HEAD E - JUDICATURE

Column:1026

Head E - Judicature

The Chairman: Head E - Judicature. Mr Chandra Mohan.

Independence and Accountability

---

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair: Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head E of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, on independence and accountability, Articles 93 to 101 of the Constitution of Singapore provide for the appointment, qualifications and tenure of Judges of our Supreme Court. A Judge holds office till 65 years of age (unless extended). There is security of tenure and he can only be removed under Article 98 of the Constitution after a proper inquiry

Column: 1027

by a Tribunal appointed by the President of Singapore.

Today, the general public expects, and the practice of good governance requires, that there is greater transparency in how the different branches of the Organs of State operate. These Organs are accountable to the citizens of Singapore and, inter alia, Parliament must be the main vehicle to ensure this by questioning policies and suggesting improvements. What then can Parliament recommend as far as the Judiciary is concerned?

It is important for Parliament and the citizens to know the scheme of remuneration of all people employed by the various Organs of State, including those of the Judiciary. The monies paid to have a Judiciary are public funds and the public has the right to know whether money is well spent. I am sure the Government is careful and prudent about monies being utilised for the Judiciary. What may be lacking in the public arena is sufficient information being disseminated about these matters? What are the criteria used to assess the Judges' performance, independence, competency and value for money, and who decides these? Is there a structured salary scheme, increments, bonus scheme, etc, how much is paid out per year, in terms of salary and bonus? The salaries of Judges in the 1980s were much less than in the 1990s and 2000s. Who decides this? Is there a recommending body of panel of Judges, Legal Service personnel, Cabinet Ministers or any other Committees? What are the rules applicable? Perhaps more information could be disseminated to Parliament and the citizenry so that the informed public could appreciate these matters.

If there is payment of bonus to Judges, does the granting of bonus in any way affect the independent thinking of

Column: 1028

the Judges - could they be wittingly or unwittingly enticed in subtle ways into thinking along certain lines? Is it good to have the bonus scheme for Judges? Are we paying Judges too little or too much? And therefore why the need for bonus? In the long term, would it be possible, like some other Government matters and like arbitration matters, to privatise the dispensing of cases and justice and perhaps save costs? Could we have a pool of legal talent from the Judiciary, Legal Service, practising advocates and solicitors, law lecturers, professors and legal experts from regional and international community to form a "Panel of Judiciary" from whom court cases could be handled and heard in Singapore?

I also would like to ask, related to this, about the new Supreme Court Building. What is the state of readiness of that building and what are the costs involved? And secondly, what is going to happen to the Subordinate Courts Building at Havelock Road? Will it be replaced soon? What is the long-term plan - will it be housed near the Supreme Court, if it is going to be moved?

Judicial Renewal

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Law whether there is in place any policy or system to ensure renewal of High Court Judges. According to the Constitution, a Judge of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, is to hold office till he is 65 years old or up to six months thereafter, as the President shall approve. I also understand that the President has powers to appoint the Chief Justice or a Judge for such period as he deems fit after consulting the Prime Minister. It seems that there are instances where a High Court Judge who is way beyond the usual age of retirement is still required to serve on the Bench. Take, for instance, our honourable Chief Justice, he is now 78

Column: 1029

years old and has even gone for heart surgery. How much longer does the Minister expect him to carry on? Should we not have a proper succession plan so that our Judges will be able to enjoy their retirement after serving the nation?

Access to and Cost of Litigation

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair: Sir, on access to and cost of litigation. The administration of justice in Singapore requires that there be easy access to justice with minimal costs and this must be the cornerstone of our legal system.

Today, in Singapore, those involved with litigation in court argue that access to justice in Singapore is getting more expensive, especially in civil court cases. The court filing fees, the fairly recently introduced electronic filing fees and other forms of payment for court records have increased especially in the last two to three years. For instance, under the Rules of Court, filing a Writ of Summons before 2000 was $150. Since around December 2002, it is $500 for claims below $1 million and $1,000 for claims above $1 million. Filing a Memorandum of Appearance was $20 and, today, it is $120. Hearing fees per day (except the first three days because of the SARS problem that we had last year) since June 2003 is $6,000 with value up to $1 million and $9,000 with value exceeding $1 million per day, and it is at a reducing scale thereafter. Before 1990, it was free of charge. Filing of a Petition of Probate or Petition for Letters of Administration was $150. Today, it is $1,000 (for estate exceeding $3 million). That is a lot of money for lay persons.

In this connection, it is very commendable that the Law Society of Singapore and the Ministry of Law, together with the Supreme Court Registrar, are assisting by providing lawyers to do pro bono work and in reducing costs in criminal matters, but not

Column: 1030

civil, by providing free or reduced costs. Volunteer lawyers from the Bar must be commended for doing voluntary service. The Legal Aid Bureau must also be commended for providing legal aid in some sectors of civil law. I hope more lawyers, especially the younger ones, would come forward to help in giving free legal aid to our poor people.

I presume, Sir, the courts are trying hard to reduce costs. I do hope the priority is to reduce costs and not to recoup the expenses in introducing and maintaining our electronic filing system. We should do a study and review all these escalating costs so that litigants would have cheaper means of access to justice.

The Minister for Law (Prof. S Jayakumar): Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. Having listened to what you have said about compliance with time, I worry how many of the points that have been raised can be answered during the short period. But if I do not answer all the points, or I do not answer all the points satisfactorily, I hope the Member would feel free to file Questions for Oral Answer or take it up under the Ministry of Law.

Let me, first, take the points raised by Mr Chandra Mohan, who raised several points about our system of appointment of Judges, whether we can privatise, whether we can have a panel, and so on. My answer is that he knows that in our system in Singapore, the method of appointment of Judges follows the provisions and system to be found in many Commonwealth countries. But I agree with him that we can have any kind of system as we can think of. In the world there are many systems - the Americans have a particular procedure, the Europeans have other procedures. But, at the end of the day, what is important is the integrity, honesty and incorruptibility of the total system and of the people who operate the system, not only in the Judiciary but of the

Column: 1031

Government and other agencies in their relationship with the Judiciary.

Our system has worked. It has worked satisfactorily and has gained the kudos and credit from international circles and international ranking agencies. The Member knows that the agencies had given high marks of our Judiciary. We have ranked tops in most of the international surveys and Asia Pacific Legal said in their survey: "Singapore courts are both highly expert and untainted by corruption. Singapore courts have a good reputation for both impartiality and efficiency." So, yes, we can devise new systems but I would ask: is it necessary? No, because the system works.

As to privatising cases, that is an interesting proposition. But it is one that has considerable implications. If he meant to say that some of the workload can be reduced by having arbitration of cases, I would agree, because we do want to position Singapore as an international arbitration centre. And if parties choose not to litigate but send the cases to arbitration, they are perfectly free to do so.

In fact, we encourage arbitration, both domestic and international.

4.45 pm

As to the new Supreme Court, I do not have all the figures with me on the cost but, as to when it is going to be ready, I believe the construction is slated to be completed in 2005. I do not have the details of the construction cost, but I do know that substantial savings were made after a very careful review of the procedures and, as a result

Column: 1032

of the cost-cutting exercise, I think 6.7% or some $17 million of the construction cost was saved. The plans for the new Subordinate Courts have been put on hold as a result of the cost-cutting exercise. They have been shelved for the time being.

Mr Low Thia Khiang referred to the system of renewal of judges. He has two general points. The first point is that there should be continual renewal. In fact, the Chief Justice is taking the leadership in proposing to the Prime Minister outstanding lawyers from the practitioners as well as the Legal Service who have done excellently in private practice, the Legal Service or in the Subordinate Courts. As a result, over recent years, from 1997, six or so Judicial Commissioners have been appointed, and all of them, if you ask members of the legal profession, would be recognised as outstanding legal talents. He mentioned the Chief Justice, that he had heart surgery and so on. I know that the Prime Minister is satisfied that the Chief Justice is medically fit, otherwise the Prime Minister would not have recommended to the President to have the Chief Justice's appointment renewed after he had reached retirement age. Why has the Prime Minister advised the President to renew the Chief Justice's appointment? The answer is simple: because he has done an excellent job and has transformed the Singapore Judiciary really to what it is today. And I would advise Mr Low Thia Khiang to read what the Senior Minister said in his book "From Third World to First":

"Yong Pung How turned out to be an outstanding Chief Justice. He gave leadership to the judges and set a high tone for the Bar. By 1999, the reputation of our courts brought visits by judges and Chief Justices from developing as well as developed countries to study his reorganisation ... The World Bank recommended the Singapore system, both at High Court and Subordinate Court levels, for other countries to learn from."

So long as he is able to continue doing this excellent job, I am not surprised that the Prime Minister had recommended that

Column: 1033

the Chief Justice continues. But let me say that Mr Low Thia Khiang should look at other jurisdictions like the US Supreme Court where the average age of the judges is 70 years, and their Chief Justice is 80 years old. By comparison, our Chief Justice is quite young. But the point is that there is renewal and self-renewal. The average age of our Bench in the Supreme Court is 55.8 years, compared to 70 in the US, 62 in Canada, and 64 in Australia. So, we are doing quite well.

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

The sum of $89,476,670 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $167,884,300 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.