SUBORDINATE COURTS (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."

Sir, this Bill before the House seeks to amend the Subordinate Courts Act as part of a general plan to restructure the jurisdiction and powers of the courts in Singapore. Two other Bills have been approved by this House yesterday. This is the third Bill as part of the restructuring. Since certain provisions in this Bill are similar to the Bill approved yesterday to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, I will not be dealing with such provisions.

The civil jurisdiction of the District Court is at present limited to the following matters: First, monetary claims not exceeding $50,000 founded on contract or tort or under any written law; second, action for the recovery of immovable property where title is not in dispute; third, proceedings for the grant of probate and administration acts; fourth, proceedings for distress of rent; and fifth, interpleader proceedings.

Sir, the law applicable to these proceedings constitutes actually a very small part of the civil law in Singapore. Most of the disputes in the proceedings turn on the facts and hardly involve any points of law, leave alone complicated points of law. As a result, the civil work of a District Judge does not really prepare him for hearing civil disputes in the High Court if eventually he should be appointed a Judge of the High Court.

Clauses 5 and 9 increase the civil jurisdiction of a District Court to include the following matters: First, non-monetary claims founded on contract or tort; second, actions for the recovery of immovable property even where title is in dispute; and third, certain equity proceedings.

Clause 2 increases the monetary limit of a District Court from $50,000 to $100,000 generally, and from $250,000 to $3 million for grant of probate and administration actions. Clause 14 provides that these limits may be amended from time to time, up or down, by the President after consulting the Chief Justice. The President has to act on the advice of the Cabinet before making such order. Under the existing provisions, the Subordinate Courts Act has to be amended in order to vary the monetary limits.

The enlarged civil jurisdiction will enable District Judges to acquire a broader range of experience and a more extensive knowledge of the law.

Clause 21 increases the jurisdiction of a Magistrate's Court from $10,000 to $30,000. But there is no increase in the subject jurisdiction of a Magistrate's Court.

Finally, Sir, clause 22 empowers a Subordinate Court to refer any constitutional issue arising in an action before it to the High Court for determination. This is only right because a Subordinate Court is not the appropriate forum to determine such an issue. Provision is made for the Attorney-General to be heard on any such issue.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Bedok GRC): Sir, I shall be very brief. I rise to support the Bill.

In this Bill, the civil jurisdictions of a District Court and a Magistrate's Court have been increased. This will result in improved efficiency in the administration of justice. The Government Parliamentary Committee welcomes the plan to restructure the courts.

Sir, in particular, I welcome the new section 41A in clause 18 which provides that the Chief Justice may by order direct proceedings commenced in the District Court to be heard and determined by the High Court. This, in my mind, is a welcome safeguard to the system when we are investing enhanced responsibilities and powers to the District and Magistrate's Court.

Mr Ho Peng Kee (Sembawang GRC): Sir, I speak in support of the Bill.

The reorganisation of the Subordinate Courts flows from the restructuring of the Supreme Court. Now that the Judges and Magistrates of the Subordinate Courts have enlarged civil jurisdiction, it is imperative that more attention be focused on their training and development. This should be done in relation to both legal as well as other related skills and knowledge.

Sir, two points should be considered. First, is there a need to raise the qualifying criterion before a person can be appointed as a judicial officer of the Subordinate Courts, especially in the case of Magistrates and Deputy Registrars? Currently, no qualifying period exists before which a person can be appointed as Deputy Registrar. In the case of a Magistrate, a lawyer of more than a year's standing may be appointed -just one year.

Some Singaporeans are surprised that some of our Deputy Registrars and Magistrates are relatively young. In these young hands lie the power to decide the commercial and personal fate of fellow Singaporeans. Dispensation of justice and application of the law do not take place in a vacuum but in the context of Singapore's social milieu. Not only is legal knowledge important but also wisdom that comes with experience in dealing with matters of the world.

Second, is there a need to ensure that our Magistrates and Judges in the Subordinate Courts are better prepared to undertake their important tasks? Sir, may I offer three suggestions.

First, a mentoring scheme - where new Judges and Magistrates are attached to more experienced ones to, in the first instance, understudy and observe and, on a continuing basis, to consult and discuss difficult points of law. In this way, new appointees can also cultivate that important X-factor - a judicial temperament.

Second, structured in-house seminars where latest developments and emerging areas of the law can be fully ventilated and experience shared. NUS law staff can be enlisted for this purpose.

Third, workshops to develop better interpersonal and communication skills. Judicial officers are figures of authority. In dispensing justice, they must be able to inspire confidence in the lawyers and clients with whom they deal. Observers in the gallery also form opinions of our judicial system from what they see. It can be an unnerving experience for young and new judicial officers to handle lawyers who are senior in age, experience and wisdom. It is easy to overlook this area which I feel is important.

Sir, I believe that a loose version of these improvement schemes has been introduced in the Subordinate Courts. They should be better structured and formalised. Some countries like Japan take the training of judges very seriously. And why not!

Mr Chia Shi Teck (Nominated Member): Sir, I rise to support the Bill. Whilst I am no lawyer to go into the details of the qualifications of the District Judges, I would like to ask the Minister - with the passage of this Bill, the District Judges would have their civil jurisdiction increased to $100,000 - what percentage of the workload in the High Court will then be reduced and shifted to these District Courts and can the District Courts cope? Would that also mean there is no more need to appoint High Court Judges or there is no more need for additional Judicial Commissioners? Could the Minister also assure the House that there is no more need, as mentioned some years ago, for recruiting foreign judges in the High Court? Maybe the Minister could explain how these changes in the jurisdiction could bring about more efficiency as simply transferring the workload from the High Court to the District Judges may not just increase efficiency.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I wish to thank the Members who have spoken. Dr Arthur Beng did not raise any specific points that require an answer. Mr Ho Peng Kee raised several points. Of course, on the question of qualifying criterion for Magistrates exercising civil jurisdiction, I have no doubt that the Chief Justice will look into this. Magistrates are appointed from legal officers with one to five years' experience, as far as I know, and no legal officer who has not undergone some period of induction is likely to be appointed a Magistrate. Most civil cases in the Magistrate's Court are in fact decided on facts. There is usually very little argument on issues of law and much less difficult issues of law.

As for the mentor system, I understand that there has, in fact, been in place in the Subordinate Courts a mentor system for some years and I believe it is working well. I also understand that there is also in place a programme for training and continuing legal education for junior officers. For example, last week, they participated in a seminar on "Probation of offenders". I was told that before that, they also attended a lecture on how to write judgments which was given by one of the more experienced judges, Mr L P Thean. But we must remember that the judiciary in both the High Court and the Subordinate Courts is actually quite small. I believe the Chief Justice is doing all that he can to ensure that our Magistrates and District Judges will have a sufficient knowledge of the law as well as communication skills and the factor of temperament referred to by Mr Ho Peng Kee. With all these skills, they would, in dispensing justice, inspire confidence in the lawyers and others appearing before them.

Mr Chia Shi Teck asked for the percentage of the workload. I am afraid I do not have such data. It will ease the workload of the High Court to some extent but, as I mentioned, that is not the only objective. Does this mean that there will be no more need to appoint more High Court Judges? I do not think we should come to such a conclusion because the volume of work in the courts will always increase. If our economic growth is sustained, there will be more litigation and more cases will come up to the courts. And if we want to increase the extent to which we clear up the backlog, I am sure more Judges will be needed as time goes on.

The Member referred to foreign Judges. I believe he was referring to a discussion which took place in this Chamber many years ago. I do not think the question really arises now as to whether foreign Judges have to be appointed. The main question is: can we get Judges from Singaporeans or permanent residents who are familiar with our system, our laws, our aspirations and our goals, in other words, people who are familiar not only with the jurisprudence but also the values which are embedded in our corpus of jurisprudence. If we can get these people to come forth and take up judicial appointments either as permanent High Court Judges or as Judicial Commissioners, and if the Chief Justice is able to get them and persuade them and they are appointed, then I think this question of foreign Judges does not arise.

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]

Clauses 1 to 19 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 -

The Chairman: Dr Woon, you have four amendments to this clause and they are related. Would you like to move them together?

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Sir, in view of the Minister's statement yesterday regarding the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill, I do not think I need to trouble the House on these amendments* and I beg leave to withdraw them.

*The amendments read as follows: '(1) In page 11, lines 16 and 17, to leave out "in any written law that the offence is triable in Singapore" and insert "expressly or by implication in any written law that the courts of Singapore shall have jurisdiction to try the offence". (2) In page 11, line 17, at end, to add -- "(3) For the purposes of jurisdiction, where any act or omission forming part of an offence, or any event necessary to the completion of an offence occurs in Singapore, or if the effects of the offence are felt in Singapore, the offence shall be deemed to have been committed in Singapore, whether the person charged with the offence was in Singapore or not at the time of the act, omission or event.". (3) In page 11, lines 32 and 33, to leave out "in any written law that the offence is triable in Singapore" and insert "expressly or by implication in any written law that the courts of Singapore shall have jurisdiction to try the offence". (4) In page 11, line 33, at end, to add -- "(3) For the purposes of jurisdiction, where any act or omission forming part of an offence, or any event necessary to the completion of an offence occurs in Singapore, or if the effects of the offence are felt in Singapore, the offence shall be deemed to have been committed in Singapore, whether the person charged with the offence was in Singapore or not at the time of the act, omission or event.".'

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 21 to 24 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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