S Jayakumar
Singapore
“It is well and good for countries to announce various targets and emissions. But one vexing issue ultimately is: what will be the method for verifying compliance with each country's announced measures? Another vexing issue, of course, is the issue of financing.”
“I would appreciate it if she were to give me some specifics of the negative feedback. But the general feedback I have had about our judiciary, both of the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts, has been nothing but positive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the information that I have is that there is always medical advice present when caning is administered and that if the medical opinion is that caning cannot proceed beyond a certain point, that medical opinion will be observed and the caning will not proceed.”
“Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent announcement to make immediate improvements to the public transport system (a) whether the Ministry has set a timeline for the increase in frequency of feeder bus services; and (b) whether the Ministry can immediately target such services that are currently running at…”
“SCDF will continue to work with HDB and other relevant agencies to ensure that such older buildings with one exit staircase meet the prevailing fire safety requirements when they undergo major renovation or upgrading works. CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS 3.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Teo Ser Luck) (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Mrs Jessie Phua's and Dr Lim Wee Kiak's questions together as they both relate to the same issues.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,291 lines we hold for S Jayakumar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 19 of 66.
“That is precisely the issue. Singapore's position is that Malaysia's operation of CIQ facilities here is not on the basis of a legal right or on the basis of extraterritorial rights. They are here on the basis of leave and consent of the Singapore Government.”
“I have always taken the position in this House that we should take things one step at a time. It is not that Foreign Ministries and Foreign Ministers never inquire internally on what to do if certain questions such as those posed by the Member arise. We always have to address "what if" questions. But in bilateral relations, we have to assume that things will develop one step at a time. I would not like to prejudge this issue. I would like to give the Malaysians time to respond to the position I have outlined.”
“Members might have read in the media that the new Foreign Minister has in fact spoken quite positively on bilateral relations and has indicated a desire to work towards improving ties. According to media reports, he has said his priority would be Singapore-Malaysia ties. He said that he was optimistic and that it should not be difficult to resolve issues amicably. I welcome his remarks.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me take the first part of Dr Ong Chit Chung's question, ie, why we need to highlight the legal aspect. It is not so much "highlighting" the legal aspect because Members will recall that it was Malaysia which wanted the CIQ issue to be included in the package of bilateral issues to be resolved, according to the two Prime Ministers' agreement. We agreed to this. But, because Malaysia insisted that it had a legal right for its CIQ to operate in Singapore - as Members will recall the debate we had on 31st July last year - Malaysia has therefore raised a fundamental question of sovereignty. There really can be no two ways about it. Either Malaysia's CIQ in Singapore are there as a matter of right or they are there because of our leave and consent. If Malaysia's CIQ are in Singapore because of an inherent legal right, then of course it follows that there is no need for any negotiated political settlement because they are there as of legal right. Therefore, it is important, from Singapore's point of view, that the question of Singapore's sovereignty has to be acknowledged. We have told the Malaysians that if they do not submit their legal arguments within a month then we will assume that they no longer maintain that they have a legal right to operate their CIQ in Singapore. As to the Member's second question about the new Foreign Minister, let me say that I have previously worked with Datuk Seri Syed Hamid when he was Minister of Justice in Malaysia. I in fact had a very good working relationship with him in that capacity and I look forward to working closely with him to resolve outstanding bilateral issues and to strengthen bilateral relations.”
“We have informed Malaysia that if they do not produce their legal arguments in one month's time, we will assume that they no longer wish to pursue their legal claim to be at Tanjong Pagar.”
“He also mentioned that Malaysian officials would be ready to begin negotiations sometime after Hari Raya Aidilfitri. I replied on 30th December 1998 to point out that when the two Prime Ministers met in Hanoi on 17th December 1998, Prime Minister Goh had told Prime Minister Mahathir that Singapore's position on the CIQ issue was straightforward, namely, Malaysia would have to recognise Singapore's sovereignty and not claim that it had a legal right to operate its CIQ in Singapore. If so, he was prepared to discuss the next step. Prime Minister Goh added that although there was no legislation allowing Malaysian Immigration to operate in Singapore, he was prepared to discuss the possible location of Malaysia's CIQ facilities in Singapore as part of a package of bilateral issues to be resolved. But first of all, the question whether Malaysia still claims to have a legal right to be at Tanjong Pagar had to be resolved. Indeed, when Prime Minister Goh met the press immediately after the meeting, he told the media that Malaysia should still give Singapore their legal arguments. In my reply to then Foreign Minister Badawi, we have stressed that any negotiations on the location of the CIQ could proceed only after Singapore's sovereignty over Tanjong Pagar and Woodlands has been acknowledged and not disputed. This is because Malaysia has claimed a legal right for its Customs and Immigration to operate in Singapore at Tanjong Pagar. Singapore rejects this. This is a question of Singapore's sovereignty, just as Malaysian airspace is a question of Malaysia's sovereignty. When Malaysia refused RSAF permission to fly over Malaysia, Singapore acknowledged this sovereignty. We expect them to acknowledge our sovereignty.”
“Sir, Malaysia has to date not submitted its written legal arguments. Members will recall that Singapore rejected Malaysia's claim that they had a legal right to operate their Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) at Tanjong Pagar. However, we allowed them three months, until 31st October 1998, to submit written legal arguments to substantiate their claim. Five days before the 31st October deadline expired, Malaysia requested an extension of the deadline by 1 1/2 months. We agreed and accordingly extended the deadline to 15th December 1998. However, Malaysia did not submit their arguments by the 15th December deadline nor did they give us any explanation, even though our High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur reminded them on 11th December 1998. On 16th December 1998, after the deadline had expired, Singapore sent a Third Person Note to ask the Malaysian Government for an explanation and to ask when it was submitting its legal arguments. Subsequently, my Permanent Secretary spoke to his counterpart in the Malaysian Foreign Ministry and informed him that we were awaiting a reply to our Third Person Note of 16th December 1998 and for their explanation why they failed to submit their arguments. Thereafter, the then Foreign Minister Dato' Seri Abdullah Badawi replied on 26th December 1998, referring to the meeting between the two Prime Ministers in Hanoi on 17th December 1998, where the two Prime Ministers agreed to discuss and seek solutions to all outstanding bilateral issues as a package, including the location of the CIQ. His main point was that this latest agreement between the two Prime Ministers superseded any previous undertaking or understanding at the officials level. Malaysia's understanding was therefore that the question of a deadline should no longer arise.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take both Mr Low Thia Khiang's Question and Mr Simon Tay's Question together as they are related?”
“Since Mr Jeyaretnam says he knows personally that there is certain compulsion, he should raise it with the appropriate authorities, either with the Registrar of the court or the Law Society. This is not the place for us to determine whether he is right or wrong. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.”
“If he had listened carefully to what I have said, I said that the Attorney-General argued and made a lengthy submission as to why there were very good reasons for interpreting the provisions in such a way that when the Attorney-General makes an application for reference of a question, it should be considered to be of public interest. The court found that argument compelling but the section, as worded, they did not feel it was appropriate to accept the Attorney-General's argument. Therefore, the law has to be amended. The final question he asked is that he seems to imply that all the measures which I have praised the court are really for the speedy administration of justice, ie, speed at the expense of justice being done. Actually, if you examine what happens, the measures taken by the courts involve more time, effort, energy and work by the judges, the Registrars and everybody involved. They need not have done it. They can just say, "You have come to sue? A wants to sue B? Fine, let's have a trial." The amount of work it takes for counselling in family and matrimonial affairs and the amount of work it takes to have mediation is tremendous. So it is not speed in wanting to get rid of these cases. It is in fact with the desire to ensure that the parties are able to resolve the cases before they come to trial that motivates them. And I think that is a very important principle in the administration of justice which we should not forget.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on the first point, I did not say that, because there is mediation, there should be lesser appeals. I raised the point on mediation to make the broader point to urge colleagues to look at the total approach to the administration of justice which our courts have taken and that is a considerable development for which the courts are to be congratulated. I have also not justified this amendment on the ground that there is a tremendous overload or flood of cases. The point I made here is that the main reason is because of the increase of the jurisdictional limit to $250,000, there will be more cases. And as we have done before, we will have to increase the appeal limit so as to be in line with the jurisdictional limit. As I conceded, we can have a debate on whether it should be $50,000, $40,000, $30,000, and so on. It is a relative matter. I am more than willing to defer to the wise judgement of the Chief Justice in this regard because he is dealing with the administration of the courts on a daily basis. Who are we to second guess and say, "Well, it should be $40,000 and not $50,000." Next, Mr Jeyaretnam extols what is going on in the United Kingdom and what the courts have decided. I should point out to him that the provision in the United Kingdom which Prof. Chin Tet Yung referred to, would enable the Attorney-General there to refer a point to the court, if I am not mistaken, whether or not it is of public interest. So the United Kingdom's approach in an analogous provision delinks it from the public interest. Mr Jeyaretnam is shaking his head. But he may do well to look up section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1972. It was Christopher Bridges' case indeed.”
“He has a duty to enforce what he believes to be the right law which no one has. Therefore if he does not agree with the law as pronounced by the High Court, he should be entitled to go to the Court of Appeal for a final ruling. Accordingly, the Public Prosecutor submitted in the case that any Public Prosecutor's questions which satisfy the three conditions would invariably be one of public interest based on the need to have a final ruling for future cases. He further submitted that a determination by the Court of Appeal advances the public interest in reinforcing the finality principle in the following ways: (a) the Public Prosecutor is thereafter able to decide on prosecutions in accordance with the Court of Appeal's decision; (b) the Public Prosecutor is able to advise the Government on whether or not it is desirable to change the law; and (c) where the Court of Appeal upholds the Public Prosecutor's case, all convictions and acquittals founded on that principle of law are likely to end at the Subordinate Courts." Sir, since the Court of Appeal's judgement is that the Attorney-General's submissions were compelling, the Government has agreed to give effect to it.”
“" But, then, Mr Jeyaretnam says on the question of public interest, we are out of line with other jurisdictions, and public interest must be determined by the Court. He even referred to Malaysia. He should double check the law in Malaysia because in the case of Public Prosecutor v Lim Joo Soon [1981] 1 Malayan Law Journal, page 107, this was what the Federal Court had to say: ". The Public Prosecutor's application coming as it is as from such an august officer of the law removes from the discretion of the court the right to decide on whether the question is of public interest. When the Public Prosecutor applies for a reference . it must be taken that any question posed by him is of public interest, unless of course it can be shown that the question is indeed of his own personal interest and of no one else." It may be useful for me to explain to this House why is it that the Attorney-General's conclusion that the question he is posing or is applying to refer a matter of public interest must be taken to be a public interest. And the best I can do is to reproduce part of the judgement of the Court of Appeal in the Public Prosecutor v Bridges Christopher case (1998). In that case, the argument was made by the Attorney-General. But the court found that his submissions were "compelling" but felt that the existing provision was not appropriately worded. This is what the Attorney-General argued, and this is summarised by the Court in its judgement and I think it succinctly puts forward the rationale for this amendment to section 60. I quote: "The Public Prosecutor is responsible for and represents the State in all criminal prosecutions. He is also the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government on what the law is.”
“But he made a second and even broader proposal, which is that the Attorney-General should have the power to refer any question de novo without direct reference to any case, as I understand it. And he says it will help in the development of the law, and I believe he was supported by Mr Shriniwas Rai who has gone further and said even hypothetical cases could be raised. The significance of this proposal is that it would be delinking from the other elements which have to be satisfied in the existing provision, ie, that it must arise in a particular criminal matter and the determination of that question must have affected the case. But he has clarified that he is still talking about criminal cases. I am prepared to look into this and discuss it with the Attorney-General, and if we conclude that there is merit in this, we may well have to come to Parliament. Mr Jeyaretnam, as he himself admits, has raised much of what he has said before. The first point he makes is that the public prosecutor ought not to have this special right distinguished from the application by the accused - application by the accused is discretionary; the Court can turn it down, but the application by the Attorney-General has to be approved, provided it meets these other elements. Why is this so? Instead of giving a lengthy reply, since he raised it on 30th July 1997, my colleague, Minister of State Ho Peng Kee, gave an excellent reply which was as follows, and I quote: "When the Public Prosecutor prosecutes cases, he prosecutes in the public interest. If there is a point of public interest that needs the clarification of a full Court of Appeal, then as Public Prosecutor he should have the leeway so that the point of law can be conclusively decided.”
“Thank you, Sir. So the Members who made that point have failed to look at it from the other side of the coin. Can I touch on the amendments to section 60? First, Prof. Chin Tet Yung has made some interesting observations. He agrees with the premise that there should be a difference between a reference or a question by the Attorney-General and application to refer by the accused person. I think he accepts there is a fundamental distinction. But as I listened to his speech, I think he made two separate points. First, he proposes that the Attorney-General's reference ought to be distinct from the reference by the accused convicted person. And he would want the Attorney-General to have the right to refer any question of law unconnected with the accused person. I think we can consider that. Of course, he would have noted that the amendment does make a distinction in a sense that for the accused person, the Court has a discretion whether to reserve the question for decision by the Court of Appeal. In the case of an application by the Attorney-General, the Judge must reserve the question, provided the other ingredients are met. He has referred to the United Kingdom's position. Of course, in the United Kingdom, the conviction and acquittal is not disturbed by the Court of Appeal's decision. Our existing provision, including the amendment that we propose to make, is different because in cases of acquittal, the Court of Appeal's practice is not to disturb the acquittal even if they agree with the arguments of the public prosecutor. But the Court of Appeal can set aside the conviction if the point of law is decided against the public prosecutor's arguments.”
“It works both ways. So it does not follow ---”
“I think $10,000 or $15,000, in fact, comes very close to the cases which the Small Claims Tribunal hears, ie, cases up to $10,000, and with the consent of both parties, up to $20,000. So to raise it to $10,000 or $15,000, which will come so close, and overlap with the Small Claims Tribunal, may be unrealistic. Another argument was made by more than one speaker who suggested that this amendment gives the impression that litigants who have larger claims have better access to justice and better rights, and that this amendment may favour the rich. But they fail to look at it from the other point of view. Because you can have a "rich" plaintiff, big corporate plaintiff, suing a small-timer, small businessman. A small businessman wins a case, the plaintiff, if not for these threshold limits, because he can afford it, can take it all the way up the ladder to the different tiers of appeal where the small-time defendant, who has won the case, would not be able to afford. So it works both ways.”
“Mr Jeyaretnam says, of course. The administration of the Courts is really under the leadership of the Chief Justice. He has brought the Courts and developed the Courts to a situation which has today earned praise and kudos. I for one would have full confidence in the Chief Justice, and in the light of experience, depending on the number of cases, this figure can be adjusted. Mr Simon Tay raised a question as to whether there are some constitutional principles involved here. But I must be careful not to give any authoritative pronouncement or purport to make any authoritative pronouncement on constitutional issue. With that caveat, let me say also that the Attorney-General is very careful when he drafts Bills that he would have taken into account the constitutional aspect of the Bill. But to answer Mr Simon Tay's question, I would think that this provision does fall within Article 21(5) of the Constitution which provides that, "The Legislature may by law make provision to require the President to act after consultation with, or on the recommendation of, any person or body of persons other than the Cabinet in the exercise of his functions other than . [the two provisos are not applicable here.]" But let me say to Mr Simon Tay that, in practice, the Chief Justice, on such matters, has close consultations with the Attorney-General who in turn also consults me for my views. Some have suggested raising the figure to $10,000 or $15,000. This is a matter for judgement really at the end of the day. If you say the figure has to be raised, and has to be raised because of the upping of the limit last year to $250,000, then it is a relative matter, whether it is $10,000 or $15,000.”
“The point I am making is that the system has just evolved shows that many cases have been mediated. Only the cases that deserve to go on trial, or fail mediation, went to trial. Of that, not many went on appeal. So the system of jurisdiction limits and threshold limits for appeals works. In my view, the small number of cases that later went to trial shows the high quality of the Subordinate Court Judges. It shows that the regular adjustment of monetary limits ensures that only serious appeals go up. Otherwise, many other cases would have gone up and occupied precious High Court time. Notwithstanding what I have said and the variation to the limits proposed in the amendment, colleagues have noted that the amendment provides for the President, in consultation with the Chief Justice, to vary the amounts so the Courts can monitor the number of appeals and the number of applications filed for leave to appeal. If necessary, in the light of experience of what happens, the amount can be decreased or adjusted. Several Members - Mr Simon Tay, Mr Ravindran, Mr Shriniwas Rai and Mr Jeyaretnam - took umbrage at this provision and said this is intrinsically wrong, it is Parliament which should decide, and Parliament should be the sole arbiter, whether this or other limit. We can argue this and debate it. But who is the best judge of what limit best works? We in Parliament? Mr Jeyaretnam: Of course.”
“ICJ is not an independent rating agency! In the PERC study, August 1998, on the ranking of Singapore's Police and Judiciary among certain countries, Singapore was rated to have the best national institutions in Asia. In the ranking of the judiciary and the police, Singapore topped again with a score of 2.87 whereas the rating of the United States and Hong Kong was 3 and 3.11 respectively. Since an interesting debate is going to come later on, PERC commented: "Surprisingly, for a country where the Government is often accused by foreign human rights activists (and if I may add, by somebody else) of using the judiciary to pursue politically-motivated libel suits, our American respondents living in Singapore even rated the island's judicial system as being superior to that of the United States." Please bear in mind this total approach to the administration of justice, and I think colleagues should really join me in giving top marks to our judiciary, ie, the Supreme Court, the Subordinate Courts and our Chief Justice. I think they have done Singapore proud. Far from curtailing access to justice, they have in fact gone out of their way to deliver justice in a more user-friendly and more efficient way. I think the statistics are interesting. When the appeal limit was $5,000 in the Subordinate Courts, in 1996 the total number of claims filed in the Subordinate Courts was 29,281. Of these, 425 went to trial. Of these, only 83 went on appeal. Of these, only 15 appeals were allowed, less than 1%. In 1997, 32,088 claims were filed in the Subordinate Courts. Only 462 cases went to trial. Of these, 87 went up on appeal, of which 14 were allowed. In 1998, up to October this year, 36,269 claims were filed in the Subordinate Courts. 469 went to trial, and 97 went up on appeal.”
“The courts have reduced the time lag between setting down the case and hearing in the High Court where they had a target of 18 months, and I am told the target has been reached. Even the Subordinate Courts cases are fixed within three to four weeks from the time that the parties are ready. Pre-trial conferences, electronic filing of cases, ability of people to pay fines through ATOMs without having to go to the Subordinate Courts. And the Subordinate Courts have now also had a recent soft launching of its innovative concept known as "Multi-door Hot House", which is a one-stop service centre. Why do I mention all this? Because I am troubled by the approach taken by some of my colleagues who seem to focus just on this right of appeal. They have not been aware that a periodic adjustment has been done from 1986, and before that too. We have to do this because the monetary limit was increased in 1987 to $250,000. Do not take a narrow view. You have to look at the whole system of justice and it is because of all these reforms taken that our judiciary has been given top marks, not by me, speaking as the Minister for Law, but by independent international rating agencies.”
“Does that necessarily mean it is bad for justice? The justice system in Singapore has undergone tremendous reforms and many initiatives have been taken by the courts. The quality of judgments, quality of judges improves and judges handle the cases and deal with them seriously and fewer appeals go up. Does this necessarily mean bad? I do not think it follows. Therefore, I would stress that we should look at the totality of our justice system. Look at the whole context of the proactive approach taken by the courts because they have indeed taken a wide variety of measures which have in fact benefited the public. A notable example that comes to my mind is mediation of civil cases since 1994. The law did not require it. It was an initiative, an innovation of the courts, that all civil cases are mediated before trial, and the settlement rate is 92%. From 1995 to October 1998, only 1.6% of 125,000 civil cases proceeded to trial. If you proceed on the assumption that the more cases the better, obviously it is a bad system of justice! I would like to put it to colleagues here that this system of mediation, where so many cases have been settled, has in fact resulted in substantial savings of money, time, heartache, emotion, for potential litigants. None of the MPs have touched on this. In fact, the justice system as evolved by our courts under the leadership of the Chief Justice has in fact led to two bites at the cherry. One bite is to have the case resolved by mediation first. If that fails, then a second bite at the trial. Look at the other proactive measures taken by the courts - mediation and counselling in matrimonial cases which can cause tremendous emotional trauma for the husband or wife and children. The number of cases now going to trial is very small.”
“I would, as the Minister for Law, accept the judgement of the Chief Justice who is in charge of administration of the courts and who has a good overview of the management of cases. That is the first point I would make. So let's be clear about the background. This is not something that has come out of the blue, it was never done before. These are periodic adjustments of jurisdictional limits and threshold limits for appeals. All along, those who do not meet the threshold limits did not have automatic appeal. But it does not mean that the right of appeal was curtailed because they could have applied for leave to appeal. If there were merits and they made a case, leave would be granted. The second point I want to make to those who have suggested that it somehow conjures up curtailment of justice, some grave injustice is being done, is to say that that is a very narrow way of approaching the issue. They proceed on the narrow assumption that the more appeals you have, the more tiers of appeals you have, the more automatic appeals you have, that is justice. I do not think it follows. That is a narrow view of looking at the whole system of justice because looking at the administration of justice in totality, you have to view what the courts have done in the past many years. A whole array of reforms has been undertaken by the courts. Rather than conclude that automatic appeals, greater number of appeals, greater number of tiers of appeals equals better administration of justice, why not examine and inquire what the courts have done, which is a pro-active case management approach to administration of justice? In fact it saves time, cost and trauma and emotions for potential litigants, with lesser cases having to go to trial, and lesser cases going to appeal.”
“Because some of the speakers seem to be unaware of this background, let me remind them of how this has evolved. Before 1986, the monetary limit was $500 in the Subordinate Courts, or with leave if the amount was less. This element of being able to apply for leave has always been there, if the amount was not reached. So the monetary limit was $500 and the jurisdictional limit of the Subordinate Courts was $10,000 before 1986. In 1986, the jurisdictional limit of the Subordinate Courts was raised to $50,000. When that was done, the appeal threshold limit was then raised from $500 to $2,000, a four-fold increase. I was then in Parliament. Of course, some of the Members who spoke were not there. But I do not recall any Member then arguing that this was curtailment of justice. In 1993, seven years later, the jurisdictional limit of the Subordinate Courts was raised to $100,000. The appeal threshold limit was then raised from $2,000 to $5,000, 2 1/2 times. Again, I stress, the element of applying for leave to appeal was always there. Last year, 1997, the jurisdictional limit for the Subordinate Courts was raised to $250,000. But last year the courts did not propose that the appeal be immediately changed. It was kept at $5,000, and monitored for a year. Now, we are altering the appeal limit to $50,000. The element of leave being given is still being retained. So the point to be underscored is that with the increase in jurisdiction of our Subordinate Courts to $250,000, obviously more and more cases are going to be heard by the Subordinate Courts. Therefore, the threshold for appeals has to be adjusted. Then the question arises: what is the figure? $10,000, $15,000, $20,000? The Chief Justice has proposed it be raised to $50,000.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank Members who have spoken and several comments, observations and criticisms have been made. I will try to categorise them in broad categories and deal with the issues that they have raised. First, several Members have expressed the concern that this somehow will affect access to justice and there will be restrictions on justice. Much has been said by Members about the inherent right for litigants to appeal. Some have emphasised the importance of automatic appeal. Mr Jeyaretnam even thought that this amendment raises questions of equality under the Constitution. Before we get carried away in thinking that this amendment has come out of the blue, never done before, and that it violates some sacrosanct principles, I would like to inform Members of the background. The background is that all these years, the principle that leave to appeal is required, coupled with a monetary threshold, is not new. It has always been there in our statute books. That is the first point I wish to make. I think Members should know that this system of leave to appeal, coupled with a monetary limit, has been an essential feature of our legal system. It has been in our laws since 1955. In fact, before that, in 1936, there was no appeal when the amount was below $100. At that time the jurisdiction of the Court was $500. So, in case Members did not realise it, the monetary limit is part and parcel of this principle of leave to appeal. Secondly, periodic adjustments of the monetary limit is also not new, and it has never been argued before that having that limit and persons who do not qualify under the limit having to apply for leave - it has never been argued that justice has been denied and access to justice restricted.”
“Sir, in the case of criminal evidence and procedure, there is always the argument made that the judiciary and the legal profession should be allowed to regulate such rules, especially as they are the ones practising in this area, and where a quick decision may be required. It may take too long to take such amendments to Parliament, too cumbersome and perhaps unnecessary. The power of the Attorney-General to refer to the Court of Appeal questions of law therefore remains a most useful and necessary power. Sir, I support the Bill. Prof. Jayakumar: I wonder if Prof Chin would clarify his second point when he says, "In future, the Attorney-General should have the power to raise questions." Is he advocating this, both for criminal and civil cases, or only criminal cases? Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, the answer is that I would expect it to be restricted to criminal cases, simply because the Attorney-General, as the Minister mentioned just now, is charged with the duty of all criminal prosecutions in the land.”
“It must be emphasised that it is not the case that when an accused raises a question of law, it is never in the public interest. But equally clearly, it cannot be deemed to be so. The accused is personally interested in the outcome of the case and is not usually concerned with the application of the law to others. As I mentioned earlier, it could have been better to separate the accused's right of appeal from the Attorney-General's right to ask for determination of questions of law by the Court of Appeal. Perhaps, this matter can be looked at again in due course. Another merit, of course, of the reference approach is that the defendant's name is normally kept out of the appeal, so the Court of Appeal can fully consider the case as one involving prospective cases. At the same time, it reinforces the view that the Attorney-General cannot, in such a case, ask the Court to set aside an acquittal of the accused whose case is the subject of a reference. These amendments can be supported in that the end result on either approach is to produce clearer rulings from the highest court of the land to govern criminal cases. No one, I believe, will dispute the need or desirability to have such a procedure. Finally, there may be a case for considering, in future, a procedure whereby the Attorney-General can refer questions, de novo to the Court of Appeal in anticipation of legal difficulties and problems without direct reference to a particular case. If such a procedure exists, it may help in the development of law without the need to involve Parliament unduly in matters concerning the administration of criminal justice.”
“The key difference relates to the deeming provision, ie, whenever the Attorney-General makes an application under this section, the question of law is deemed to be one of public interest. That is in the proposed section 65. That this amendment accords more with reality, there is no doubt. It must be a rarity that when the AG raises the question of law, it is not in the public interest. This conceivably can only happen when the AG is personally involved in the case. There is, therefore, a difference between a question of law raised by the Attorney-General and a question of law raised by the accused in a case. The Attorney-General, the member of the Executive, is charged, as the Minister has pointed out, with constitutional duties relating to the legal affairs of the Government and the conduct of prosecutions. Additionally, the Attorney-General Chambers also have a legislative division that in fact drafts all legislation laid before Parliament. It is therefore important to recognise this fact that accounts for the difference between the Attorney-General raising a question of law and the accused in the case raising a similar question. It would, of course, be tidier, if the Attorney-General's ability to raise a question of law for determination by the Court of Appeal is separate from the confines of any case. This is the situation, for example, in the United Kingdom where in the Criminal Justice Act of 1972, a procedure known as the Attorney-General's reference was created. This makes it very clear that the public interest is served every time the Attorney-General makes a reference for determination by the Court. Such references are for the purposes of determining the law in future and this clearly may be beneficial to both accused and prosecution.”
“Question proposed. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, in our legal system, there are two ways in which laws are made. The first is through Parliament and the other through judges who decide on individual cases. Uncertainty in the law may arise when there are gaps or when laws are given differing interpretations by judges, or when, in the case of judge-made law, judges disagree with each other. In criminal law and procedure, it is important that there be avenues to correct any such uncertainties quickly. The proper administration of justice requires laws to be certain, especially when criminal laws are concerned. Amendments to statutes can only be done by Parliament, but judge-made law is always subject to a determination by the highest court of the land, namely, the Court of Appeal. Who can appeal, and on what grounds, all provided for in the various statutes and codes. Today, we are considering a particularly important aspect, mainly the role of the Attorney-General in the appellate process. The current practice, as the Minister has indicated, under section 60, is that both party and Attorney-General can appeal from a High Court decision to the Court of Appeal. In the case of an application by the AG, the judge is under a duty for the decision of the Court of Appeal, any question of law of public interest that has surfaced during the High Court hearing. Under the present section 64, the Court of Appeal is under a duty to reserve, hear and determine the question reserved. There is a deeming provision that where there is a conflict of judicial authority on a point of law, the question shall be regarded as one of public interest. How is the proposed amendment different from the current one?”
“Let me now deal with the second amendment which is to amend section 60 to deem any question of law referred by the Attorney-General to the Court of Appeal (CA) arising from any criminal matter determined by the High Court to be a question of public interest. Presently, under section 60, when an appeal from a decision of a Subordinate Court in a criminal matter has been determined by the High Court, the Judge may, on the application of any party and shall, on the application of the Public Prosecutor, reserve for the question of the Court of Appeal any question of law of public interest which has arisen in the course of the appeal. However, the existing provision in relation to the Public Prosecutor is unsatisfactory because the issue of whether a question of law is one of public interest is determined exclusively by the High Court. The result therefore is that the Public Prosecutor may be prevented from seeking a conclusive ruling from the Court of Appeal on questions which the Public Prosecutor considers to be of public interest. If the Members of the House are aware, under the Constitution, the Attorney-General, who is also the Public Prosecutor, is charged with the responsibility for the conduct of all criminal prosecutions and for advising the Government on legal matters. In order to properly discharge his constitutional duties, the Attorney-General feels, and the Government agrees with him, that he should be given the freedom to pose questions which he considers to be of public interest for a conclusive ruling by the Court of Appeal. The proposed amendment to section 60 seeks to address this issue by providing that any question of law referred by the Public Prosecutor to the Court of Appeal should be deemed to be a question of public interest. Sir, I beg to move.”
“If the limit is not raised to $250,000, District Court cases of less than $250,000 can first go on appeal to the High Court and then Court of Appeal. This would strain the limited resources of the Court of Appeal. Likewise, the Chief Justice also proposed that the limit of $5,000 under section 21(1) of the SCJA, which covers appeals to the High Court from decisions of the District and Magistrates' Courts in civil matters, be increased to $50,000. The effect is that any appeal relating to a claim less than $50,000 would require the leave of the Court. The purpose of the amendment is that in view of the increased jurisdiction of the Subordinate Courts, there is a need to discourage non-serious appeals to the High Court. This is best done by raising the threshold limit from $5,000 to $50,000. Litigants who feel that their appeals have merit may still apply for leave to appeal. For flexibility, the Bill also provides that the President will be empowered to vary the new limits after consulting the Chief Justice. If necessary, these new limits can be increased or decreased after assessing how they work out in practice. I should point out that the new limits will not have the effect of preventing meritorious appeals from being heard, even if they concern claims below the new limits. The requirement for leave is essentially a screening mechanism to sieve out non-serious and unmeritorious appeals. Appeals can still be brought with the leave of court in cases falling below the new limits. Reasons for deeming a question of law referred by Public Prosecutor to Court of Appeal arising from criminal appeal determined by High Court to be a question of public interest.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill seeks to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322) (SCJA) for two purposes: (a) Firstly, to raise the claim threshold under which leave to appeal is required: (i) in the case of appeals from a decision of a District Court or Magistrate's Court in civil matters to the High Court, from $5,000 to $50,000; and (ii) in the case of appeals from a decision of the High Court in civil matters to the Court of Appeal, from $30,000 to $250,000; (b) Secondly, to deem any question of law referred to the Court of Appeal by the Public Prosecutor arising from any criminal matter determined by the High Court to be a question of public interest. Let me now deal with the first purpose. Reasons for raising limits for Civil Appeals to High Court and Court of Appeal Sir, on 1st August 1997, the District Courts' jurisdiction in civil matters was raised from $100,000 to $250,000. As a result, more than 1,500 (The exact figure, updated to 19th November 1998, is 1,544 cases.) claims exceeding $100,000 have been filed in the District Courts since August 1997. This has helped to reduce the number of claims filed in the High Court. However, under section 34(2)(a) of the SCJA, appeals to the Court of Appeal from decisions of the High Court in civil matters can still be made as a matter of right, ie, without first obtaining leave of the Court, if the value of the subject matter exceeds $30,000. In view of the enhanced District Courts' jurisdiction to $250,000 in civil matters, the Chief Justice has proposed that the existing $30,000 limit in section 34(2)(a) be raised to $250,000. In other words, bring its limit in line with the enhancement.”
“I am not sure whether the Member, when he cites a precedent, is talking of the acquisition in Potong Pasir with respect to an owner of the premises, whereas here I take it that the reference he and Mr Shriniwas Rai have made is to individual tenants who have leases in the building where the owner is the person who has been served with an acquisition notice. So it may not be exactly the same precedent but, in any case, I will ask my officials to look into it. MEDISAVE AND SPECIAL ACCOUNTS (Cutting rate of contribution) 9. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Manpower whether the Government will consider cutting the rate of contributions or temporarily suspending contributions to the Medisave and Special Accounts of the Central Provident Fund.”
“Here again, I think the Member will appreciate that I cannot go into details or commit myself, because I understand that the Collector's inquiry has commenced but has not been concluded. I understand that the Collector has received the various claims but the proceedings have not been concluded and he has yet to determine the final award. Consistent with past practice, the Collector will take into account the various factors and considerations including claims from the individual tenants when making the final award.”
“I believe the Member knows that in acquisition cases, the authority deals with the owner of the property acquired. On his specific question about the deadline of 31st March, my understanding is that this is contingent and dependent on the Supreme Court's own schedule for redevelopment of Colombo Court. So I cannot commit myself now as to whether there is flexibility to extend the 31st March deadline, but it is certainly a point that I will ask my officials to take up with the Supreme Court.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the procedures to be followed in any case of acquisition of land are set out in the Land Acquisition Act (Cap 152) and Government has to comply with the provisions of the law. Therefore, Government's consistent and established policy has been to give notice of an acquisition to everyone at the same time through a public notification in the Government Gazette. It would not be proper to notify any person or group of persons of proposed acquisition before such Gazette. This is because prior knowledge of acquisitions of land required for public projects can affect the prices of the properties to be acquired as well as adjoining ones depending on the nature of the public project. In a property transaction, it would not be equitable if one party has privileged information of the property's imminent acquisition which he could use to his advantage in the transaction.”
“However, where the Court confers in favour of the ex-wife a proprietory interest in the ex-husband's CPF savings and a charge is imposed to secure that proprietory interest, the ex-wife will be entitled to the portion charged when her ex-husband is eligible to withdraw his CPF savings. GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT LINKED COMPANIES' INVESTMENTS 5. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government and Government-linked companies have invested in any hedge fund and, if so, whether he will disclose details of such investments.”
“(a) From January 1997 to October 1998, how many ex-husbands have evaded Court Order Maintenance? Evasion of Court Maintenance Order is taken to mean non-payment of maintenance orders in part or in whole when the payments become due. The number of applications for the enforcement of maintenance orders from January 1997 to October 1998 is 5833. This figure also includes applications filed by guardians who are not wives against the parent(s) of children as there is no separate categorisation of applications filed by ex-husbands. (b) What enforcement measures are in place to make sure ex-husbands pay up their dues? Under section 71 and Part IX of the Women's Charter, when a person who has been ordered to pay maintenance fails to do so, the court may make one of the following orders: (i) impose a term of imprisonment not exceeding 1 month for each month of maintenance arrears; (ii) issue a warrant to levy; (iii) make a garnishee order against monies due or owing to the respondent; or (iv) make an attachment order against the salary or income of the respondent. (c) If his Ministry will request the Central Provident Fund Board to release the funds which the ex-husbands have and pay the ex-wives and children what they are legally entitled to. Presently, CPF savings can only be withdrawn when a member satisfies the conditions for CPF withdrawal (eg. when he reaches age 55 after setting aside his Minimum Sum and Medisave retention sum). Under section 24 of the CPF Act, CPF savings are protected against any claims and debts as such savings are meant to meet members' old age and medical needs. Hence, CPF savings cannot be released to meet the ex-husband's financial obligations including his monthly Court Order Maintenance.”
“For the period May 1997 to October 1998, Singapore offered a total of S$11.5 million worth of technical assistance to ASEAN countries under the Singapore Co-operation Programme (SCP), which is managed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The areas in which ASEAN nationals have been trained under the SCP included English language, trade and investment promotion, civil aviation, port management, productivity, community policing and search and rescue. Other Singapore ministries and agencies have also separately provided training awards and scholarships to ASEAN nationals. COURT ORDER MAINTENANCE 4. Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh asked the Minister for Law (a) from January 1997 to October 1998, how many ex-husbands have evaded Court Order Maintenance; (b) what enforcement measures are in place to make sure ex-husbands pay up their dues; and (c) if his Ministry will request the Central Provident Fund Board to release the funds which the ex-husbands have and pay the ex-wives and children what they are legally entitled to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we can have an esoteric debate on what the United Nations does, but I still ask how is that related to the question he has asked. PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING WITH MALAYSIAN PRIME MINISTER 9. Mr Chuang Shaw Peng asked the Prime Minister whether he will elaborate on the win-win proposals in the recent negotiation with the Malaysian Government. 10. Mr Zulkifli bin Baharudin asked the Prime Minister (a) what were the specific requests made by the Malaysian Prime Minister to the Singapore Government to help the Malaysian economy; and (b) whether the meeting between the Prime Ministers and the request for greater help and co-operation reflect the change in the Malaysian government's attitude to restore and improve ties with Singapore. 11. Mr Shriniwas Rai asked the Prime Minister during his recent meeting with the Prime Minister of Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur, whether the question of water supply to Singapore was raised. The Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Questions 9, 10 and 11 together as they are related?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not see the relevance of that question to the question he has asked.”
“If by Mr Jeyaretnam's suggested definition that it is intervention, I think all members of the UN are interfering in the internal affairs of everybody.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to the Member, let me say that he is misinformed. Singapore has never opposed the right of any individual ASEAN member to express its views on events in another ASEAN member country. What we had opposed at the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Manila this year is the suggestion that ASEAN should abandon the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of member states. That is an established principle of international law, enshrined in the United Nations Charter and which is also found in ASEAN's Treaty of Amity.”
“Based on returns received by the Official Receiver from liquidators of companies in voluntary liquidation, 886 companies were voluntarily wound up from January to September this year, compared to 685 for the same period last year. 1,794 persons were made bankrupt from January to September this year, compared to 1,218 for the same period last year. LAND LEASE PAYMENTS 2. Mr Gerard Ee asked the Minister for Finance whether he will allow land lease payments to be made tax deductible in the same manner as for rentals, as such payments represent a substantial business cost and are in substance similar to rental payments.”
“Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Health, during these difficult times, if he will (i) review and readjust the staff structure of doctors in public hospitals in order to solve the shortage problem and reduce the excessive workload of junior doctors; and (ii) step up the recruitment effort and increase the number of training posts for nurses.”
“In January this year, the Law Reform Committee of the Singapore Academy of Law submitted to the Attorney-General a report recommending that law firms be allowed to corporatise on a voluntary basis. Amongst the reasons stated by the Committee were that, with corporatisation, law firms can be reorganised into larger corporate units to share resources and take advantage of economies of scale. This will enhance their ability to cope with the faster pace, heavier workload and greater range of work. With growth, there would be scope for concomitant specialisation. The corporate structure will also promote globalisation of Singapore law firms. After discussing with the Attorney-General the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal, I gave my in-principle approval to the Law Reform Committee to work out the details. I emphasised the importance of ensuring that there are adequate safeguards to protect the interests of clients against the negligence and incompetence of law corporations. The Law Reform Committee and Law Society are currently working together to consider the details of the proposal. When they submit their detailed proposal, my Ministry will study it with the Attorney-General's Chambers bearing in mind public and national interests. The corporatisation of law firms will help Singapore law firms to be more competitive. Hong Kong has already amended its legislation to allow corporatisation of law firms. Allowing professionals such as lawyers to corporatise is not something new in Singapore. Architects, engineers and land surveyors were allowed to do so in 1991. STAFF STRUCTURE OF DOCTORS AND NURSES IN PUBLIC HOSPITALS 43.”
“At the recently-concluded AFTA Council Meeting held in Manila on 6th October 1998, ASEAN countries reiterated their commitment to implement AFTA and further agreed to expand the number of tariff lines that can be accelerated ahead of schedule. Indeed the AFTA Council recognised that further acceleration of AFTA was particularly important in light of the current financial and economic crisis. ASEAN's commitment to economic cooperation is further demonstrated by the endorsement of the ASEAN Economic Ministers, at their meeting in Manila from 7th-8th October 1998, of the Framework Agreement on the ASEAN Investment Area to enhance the investment climate in ASEAN. STATUS OF FOREIGN RESERVES 19. Dr Lily Neo asked the Minister for Finance if he will indicate the present status of our foreign reserves and a summary of the resultant effect on them arising from the economic turmoil and currency crisis.”
“(a) It is true that there are bilateral differences among some ASEAN member countries. However, this is not unusual as ASEAN countries have had bilateral problems in the past. Fortunately, ASEAN members have not allowed their bilateral disputes to impede their ongoing cooperation or to undermine ASEAN unity. For example, notwithstanding the current problems besetting the region and certain bilateral issues, ASEAN Foreign Ministers held a successful annual Ministerial Meeting in Manila in July. Recently, on 23rd September, I chaired an ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting held in New York on the fringes of the UN General Assembly, during which the Foreign Ministers reached consensus on a number of issues, including on Cambodia. The ASEAN Finance Ministers met on 4th October 1998 in Washington DC, where they agreed to endorse the terms of understanding for an ASEAN Surveillance Process. A few days ago, the ASEAN Economic Ministers also met in Manila to discuss cooperation in economic matters. These ASEAN Ministerial meetings demonstrate that notwithstanding ongoing bilateral differences and other difficulties, ASEAN member countries continue to cooperate on a range of important issues. There is no doubt that the regional financial and economic crisis poses one of the biggest challenges for ASEAN. All the ASEAN countries have been affected, to varying degrees. The challenge now is for ASEAN, during this period of difficulty, to continue such cooperation at all levels to tackle the problems facing the region. (b) On the second part of the Member's question, I wish to inform him that despite the financial and economic crisis, ASEAN countries have been moving ahead on the ASEAN Free Trade Area, or AFTA, initiative.”
“Members will recall that when I addressed the House on the CIQ issue on 31st July 1998, I stated that Malaysia claimed a legal right for its Customs to remain at Tanjong Pagar. They also argued that despite the absence of any specific legislation, Malaysian Immigration also had a legal basis to operate at Tanjong Pagar railway station. Singapore disagreed but requested Malaysia to forward detailed legal arguments in writing for further study by Singapore's Attorney-General. The Malaysian Government agreed to present to Singapore within three months its legal arguments to support its legal claim. We have recently reminded the Malaysian Government of its agreement to present its written legal arguments. The position therefore is that we are currently awaiting receipt of their legal arguments. After our Attorney-General has studied Malaysia's legal arguments, officials from the two Attorney-General's Chambers would then meet to clarify the legal position and the basis of Malaysia's claims. MISUNDERSTANDINGS IN RELATIONS OF SINGAPORE, MALAYSIA AND INDONESIA 18. Mr Tay Beng Chuan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether recent misunderstandings and tension in the relations of Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia call into question the fundamental objectives of ASEAN solidarity and economic cooperation; and (b) whether the Asian economic crisis will impede the smooth implementation of the ASEAN Free Trade Area by 2003.”
“There are over 50 lots of Malayan Railway Administration land in Singapore under various types of titles. With respect to lands occupied by the Malayan Railway, save for a couple of branch lines which are on 99-year lease terms, these lands are held under 999-year Crown leases issued to the Federal Lands Commissioner, Malaysia. The 999-year leases are subject to a covenant that should the land cease to be used and not be required for the purposes of the Malayan Railway Administration, the land may be resumed by the Government of Singapore. The 99-year leases also provide that the land be used only for railway purposes. GREEN FAIRWAY GOLF CLUB 3. Mr Cyrille Tan asked the Minister for Law what are the plans of his Ministry when the lease of Green Fairway Golf Club, presently managed by the Singapore Turf Club, expires in 1999 in view of Singapore Turf Club relocating to Kranji. Prof. S. Jayakumar: The Green Fairway Golf Club is on land in Bukit Timah belonging to the Singapore Turf Club on 999-year lease or freehold. When the Turf Club relocates to Kranji in 1999, it will return all its land in Bukit Timah to the State, including the land occupied by Green Fairway Golf Club. The longer term plan is for the land to be used for residential purposes. In the interim period, pending such redevelopment, Land Office plans to allow the continued use of the land for the golf course and the driving range. In that event it will consider tendering it out or appointing an agent to manage these facilities. DESALINATION PLANT 4. Mr Shriniwas Rai asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he will give details of the proposed desalination plant in Singapore.”