Murali Pillai
Singapore
“Sir, my response will also cover matters raised in the related oral questions, as well as written questions, all filed by the hon Member, Ms Sylvia Lim1, 2, for a subsequent Sitting. The hon Member may wish to withdraw her Parliamentary Questions (PQs) if her queries are answered in today's Sitting.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to respond to the hon Member Ms Poh's third question on jet fuel. We are working with the aviation stakeholders to monitor the fuel supply for aviation hubs carefully to ensure that it remains stable.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to the hon Member Dennis Tan's question on maritime hub, I just want to say that for the now, for the current, port operations have been stable. There are no significant fuel supply shortages, and we have adequate fuel and bunker supply.”
“Sir, I would like to answer the hon Member Shawn Loh's question on the status of the aviation hub. There have been some flight disruptions. Apart from the disruptions, most of Changi Airport's flights have been operating normally. The disruptions have been limited to some Singapore-Middle East passenger and cargo services.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the hon Member Mr Chia for his kind words about the efforts we have made thus far to attract young talent. On the specific issue about the GRIT programme, that involves traineeship, the good thing about the maritime sector is that we have jobs available.”
“It was John Harrison's invention of the chronometer, highly accurate even at sea, that allowed longitudes to be plotted and journeys to be precise enough to chase a nimble whale. Likewise, Singapore must remain alive to the transformational power of new technologies, to master new tasks and chart new journeys through untested waters.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,219 lines we hold for Murali Pillai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 25.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make a clarification on my speech delivered earlier. I had raised attention to the good work of the Legislation Division of the Attorney-General's Chambers, headed by Mrs Owi, the Deputy Solicitor-General. I would like to mention that she had handed the baton to Ms Jeanne Lee, the Chief Legislative Counsel and, under Ms Lee's stewardship, the division continues to deliver high standards. It is my hope that this service of excellence will reach even greater heights under the reconstituted LSC. Thank you, Sir. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“The reconstituted LSC must stand shoulder to shoulder with the JSC as twin pillars in attracting and developing the best human resource talent in the public legal sector that will continue to meet the high expectations of Singaporeans well into the future. This will allow us to pursue our democratic dream, partnered with divine discontent, not mere dissatisfaction with the way things are, but the power to change them to the way they should be. I support the Bill.”
“For his contributions to the legal profession and the community, he was awarded the Berita Harian Anugerah Jauhari 2020 award. He was also inducted as a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in 2016. I make these references for a purpose. We must ensure that with the split of the current LSC into a JSC and the reconstituted LSC, the reconstituted LSC should continue to attract and retain its fair share of top talent with the right set of values. The Legal Service Officers of the Legal Branch perform vital roles in providing legal advice to the Government and playing their role in the administration of justice and helping to uphold of the rule of law in Singapore. With the reconstituted LSC, there is an opportunity to hasten the pace of specialisation of the LSOs to keep up with the demands of their respective jobs and the ever-rising expectations of Singaporeans. May I ask the hon Minister whether plans have been made to deal with this issue? If so, I would be grateful for an outline of the efforts that will be expended on this front. Mr Speaker, Sir, laws are unwieldy creatures. The text of the laws passed can be so turgid and formal such that many people cannot help but describe it as "gobbledegook". But they are also such powerful forces. During the pandemic, for example, these laws make sure that workers get paid, our rents reduced and that the promises businesses made to one another can be modified easily without breaking trust. And all these, in an orderly, legitimate and predictable manner. This could not have been done without the best legal minds at work in the public sector. This restructuring is needed, but we must do it with care.”
“I still recall the speech of the hon Minister for Law when he expressed his pride and appreciation for the work done by officers involved during the passing of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill. Several hon Members, including myself, joined him to express our appreciation. This speaks of the quality and dedication of the officers we have in the legislative division headed by the hon Deputy Solicitor-General, Mrs Owi Beng Ki. The Legal Branch is replete with great examples of dedicated officers, past and present, with a strong sense of duty. I would like to mention some of them whom I have had the privilege of knowing. The late Mr K S Rajah SC. He served in the Legal Service from 1963 to 1985. This included a stint as the longest-serving Director of the Legal Aid Bureau, which allows people of limited means with important access to civil and family justice. The late Mr S Tiwari, who was in the Legal Service for 36 years from 1971 to 2007 when he retired. During his career, he headed MINDEF's Legal Department and AGC's Civil Division and later, its International Affairs Division. He was involved in numerous international negotiations representing Singapore. Mr Daren Tang, who is currently the Director-General of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). In fact, he is the first Singaporean to lead a UN Agency. The hon Minister Mr Edwin Tong described his appointment as, and I quote, "a momentous occasion for Singapore". Prior to that, he was the Chief Executive of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and held several positions in AGC. Mr Mohamed Faizal Senior Counsel, Senior State Counsel of the Crime Division of AGC – he is an excellent example of how one mixes heavy duty responsibilities with regular volunteer work for our community.”
“Fair-minded people decide not based on empty words, but on real action. The razor-sharp focus of our Government is on securing our people’s future against the backdrop of an ever more challenging global landscape. For the remainder of my speech, I wish to focus on the proposed reconstituted LSC. In my speech during the Adjournment Motion, I had spoken about the indelible contributions of the current LSC, using the integrated model since 1959, for which, as a nation, we owe much thanks. I have also spoken about the highly-respected judicial system that we have in Singapore and how the JSC will serve to strengthen it even more under the proposed system. Let me start off by acknowledging the quality of the officers in the Legal Branch of the LSC, past and present. To illustrate this point, I need only ask hon Members, as the hon Second Minister for Law did just a few minutes ago, to recount their own legislative experience in this House. In the course of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, we had to pass 12 wide-ranging Bills. Seven of these bills were urgent Bills which included the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill and its three subsequent amendment Bills, Supply Bills, Bills providing for Parliamentary elections and marriage solemnisation during COVID-19. Two hundred and twenty-seven pieces of COVID-19-related subsidiary legislation were also published. We were able to do this because of, amongst others, a top-rate team in the legislative division of the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). They had to be creative but meticulous, be daring but keep an eye for the minutiae of details. And all is done, quoting the hon Second Minister for Law, at "breakneck speed".”
“The chart is entitled "Those who want changes to their political system are not confident political system can be changed". So, you do not want to be high up in the chart from the Pew Research Center that I am showing. Italy is ranked at the top, meaning, amongst the 17 economies, its people are the least satisfied. Singapore is right below, meaning her people are the most satisfied. It is stated in the report that in every economy, except Singapore, there are larger shares of the public who want political reform but lack the confidence that reform can happen effectively as compared to those who are confident that change can occur. Eighty-two percent of Singaporeans said that they are satisfied with the way democracy is working here, compared to an overall median of 57%. A key feature of our democracy is that real action is taken, to make changes essential to securing our future and keeping all of us united in purpose. The significance of setting up a separate and independent JSC should not be lost on anyone in this House. Just last month, when this House was considering the FICA Bill, there were insinuations in some quarters, particularly outside this House, that the Government is bent on making itself more powerful to suppress legitimate free speech and expression amongst our people. Since then, this Government has repealed the Sedition Act, which was introduced during the colonial times to rein in discontent against the Government and it is now moving these Constitutional amendments which will enjoy bipartisan support to create an independent JSC to oversee judicial service officers. These are not the acts of a power-hungry government, hell-bent on entrenching itself and ignoring the wishes of the people.”
“Obliged. Yes. Thankfully, it is clearer. But now it is not.”
“Perhaps, this explains why Singapore did well in the Pew Research Centre Report dated 21 October 2021 which conducted research in 17 advanced economies, including Singapore, to identify whether citizens in these economies want significant changes to their political system. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to flash a slide of the table from the report on the screen, please?”
“If the same person were to have repeated the question on whether the split would have happened after the Adjournment Motion, my response would likely be that I am hopeful it will happen sooner rather than later. As it turned out, just three months later, we are now considering these amendments to the Constitution to create a separate JSC out of the current LSC. I am really glad to note from the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan's speech that it will enjoy bipartisan support as well. If these amendments are passed, the plan is to put them into effect in January 2022. I am highlighting this chronology as it is clear to me that the Government was already considering the merits of these changes for a while and decided that now is the time to make these changes in the interest of securing of country's future. The Government's approach brings to my mind what Prime Minister Lee stated during his National Day Rally speech in 2016. He asked, and I quote, "whether things could get better for Singapore after SG50. Can the best be yet to come? The answer was a resounding "yes!" He went on to state that one thing we need, as a country, to ensure this is to be, and I quote, "blessed with a divine discontent, always not quite satisfied with what we have, always driven to do better". These amendments we are considering reflect the spirit of "divine discontent" and "drive to do better". It is also in keeping with the Motion on Singapore's Justice System passed in Parliament in November 2020 in which we affirmed the Government's continuous efforts to build a fair and just society.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, almost exactly a year ago in this House, I suggested that an independent Judicial Service Commission (JSC) be set up, amongst others, to deepen the competence of judicial officers. This suggestion to set up the JSC is not mine alone. Several hon Members made the same suggestion in this House, both before and after me, and we have just heard from the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan an account of the other Members who have spoken in this House asking for the setting up of the JSC. All of us are aligned in the request but not necessarily aligned in relation to the reasons for asking for the setting up of the JSC. The hon Minister for Law chose his words very carefully in replying to me. He said the way our service was structured "is probably the best model for the time being". As hon Members know, time is elastic. If anyone were to have asked me then as to whether the Government would set up the JSC, my instinctive reply would have been, "Please do not hold your breath!" Then, in July this year, hon Members Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Lim Biow Chuan joined me in an Adjournment Motion to call on the Government to study the feasibility to set up a separate and independent JSC to allow for deeper specialisation and ensure that the Judiciary is properly positioned for the challenges of the future. The hon Minister for Law agreed broadly with the points we made and pithily put it as an issue of timing. The Second Minister for Law recounted this just earlier today as well. Should we retain the current structure and make incremental changes as we go along, or should we split the services now to put our country on a better footing for the future?”
“This is the case in the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA). As Members would know, the CLTPA may be invoked by the Minister to detain a person who is believed to have engaged in criminal acts affecting public safety, peace and good order. This same person may well be subject to prosecution by the Public Prosecutor, exercising his constitutional powers. That is why it is provided in the Act that the Minister may only order a detention upon procuring the Public Prosecutor's consent. In fact, it is expressly provided in the Act that nothing in that Act derogates from the powers of the Public Prosecutor with regard to the control and direction of criminal prosecutions. I will be grateful for the hon Minister's explanation on this matter. Notwithstanding my comments, I support the Bill. 6.43 pm”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. I only have one area of clarification that I seek from the hon Minister. The Minister proposed to vest with him the power to exempt certain deaths from the application of the Coroners Act. Principally, the deaths that are proposed to be exempted from the Act are persons who died in Singapore, arising from conditions contracted outside Singapore or are for persons who are or were part of foreign government; this includes the spouse or child of the person too. My concern is how this proposal squares with the existing framework of the Coroners Act dealing with the Public Prosecutor's powers. When the hon Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs and Law, Prof Ho Peng Kee moved the Coroners Bill in 2010, he stated, as recounted by the hon Minister, that the Coroner's role is purely fact-finding. It is not the job of the Coroner to decide who is criminally responsible for the death. He stressed that it is the Public Prosecutor who has the constitutional responsibility of who should be prosecuted for being responsible for the death. That was why the current Act provides for the Public Prosecutor to have wide-ranging powers, which includes the power to direct a Coroner to order a post-mortem examination, direct a forensic pathologist to investigate the cause of and circumstances connected with the death and direct a Coroner to hold an inquiry into any death occurring in Singapore. I am concerned about a situation where the Minister and the Public Prosecutor may not be ad idem on the issue of whether the death should be exempt from the Act. Would it not be preferable for the Minister to be only allowed to use his power, as contemplated under this Bill, only after the Public Prosecutor had consented.”
“Obliged, Sir. I thank the hon Leader of Opposition for asking the question. And the question, as I understand, posed to me, is whether there has been an equilibrium reached within the present generation of political leaders and the people of Singapore on the matter involving FICA, which contains an ouster clause. The point I wish to make is this. In my earlier speech in March 2021, I have already stated that when it comes to issues of national security, a different approach should be taken. I found instructive, the speech made by Prof Jayakumar about why the powers dealing with national security should be sited with the political leaders. So, in my personal view, the equilibrium is still the same vis-a-vis FICA because here, we are dealing with issues of national security. Additionally, I would add that FICA does not contemplate detention without trial. And the powers of FICA is actually quite targeted. What you see here are powers that are already reposed with the Executive. And as I said earlier in my speech, the focus of FICA is to give targeted powers so that you could better deal with national interest. So, in those circumstances, I would say, having regard to the fact that this is an area that has been traversed and the need to provide targeted directives, the equilibrium that we have in ISA would be the equilibrium that I am comfortable with vis-a-vis FICA and there is no contradiction.”
“May I ask if the appointments will be gazetted and made public, without going to merits of the case, which is obviously sensitive? How would the public know that the Minister is not following the Advisory Committee's advice in making the determination on an appeal? Mr Speaker, Sir, in my speech, I have noted that the hon Opposition Members have raised some points of disagreement. I have argued, however, there is a lot more agreement on the main issues. I have seen more that unites than divides us. I acknowledge there is one major sticking point on whether the review should be a political or legal matter. I argued that, like other matters of national security, it ought to be a political matter and hence should rest with the Minister. An important point of agreement, however, is where and how we disagree in such matters, such as public interest. The PAP and the Workers' Party may disagree on what this interest is, both in substance and form and in the matters, both trivial and significant. But we both agree that such discussions must remain our own. These discussions must enjoy the most important freedom of all, that they be free of interference from foreign principals who ought to have no voice in this House. That is all, Sir. [Applause.]”
“The Reviewing Tribunal deals with appeals against an authorisation of a Part III direction. I note it is contemplated that the chairperson of the Reviewing Tribunal must be a Supreme Court Judge. I also note that the decision is to be made by the President on the advice of the Cabinet. To me, the President should be consulting the Chief Justice, who heads our Judiciary in deciding who should be the chairman. This is the case under Article 151(2) of the Constitution which provides the chairman and two members of the Advisory Board which deals with preventive detention under the ISA shall be appointed by the President after consulting the Chief Justice. I seek the hon Minister's explanation on this matter. Next, may I ask if the Reviewing Tribunal will be a standing tribunal that is appointed at the outset for a period of time or will it be an ad hoc tribunal that is created as and when there is an appeal? My preference is that it should be a standing tribunal to ensure transparency. Moving on to the powers of the Reviewing Tribunal, is it contemplated that the Tribunal will have powers to compel the appearance of witnesses and production of documents? This does not appear to be specifically referred to in the clauses that I have reviewed. I now turn to appeals to the Minister against decision of competent authority's decision, designating a person as a PSP or given a directive to comply with on that basis. May I please ask what is the rationale of designating the Minister as the primary Appellate body as opposed to designating the Reviewing Tribunal as the Appellate body? To clause 102, I note that the Minister may appoint an Advisory Committee for consultation purposes but he may not follow the advice.”
“(In English): The hon Member Ms He referred to the point I made in my speech in March this year on the need for sunlight of scrutiny of Government action. I thank her for remembering my speech. She may also remember that I stated then in my speech that ISA did not act and does not act in darkness, having regard where checks and balances embedded in the Act and the Constitution. Similarly, having regard to the subject matter of FICA, establishment of the appellate process in the Bill to set up the Review Tribunal and the preservation of the Supreme Court's powers of judicial review on the issue of procedure as well as when there is an excess of jurisdiction and political accountability of the Minister to our people, I am similarly of the view that there are sufficient checks and balances in place for FICA. The Bill does not confer unlimited power to the Executive, which is a concern of the hon Leader of Opposition. I think it is worthwhile holding up again this handout, page 36, which the hon Minister Mr Shanmugam showed us earlier. There are already general powers. You can see that in light green. What FICA aims to do is to give targeted powers, and you see that in dark green. I heard the hon Member Mr Perera saying just now a theory about FICA having some latent powers being embedded which can be used later on by a Government which is malevolently intending to use these powers. If that is really the case, it will be better to use the latent powers already embedded in the current Acts. You do not have to pass FICA for that. So, with respect, I have difficulty following his argument. Notwithstanding what I said, I have a few questions on the redress mechanism concerning the Reviewing Tribunal under clause 92 of the Bill.”
“That, in the scheme of things, was not desirable. To me, FICA raises the same issues. It is preferable, when it comes to assessment of what action is to be taken, to counter foreign interference affecting public interest, the Minister must be held responsible and accountable through the political process. Also, in my respectful view, since we are dealing with issues of foreign interference affecting public interest, as defined under this Bill, a different form of procedure to ensure the swift and agile handling of cases and judicious safeguarding of sensitive information will be needed. Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your permission to make a short speech in the national language. (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh for commenting on the speech that I delivered in March. I said that each generation of political leaders should find and achieve their own equilibrium, of what our people would accept. The Leader of the Opposition would probably remember that I also said, with regard to the ISA, I am of the opinion that there is a reasonable reason to maintain the status quo as it is a bill that is crucial for the security and stability of our country. FICA is a similar Act like the ISA, because we are discussing about national interests and the country's sovereignty being threatened by foreign interference. Due to this, I can understand why the Reviewing Tribunal should hear appeals in FICA instead of the courts. This does not mean that there is no protection for an individual. The courts may still hear appeals and the case if there an overreach in power or in certain matters. Sir, may I resume my speech in English?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I accept the hon friends across aisle feels strongly about the differences with the Government which are set out in the Notice of Amendments. My objective here is simply to point out to the fact that there is much more agreement on significant matters than disagreement. This may not be apparent to members of public outside this House. In my view, the most substantive area of difference lies with the redress mechanism under the Bill which I now turn to. Under the Bill, it is proposed that appeals made to the Reviewing Tribunal and the Minister with limited judicial review by the Supreme Court. The hon Member Ms He Ting Ru, proposed that appeals be heard hurt by the High Court, with the right of further appeal. I appreciate that her motivation is to provide checks and balances. I would respectfully demur with her suggestion although I must acknowledge there are merits to the broad rationale behind her proposal. As for my reasons for demurring, I need only refer to my Adjournment Motion speech made recently this House when I spoke about judicial review in March 2021. Both the hon Leader of Opposition and the hon Member Ms He, kindly referred to some parts of my speech today. I said then that each generation of political leaders and people must find their own equilibrium on what is acceptable. They will also recall that in my same speech, I went on to state that, in my view, the status quo should be preserved for the ISA. I recounted the point made in 1991 by Prof S Jayakumar, the former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs in this House that when it comes to issues of national security, putting a Court to scrutinise exercise of powers would be tantamount to giving the Court, an unelected body, the final say on such matters.”
“In other words, the publicness of the report maybe neither here nor there. Turning to the arena of requiring disclosure of foreign involvement in publication of political matters, I know again there is consensus in vesting with the competent authority the power to issue transparency directives to newspapers, broadcasting services and PSPs requiring a disclosure of foreign principals and links. The hon Member, Mr Perera suggested that such directives be made public. I agree but I think the suggestion is already present in the current version of the Bill which specifically provides that the subjects of the directives must make disclosure conspicuously. There is consensus in the ability on the part of the competent authority to issue directives to PSPs to end their afflictions with foreign principals and foreign volunteers. The additional suggestion made by the hon Member Mr Perera that is being made here is that to have these directives together with any other modification of cancellation made public. In this regard, I understand MHA had issued a statement on making public such countermeasures issued against PSPs. There is broad agreement on what constitutes exempt activities, that is activities that should not be covered under this Act. The hon Member Assoc Prof Lim proposed adding in this list an exemption on the part of Singaporeans exercising their right to discuss politics and foreign individuals and publications commenting on Singapore politics in an open, transparent and attributable way. I do not disagree that such acts should be outside the jurisdiction of this Bill. The only issue is whether it is necessary, given that the structure of this Bill already makes it clear that it is not intended to stifle such activities.”
“On the measures of designating an entity or person as a PSP under clauses 80 and 81, there is full agreement on the ability of a competent authority to designate an entity or person as politically significant entities or Politically Significant Persons. The additional point here, as proposed by the hon Member Mr Leon Perera is that the public list of politically significant entities and persons be maintained unless there is a national security ground, not to name these persons or entities. I agree with the suggestion. I understand that MHA had earlier indicated that it had intended to do this based on its response dated 25 September 2021 to queries from The Straits Times. There is consensus in this House on the provisions dealing with political donations. There is full consensus to impose on politically significant persons during election period, a requirement that they declare that they are not subject to foreign influence. There is broad consensus to require these persons to make disclosures of any dealing with/or on behalf of foreign principals or foreign political organisations under clauses 78 and 79, even if the Acts are not directed towards a political end in Singapore, as well as benefits received from these principals. What is proposed here again by the hon Member Mr Perera is for such disclosures to be made publicly available. From a practical perspective, it seems to me the sting behind this provision will be to deal with the consequence on the part of the PSP for failing to file the report. I say this because if a PSP files a report stating that he has dealings with a foreign principal, directed to a political end in Singapore, it is likely to spell the death knell of his political career.”
“There is, again, broad consensus to allow the Minister to issue directions, including anticipatory directions where in his opinion there is online communication activity being undertaken by or on behalf of a foreign principal in or accessible in Singapore to protect public interest. Here, the hon Member wishes to limit the Minister's powers to circumstances where he secures a higher threshold of evidence of foreign interference instead of reasonable belief or suspicion. Given the protean nature of foreign interference, this has to be resolved on the basis on which wording protects Singapore's interest. Currently, the Police powers of investigations are triggered as long as there is reasonable suspicion of a commission of a crime. The question arises as to why should there be a higher bar to trigger appropriate action when it comes to foreign interference affecting Singapore's security interests? This House is unified on the point of vesting in the Minister the power to issue the 14 types of directions to various entities – known as Part 3 directions – in particular, to social media companies described in clause 29 to protect public interest. I now come to powers of proscription. There is consensus to vest in the Minister the power under clause 24 to Proscribe Online Locations which would be subject to Part 3 directions. There is agreement to criminalise behaviour that involves the making of money or providing financial support to Proscribed Online Locations. The only difference here, again, based on the proposed amendment by the same hon Member is on the ambit of evidence required to make out the offence. Again, this issue is a narrow issue that has been dealt with on the basis of which wording would better protect Singapore's interest.”
“There is also consensus on what constitutes Politically Significant Persons and the responsibilities they should assume. Such persons, because they carry political weight, there is a need to ensure they do not become pawns for foreign influence. Clause 14 deals with defined PSPs. It is noteworthy that the hon Member Mr Gerald Giam wishes to enlarge this list in the clause further to include more classes of people. The Bill, as it stands, requires the Government to make a case if there is any other person outside the list it feels should be designated as PSPs. The hon Member Mr Gerald Giam's rendering puts even more people on this list. That is to say, this Bill has a net which the hon Member Gerald Giam wants to make larger. On the issue of criminalising conduct amounting to foreign interference and influence operations under clauses 17 and 18, there is broad consensus. There should be little controversy over this. We are, after all, talking about actions of spies and saboteurs. The hon Member Assoc Prof Jamus Lim wishes to limit the ambit of the clauses to only criminal acts that the accused knew would be prejudicial to the security of Singapore as opposed to acts that are likely to be prejudicial to the security of Singapore. The focus here is on the impact of the accused's action. But before that, he has to be proven to be acting on behalf of a foreign principal. So, that is a narrow issue. I turn now to the proposed authorisation of the Minister to issue Part 3 directions under clauses 20 and 21.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in my first speech in this session of Parliament, I said that I saw building consensus as an important outcome of our work here. The outcome of such a process where areas of agreement are identified would possess the unique legitimacy of all voices in this House. The hon Leader of the Opposition started his speech by observing that there are quarters outside this House whose views on this Bill are diametrically different from the Government. That may or may not be so. But what is more important is to make it clear, as elected representatives of our people, where we stand, either together or apart on matters under deliberation – not just the broad strokes but the detailed issues as well. That is accountability. I had carefully reviewed the proposed amendments of the Workers' Party. We only have a few matters upon which we disagree. Both sides of the House are aligned with the aim of the Bill. The hon Leader of the Opposition agreed that intrusive powers may have to be vested with the Minister to deal with this scourge of foreign interference, subject, of course, to checks and balances, which I will come to later. I thank the hon Leader of the Opposition for recognising this. Both also agree on what constitutes public interest under clause 7 of the Bill. Clause 7 represents the heart of FICA. It enumerates the areas of public interest, including to prevent any foreign interference directed towards a political end in Singapore. The hon Member Mr Gerald Giam wants to be more specific about what is meant by the meaning of this clause. In my mind, we should equally be mindful of the agreed position of what is not the intention of the clause. It is not to curtail political activity by Singaporean civil society or politicians.”
“My next question is whether it is intended that when a Court decides that it is necessary for the AG to intervene, it would still have a discretion to consider all factors which are relevant to the balance of justice in the particular case, before it makes its decision whether or not to allow the intervention. This is the power that is provided for with the Courts under the Rules of Court when hearing the usual joinder applications. I seek the hon Minister's clarification as to whether it is intended that the same approach will apply to the AG. And in this regard, I will say that it is not unusual for AGs to apply to intervene in civil proceedings because there could be situations where, for example, in my own experience, documents may be sought and these documents may be something that is subject to state immunity. And in those circumstances, in safeguarding public interests, sometimes, the AG may wish to intervene. So, from my own experience, it is not unusual. Sir, I would like to conclude now. My two points may appear separate, but they are in fact, intertwined. The first relates to a key moral imperative, that in the administration of justice, the means of administration must not disadvantage any group. This speaks to the principle of fairness as put by the hon Minister. My second point is also a moral imperative, that in the administration of justice, the source of power for the guardian of public interest, the hon AG, must derive, not just from common law, but from the highest law of the land, our Constitution. This speaks to the need for legitimacy. I welcome the hon Minister's views on my suggestions. With that, I support the Bill.”
“Under common law, the AG's position as the guardian of public interest is established. But as far as the powers of intervention are concerned, they are provided for under the rules of the Court and in particular, Order 15. Sir, I note that at the first instance, the AG here is proposed to be permitted to apply to the Court to intervene without notice to other parties. In the event the Court allows the AG's application, then at the second instance, parties may apply to set aside the intervention. May I please ask when the AG applies at the first instance, does he have a duty of full and frank disclosure? As the hon Minister who spent a lot of time in private practice would be aware, such responsibility is usually assumed by litigants making Court applications without notice and to some extent, it may address some of the concerns expressed by the hon Leader of the Opposition as well. On the twin threshold questions of (a) whether a question of public interest has arisen and (b) whether it is necessary in the public interest for the AG to intervene, I seek clarification as to what is meant by the words "has arisen". Sometimes, public interest issues may be not part of the key issues as framed by the private parties to the proceedings. There could also be a situation, as was discussed in the Court of Appeal case of ARW v Comptroller of Income Tax, where the core decision of the Court may not trigger a public interest issue although the issue may have been discussed but not perhaps being germane for the disposal of the case.”
“How is it being proposed that conversations between the accused persons in prisons and their counsel joining in from another location in the course of remote proceedings will be kept strictly privileged and confidential? I now move to my second point on the matter of the AG's right to intervene in Civil Court proceedings. I note that the provisions dealing with the right is premised on the standing of the AG as a guardian of public interest under common law. This standing does not stem from the duties of the Attorney-General as set out in article 35 of the Constitution. I am aware that the AG's standing as the guardian has been recognised by the Court of Appeal on several occasions. Notwithstanding that, it seems to me desirable that the AG' role as the guardian of public interest should be codified in our Constitution. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] As acknowledged by the Court of Appeal, the AG's office is a high constitutional office equal in status to the judiciary. His power over prosecution stems from a constitutional grant under article 35(8) of the Constitution. His role as the Government's legal adviser is also constitutionally entrenched. It is also important to entrench his role as the guardian of public interest so that whatever steps he may take to safeguard public interest in civil proceedings is derived from an exercise of a power that is not only independent but constitutionally protected. In this way, his power cannot be trumped by ordinary legislation. My other questions are on the mechanics of the two-step procedure that is being contemplated when the Attorney-General applies to intervene. In this regard, I heard the hon Leader of the Opposition mention that the power of intervention is based on common law. Based on my understanding, that is not the case.”
“For these reasons, I fully support the move to enact a permanent framework that will empower the Court to conduct remote hearings or even paper hearings. This will ensure that these hard-won costs savings and productivity gains will endure beyond the pandemic. One concern I have though is how to ensure that litigants-in-persons (LIPs) who may not be familiar with or do not have access to video conferencing technology or have concerns about expressing themselves in writing are not disadvantaged by remote or paper hearings. The hon Chief Justice in his address in the Opening of the Legal Year this year sounded a cautionary note on the impact of technology on such persons. He said, "As we embrace and explore the greater use of technology, we must remain keenly sensitive to the needs of Court users who are less technologically equipped or inclined and ensure that technology is an enabler rather than an impediment." In light of the Chief Justice's observations, may I please ask what measures will be put in place to help LIPs so that the interests of justice would be met? The hon Minister did mention that the raison d'etre of Court proceedings would be to ensure fairness. Clearly, at one level, the remote hearing requirement can be waived for LIPs. But I am just wondering whether there could be avenues for LIPs to learn how to have access to remote hearings, how to use the remote hearing functions or even draft submissions for paper hearings. Another associated question I have is with respect to the intention to allow accused persons to appear and give evidence remotely from prisons. Again, conceptually, I have no issue. May I ask, however, how is it being proposed in such situations where they would continue to have access to their lawyers during these proceedings?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the general aims of the Bill which, inter alia, are to support the digital transformation of the Courts and to enable the Attorney-General to safeguard public interest in Civil Court proceedings. On the first point, one silver lining to the COVID-19 pandemic is that it has hastened the digital transformation of the administration of justice in Singapore. Thanks to the efforts of MinLaw, led by the hon Minister Edwin Tong, which launched the Legal Industry Technology and Innovation Roadmap in October 2020, law firms are supported in their endeavour to develop legal tech solutions, manage and mitigate risks that come with increasing digitalisation and benefit from the eCourt model, which has enhanced functions such as system integration, speech to text technology and leverages on AI. The Courts transformed quickly to regain lost ground in terms of lost hearing days arising from the circuit breaker in April and May last year when it pivoted to remote hearings. I would like to draw from my own experience over the past year. I have attended numerous virtual Court hearings and online dispute resolutions as counsel. The productivity gains and cost savings arising from the usage of digital platforms are significant and acknowledged by all Court users. Hearings nowadays are also more focused in that the parties would have made full written submissions and the Courts, at all levels, would generally take the lead in asking pointed questions of counsel before making decisions. All these translates to efficiencies in the administration of justice and provides litigants with higher value.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the hon Minister for his comprehensive answer to the points I made in my speech. I would like to make a point of clarification. In my delivered speech, I did not make reference to a case of a 49-year-old malingering to get over the age of 50 so as to avoid the sentence of caning. Notwithstanding that, I appreciate the point he makes that any cut-off age that we would have, would not completely resolved the issue.”
“I welcome the hon Minister of State’s response to the points I make about caning. With that, I support the Bill.”
“More than a year later, I remain concerned whether the provision is still fit for purpose. I also wish to highlight an unintended consequence of maintaining the age of 50 as a cut-off age. A repeat offender over 50 may potentially get a less deterrent sentence even after taking into account that he may get an additional term of imprisonment of up to 12 months in lieu of caning. Just a few days ago on 31 August 2021, The Straits Times published an article of a case of a man who was convicted in 2001 and sentenced to 19 years' jail and 24 strokes of the cane for rape and other sexual offences committed against his then-stepdaughter. After coming out of prison in 2013, the man, after less than three years, sexually abused his two grand-nieces aged nine and 11 respectively. He pleaded guilty to these offences. The irony is that even though he is a repeat offender, he will be getting a sentence without caning because he crossed the age of 50. This state of affairs, with respect, is not desirable. I do not see why Parliament should presume in his favour, in favour of a repeat sex offender, that he is not fit to be caned when he is clearly fit to commit those heinous acts. I also think it is not a coincidence that such middle-aged offenders tend to target younger victims. We need to ensure that such like-minded offenders will be strongly deterred from harming them. In my respectful view, it is for this House to ensure that the caning provisions being passed as punishment for serious sexual offences continue to be fit for purpose. That is, whether a person can be caned or not should be determined by medical fitness, and not age. It is this House’s duty to deal with the unintended consequence of maintaining 50 as the cut-off age for such sexual offenders.”
“What I would like to focus on in my speech is whether the provisions providing for the sentence of caning that may be imposed by the Court on male offenders for committing serious sexual offences are fit for purpose. As is well known, sentences of caning prescribed in the Penal Code provisions dealing with serious sexual offences are subject to a requirement in the Criminal Procedure Code that a male offender of or above the age of 50 cannot be caned. This has been interpreted by the Court of Appeal in 2015 decision of Yong Vui Kong v PP, to mean that Parliament intended to use the age of 50 as "a convenient proxy to screen out those who are likely to be unfit for caning", given that there is "an inverse relationship between one's age and one's physical condition". In March 2020, I highlighted in this House, that the cut-off age of 50 was first introduced in 1900. I also highlighted that the life expectancy at birth for males in Britain, from which the Criminal Procedure Code was enacted in Singapore through Imperial legislation, was 47. The cut-off age more or less coincided with the life expectancy of males at that time. More than 120 years later, the life expectancy at birth for males in Singapore is slightly more than 80 years. I further pointed out that in Malaysia, whilst the age of 50 has still been retained as a cut-off point for caning, when it comes to serious sexual offences, there is no cut-off age for a male convicted for a serious sexual offence. So long as he is assessed to be medically fit, he can be caned. I asked if the provision limiting caning for serious sexual offenders to males below 50 is fit for purpose. In reply, the hon Minister of State informed this House then, that her Ministry will look into it and take steps as necessary.”
“In fairness, as the hon Minister of State said, I noted the illustration too, that was introduced through the amendment of section 84 of the Penal Code which, on its own, seems to manifest an intention that a conjunctive interpretation should be adopted for the amended section 84 of the Penal Code. I am however not surprised that the current amendments are still being sought to amend the wording of section 84. This is because it is specifically provided under section 7A of the Interpretation Act, where an illustration is inconsistent with the provision, the provision prevails. In other words, parliamentary intention could not have been sufficiently manifested by mere reference to the illustration. As a result of these developments, even though this provision is being amended for the second time in two years, this is probably the first time that we will be able to hear why is it that it is being proposed to narrow the ambit of section 84 of the Penal Code. I would invite the hon Minister of State to please explain why it is felt that the conjunctive interpretation is to be preferred over the disjunctive interpretation of section 84 of the Penal Code; and why is that section 84 is still not broadened to include volitional acts? I now turn to the primary intention of this Bill which is to enhance penalties for some sexual offences such as outrage of modesty, sexual activity in presence of a minor and so on. Having regard to the crime trend that is being highlighted, I support the amendments to the sentencing provisions that will enable more deterrent sentences to be imposed in egregious cases. This includes not just imprisonment but caning too.”
“So, the trend where persons with mental illnesses are concerned, is where possible, to impose sentences which will allow them to get treatment which will, hopefully, allow them not to continue with their harmful behaviour. In 2018, the Penal Code Review Committee (PCRC), in its seminal report issued in August 2018 that precipitated the amendments to the Penal Code in 2019, also advocated a broadening of section 84 of the Penal Code that would allow accused persons with serious mental illnesses to receive clinical intervention instead of being punished. It made two points: that section 84 should be broadened to include volitional acts because "there is no good reason why the criminal law should not account for the fundamental principle that a person should not be held criminally responsible for his involuntary conduct". The majority of the Committee also felt it would be sufficient for an accused to be entitled to the defence of unsoundness of mind even if he knew what he did was legally wrong, so long as he did not know what he did was morally wrong, by reference to an objective standard. Against this backdrop, amendments were made in this House to the text of section 84 of the Penal Code in 2019. I had occasion to review the speeches made by the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary then, who moved several Penal Code amendments, which included section 84 of the Penal Code in 2019. With respect, it was a missed opportunity for the Government to explain why it was taking a different tack from the PCRC which advocated a broadening of the unsound mind defence.”
“Through his counsel, he pleaded guilty to a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the basis of diminished responsibility. The accused however did not raise the defence of unsoundness of mind. The Court was faced with a dilemma. It recognised that it is arguable that the accused should deserve compassion and leniency since what he did was because of his mental illness. Ordinarily, this would have meant that he should be sentenced to imprisonment not exceeding 10 years. That in turn, would have meant he would have been back in circulation in about seven years' time after taking into account remission. Given his mental illness, this may cause further danger to himself and others. Naturally, the Court felt that such an eventuality was not desirable. It rued over the fact that the defence of unsoundness of mind was not invoked because that would allow the accused to be kept in custody in a psychiatric institution for so long as necessary. In the end, the Court, after expressing a lot of difficulty, decided to impose a life imprisonment sentence purely on a utilitarian basis, that is, of course, not doctrinally ideal. I would also add that since then, we have passed in this House, provisions that would allow for the imposition of Mandatory Treatment Orders (MTOs) on persons who, as a result of their psychiatric conditions, committed minor offences. Some years back, I argued in this House for a widening of the ambit of offences for which MTOs may be imposed. This led to the issuance of the Criminal Procedure Code (Prescribed Offences for Mandatory Treatment Orders) Regulations 2018 which prescribed a wider list of more serious offences for which MTOs can be imposed.”
“This is because when an accused is held to have done the offending act but acquitted on the grounds of unsoundness of mind, will be ordered by the Minister to be kept in safe custody, usually, in a psychiatric institution "during the President’s pleasure". In other words, he will be incarcerated at the institution indefinitely. Whilst there, he would receive treatment and would be monitored every six months. The Minister who gets the six-monthly reports on the accused, may order him to be discharged, if it is determined that the accused would not be a danger to himself and to others. Instead of narrowing the ambit of section 84 of the Penal Code, it is my respectful view that public interest may be better served with a broader section 84, so that in an appropriate case, the Court is able to invoke the provisions to ensure that a person who is suffering from a serious mental illness, gets inpatient psychiatric treatment for as long as he would be a danger to himself and the public. As it stands today, he may be punished and sentenced in the usual way. If he were to be sentenced to imprisonment, the public will then have to run the risk that the person may reoffend after serving the sentence, causing harm to himself or others, because of his continuing mental illness. Let me illustrate this through a case – the 2001 High Court decision of PP and Dolah bin Omar. In that case, the accused, aged 55, murdered his own uncle by bludgeoning him to death with a stool. He then cut off his uncle's genitals. The trial judge described the killing as "utterly gruesome". The accused, however, was suffering from chronic schizophrenia which brought about a persecutory delusion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the broad aims of the Bill, as articulated by the hon Minister and the hon Minister of State. I wish to touch on two areas in my speech. First, noting that it is intended to narrow the applicability of the defence of unsoundness of mind, I would argue that public interest may be better served to go to the other direction – to broaden the grounds for raising the defence of unsoundness of mind. Second, in keeping with the raison d'etre of this Bill, which is to protect women, children and vulnerable persons from sexual predators, there should not be an age limit to caning as punishment. Instead, we should look to whether the person is medically fit to be caned. If it is found to be so, age should be no impediment. On the first point, I note that it is proposed that before an accused may rely on the defence of unsoundness of mind under section 84 of the Penal Code, he needs to prove that he is both incapable of knowing that what he did was wrong by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest persons; and wrong as contrary to law. In other words, he did not know what he did was both morally and legally wrong. I further note that the amendments do not seek to widen the ambit of section 84, which covers only cognitive disorders, to include conative or volitional disorders; meaning to include situations where the accused simply cannot control his actions because of a mental disorder. I am concerned that, because of the two observations that I made, the ambit of the proposed section 84 is too narrow and this may not be in public interest. Let me explain. Any lawyer who has raised the defence of unsoundness of mind in Court, and I have done so, would know that an acquittal represents somewhat a Pyrrhic victory.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, on the occasion of SPF 200, I would like to urge the hon Minister for Home Affairs to consider honouring both our retired officers as well as the families of our fallen officers by providing them each with a meaningful token of some form that will forever symbolise our nation's indebtedness to them. They deserve not just our appreciation, but to be remembered and honoured too. [Applause.]”
“I spoke about the anguish his widow and three young children felt when I accompanied them to the location he passed away to pray for his soul later that day. SI Boo Tiang Huat's widow, Mdm Chew Tuan Jong, is present in this House. So is her son, Mr Boo Jia Liang. I remembered Jia Liang as a seven-year-old boy with spiky hair. He is now 34 years old. Mdm Chew, a clerk, single-handedly raised her three children – Jia Liang and his two elder sisters. All three graduated from University; two of them, including Jia Liang, became teachers. The other is an engineer. Jia Liang shared with me that, knowing how hard his mother worked to raise him and his siblings, all three siblings decided that she should retire 10 years ago and just enjoy life whilst they take full care of her. For the officers who died in the line of duty, their spouses, parents, children and siblings bore the brunt of the loss. Widows of fallen officers like Mrs Lim and Mdm Chew would have to dig deep to raise their children. Children of the fallen officers like David and Jia Liang would forever wonder how life would have been for them if only their fathers had come home. As a nation, we should never forget the ultimate sacrifices made by our fallen SPF officers in the line of duty. The Commemorative Gallery at the Police Heritage Centre was created as a permanent tribute to them. But we should also not forget the extraordinary courage of the families of the these fallen officers too. The sacrifice is theirs too.”
“Obliged, Madam. One of the officers in the list was the late Inspector Allan Lim Kim Sai. He was a second generation Police officer, following the footsteps of his father who joined the Police force when we were still part of the Straits Settlement. On 5 August 1965, Inspector Lim co-led a pre-dawn operation to capture a notorious gangster and his men who were responsible for several kidnappings in Siang Lim Park at Geylang. A fierce gun battle ensued. The gangster even lobbed hand grenades which exploded, causing injuries. Inspector Lim perished from the wounds he suffered in the gun fight at the age of only 28. At the time when Inspector Lim died, his only son, David Lim, was just nine months old. The responsibility to take care of David fell fully on his mother. Raised by his mother, he too, like his grandfather and his father before him, joined the Singapore Police Force in 1992. When he reported for duty, after nine months of Police training, in 1993 at Tanglin Police Division, he asked Mr Peter Lim, his head of department who was a colleague of the late Inspector Allan Lim and present in this House today, "Tell me, how did my father die?" Mdm Deputy Speaker, Mr David Lim is in this House today. He retired as a Superintendent of Police two years ago. I extended an invitation to his mother, who is now 84, to attend Parliament. Unfortunately, she is not fit enough to travel. One other person's name that appears in the list of 125 officers is the late SI Boo Tiang Huat. In November last year, I spoke in this House about his case. I related how, at the age of 47 in 1994, he was killed in the line of duty by an axe-wielding person at Newton Road. I was his colleague then and I was at the scene several minutes after he perished.”
“But I would imagine more officers would have perished in SPF's 200-year history. I am indebted to the Commissioner of Police for providing me with a list of the officers who have been killed in the line of duty and I seek your permission to annex this list to my speech, please.”
“Their training, their muscle memory is to put themselves in harm's way to protect our nation's leaders, if necessary, with their lives. Mr Lim Siong joined SPF in 1968 when Police officers still wore khaki shorts. Apparently, the idea was to keep them cool in the day. In 1969, when the then Constable Lim Siong was on duty, he received information that there was a suspicious person lurking around the railway tracks beside the old Chartered Bank along Upper Bukit Timah Road. What was happening was that a communist sympathiser was planting a homemade bomb at the railway tracks. Mr Lim Siong acted quickly. With his baton, he managed to disarm and handcuff the person by himself. He then recovered the bomb, which was in a Milo tin, and the communist flag from the scene. Today, these items can be seen at ISD's Heritage Centre. Mr Lim Siong's quick thinking and fearlessness saved lives. Just two weeks later, however, sadly, a bomb did explode at Upper Changi Road, Seven Mile, killing a lady. Those were dangerous times. Hon Members would agree that there has been a sea change in the crime and security situation in Singapore since the 1960s and 1970s. It is our good fortune that SPF could count on its brave and dedicated officers who turned the tide against crime and disorder. There is no doubt in my mind that SPF today stands on the shoulders of these giants. To them, I would like, on behalf of a grateful nation, to express a debt of enduring thanks. [Applause.] I now wish to pay tribute to our Police officers killed in the line of duty and their families. Mdm Deputy Speaker, SPF kept records of fallen officers only from 1901. Based on these records, 125 officers have been killed in the line of duty to date.”
“He forced the manager of the company to draw money from a bank and bring it back to her office. The manager tipped off her colleague before leaving for the bank. That was how the Police were alerted. Mr Low laid an ambush in the office. The robber entered the office, but somehow sensed danger and rushed out. Mr Low gave chase. It is useful for me to pause here and explain the significance of this to hon Members. What I am relating is not a movie scene. This is a case of an officer chasing a robber known to be armed with a gun. Need to have guts to do this! Whilst climbing up the staircase of a building looking for the robber, the robber in turn ambushed Mr Low. He struck Mr Low on his head with the butt of his revolver repeatedly. The robber then relieved Mr Low of his service gun and tucked it into his waist. He then said the chilling words, "Why do you want to risk your life looking for me? Today is my day or yours." He then asked Mr Low to walk down the stairs. Mr Low seized an opportunity to grab his service gun from the robber's waist. The robber then took a step backward to fire at him. Mr Low thankfully fired first. He survived. The robber died. For his bravery, President Sheares conferred on Mr Low the Police Gallantry Medal. DSI Low went on to have an illustrious career in SPF and retired after 40 years of service. Mr Lim Siong, who is also in this House, served in Security Branch, now known as the Police Security Command, before retiring as a Station Inspector in 1993. For a good number of years, he was one of the Security Officers in the team assigned to protect Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our founding Prime Minister. These security officers, past and present, are a special breed of people.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to support this Motion filed by hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza. The Singapore Police Force (SPF) has, over two centuries since the founding of modern Singapore, made Singapore one of the safest countries in the world. This security which allows us all to walk safe at night, to work without fear in the day, this peace of mind, is a public good without price. We honour SPF officers, past and present, for their courage and unwavering sense of duty; we remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the past and those who walk the streets each day, know that this sacrifice may be demanded of them in the future. In my speech, I would like to focus on the contributions of our retired SPF officers as well as the sacrifice of officers who gave up their lives in the course of their duties. Mdm Deputy Speaker, today in this House we have 30 retired officers. Between them, they served, and I calculated this, 1,040 years cumulatively. That is almost 35 years per person. A good number of them joined service in the 1960s and the 1970s. In those days, we had serious issues in enforcing law and order. In particular, we had to contend with the menace of secret societies, a point that hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza made. SPF needed stout-hearted people to deal with these problems. Thankfully, it had a good number of such officers. Let me tell you the stories of these brave SPF retirees who are present here. Detective Station Inspector Anthony Low joined SPF in 1962. He is now 78 years young. In 1974, Mr Low, then a detective sergeant, was called to attend to a case of an armed robbery in progress at a finance company. The robber had a revolver.”
“Sir, a quick supplementary question, please. May I ask the hon Minister how the JGI has enhanced the employability of ex-offenders in this pandemic, as compared to the situation before the JGI was announced?”
“In 1965, our year of Independence, we had 45 officers. Today, this has increased 18 times to over 800 officers, of which, 30% are judicial officers. In 2014, in recognition of the need to specialise, our Prime Minister announced the restructuring of the Legal Service which involved the introduction of two separate career tracks, judicial and legal, for Legal Service Officers, LSOs. However, the specialisation tracks are geared towards the middle ranks of the Legal Service. Junior and senior officers still operate under a fully integrated model, in respect of their career tracks. Respectfully, given the requirements of the future that I have alluded to, I would think it is good to reconsider the central management of junior and senior officers deployed for judicial duties by the LSC. It seems to me there is a need to plan for longer runways for the junior officers within specific career tracks leading to deeper specialisation. Even at the top, the senior LSOs in the Judiciary must devote time and effort to continually upskill themselves so as to keep up with the requirements of their jobs. The establishment of a JSC, with its own secretariat, can help. At this point in our country's development, there is also sufficient ballast in terms of the number of LSOs currently serving and expected to serve as judicial officers. Madam, the proposal to split the LSC into a JSC and LSC is, admittedly, a complex issue. I would not pretend that I have dealt with all the issues in my short speech. Instead, all I seek to do is to make a case for this Government to agree to conduct a feasibility study on my proposal and revert to this House in due course.”
“It is not easy to measure complexity of the cases in our Courts objectively but there are several proxies that can provide rough and ready guides. In an article titled "The Development of Singapore Law: A Bicentennial Retrospective" by the hon Andrew Phang JA, Prof Goh Yihan SC and Prof Jerrold Soh, it is stated that the average reported judgment comprised 4,763 words in 2002. Now, the average count hovers around 11,000 words. This statistic is for judgments of both the State Court and the Supreme Court. Between 2017 and 2020, based on my manual count, the Court of Appeal, the highest Court of our land, has sat as a special five-judge bench about 45 times to deal with novel and complex issues of law. There is also an upward trend of Singapore cases being cited and commented on overseas, including in the UK and Australian courts. This is an indication that our Courts are increasingly having to grapple with frontier legal issues. I will give three examples. First, the UK Supreme Court had occasion to cite two decisions of the Singapore Court of Appeal in its 2015 judgment on requirements to imply a term in contract law. Next, the New South Wales Supreme Court in 2016 quoted observations of the Singapore High Court on the role of liquidators in legal proceedings. Finally, the 2017 Court of Appeal's reported approach to the issue of damages arising from a birth of a healthy child through in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) as a result of a medical professional negligently fertilising an ovum using sperm from a wrong source, received much attention internationally. So, our Judges carry out a key element of providing order in society, not just in Singapore but, at times, in other Common Law countries. Our Legal Service has grown significantly, too, over the years.”
“With greater specialisation, our Judges will be more efficient and productive and in a position to further rein in legal costs. The end state that I envision is a specialist Judiciary that ensures that its decisions remain consistently of the highest quality and delivered with due despatch. Furthermore, it should allow litigants using its processes to be satisfied that they have been provided with good access to justice, their cases have been heard and they have been treated fairly and impartially. Lastly, it is responsive and keeps abreast of fast-paced developments, particularly technological developments, that are making cases more complex. One good example of a technological development arose last year when the Court of Appeal had to deal with novel legal issues arising in the world of cryptocurrency algorithmic trading. A specialist Judiciary that can achieve all these will strengthen our public's trust, confidence and respect in our legal system. I now make the case for further specialisation of the Judiciary. I say "further specialisation" because the Judiciary has already developed specialist routes for some years now in response to the increasing complexity of cases. Let me cite some examples. The Family Justice Courts were set up out of the recognition that family justice is a specialist discipline that requires specific focus and jurisprudential development. There have been dedicated specialist commercial lists in the General Division of the High Court in areas, such as building and construction, finance, securities, insolvency and trusts, and arbitration. As a private practitioner in active legal practice for some time now, it is clear to me that the Judiciary continues to hear and decide on more complex cases over the years.”
“The point we should consider today is whether the integrated LSC model, which has served us well, needs to be adjusted with regard to the evolving responsibilities that will be placed on the Judiciary in the future. The main arguments I make in support of this Motion are as follows. Considering the increasing factual and legal complexities of the cases presented in Court, quickening the pace of specialisation amongst our Judges will better equip them with the skills, tools, especially technological tools, and experience to discharge their solemn duties consistently and at the highest standards. A separate JSC with its own secretariat set up under the Constitution and vested with the power of appointment, control and human resource development of the judicial officers in the Singapore Legal Service will be in a better position to nurture a specialist corps of judicial officers. Additionally, with the autonomous power to recruit, the JSC can exercise more flexibility and use a wider range of talents. For example, someone with experience in programming can be trained and taught law. Then, he or she can navigate the technical facts of a case much better than a legally trained Judge. That is a deeper, more specialised approach to intentionally growing our judicial service. Nonetheless, I must acknowledge that I make these points drawing from merely my own knowledge and experience as a legislator and a private legal practitioner. Hence, I am calling on the Government to study the feasibility of my proposal rather than presenting a specific case for it. Let me now say a few words on the significance of my proposal on fellow Singaporeans. Specialisation amongst Judges should not mean higher costs for litigants. Rather, what I have in mind is the opposite.”
“Obliged. On 4 November 2020, I asked the hon Minister for Law and Home Affairs in this House about the merits of having a separate Judicial Service Commission (JSC) principally to deepen the competence of judicial officers. I am not alone in asking for the set-up of the JSC. Hon Members of Parliament from both sides of the House have made similar calls for a variety of reasons. The hon Minister's reply to my question was that in the current circumstances, the integrated Legal Service Commission (LSC) model that we have for the Legal Service is probably best for the time being. I agree with the hon Minister that the integrated model served Singapore well. The LSC contributed indelibly to the upholding of the rule of law in Singapore. It ensured that our Judiciary is both independent and impartial. Our Judiciary is held in great esteem not just within Singapore but also internationally. In a MinLaw Public Perception Survey conducted in 2020, 90% of respondents indicated that they had trust and confidence in Singapore's legal system. Singapore was also ranked overall first out of 180 countries in the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom 2021 and was given a score of 90.8 for judicial effectiveness. The upholding of the rule of law in Singapore has directly resulted in Singapore's growth as an inclusive nation with good outcomes in education, opportunities for all, irrespective of race, religion or gender, care for the less fortunate, cohesion amongst people and low crime rates. What is good for today, however, may not be adequate for tomorrow. It is our work to improve our institutions over the years that has made us what we are.”