SUPREME COURT (Operating costs)

Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the cost of operating the Supreme Court increased significantly in the 1990s; and (b) if so, which items were responsible for the increase and the amounts involved.

The Senior Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Law): Sir, the cost of operating the Supreme Court is higher today than in 1990.

Total operating costs increased from $12.8 million in FY 1990 to $46 million in FY 1997. It has fluctuated thereafter, first falling to $37.5 million in FY 1999, then rising to $47.4 million in FY 2000, and then dipping to $45 million in FY 2001.

Sir, Expenditure on Manpower or EOM is the largest component of operating expenditure, fluctuating between 70% and 86% of annual operating expenditure. These include the salaries of the Judges, Judicial Commissioners and other judicial officers and staff. EOM increased from $9.6 million in FY 1990 to $34.9 million in FY 1997, and has then fluctuated, first falling to $27.4 million in FY 1999 and then rising to $34.9 million in FY 2000, and then dipping to $31.5 million in FY 2001.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, I wonder why there was this cost increase which I understand was the reason for the recent increase in court fees. Sir, I understand that the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Courts has been increased from $100,000 to $250,000, and also the divorce cases were moved from the Supreme Court to the lower courts. So, I guess the workload for the Supreme Court would be lesser, but why the increase in manpower cost?

Secondly, Sir, with the implementation and usage of IT for the Supreme Court, eg, the Electronic Filing System, I thought this system should have increased the efficiency and thereby lower the costs. So why the cost increase in spite of all these improvements?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the manpower expenditure of the Supreme Court has increased over a 10-year period. It is important to see the increases in perspective. When the Chief Justice first became the Chief Justice in 1990, all of us know that he implemented, at the outset, not suddenly, but gradually, a whole array of reforms, which has transformed our courts.

In 1990, there were 12 Judges and Judicial Commissioners. There was a big backlog of cases, some going back to 5-10 years. So in order to expedite the hearing of these cases, and to increase the efficiency of the courts, and he has done that over these 10 years, we appointed more Judges.

The appointment of the Judges is also considered in the context of the case-load. That is why you will see that the EOM actually fluctuates, going to a high in 1997, and then in fact dipping over the last 2-3 years. That is because the number of Judges and Judicial Commissioners has also fluctuated. So when the vast majority of the cases had been cleared, you would see that the number of Judges and Judicial Commissioners peaked at 21 in 1998 and today it is only 13. So, that is the first point. We must not begrudge the courts this expenditure because, as Mr Low must well know, our courts have scored very highly in many international polls and surveys. So the reputation of our courts is a key economic asset. That, I think, is important.

Yes, EFS has been introduced. But that really has to do with how documents are filed. In other words, the efficiency is in the legal process. In terms of efficiency of the courts, yes, that has also increased with technology. But, ultimately, whatever technology is introduced, we do need good Judges and Judicial Commissioners. In other words, the manpower cost will still be there. We should not apologise for these salaries which are well spent.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: The Minister of State says that the efficiency of the legal process, ie, the implementation of EFS, should be differentiated from the efficiency of the courts. Can he explain what is the difference between them?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: When we talk about efficiency of the courts, Sir, we are looking at it from various angles. EFS is only one component that was introduced in the last 4-5 years. In fact, we have just completed the phasing in of the EFS. When the Chief Justice took over in 1991 and started his reforms, his reforms were more deep-seated, spanning, for example, case management, doing away with archaic civil procedure rules, and introducing a mindset change, where besides oral advocacy, there was more emphasis on written advocacy, in other words, submissions, to ensure that the lawyers do not waste court time unnecessarily. All these measures enhanced the way in which cases are heard through the court system, and that is what is meant by the efficiency of the court system. These are not just based on one system. If Mr Low had been listening to the Chief Justice's Opening of the Legal Year speech every year, he would have seen what we have talked about. When we talk about the efficiency of the court, it really straddles many of these fundamentals and important changes which, like I have said, have helped our courts gain widespread recognition and a good standing, not just in Singapore, but also in the region and world-wide.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I understand that the explanation for the recent increase in the Supreme Court fees was due to cost increases. Does the Minister of State think that the increases are justified in view of the cost increases?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think this question is tied in with the one that I will answer afterwards - Mdm Halimah's question - in terms of the recent court increases. In fact, my answer will explain it very clearly. It is a very focused approach. It will not affect many Singaporeans, and it has been done, many years after the court's hearing fees had been implemented. So it is not as though that with the increased operating costs of the courts, we have upped these hearing fees to offset the increases per se, because right now, despite these increases, court services are still

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I am referring to the Supreme Court. So can the Minister of State tell us, despite these increases, how much is the Government expected to still subsidise the Supreme Court after these hearing fee increases?

Mr Speaker: Can he reply to that when replying to Mdm Halimah?