Edwin Tong Chun Fai
Singapore
“These questions have been answered in the reply to Questions Nos 26 to 31 for Oral Answer on today's Order Paper. [Please refer to "Addressing Issues Identified in Legal Profession Sustainability Study", Official Report, 7 July 2026, Vol 96, Issue 32, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Answer not Answered by End of Question Time secti…”
“I am answering in my capacity as the Minister charged with the responsibility for the People's Association. The Community Development Council (CDC) Vouchers Scheme was first introduced in June 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic with two key objectives: one, to help Singaporean households cope with daily expenses; and two, to support hawker…”
“If the incident is a result of bilateral obligations relating to data protection and inviolability of equipment not being complied with, then the Government will consider all available legal and diplomatic options, in accordance with the bilateral RTS Link treaties, as well as the relevant international law.”
“In 2024, community sentences under part 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (CPC) were imposed in 86 criminal cases handled by the State Courts.”
“It is a five-minute journey across both ways; and with the availability of closed circuit television coverage and the real-time monitoring that will be done by the officers on both sides, we did not think that this will be necessary.”
“The Ministry of Law will provide an oral reply to this Parliamentary Question, together with other Parliamentary Questions which have been filed on this topic at the next available opportunity.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,221 lines we hold for Edwin Tong Chun Fai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 32 of 45.
“Why were they not produced? Ms Sylvia Lim's email to Ms How Weng Fan and Mr Danny Loh is dated 3 August 2011. And so eventually, after an unnecessarily protracted process, the Independent Panel, chosen and appointed by AHTC and which Mr Pritam Singh quite rightly says comprised "eminent" persons, decided to sue Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Low Thia Khiang and others, on behalf of AHTC and we now know the outcome of that. So, let me shift now to what these documents, in fact, show, when they were produced in Court, against the different versions, shifting versions proffered by Workers' Party to cover up the true picture. First, on CPG. Workers' Party first sought to justify the appointment of FMSS without tender as being critical and urgent because CPG, the then MA, wanted out, and this left AHPETC at that time exposed. This was a narrative that was repeated and played out consistently over several years. There was no mistaking the picture that the Workers' Party wanted people to believe. It was CPG's fault, they left the Workers' Party in a lurch, without any MA, something which the Workers' Party only knew at short notice and, therefore, the appointment of FMSS was urgent, pressing and we had to waive tender. These reasons were used to justify not calling a tender which you know, clearly, you are required to do by law. And then, they put out this same picture in different fora as well. In a press release to the public dated 5 August 2011, the very next day after the fateful Town Council's meeting; in Parliament during the 2013 debate on the Ministerial Statement on Town Councils; again, in Parliament in February 2015 during a debate on the AGO report; and in an open letter to residents in June 2015 prior to the last General Election.”
“So, it is a clear, consistent pattern of behaviour designed to block disclosure of the relevant documents and information, information which would allow a forensic inquiry into what had happened and what you had done. And you clearly did not want to do that. So, you carefully suppressed them, held them back from disclosure, fobbed off the request until you could no longer do so and it came out in the wash in the Court proceedings. Throughout the whole inquiry into this issue, for years, the Workers' Party said they provided all the information. And I think that is being the consistent pattern in the media statements, in the letters written to the auditors and also in Parliament. For example, in February 2017, in a response to PwC, the Town Council said, and I quote, “we have provided all information relating to [PwC's] request”. But I think the facts speak for themselves and PwC's subsequent report makes it quite clear. I read a paragraph earlier from the April 2017 Report, six years after FMSS' appointment. Let me give you two other requests that they made in April 2017. They asked for documents in relation to the premature release of CPG, "This must have been the subject of correspondence between CPG and the Town Council and/or email discussions amongst or involving the town councillors" – not produced. And again, on FMSS, PwC stated and asked, "Town Council met on 4 August 2011 to decide on the waiver of tender and FMSS' appointment as MA. Prior to this meeting, there must have been correspondence and/or email discussions amongst and/or involving town councillors concerning such waiver of tender and/or award of the first MA contract to FMSS. These would shed light on the circumstances surrounding the waiver of tender and the award of the contract".”
“And I would have thought that if one was trying to audit the propriety of payments to FMSS to check if its transactions and the approval of FMSS contract was proper, those were the first place you would look and, indeed, Ms Sylvia Lim will remember that in Court, what was then produced was an email of 3 August, where just prior to the approval at the Town Council's meeting on 4 August there was an email from you asking for Ms How Weng Fan and the late Mr Danny Loh to sanitise the auditors' report, sanitise the very report that was meant to recommend the appointment of FMSS and those were the documents that were sought by the auditors, right from the beginning. So, why did you not produce those to the auditors, twice, to AGO, to PwC? What is there to hide? Because, as I said, we knew from the Court judgment that the Court looked at voluminous contemporaneous documents in that critical period of time. Those were the same documents requested by PwC in assessing the reasons for the transactions and, of course, their propriety. We then get to the stage where KPMG gets appointed and you heard what I said earlier. KPMG came on board. AHTC took the position, "Let's not duplicate work, let's focus on cooperating only with KPMG", issued a media release – I read it out earlier – but then had a series of problems with KPMG, all documented in the report that I referred Mr Png Eng Huat to earlier. So, what we see, Mr Speaker, is a clear, consistent pattern of behaviour. It is not "I took over and maybe I was disorganised at the start." But it started in 2011 and right through to 2017. PwC is saying not a single email, internal correspondence was produced.”
“And it would not be lost on this House that the apparently missing documents are in respect of the period of time in which FMSS was appointed without a tender – the same relevant period. It gets worse because this same charade was repeated the following year. At that time, Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton were performing an audit for the FY2012/2013, the first full financial year under the management of the Workers' Party. As in the previous year, Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton were stonewalled. They reported that, "The Town Council had not made available to us details of the project management service fee paid to a related party. Accordingly, we are unable to determine the completeness of the related party transactions." This is found in your own annual report, FY2012/2013, page 14. Have a look. Foo Kon Tan were very specific and zeroed in on the appointment, and the payment terms, of FMSS which by that time they knew was a related party. Why was this not made available to Foo Kon Tan? Why did you not make it available to Foo Kon Tan? Later on, when AGO and PwC were appointed to audit the Town Council's same accounts, 2012/2013 and look into the financial affairs of the Town Council, they had similar difficulties. In its report to AGO which formed part of the AGO report, PwC noted, and I quote, "In particular, we would point out that the Town Council did not provide us with internal notes and correspondence, including emails, which may shed light on: the process leading to the award of tenders/contracts; and evidencing the deliberation/evaluation of the award of tender/contracts…disclosure of interest or are otherwise related to approval for transactions chosen." Very clear statement.”
“Mr Png Eng Huat would appreciate that that is usual, par for the course – they check, you answer, they verify and then, if it is true and fair, they sign off. The simple and honest way of dealing with queries from your own auditor is to address them squarely, directly and fully and to provide the relevant documentation so that the appropriate review can be undertaken. There is not much complexity in that. The Town Council, at that time under Ms Sylvia Lim's chairmanship, however, refused. The auditors had to make disclaimers, as I have said earlier, and that, we all know, is a very serious adverse outcome. At the same time, these were not complicated requests. They were requests for the Town Council’s own documents – your own documents – concerning transactions that you entered into after taking over the Town Council. Subsequently, as you know, the AGO came in to audit and, in its report dated 6 February 2015, when they looked back, they said, "Town Council could not provide some documents required during the current audit that concerned transactions taking place after AHPETC had taken over from the previous Town Council. In response to reminders, AHPETC indicated that it could not locate some of the documents and was still looking for others, three months after the request for documents." In the first year of audit, it was not even a full year. The transactions that they were talking about in respect of which documents were sought could not be found at that stage, but suddenly surfaced when the Court looked at it? So, I ask Ms Sylvia Lim to reconsider not providing the documents to Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton when they asked – is it not the same as suppressing, prevaricating, not cooperating with the auditors?”
“The judgment of the High Court shows not only that Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang knew that appointing FMSS without a tender would be wrong, but that they went ahead anyway in a considered, calculated manner to accomplish it. And on Mr Faisal Manap's point, that is not good faith. Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang engineered a series of steps to ensure the appointment of FMSS as the MA of AHTC without tender. "They made it a fait accompli" – those are the words of the Judge – which allowed FMSS to charge higher rates to the Town Council. They took steps to carefully conceal the true reason of the appointment and this included concealing it even from their own town councillors. They put their interests in wanting FMSS appointed ahead of the residents' interests. When questions were first asked, starting from simple questions from the Town Council's own auditors – these are your own auditors looking at your accounts to try and understand if they are true and fair – came up with roadblocks, unable to obtain the documents; not once, not twice, but repeatedly. When questions arose as to why there was even a need to waive tender, they proceeded to offer a litany of false excuses to justify why FMSS had to be appointed without a tender. None of these excuses, which really kept shifting and changing, can stand up to scrutiny. I will come back to this. But let me go back to the Town Council's accounts. First year, after the Workers' Party had taken over the Town Council in 2011/2012 and the accounts were being audited, your own town councillors, Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton asked the Workers' Party in 2012 for financial information in respect of the period immediately following their takeover so that they could perform a proper audit on the Town Council’s accounts.”
“Mr Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has explained to this House why the Motion is of critical importance. But I am not sure Members of the Workers' Party appreciate it to the same extent. So, let me try. The first limb, which affirms the vital importance of Members of Parliament maintaining high standards of integrity and accountability can brook no dissent. The Deputy Prime Minister has also outlined the Court's findings. These are serious and grave findings, by any measure. And Members of the Workers' Party who are lawyers and appear in Court will know that this is an exceptional judgment. It is a serious and grave indictment of proper conduct and against various elected officials of the Workers' Party. They may say they disagree with the judgment – as I heard Ms Sylvia Lim said earlier – or that they wish to appeal, as I heard Mr Faisal Manap said a moment ago which, of course, you are entitled to do. But the question is: what should happen in the interim? And I think that is the measure of proper governance and probity that we are speaking about. Should those found to have engaged in egregious conduct recuse themselves from financial oversight and control? To answer that question, we should consider what the Court found. These are the findings, until and unless they are set aside, and they are relevant for the interim period pending any appeal. It is a Court of law that has made a pronouncement after having heard Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim give evidence. This was not a one-off or an occasional lapse or one that was caused by lack of experience or by some careless oversight.”
“The October 2016 report by KPMG records very clearly and I just gave two examples. I invite Mr Png to look at it carefully. It sets out the different employees whose emails had been missing, the archives are missing and it goes on to say that when they requested for the email profiles of certain persons, and when they received it, it goes on to say that they found out that those email profiles had just been accessed; and then, they said these were missing. Yes, they do not say you took it, but I think there is an inference in there. I invite you to look at it carefully. It certainly does not say anything about AHTC assisting to replicate this file or that file, as you have explained.”
“So, that is what we refer to, Ms Lim. And finally, when you had to produce it in Court, we know what the Court has made of those emails and internal correspondence. Let me remind you that, in fact, those were the very same emails and internal correspondence that the auditors, right through, were asking for.”
“If Ms Sylvia Lim wants to go into KPMG, then, let us go into KPMG. When KPMG was appointed, I think Ms Sylvia Lim will remember that there was a media release that was given. Let me just find the media release. Yes, when KPMG was appointed, there was a media release dated 1 June 2016, where it said, "AHTC's town councillors had decided that AHTC would focus its fullest attention on KPMG." I think that is what Ms Sylvia Lim had referred to, in terms of the duplication of work. But in a report dated 31 October 2016 by KPMG, KPMG itself noted difficulties in getting information and documents out of AHTC. Let me just cite two examples. When KPMG examined the electronic devices of Town Council staff and FMSS employees, they found that documents and archives had been deleted. Not just one or two, but several documents and several email archives of persons belonging to AHTC and FMSS were removed. Second, KPMG sought the cooperation of town councillors when they came in to do the audit. They wanted to have oral interviews so that they can ask questions and you answer. But Ms Sylvia Lim will remember that she and Mr Low Thia Khiang and, in fact, every single elected councillor of AHTC, refused to take part in the interview, refused to cooperate with KPMG. So, when we say information and documents are missing and the auditors are unable to verify information, that is what we refer to – a litany of these excuses, documents are missing, cannot find the documents. Or as you say, not providing documents to an auditor when they ask for it, is not the same thing as hiding it, then I do not know what is. Because they asked once in 2011; second time in 2012. Your own auditors Foo Kon Tan, AGO, PwC – PwC was appointed on behalf of AGO as well, initially – and then, now, KPMG.”
“And I would like to draw your attention to the Court's judgment, which I am in no doubt you are familiar with, where the Court said it was substantially assisted by the voluminous amount of internal emails and correspondence, which he used to reach findings which we have heard the Deputy Prime Minister articulate. On Mr Png Eng Huat's comment on the cheques, I think the position is very clear. It is not about one signatory or two signatories. It is about the entire system that you have set up as a result of what you have done – by putting FMSS as your MA, the General Manager and the Secretary in the Town Council being owners of FMSS, that entire system has been completely subverted. A proper system has been subverted by the way in which you have done this. You just have to look at the summary of the judgment to know that we are not talking about one cheque here or two signatories there. Do not penny-pinch your dime with us. Paragraph 13 of the summary, it says, "The involvement of conflicted persons in the approval process for payments to FMSS and FMSI created an inherent risk of overpayment in the absence of safeguards. Mr Png Eng Huat would know this very well. The Standing Instruction for payments to FMSS to be co-signed by the AHTC Chairman or Vice Chairman was not a sufficient safeguard because there was no system, no system, to ensure that each cheque presented was fully verified by the independent parties. In some instances, there was no proper verification even by the conflicting parties. So, Mr Png well knows that we are not talking about one cheque here or two cheques there. We are talking about the entire system. The entire system on which you have sought to make payments to FMSS. This is what the judge has said.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, on the first point raised by Ms Sylvia Lim, on the documents available to your own auditors. You would know that from the very first year that you had auditors audit your Town Council's accounts, Foo Kon Tan, and that is in 2011, 2012, four disclaimers were issued by Foo Kon Tan. The four disclaimers arose on the basis of incomplete documentation. They sought documents in relation to transactions that were entered into after the Workers' Party took over the Town Council. They were not made available. In the following year, in 2012/2013, the same qualifiers were made; in fact, by that time, 13 disclaimers had been made. And the basis of the majority of those 13 disclaimers rested on the basis that incomplete documentation, absence of information, and they were unable, as a result, to verify the accounts. When the AGO took over the matter, they also came across difficulties. PwC, in particular, Ms Sylvia Lim will remember, were appointed to audit the accounts on behalf of the AGO. Let me read to you PwC's report, just one paragraph from the report, and this is April 2017, some six years after FMSS had been appointed. PwC says, and I quote, "No single email on matters in relation to the takeover of the MA and EMSU contract services by FMSS, including the termination of CPG, the award of contracts to FMSS and all FMSS' performance of works, were given to us for our review, though in our view, such emails ought to exist." This is six years after FMSS was appointed. Yes, I am reminded that those documents were eventually produced in Court.”
“Mr Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has explained to this House why this Motion —”
“Now, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill amends the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore to create the Appellate Division of the High Court, renames the existing High Court as the General Division of the High Court and creates a new class of judges who will be designated as "Judges of the Appellate Division". This Bill is linked to the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill, which we had debated earlier. In that debate, I have already explained the amendments proposed in both Bills. Members have raised their questions and expressed their views on both Bills during the earlier debate, although they are still welcome to do so now if there are any other. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill amends the Judges' Remuneration Act consequent to the introduction of the Judges of the Appellate Division who will form a new class of judges that sit in the Appellate Division of the High Court. This Bill is linked to the previous Bill on our Order Paper, the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill. In that debate, I had explained the amendments proposed in both Bills. Members have already raised their questions and expressed their views on both Bills during the earlier debate, although they are still welcome to do so now if there are any. Mr Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Yes, Mr Chairman, I beg to move, "That in page 7, line 26, to leave out the word 'date' and insert the word 'time'". This applies in the context of section 29B(2) of the underlying legislation. I had addressed this point earlier in my speech. I believe this clarifies the position and makes it clear that it is the time that is applicable and not the date from which the Order is made, that the requirement for leave for further arguments to be filed runs.”
“(proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai.] (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)] [Mr Speaker in the Chair] [(proc text) Clauses 1 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 12 – (proc text)]”
“So, the system we have put in place strikes that balance – works for us, strikes that balance, allows for the appropriate renewal of the Supreme Court Bench in a fair and systematic manner, but also gives us the ability to tap on Judicial Commissioners and also to retain the wide-ranging experience of the Senior Judges. The Government has made it clear before that it does not disagree with the fundamental point that security of tenure is important. But there is a need to take into account the unique circumstances that we operate in and in the manner in which we look after the success of the Judiciary. What is clear is that we are a small country, with a limited talent pool. When we find suitable talent, we have to ensure that, first, this is a calling that they are certain about, and next, that there is room for advancement. Will this undermine judicial independence or will our Judges start making decisions that are affected by political bias? I believe the answer to this is eminently clear. The decisions of the Court are published and the public can judge for themselves. Sir, I believe that brings me to the end of my responses to the questions raised. I believe I have touched on almost every question that has been surfaced. Let me just end by saying that the establishment of the new Appellate Division is a milestone in the development of our Court system. Together with the other proposed enhancements to the Court processes, it is designed to sustain, in the long term, the high standards of excellence and access to justice that Singapore’s Courts are known for in and outside Singapore. Sir, with that, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.”
“Similar arrangements exist in many other countries, particularly the Commonwealth countries, such as the UK, where the Lord Chief Justice may after consulting the Lord Chancellor, appoint a Deputy Judge of the High Court for a specified period. Let me now come to the Senior Judges. Senior Judges who sit in the existing High Court are scheduled to hear trials and applications, and they contribute to the disposal of cases by the High Court. Senior Judges may also deal with urgent applications, such as Mareva applications and injunctions, and can also be assigned to hear appeals in the Court of Appeal. In terms of the issue of security of tenure, the Senior Judges we are talking about here, would have already been previously selected and appointed, and had a full career as a Supreme Court Judge. They would have served a long and distinguished career and, from the perspective of the issue of independence and what they are influenced by, it is difficult to see why such Judges, who are reappointed as Senior Judges, will suddenly start making decisions based on extraneous considerations simply because they are now appointed for a fixed period. While we want to utilise the wealth of expertise and experience that these Judges carry with them, at the same time, there is also a practical need to allow a younger generation of Judges to have the opportunity to advance. This is also a point I think very graphically recognised by Assoc Prof Walter Theseira when he talked about ossification.”
“Being part of the Supreme Court Bench is a calling that not everyone will say or can say that they are certain about from the start. The Judicial Commissioner scheme, therefore, allows outstanding members of the Bar who are at the peak of their profession to contribute to the dispensation of justice and the development of local jurisprudence. If they decide that this is something they are called to do and they also have the suitable judicial temperament, then there is the long-term appointment that is possible with security of tenure. One prominent example, of course, is our current Chief Justice who was first appointed as a Judicial Commissioner from 2006 to 2007 and returned to private practice thereafter. Five years later, he returned to the Judiciary and was made Chief Justice. This brings me to my next point, which is that an immediate and permanent appointment as a Supreme Court Judge may not also suit all possible appointees, not only for the reasons of temperament, lifestyle and calling but also because under the Legal Profession Act, an individual who has held office as a Supreme Court Judge for more than three years, cannot then apply for a practising certificate. So, it is a career change altogether. In other words, an individual who trades a successful career as a lawyer to serve as a Supreme Court Judge cannot return to his former career after serving as a Supreme Court Judge for three years or more. If we look at the practices of other jurisdictions, the appointment of Judicial Commissioners for fixed terms to the Bench is also not new.”
“Is that the way we want to go about our Judges that we put on the Bench? Again, I think our answer is very clear. Then, we look at the other end of the spectrum. We have been talking about Supreme Court Judges and High Court Judges. Let us look at the Judicial Officers of the State Courts. Members who practise in the State Courts will know they deal with and dispose of 95% of all judicial matters in Singapore, but have no security of tenure. Yet, the 2018 Court Users Survey shows that 99% of respondents agree that the Courts independently carry out justice according to the law. And 100% of respondents agree that the Courts administer justice fairly to all in Singapore, regardless of race, language or religion. So, going back to my original point, while I do not disagree that, as a matter of principle, security of tenure is an important aspect of judicial independence, we do not have to be overly theoretical or dogmatic about it. We look at what works for our system and we attract and retain the best and finetune it in a manner that works for our system. For Judicial Commissioners, the scheme is an integral part of our system of appointments. It helps to manage temporary surges in caseload and enables both the prospective appointee and also the Chief Justice to assess suitability for permanent appointment. It has been explained in this House before that not all lawyers will want an immediate appointment as a Supreme Court Judge. Some would rather come in first as a Judicial Commissioner for a short-term appointment. This provides the opportunity to ascertain whether the nature of the office of a Judge suits them, before the appointment is made on a permanent basis. This has little to do with judicial independence or security of tenure.”
“Next, on the desirable length of tenure and also extending tenure to Judicial Commissioners and Senior Judges. Again, we need to look at it in the context of our system – what we need to achieve in our system, what has worked for us and what we want to see happening. First, it bears noting that there is no correlation between age per se and the Judge to make an independent and effective judicial decision. Neither is there any linkage between the age and ability to make a decision free from political or public interest. Rather, it is crucial that the system enables Judges to exercise powers free from encumbrances. So, systemically, structurally, how do we build a system that has that? What we need to do, then, is to look at our unique circumstance and find our own balance. In this respect, we have achieved a balance between various factors: ensuring a good mix of tenured and non-tenured Judges, rejuvenating the Bench while leveraging the wisdom and experience of the existing Bench, protecting the Judiciary from baseless allegations and assaults to their reputation. I do not think that there is much value in pointing to other jurisdictions which provide for tenure of up to 70 years or more, 65 or beyond, the whole variety of different systems and then for us to slavishly adopt those numbers as our own. Going back to the US, for example, the US Supreme Court Judges have tenure for life. Yet, there is a constant debate about the ideological leanings of the Court, whether they have taken into account extraneous considerations and whether it has been politicised. It also appears to be the norm now for the US Supreme Court nominations to attract significant controversy, with all kinds of allegations made.”
“There were many considerations, such as the need to maintain a competitive economy in the face of an ageing population, providing an opportunity for older workers to earn a regular income and allowing employers to gain from the retention of experienced workers. I think Ms Sylvia Lim herself cited some studies – healthcare is better, life expectancy is better and so on. But I would respectfully suggest that the tenure for a Supreme Court Judge engages very different considerations – a very different set of parameters and issues to consider. Here, we are not so much concerned with economic competitiveness. Rather, the security of tenure for a Supreme Court Judge seeks to secure the independence of the Judge in judicial proceedings. So, retirement age laws in the context of the Employment Act, for instance, are not immediately comparable to the tenure of office of a Supreme Court Judge. I would not say they are irrelevant but they are not immediately comparable on a same set of paradigm factors. In fact, if we look at other jurisdictions, we will also find that there is also little relation between the statutory retirement ages for the general population and the security of tenure for a Judge. Ms Anthea Ong – or was that Ms Sylvia Lim, I could not quite recall – cited the example of the US. In the US, the Supreme Court Justices have tenure for life. In India and Malaysia, the retirement ages for workers, generally, is 60, while judges of the apex court in those countries all have tenure until 65. So, there is no direct correlation. I venture to suggest that it is for the reasons I have outlined. In Hong Kong, judges of the apex court have tenure until 65 as well, but there is no statutory retirement age.”
“It is not about what age we ask the Judges to retire at and what tenure we give the Judges, but it is in the quality of the output and the quality of the performance that we measure our success. So, whilst I do not disagree with Members that the broader philosophical issues on security of tenure, of course, the linkage to independence and so on are important, we must never lose sight of the practical factors that have allowed us to build a first-class Judiciary that we now have. We want to always ensure that the morale of the Judiciary remains high, that it continues to attract and retain persons of the highest calibre, legal talent of the highest scruples, so that the highest levels of public trust can be maintained. To this end, the Government ensures that remuneration for judicial appointment holders remains competitive so that we are able to attract and retain persons of high quality, ability, integrity and, certainly, of an incorruptible character. We are also firm about protecting our Judiciary from baseless attacks against their reputation, as reflected by the adoption of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act in 2016. Trust and respect in the Judiciary have been carefully and closely built up over the generations – and I think Members will agree – it has to be zealously guarded, for it can be easily lost if we are not careful. Let me now turn to Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's question on the differences in the age of retirement for Singaporeans in general and the tenure of office for a Supreme Court Judge. In Singapore, when we first introduced retirement age laws in 1993, employers were not allowed to ask employees to retire before 60. In 1999, we raised the retirement age to 62 and this is where it stands now.”
“One integral aspect of the rule of law is an independent Judiciary which makes decisions based on facts and law and without regard to extraneous factors. So, clearly, we can see from the rankings that judicial independence in Singapore is strong and consistently so. Trust in our Judiciary is high. In a survey conducted by my Ministry – I cited this earlier – showed that 92% of Singaporeans have trust and confidence in our legal system. Let me look at some other legal systems, one that Ms Anthea Ong also raised. You look at the UK, where judges there have tenure until the age of 70. As you know, in 2016, there was this UK Attitude Survey. It was a stark reminder of how things could quickly go wrong if we are not careful. Let me just cite a few findings from the survey of UK judges. Forty-three percent of judges felt valued by the public. Seventy-four percent of judges felt that the remuneration does not adequately reflect the work they do. Sixty-one percent said opportunities for career progression was important but support for this was either non-existent or poor. Forty-seven percent of high court judges and forty-one percent of court of appeal judges – and these are judges in the UK system – said they intended to leave the Judiciary in the next five years. Two percent of judges felt valued by the government. We could go on. As I have said, these are survey numbers. But they, overall, give you a sense and picture and they show that there is a system that is facing a serious problem of morale, recruitment and retention. So, is this a system which has tenure till 70 a better system? That is why I go back to Mr Murali Pillai's point.”
“I am glad I got it correct. In essence, these questions – save for Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's which I will address – relate to that of the independence of our Judiciary: one of tenure and one of retirement age. So, let me address the point. First, by borrowing from Mr Murali Pillai's own speech where he answered the point by explaining that these are effectively two different things – to look at tenure and to look at the retirement ages of the Judges are two different things when you look at the issue of independence. Let me explain why. The Government regards a strong and trusted Judiciary as the bedrock of the rule of law. I think that really brooks no dissent. This is the point that has been made by the Minister for Law previously and it is a point that is worth reiterating in the context of the points raised in this debate. The question then is, what does success look like for our Judiciary? Because ultimately – whatever you might say about the retirement age, the tenure – the key question is, how successful? What role have our Judges played? What benefits do we have from a strong, trusted Judiciary, an effective trusted Judiciary which is able to attract and retain the best legal talent that we have and which operates in a climate where there are no extraneous factors, no influences interfering with the ability of the Judges to perform their jobs? The question is: have we achieved that outcome? I think I have answered this earlier when I outlined some statistics, but I would say quite clearly so. I mentioned the World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators ranking Singapore in the 97th percentile worldwide in terms of rule of law. It is a number but what does that mean?”
“I think, to be very careful, in different shades, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms Anthea Ong have raised the point. Let me just try to address them as a whole. There are a couple of questions: first, on the retirement age; second, on the tenure of Judges being extended to the age of 70; and finally – I think that is Assoc Prof Walter Theseira's point – on what is the desired tenure. I think that was the point he made and whether there should be a fixed period. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Yes.”
“The change in the arrangement is one of drafting – trying to neaten up the provisions – and does not effect any change to the minimum number of Judges required to hear the categories of cases set out in the existing Sixth Schedule. For example, if there is a matter that is currently only heard by a minimum of two Judges, that will remain the case in the Bill. So, the Bill does not seek to change those arrangements. On SICC, Mr Murali Pillai asked about the difference in the number of Judges. This Bill retains the existing position where a single Judge shall hear proceedings in the High Court, except as provided for in written law. And that one exception is the SICC, where proceedings might be heard by a single Judge or three Judges. Why? Because there are unique considerations behind the SICC. Although it is a Division of the current High Court and will be a Division as well like the General Division after the amendments, they apply to cases of international commercial considerations and they also have a panel of specialist commercial judges comprising not only Singapore Supreme Court Judges but also International Judges from a myriad of different landscapes, backgrounds and also legal systems. The strength and diversity of the panel are key advantages to attract parties to submit international disputes before SICC, especially where the issues in dispute relate to foreign law or commercial practices in key jurisdictions overseas. On section 29B(2), again, we will be taking up the amendment. We wish to correct the word "date" to "time" and I wish to also clarify with Mr Murali Pillai that there is no missing word in between the two sub-provisions. It is a disjunctive provision. Let me now touch on the tenure of Judges.”
“In other jurisdictions, it is not always sufficient as well just to rely on a point of law of public importance to seek and obtain permission for leave to appeal and I will just cite one example. In Australia, section 35A of Australia's Judiciary Act provides that the High Court of Australia may, when determining whether to grant special leave to appeal, "have regard to any matters that it considers relevant" and that this shall include not only whether the appeal involves a question of law of public importance, but also other factors, such as whether the interests of justice require it. So, there is a degree of flexibility in the discretion given to the judge to assess a particular case and to assess whether, on top of the question of public importance, there are other reasons in the dispensation of justice for this to be heard on appeal. Mr Murali Pillai asked whether the Appellate Division has jurisdiction to hear professional disciplinary cases. I think judicial precedent has clarified that the Court of Appeal has no civil appellate jurisdiction in disciplinary proceedings for lawyers. Rather, this is heard by the Court of Three Judges; I think doctors as well. This remains unchanged by the introduction of the Appellate Division. Mr Murali Pillai touched on the minimum composition of the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeal in cases that may be heard by fewer than three Judges. Specifically, he raised the difference in the arrangement of the Sixth Schedule in the existing SCJA – I think the Member said – and the corresponding Seventh Schedule of this Bill.”
“As Members who practise in the Courts know, the Courts very actively conduct pre-trial conferences to understand the nature of the parties’ dispute, understand the ambit of the disagreement, and to understand whether this would involve novel questions of law, or whether the parties are seeking a question to be overturned on a settled point of law. Nonetheless, despite all that, where the appeal has been transferred to the Appellate Division and, in the course of that hearing, an unanticipated issue of law of public importance, novelty, complexity arises, the matter can still go on appeal to the Court of Appeal with leave. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Murali Pillai raised questions about the power of the Court of Appeal to decline to grant leave for a further appeal from the Appellate Division to the Court of Appeal, even if a point of law of public importance is raised. Let me explain that. Under our proposed amendments, it is a requirement that the appeal ought to raise a point of law of public importance for leave to be considered. However, as Members would appreciate, this alone would not be sufficient as a criterion to grant leave of appeal. Other matters in the interest of the administration of justice were also considered. That, in fact, is the position today. Whether or not there should be further appeal should take into account the fact that the parties had had already a chance to raise their arguments, and nothing new is coming through in the application for leave to appeal. They raised the arguments before the Appellate Division, and the Appellate Division has reviewed them and decided on that point of law.”
“So, for that reason, they are set out separately from the Sixth Schedule which applies only to civil appeals from the General Division. Finally, clause 27(f) of SCJA introduces a new section 39A of the Land Acquisition Act and that permits the Minister to allocate land acquisition appeals in the same way as all the other categories of appeals in the Sixth Schedule. Mr Murali Pillai also asked what are the principles of that remission, and that is one of the questions that you answered yourself. So, thank you very much. On a related note, Mr Louis Ng asked about the transfer to the Appellate Division should the case raise a matter of settled law. Mr Louis Ng's point seems to be that where a case might appear settled or uncontroversial, the law may subsequently nonetheless be overturned. So, the question is how do we then determine that upfront? The reality is that in most cases, it will be clear if there are controversial points of law that ought to be decided by the Court of Appeal, and that would be flagged earlier rather than later. For example, when settled law is challenged by a party on appeal, the party first has to give notice of its position, file its case, outline its arguments, and the Court would be able to appreciate those arguments upfront. Further, in deciding whether to transfer an appeal, the Court of Appeal, of course, will also have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the party's case which I have set out and raised earlier on and, of course, understand the nature of the case.”
“Mr Louis Ng, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Murali Pillai touched on them and raised some questions. As a starting point, the allocation of matters in the two tracks that I mentioned will apply generally, as a starting position. However, it is useful beyond the default allocation to allow the Court of Appeal themselves looking at the specific case and understanding the issues that are raised beyond just the label that is put on it, a discretion to transfer to itself or to the Appellate Division depending on its assessment of complexity, novelty and so on. The basis on which it seeks to do so – novelty, complexity, cases of general public importance and so on – would be amongst the factors that will guide the exercise of discretion in any such transfer exercise. At the same time, the powers of the Court of Appeal in doing so are not unfettered, and Members will note clauses 29D(3), 29E(3) and 47(3) of the amended SCJA which expressly require that the Court of Appeal have regard to the matters prescribed in the Rues of Court when exercising these powers. As I had mentioned, the relevant matters will be prescribed in the Rules of Court. Mr Murali Pillai asked specifically about the Land Acquisition Act. The transfer power in clause 12 which will introduce sections 29B and 29E of SCJA refers to the Land Acquisition Act so that appeals under sections 29(2) and 38(2) of the Land Acquisition Act can be transferred in a manner similar to all the civil appeals. The land acquisition appeals currently lie from the Land Appeals Board. They do not lie from the General Division up to either Appellate Division or the Court of Appeal but lie from the Appeals Board.”
“These will also be ordinarily allocated to the Court of Appeal. In my opening speech, I outlined the key considerations for allocating the categories of cases to the Court of Appeal directly. Just to quickly recap, these include cases which will have a likely substantial consequence for the individual or society, have involved significant public interest questions which will benefit from the guidance of the Court of Appeal, possibly also novel questions of law, complex cases and so on. It was Mr Dennis Tan, I believe, who raised the questions specifically on section 18(5) of the Maintenance of Parents Act. If Mr Dennis Tan looks at that section, it specifically provides for an appeal on the basis of public interest. I think one can understand why an issue which the Maintenance of Parents Act covers might be something that one channels directly to the Court of Appeal. Importantly, however, for Members to note, the ordinary allocation of appeals, whilst there is a default, is not rigid. Even if a case is ordinarily allocated to the Appellate Division, there is flexibility for it to be transferred to the Court of Appeal, if it requires a decision that the apex Court of the land can usefully provide. The categories allocated to the Court of Appeal are also not cast in stone. For example, as I said in my opening speech, should there be novel questions that we put into the categories today, they may be resolved or settled with the passage of time. Those cases can eventually come off that list if it can be dealt with by the Appellate Division. If an initial area of law is more established or there is a new area of law, that can also be added to the categories. Next, let me touch on the transfer powers of the Court of Appeal.”
“Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Murali Pillai asked about the expected increase in the number of Judges. We expect at least three Judges from the current High Court to be appointed to the Appellate Division, and additional appointments to the General Division may be made as may be necessary once the Appellate Division has been set up. Mr Louis Ng asked how the restructuring of the Supreme Court would affect the doctrine of judicial precedent, or stare decisis. He also asked how persuasive a decision of the Appellate Division will be compared to that of the Court of Appeal. It is quite clear, and the order of precedence as set out in the Bill, is as follows, from the highest to the lowest: first, decisions of the Court of Appeal, which remains the apex Court of the land; next, the Appellate Division of the High Court; and then the decisions of the General Division of the High Court. In line with the usual principles of stare decisis, decisions of the higher Court are binding on the lower Court. Decisions of the Court of Appeal will, therefore, have precedence over decisions of the Appellate Division. This is regardless of whether the decision in question has been issued before or after the establishment of the Appellate Division. The decision of the Appellate Division will be binding on the General Division and the lower Courts. And the existing High Court decisions will not bind the new Appellate Division. They will have instead the same weight as a decision from the General Division after it is set up. Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Murali Pillai asked about the categories of appeals in the Sixth Schedule – how they are chosen, what was the thought process going into it. Mr Murali Pillai also asked about the Land Acquisition Act.”
“Sir, I thank the Members for speaking. I am also grateful to Mr Murali Pillai for his well wishes and also for his wide-ranging speech where he answered not just some other Members' questions, but also some of his own. Let me address the other questions now. Ms Sylvia Lim asked whether the cost of appeal to the Court of Appeal would escalate given the introduction of the Appellate Division as a middle tier. I go back to my earlier point that the Appellate Division is not to be seen as a middle tier. In general, it will not add a further level of appeal in the vast majority of cases, and it is not a level of appeal that has to be crossed before one gets to the Court of Appeal. The appeals from the General Division will be allocated in the first instance. So, Members heard me say earlier that there will be two tracks, one of which goes direct to the Court of Appeal and the rest goes to the Appellate Division. Any further appeal from the Appellate Division will require leave. Mr Murali Pillai, I think, answered that question, and leave will only be granted in very limited situations. In most cases, parties will not go through an additional tier of appeal after a decision from the General Division. As is the case today, there will, therefore, generally be only one tier of appeal. The amendments before the House today also contain initiatives to lower costs of litigation for parties, to address Ms Sylvia Lim's point directly. So, either by way of paper hearing, which will be quicker and also less expensive in the context of some cases. But all that is, of course, subject to the overriding discretion of the Court's assessment that it is appropriate for the administration of justice in a case for parties to proceed on a paper hearing.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Fourth, the Bill makes five interlocutory orders at paragraphs 1(c) to (g) of the existing Fourth Schedule of the SCJA appealable with the leave of the Appellate Court. These five orders are currently non-appealable. So, what this amendment does is seek to increase the prospects of those types of cases being appealed, but with leave. This amendment seeks to refine the balance between procedural efficiency and also fairness to the parties. There is also one amendment that we are considering in relation to the timing of when an application for further arguments will be taken. Members will know that if you look at the proposed provision 29B(2a), the word that is being used here is "date". The old provision uses the word "time". So, the date by which one has to make the further arguments, versus the time by which one has to make the further arguments. And we propose, at the Committee stage, with Mr Speaker and Chairman's leave, to seek to make that amendment. It is a change that was not intended, an error carried through from the drafting. So, we propose to make that to reflect the position better. And I think the lawyers in this House will appreciate that the use of the word "time" will give a greater degree of flexibility in terms of when one starts the computation of time for filing the further arguments. So, I will seek to make that amendment at the Committee stage. Sir, in summary, these Bills establish the new Appellate Division of the High Court and set out its jurisdiction and powers; and also introduce procedural amendments to enhance the flexibility and efficiency of Court processes. Together, these amendments further enhance our judicial system, one that is already robust, flexible but now also allow for greater and more effective administration of justice.”
“So, again, party autonomy based on whether parties consent, then the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeal will have the ability to hear that on paper. These include appeals against interlocutory judgments and appeals against judgments relating to the assessment of damages. Second, the Appellate Division will be able to decide any appeal without hearing oral arguments if all parties to the appeal consent to a two-Judge coram and to a paper hearing. So, if all the parties agree, consent, it will be a two-Judge coram and to a paper hearing, then subject to the Appellate Division themselves considering that it is appropriate, then that can be a way in which that appeal can be resolved. Third, the Appellate Division would also be able to decide any application brought before it without hearing oral arguments. This will not require the consent of parties and is in line with the current practice of the Court of Appeal. The possibility of paper hearings provides parties with an option, subject to the Court's approval, of having their matters resolved faster and at a lower cost. Next, let me touch on leave applications. This Bill simplifies the process for leave applications. Currently, when leave is required to appeal against a decision, the leave application is usually heard by the Court that has made the decision being appealed against. If that Court declines to grant leave, a further application for leave can be made to the Appellate Court. We will simplify this process, such as where leave is required to appeal against a decision of the General Division, the relevant Appellate Court will hear the application for leave. The decision of the Appellate Court on the leave application will be final.”
“First, under existing Court processes, the Court of Appeal will ordinarily sit in a panel of three Judges to hear an appeal or application. However, certain applications can be dealt with by one Judge or, in some cases, two Judges. Certain appeals can also be heard by a panel of two Judges. We will apply a similar approach to the Appellate Division. So, what I have outlined is the current position. We will apply that similar approach to the Appellate Division. For the Appellate Division, parties will also have an option of consenting to a two-Judge coram to hear the appeal but that is subject to the approval of the Appellate Division. So, if both parties or all parties to an appeal consent, it can be heard by a two-Judge coram. Second, the Bills expand the situations under which a civil appeal or application can be decided without hearing oral arguments. This is known as a paper hearing. To be clear, the language that I have used – appeals refer to the substantive appeals itself, the applications are applications within the appeals that will arise but are not dispositive of the substantive merits of the appeal. Presently, a civil appeal or application may be decided on paper in a number of limited situations. These situations are, first, an appeal against the decision of the SICC where all parties to the appeal consent; and second, any application to the Court of Appeal. The Bills expand the categories of cases that can be decided on paper in three ways. First, the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeal will have the powers to decide specified categories of appeals without hearing oral arguments, if all parties to the appeal consent.”
“To be clear, if you need to seek leave to appeal from the first instance, High Court currently, or the General Division, those principles are fairly settled, I think Members know. But the principles on which leave will be accessed to be granted for appeals from the Appellate Division up to the apex Court, those would be applied in a far more stringent manner. Because in those situations, the parties would already have had one round of appeal. The Court of Appeal will consider granting leave only if the appeal raises a point of law of public importance. The Court of Appeal may also take into consideration other factors, such as whether a decision of the Court of Appeal, as the apex Court, is required to resolve the point of law and whether the interests of the administration of justice require the Court of Appeal's consideration of that point of law. To be clear, so that I do not come across as suggesting that there are automatically three stages, three tiers of Courts, the Appellate Division should not be seen as a further tier of appeal that must be crossed before a matter can reach the Court of Appeal. Where an appeal lies from a decision of the General Division, then the appeal will lie either to the Appellate Division or to the Court of Appeal. It will not be commonplace for appeals to be brought to the Appellate Division first and then further brought on to the Court of Appeal. I hope I have explained that clearly enough. The Bills also make a number of other amendments to help ensure the timely disposal of appeals, ensure better use of limited judicial resources and bring the overall cost of litigation down. Let me touch on four such initiatives.”
“However, if all issues on appeal relate to uncontroversial points of law, then the Court of Appeal may transfer the appeal to the Appellate Division. The same principles as I have explained will apply. Parties themselves may also apply to the Court of Appeal for the appeal to be transferred to the Appellate Division, if the appeal has not been filed to the correct Appellate Court. To be clear, after the Appellate Division has issued its decision on an appeal that has been transferred for its determination, it remains possible – although not the usual course – but possible for a party to bring a further appeal to the Court of Appeal. This will, however, be subject to the fulfilment of stringent criteria that I will come to in a while. The transfer powers help to ensure that the Court of Appeal's resources are focused on the matters that necessitate a decision from the apex court. The matters that the Court of Appeal will have regard to, when deciding whether to exercise its powers of transfer, will be set out in the Rules of Court. Where an appeal has been heard and decided by the Appellate Division, any further appeal against the decision of the Appellate Division may only be brought with the leave of the Court of Appeal. This is consistent with the practice in other jurisdictions, such as the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK) and Australia, where there is no automatic right of appeal to the apex Court. All such applications for leave will be assessed based on criteria that are more stringent than the usual common law principles that govern applications for leave to appeal against a decision of the General Division.”
“The Court of Appeal has that power, not the Appellate Division, to transfer cases from the Appellate Division to itself or cases from the Court of Appeal to the Appellate Division. This can happen, notwithstanding the Sixth Schedule allocation of appeals. To give an example, the Court of Appeal may transfer to itself, an appeal which is ordinarily allocated to the Appellate Division, if the appeal concerns a dispute involving complex and novel points of law, and the Court of Appeal is satisfied that it will be more appropriate for the matter to be resolved by an earlier decision of the apex Court, in other words, giving guidance at an earlier stage so that the law becomes settled on a key and important issue. The Court of Appeal may also consider factors, such as whether there are conflicting judicial decisions on the point of law in question which merits clarification. Conversely, the Court of Appeal may also decide to transfer to the Appellate Division, an appeal which is ordinarily allocated to the Court of Appeal. For instance, an appeal arising from a case relating to constitutional law is ordinarily allocated to the Court of Appeal. However, if the General Division has already rendered its decision on the case and the only issue on the appeal is one of costs, for example, then the Court of Appeal may well decide to transfer the appeal to the Appellate Division. So, the overall subject matter may fall within, but the issue at stake between the parties, might well relate to something straightforward. In that scenario, the Court of Appeal can exercise its discretion to transfer it to the Appellate Division. As another example, an appeal arising from a case relating to contempt of Court is ordinarily allocated to the Court of Appeal.”
“Those are examples; the list is not exhaustive. Where a single appeal contains multiple issues, which I think Members would have their own experience with, some issues may fall within the prescribed categories, others may fall outside. In those situations, the appeal should be filed to the Court of Appeal. For example, if an appeal arises from a case relating to constitutional law, but also, as part of the case, raises issues touching issues on contract or tort law, that appeal should be filed to the Court of Appeal. All criminal appeals currently heard by the Court of Appeal will continue to be heard by the Court of Appeal. The Appellate Division will hear all other civil appeals that are not allocated to the Court of Appeal. The prescribed categories may be amended by the Minister, after consultation with the Chief Justice, by order published in the Gazette. This will allow for the allocation of appeals between the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeal to be refined and also evolved, taking into account operational experience as well as evolving policy considerations. And obviously, as I explained earlier, on novel areas, which are currently prescribed, they may, over time, not become novel anymore or it may well become settled with the passage of time. In those cases, there would be flexibility in moving cases or types of cases in and out of the Sixth Schedule. The Appellate Division will ordinarily sit as a panel of three Judges. This reflects its stature and significance as an Appellate Court. Let me now touch on some of the transfer provisions and explain that to Members. To provide for flexibility in the arrangements, the Court of Appeal will have the power to transfer to itself any appeal that has been made to the Appellate Division and vice versa.”
“It will also hear appeals or processes that are to be heard by the Court of Appeal under written law and prescribed categories of civil appeals. So, under written law, that is set out in legislation and in prescribed categories of civil appeals. These prescribed categories will be set out in a new Sixth Schedule to the amended Supreme Court of Judicature Act (SCJA). Where the appeal falls within the categories of appeals prescribed in the Sixth Schedule, then a party should file the appeal or leave application pertaining to that appeal to the Court of Appeal. Where the appeal is not prescribed in the Sixth Schedule, a party should file the appeal or leave application to the Appellate Division, or otherwise in accordance with written law. The appeals that have been prescribed are generally those that: (a) are likely to have substantial consequences for individuals or society; (b) may involve questions of law of public interest which would benefit from guidance of the apex Court in Singapore; (c) concern the general administration of justice; (d) may involve novel questions of law, or new areas of law which would benefit from guidance from the Court of Appeal; (e) may involve issues that are likely to be important and require earlier clarification from the Court of Appeal; or (f) relate to strategic areas that would benefit from the stature of the apex Court, such as the areas of laws which seek to bolster Singapore's status as a dispute resolution hub or debt restructuring hub. Based on these principles, appeals arising from cases relating to constitutional or administrative law, appeals arising from decisions of the SICC and appeals arising from cases relating to the law of arbitration will ordinarily be allocated to the Court of Appeal.”
“The High Court will, in turn, be restructured to consist of the General Division of the High Court as well as the Appellate Division of the High Court. I shall first touch on the General Division, before elaborating on the interaction between the Appellate Division and the existing Court of Appeal. In essence, the General Division will be the present-day High Court. As is the case today, it will include the SICC and also the Family Division of the High Court. The General Division will have all the jurisdiction and powers of the existing High Court and will hear all cases that fall within the original and appellate jurisdiction of the existing High Court. Any originating case, appeal, stated case or other recourse which presently lies to the existing High Court will continue to lie to the General Division. There will generally be no change to the current position on whether there is further recourse to an Appellate Court. Hence, if certain decisions of the existing High Court are currently final, then, in most of these cases, those decisions of the General Division will likewise be final. Similarly, if decisions of the existing High Court are appealable with leave, or appealable as of right, then those decisions of the General Division will likewise be appealable as of right or with leave as appropriate. The original intention overall is to preserve the status quo with regard to the finality of decisions of the General Division. Appeals arising from a decision of the General Division will be allocated between the Appellate Division and the existing Court of Appeal. Let me explain that. In general, the Court of Appeal will hear all criminal matters.”
“In 2015, by contrast, 4.3% of all reported decisions were issued by a five-judge coram. By 2018, this number had increased to about 11.5%. The increased caseload and complexity of matters have stretched the resources of the Court of Appeal. Thus far, the Supreme Court has taken interim measures to manage the increasing caseload and also the complexity in the Court of Appeal's docket. Some of these measures, Members would know, include having more High Court judges sit on Court of Appeal hearings and also increasing the sitting days for the Court of Appeal. However, we feel that these are just stop gap measures and a more long-lasting sustainable change would be useful. This Bill, together with the Constitution (Amendment) Bill and the Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill, will establish an Appellate Division of the High Court. This will allow civil appeals arising from decisions of the existing High Court to be distributed between two appellate courts, namely, the Appellate Division of the High Court – the new Court that is being set up – and the existing Court of Appeal, which will remain. These targeted structural reforms to the Supreme Court create a more permanent solution to the issues facing the Court of Appeal. The reforms will help to address the growing caseload and also allow the Court of Appeal to focus its resources as appropriate. Let me now highlight the key features of this Bill for Members. First, in terms of the restructuring of the Supreme Court. Under the structural reforms introduced by the Bills, the Supreme Court will continue to comprise the Court of Appeal, which will remain as the apex Court in Singapore and the High Court.”
“One upcoming initiative is the use of videoconferencing for a variety of non-trial hearings. The current Bills continue in this spirit by facilitating a better use of judicial resources and also introducing procedural amendments to enhance the flexibility and also the efficiency of Court processes. This will also translate to real and practical benefits for Court users both in terms of time and also costs. A key change is the restructuring of the Supreme Court to establish a new Appellate Division of the High Court. The Court of Appeal is the highest Court of the land. It hears both civil and criminal matters arising from decisions of the lower Courts and tribunals. The decisions of the Court of Appeal form a body of authoritative law that has shaped our local jurisprudence. The Court of Appeal has experienced a growing caseload for both criminal and civil matters. In 2013, there were 314 civil and criminal matters filed to the Court of Appeal. In 2018, the number of matters filed to the Court of Appeal increased to 490. Overall, the Court of Appeal heard 56% more matters in 2018 compared to 2013. In addition to the growing caseload, the Court of Appeal has also observed that the cases it is hearing are becoming increasingly complex. The Court of Appeal generally sits with no more than three judges to hear each case. In some of the complex appeals, the Chief Justice may convene an enlarged panel of appeal judges to hear the appeal. This is to allow difficult or novel issues to be considered with the benefit of the collective wisdom and insight of a larger pool of judges. There has been a growing number of written decisions issued by a five-judge bench of the Court of Appeal, which is itself indicative of the jurisprudential significance and difficulty of such cases.”
“Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, our judicial system is well-known not only for its commitment to upholding the rule of law, but also for its efficiency, competence and integrity. In a survey conducted by my Ministry in late 2015 on how Singaporeans view the Courts, 92% said they trust and had confidence in our legal system. In the Worldwide Governance Indicators by World Bank in 2018, Singapore ranked in the 97th percentile for Rule of Law. In the Global Competitiveness Index published by the World Economic Forum in 2019, Singapore maintained the top position for the efficiency of its legal framework in dispute resolution. In fact, Singapore has been ranked first, out of more than 140 countries, in this component of the index, every year for the past 10 years. Singapore has also scored highly for judicial effectiveness in the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom in 2019. The Ministry of Law has been working with the Courts to ensure that Court proceedings are efficient and that the quality of justice remains high. To this end, for instance, we established the new Family Justice Courts in 2014, with the aim of taking a more multidisciplinary and collaborative approach to family disputes. We established the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) in 2015, as part of our drive to bolster our status as a hub for resolving commercial disputes. The Office of Transformation and Innovation was also set up under the auspices of the Supreme Court in 2018. As part of the overarching Courts of the Future blueprint, it has commenced work on various projects and technological enhancements, with a view to enhancing access to justice, improving processes and also embracing innovative ideas for change.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Sir, this Bill is linked to the next two Bills on the Order Paper, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill and the Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill. Sir, may I therefore propose, with your permission, that the substantive debate on all three Bills take place now. Members will be welcome to raise questions or express their views on the three Bills during the debate. And we will still have the formal Second Readings of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill and also the Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill to ensure that the procedural requirements are dealt with.”