HIKE IN COURT FEES

The following Question stood in the name of Mdm Halimah Yacob -

Mdm Halimah Yacob: To ask the Minister for Law, in view of the recent hike in court fees (a) will the ability of low income Singaporeans to pursue claims in court be affected; (b) will the current income limit for legal aid be reviewed; (c) how many persons had secured assistance from the Legal Aid Bureau over the last three years; and (d) what other measures are being pursued to reduce reliance on litigation as a means of settling disputes and how successful have these been.

Mr Heng Chee How (Jalan Besar): Question No. 14, Sir.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, Mdm Halimah's question comes in different parts. As to her first part, whether the ability of low income Singaporeans to pursue claims in court will be affected by the recent court increases, let me assure her and the House that the ability of low income Singaporeans to pursue claims in court will not be affected by the recent increase in court hearing fees.

The Chief Justice, in his recent speech when he opened the Legal Year, allayed the concerns of Singaporeans in this regard. This is because the majority of civil cases involving ordinary Singaporeans are cases involving actions for damages for death or personal injuries, family or matrimonial cases, cases involving adoption of children, guardianship of infants or the maintenance of parents. All these types of cases are not subject to court hearing fees. The Criminal Procedure Code does not impose hearing fees for criminal matters.

Moreover, and this is an important point, the recent increase in court fees only affects litigants in the Supreme Court, which constitutes a very small percentage of all our court users. Only about 3.4% of writs filed in 2002 were filed in the High Court. The Subordinate Courts handled an overwhelming majority of 96.6% of civil cases in Singapore in 2002. Hence, a negligible proportion of the population is actually affected by the fee increases. In addition, about 70% of the litigants in the High Court are corporations.

A further safeguard is that the Registrar has the power to waive or defer the payment of hearing fees in genuine cases of hardship.

Mdm Halimah also asked, Sir, in part 2 and part 3 of her question, about legal aid, and how the legal aid impacts the Singaporeans, particularly lower income Singaporeans.

Sir, the Legal Aid Bureau extended assistance to 16,248 persons between April 1999 and March 2002. Since the means test for legal aid was last revised in April 2001, there has been a substantial increase in the number of persons who have been granted legal aid. In FY 2001, 6,571 persons were granted legal aid, as compared to 4,968 persons in FY 2000 and 4,709 persons in FY 1999, in other words, an increase of 40% from 1991 to 2001.

There was also a substantial increase in the percentage of applicants who successfully qualified for legal aid. In FY 1999, 66% of applicants qualified for legal aid. This increased to 70.7% in FY 2000 and 81.2% in FY 2001, in other words, less applicants were turned away.

Given these improved statistics, it is too early to further revise the current income limit for legal aid, which was last revised only 21 months ago. But as Members are well aware, the Ministry of Law reviews the means test continually and will adjust, when necessary.

Sir, on the final part of her question, ie, on mediation and other alternative dispute resolution processes, in other words, litigants who want to have their disputes settled have other viable means to settle these disputes and need not necessarily just turn to the court for litigation, because over the past few years, both the Ministry of Law and the courts have actively promoted mediation as an alternative to litigation as a means of settling commercial and relational disputes in the community. In addition, the Small Claims processes provide a speedy mechanism to settle a wide range of contractual claims of up to $10,000 in quantum, at very low cost, and indeed up to $20,000 if the parties agree.

Then, of course, there is community mediation, spearheaded by the Ministry of Law, since 1998, where community mediators have mediated more than 1,000 mediation sessions. Of these, 75% of disputes were successfully resolved.

At the Supreme Court, during pre-trial conferences, the Registrar discusses with parties the various alternative dispute resolution processes and refers appropriate cases to mediation. Since the setting up of the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC) in August 1997, it has handled 910 cases. Of these cases, about 770 cases were commenced in the courts but the parties subsequently turned to mediation.

At the Subordinate Courts, mediation is an integral part of the justice system and is widely used to resolve disputes. Through its Multi-Door Courthouse, the Subordinate Courts provide information to parties to help them decide on the most appropriate dispute resolution forum for their case. And the Subordinate Courts indeed has introduced other innovative processes such as E@dr where disputing parties with email accounts can mutually turn to for mediation under the guidance of a court mediator, without filing a court action; or Court Dispute Resolution or CDR, where a Judge helps parties to arrive at a mutually satisfactory solution to their case by providing a neutral evaluation; and thirdly a pre-action protocols pilot scheme covering non-injury motor accident cases where parties are required to follow a procedure to disclose all relevant documents and negotiate to settle the case before filing a court action. 2.00 pm

Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Written Answer to Question No. 18 is reproduced in the Appendix (Cols. 2127-8). Question Nos. 15-17 and 19-30 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 21st January, 2003.]