mr Shanmugam raised was that because the Civil Law Act provides that in commercial law matters, English law shall be applicable in Singapore. Our approach should be to provide that there will be automatic appeals to the Privy Council in such matters. At first hand, this may seem an attractive idea but upon closer scrutiny I am not in favour of that approach because we must make a distinction between the applicable law on the one hand, and on the other hand, the dispute settlement procedure and the judicial process. The two are separate and should be kept separate. If I may just give a hypothetical example. Suppose we decided as a matter of law that our securities in stock market law had to be reformed and we concluded that the United States' law is the best in the world. If we legislated to provide that in that area

he United States' law shall be applicable in Singapore, that is to say one thing but it does not follow that in that area of the law we must have appeals up to the United States Supreme Court. The two are different. So you may have the Civil Law Act making English law applicable on a variety of subjects but it does not follow that you must have appeals to the Privy Council because of that. I should also point out that there is no difficulty for judges in Singapore deciding what is the applicable English law on any particular point. It may also require us to note that under the Civil Law Act although it provides that the commercial law of England applies here, it is also provided that this is subject to modifications and adaptations due to local circumstances in Singapore. And indeedthe applicability of English law is also subject to whetherthere are local statutes on the matter, and indeed in many areas, corporate law, banking law, we have our own legislation.

Now may I come to the points raised by Dr Lee Siew-Choh. I need not answer all his questions as Mr Shanmugam has dealt with his other points. One point raised by both Dr Lee Siew-Choh and Mr Chiam is that there have been very few dissenting opinions. I recognize that, but at the same time, as I have pointed out in the last sitting on the Committee of Supply debate on the Judicature, we are going to have provisions for more judges and I pointed out that this year there will be provision for some 17-19 judges and a total number of 22-23 courts will be available by 1990. So the number of judges will increase and we cannot expect that there will never be dissenting judgments in the future. And we cannot assume that there will always be unanimous opinions in criminal matters involving death penalty and life imprisonment. Indeed, we can foresee that if a judge feels very strongly that he disagrees with his two brother judges, then he can record his dissent.

Sir, Dr Lee Siew-Choh says we do not value life and liberty. Then can I ask him why is it we have provided that in death penalty and life imprisonment, there can still be appeals to Privy Council? Dr Lee made the curious observation that this Bill has been sprung as a surprise because Mr Jeyaretnam has announced at the press conferenece that he is going to bring legal action against the Government but he forgot to mention that Mr Jeyaretnam gave his press conference after this Bill was introduced and he does not explain why, although the Privy Council judgment was issued last year, Mr Jeyaretnam has not done anything between then and now.

Mr Chiam's remarks really come as a surprise. I think he should decide what his stand is. Sir, this is what he said on 17th February, and I quote:

'I would like to go on record that I think it is high time that Singapore, after over 20 years of our judicial system in Singapore, should grow up and not be tied to the apron strings of the Privy Council.' I think sometimes, Sir, he speaks from the heart. I think that was the occasion. And sometimes when he has the script, he speaks to the gallery. So I feel tempted to ask: will the real Mr Chiam, please put up his hand?

Both Mr Chiam and Dr Lee asked, will the Government give advance notice whether it is going to consent? Obviously we cannot. It must depend on the transaction, it must depend on the case. Sometimes the Government may be the plaintiff, the Government may be the prosecutor and sometimes maybe the defendant. It depends on the individual case.

His comments on a permanent Court of Appeal. This was thoroughly discussed in response to comments made by the Chairman of the GPC during the Committee of Supply debate and I think my views on that are known.

He asked whether the appeals listed in the statistics are there many which involve disciplinary cases. I do not have all the breakdown but the civil cases listed for that period include 6 show-cause discipli- nary proceedings of which only two were allowed, according to my records.

Sir, I believe I have answered most of the comments. If I have missed out any, I shall be grateful if Members point it out.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: The Minister has missed out something. He said something about life and death. If the Criminal Court of Appeal normally gives only one judgment and the other two judges merely concur, would he now require that in future every judge must give his own judgment?

Prof. Jayakumar: I think Dr Lee during the tea break should discuss with both Mr Chiam and the other two lawyers here because whether there is one judgment in respect of which the other two judges agree is irrelevant or whether there are three separate judgments or whether there are two judgments and one judge agrees with the other is also irrelevant. The point is, were the three judges unanimous or not regardless of how many judgments they wrote. That is the test.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: It is not irrelevant, Sir, because we want to know what each judge really thinks and he should not merely just to concur.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I have got two matters to bring up with the Minister. The first one is in regard to the show-cause action of lawyers. I can think of at least five lawyers who were successful at the Privy Council. I do not know why his record shows only two.

Sir, I am certainly in favour of having our own local appeal courts. I think it is time that we should grow up and have our last Court of Appeal. But I am not inconsistent. I am against the present amendments because it is half-hearted, as I say, expediency, and on an ad hoc basis. So we have mentioned the sensitive areas where the Government is a litigant, that is the problem. I think many people will still feel uneasy with these amendments.

Mr Davinder Singh: Sir, if I might just repond to something that Dr Lee said. He asked whether it is desirable to direct the judges sitting on the Court of Appeal to write three judgments.

Sir, in England it often happens that the Court of Appeal decides and you have the ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Point of order.

Mr Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I do not think he is the Minister. He should raise it through the Minister.

Mr Davinder Singh: With your permission, Sir.

Mr Chiam See Tong: How can anybody make a reply? I can reply.

Mr Speaker: He is perfectly in order. This is a debate, Mr Chiam. Carry on, Mr Singh.

Mr Chiam See Tong: He should go through the Minister.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, you may carry on.

Mr Davinder Singh: I am grateful, Sir. I am only trying to assist this House and I know that I have been impeded in that regard. But in any case ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: You have to go through the Minister.

Mr Davinder Singh: Through the Minister then, Sir. And with your and his leave.

As I was saying before Mr Chiam stood up, in England there are numerous occasions when a Court of Appeal decide and in the reports you have three judgments. This is no criticism. But to direct the three judges write does not make a difference because what you will have, as has often happened in England, is one major judgment and the other two judges appear in the report with two lines saying, "I have read the illuminating reasons of my Learned Brother and I entirely concur." And that is a judgment, Sir. So if you direct that all three judges will write, this is a possibility, and really it does not make any sense.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, it might be a possibility but we should ensure that everybody knows what each judge really thinks.

Mr Davinder Singh: I would have thought, Sir, that as soon as the decision comes out as a unanimous decision, it does not make any sense for two more judges to say that it is a unanimous decision.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, my reply to Mr Chiam is very simple. What he said in February can be interpreted only to mean one thing, that he had favoured completely cutting off "the apron strings" immediately because he said it was high time. What we have done is, we have taken the approach which at least retains some appeals for the reasons given by many Members in this House. In other words, if he had come to this House completely cutting off appeals, he would have supported it. But because we have not gone the full length, he is opposing it. I want to know whether I am right in that.

As to the Privy Council appeals, my statistics are there were six show-cause disciplinary proceedings during this period: 1988 one case allowed; 1985 two cases, both withdrawn, in other words, not decided by the Privy Council; 1984 two cases both allowed; 1981 one case dismissed. So really three allowed. That is the record I have. If he gives me further information I can check on this.

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.02 pm until 3.20 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm