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 24 of 66.
“First of all, we have to make sure that the new members understand the ways of ASEAN. Fortunately, the new members are not complete strangers to ASEAN. They are already interacting with ASEAN in post-ministerial conferences held after ASEAN ministerial meetings. Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam are also members of the ASEAN Regional Forum and they interact with ASEAN. The existing members in ASEAN also help the potential new applicants in adjusting to ASEAN membership. And we do this because many of them have sent delegations to existing ASEAN member countries, including Singapore, to be briefed on how we service ASEAN, how we meet the obligations of ASEAN. Singapore has been assisting Vietnam, for example, in the training of some of their officials on ASEAN matters and also in the training of the English language. As to the future role of ASEAN, ASEAN has in fact played a pivotal role in many of the initiatives which have resulted in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and on the Asia-Europe meeting. It is important that ASEAN stays on top of the situation to face the challenges coming ahead in the next few decades. Just as it has played a pivotal role in ARF and ASEM, it must, with an expanded ASEAN, find a mechanism to meet and interact on a regular basis. And, therefore, last year, I think Mr Chandra Das will have noted that at the summit in Bangkok, an important decision was taken that in addition to the periodic summits of leaders, ASEAN leaders will also meet informally every year. This is a very important development because it will enable the leaders annually to have a review of the achievements of ASEAN in the preceding year and to take stock of what needs to be done.”
“So ASEAN will become a nine-member organisation. And it is not before long that ASEAN will achieve the original intention of the founding fathers to be an ASEAN-10 when Myanmar joins. What is the plus side of this? Obviously, an expanded ASEAN, which reaches the original intention of an ASEAN-10, will certainly create a new equilibrium for regional stability. And it will increase ASEAN's influence and bargaining power with other countries and other regional organisations. Bear in mind that an ASEAN of 10 South-East Asian countries has a potential consumer market of nearly 500 million people. So there are certain definite advantages when we look at an expanded ASEAN in the years ahead. But, on the other hand, an expanded ASEAN does not mean that it is free of problems. Because, like any organisation, when it grows in membership, there are certain problems and difficulties that we have to address. Expansion means that with new members, we have new interests and new sensitivities. Some of them are at different economic levels, at different stages of development. So we have to examine how they fit in with some of the economic obligations of international economic agreements and commitments which ASEAN expects of its members. Next, how would an expanded ASEAN affect ASEAN's traditional decision making, its traditional style of taking decisions by consensus? That is an important feature of ASEAN which other regional organisations envy and admire. Because whatever differences we have in ASEAN, we sort these differences out and arrive at decisions with give-and-take, but arrive at a consensus. Therefore, new members must be imbibed with this spirit of consensus. How do we do this? By several ways.”
“APEC, of course, is focused primarily on economic cooperation, and the membership there is on economies. In the Asia-Europe meeting, they also discuss economic cooperation, but they go beyond economic cooperation to discuss also broad questions of security and political dialogue. Therefore, the Asia-Europe meeting has a broader-based membership and a broader-based agenda, so to speak. But there is no conflict because of what I have mentioned just now. Is there a possibility of it being perceived as a bloc against the United States? The answer is no, because we have to recall the original rationale for proposing the Asia-Europe meeting. The rationale was that we felt that there was a gap in the triangular relationship between three major centres of economic growth - Europe, the United States and Asia-Pacific. While the United States and Asia-Pacific had ample dialogue opportunities through APEC, and Europe had dialogue opportunities with the United States, at the highest level, there was a gap, because there was no vehicle for similar dialogue between leaders of Asia and Europe, although there was dialogue at the Foreign Ministers' level. It was with this in mind that we proposed that to complete the triangle, we should also have a vehicle for top leaders, heads of governments, in Europe to meet with leaders in Asia. Therefore, with ASEM, I think we have put in place a mechanism where Europe, Asia and America can have a meeting of minds periodically from time to time. Mr Chandra Das asked about ASEAN and the future directions. For many years, ASEAN has been, what I would describe as a "cosy club" of six-member organisation. Last year, with Vietnam, it has increased to seven. Laos and Cambodia have indicated that they will apply for membership in 1997.”
“In other words, there will be important meetings at officials' level, Economic Ministers meeting and Foreign Ministers will follow up on the decisions reached at Bangkok. Other important projects are the vision to have a Trans-Asia railway so that countries in Asia can be linked up in the same way that Euro-rail has linked up European countries and also a project to assist the Indo-Chinese countries, which is the Mekong Basin development, where Malaysia will be convening meetings. In other words, the first held Asia-Europe Meeting achieved its objective of bridging the gap between Asia and Europe, and brought about a meeting of minds, both on economic cooperation as well as in the broad political and security discussions. I would say that after this, the leaders on both sides feel that they can cooperate on a win-win situation. And I think it will also mean that with the holding of future Asia-Europe meetings, it will help to reduce misunderstandings between both sides. In this process, Asian countries will benefit and Singapore certainly will stand to benefit. 3.00 pm Singapore must continue to work closely with ASEAN and other countries to ensure that future Asia-Europe meetings will succeed, and indeed we have already decided that there will be a second Asia-Europe meeting in Europe, probably in London, and we are talking of a third Asia-Europe meeting in Korea, two years after the second meeting. Mr Bernard Chen asked two specific questions- how would I relate this to other existing organisations like APEC? And would it be perceived to be a bloc against the United States? The answer to both questions is no, because I see the Asia-Europe meeting as a vehicle that can complement the efforts in APEC. The membership is different.”
“Sir, first, on the Chairman of the GPC, Mr Bernard Chen's comments on Asia-Europe Meeting, I would say it was quite a historic meeting both for Asia and Europe and, indeed, it speaks well for Singapore that our Prime Minister mooted the idea. It is, in a sense, a record. It is a record that within a period of about 16 months, from the time that the idea was floated and its realisation, that the summit of some 25 leaders from two regions could have been organised. But it is a credit to the realisation by Europe and Asia of the importance of the summit. Credit must also be given to Thailand whose government was entrusted with the organisation and convening of this important meeting. The achievements of the Asia-Europe meeting are considerable because, in Bangkok, we had the leaders' meeting in an informal setting. It was not just a meeting, or talk shop, but they embarked on certain important decisions and projects which would have to be followed up. Therefore, it was not a one-shot affair, but the beginning of what I would consider to be an important evolutionary movement. For example, just to give a few examples of the important projects that they decided on. They decided to establish an Asia-Europe Foundation. They decided that it should be followed up this year by a senior officials' meeting in Brussels where they would focus both Asian and European leaders on the forthcoming WTO Ministerial Meeting. They also decided that some of the decisions be followed up by meetings of the Economic Ministers in Japan next year. And in early next year, Singapore will host a meeting of the Asia-Europe Foreign Ministers, back-to-back with the ASEAN-EU Foreign Ministers Meeting.”
“It is not clear to me. Is he talking about court fees, hearing fees, legal fees charged by lawyers, or deposits charged for security for costs? But it was clear to me towards the end that he did talk about legal aid. He does know that, last year, in this House, I moved a Bill to amend the means test, as a result of which I am told that now 80% of the applicants who come to Legal Aid Bureau are eligible for legal aid. He was about to go on to talk about the cost in criminal cases or legal aid in criminal cases. We took a decision in this House last year to repeal the provisions in the Legal Aid Act on providing legal aid for criminal cases and I gave a full answer on that. I know he is not satisfied because he did not have time to develop further. But let me assure him that if he wishes to file a Question for Oral Answer on the points that he has not covered, I will be happy to give a full answer at a subsequent sitting. Mr Cheo Chai Chen: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $205,509,920 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $323,437,200 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head O -”
“I am not an expert in the construction of MRT. Is he referring to the line or stations, whether the station is underground, above ground, half below ground, half above ground, and whether this considerably changes the amount of land to be acquired is a question that will have to be addressed by the experts. But let me assure him that, in the acquisition of land, the authorities and the Government have ensured that the amount of land to be acquired is not extravagant and has kept to the minimum possible.”
“Valuation of golf course land has moved to market value, with exceptions given to three clubs - Orchid Country Club, to recognise the labour movement, SAFRA and Sembawang, to recognise the contributions of our SAF and defence personnel. Also, do not forget that golf courses serve as an important social amenity as part of our efforts to upgrade the quality of life for Singaporeans. It also caters for expatriate investors and some 7 million tourists as a feature to attract talents to Singapore. Finally, these golf courses are all located in areas which are either in the flight path zone or near to water catchment areas and there is limited potential for other kinds of uses. They also serve as open spaces and green lungs in our highly urban environment. Therefore, Sir, I do not think that we need to be very vexed with the fact that even when we reach the projections in the Concept Plan, the land for golf courses will occupy a maximum of up to 1.9% of the land. 2.45 pm”
“But if answers to that question are very important to him, he might want to pursue this at a subsequent sitting where he can ask Questions for Oral Answer. Similarly, his detailed questions, Sir, as to the construction and how much of the $5 billion is actually going to construction, these are questions which he might want to pursue with the Minister for Communications because these matters come under his purview. But I want to assure him that the principles for acquisition for this exercise in fact are very much the principles for acquisition of land which were used in the previous building of other MRT lines. In fact, we have tried to soften the blow, more so for this exercise, by spreading the period of taking possession over a period of five years and we have given the land owners affected an option as to whether they want to stay on and have their compensation awards collected later, or to collect the compensation awards now and give up their land. As to Mr Ling How Doong's question, we have 20 or so golf courses now. He said 19, but my figure shows 20. Is that too many or too little? Compared to other countries, I am not sure really whether we have the most dense concentration of golf courses. If you ask golfers, like some of my colleagues here, they may say that it is not enough. But the question really is two-fold. First, even the projected number of golf courses under the Concept Plan which caters for a scenario of 4 million population will not come to more than 1.9% of the land in Singapore. Do not forget also that in 1991 I announced in this House that the terms and conditions for operating golf courses had changed. They are no longer holding golf courses on very low nominal rates.”
“Sir, first, Mr Chiam has asked some general questions as well as some specific questions. As to the general question of acquisition of land over the North-East line, I can do no better than to refer him to the explanation given in this House by Mr Mah Bow Tan, as well as the detailed briefings and press conferences which were given by the Ministry of Communications and the Land Transport Authority, which had explained in fairly great detail the reasons for the land acquisition. He referred to Sennett and Woodleigh stations, and the reasons for this had also been given. Because it is clear that land surrounding the proposed station sites, whether in Potong Pasir or others, are affected and need to be acquired either for construction of the station and related facilities and also for comprehensive redevelopment. Once the sites for these stations, whether they are Sennett or Woodleigh, are identified and announced, then the affected land must be included in the acquisition plans now, just like land affected by other MRT stations in the previous exercise. Also, I like to point out to him that the announcement of early acquisition, although the sites will be built at different times, will remove uncertainty and speculation and allow land owners to make informed decisions early whether to stay on till the land is taken possession of by the Government or whether they want to take the compensation awards and vacate the land at an earlier date. He has asked some specific questions: what exact percentage of the land that has to be acquired is for the actual construction of the line, what percentage for development, and the details with regard to Potong Pasir. I must admit to him that I do not have all the details here.”
“We are also looking at what is happening at the international organisation level, at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). As a member of WIPO, Singapore will continue to liaise closely with them. Mr Choo Wee Khiang's question boils down to this - whether we have our legal infrastructure and our body of laws sufficiently updated and kept abreast so that the legal infrastructure supports and effectively aids our objective to make Singapore as a financial and commercial hub. The answer to that is indeed, yes. Because if you look at the legislation that has been passed in recent years, Mr Choo Wee Khiang will know that we have enacted or amended important legislation. For example, the copyright legislation has been brought up to date. Secondly, the Patents Act was passed. And not only the Patents Act was passed, but fairly quickly after that, we amended it to make sure that it conformed with TRIP (Trade-Related Intellectual Property Agreement). Then we passed the Sales of Goods Act which gives effect to the relevant UN conventions. And we also amended the bankruptcy legislation which has the aim of encouraging entrepreneurship and creativity. These are local legislation. But at the international level, we are very active in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and whatever model laws adopted by UNCITRAL, we have paid attention to the need to adapt those model laws for our purposes. In short, Sir, our legal infrastructure has been kept up to date and we will continue to review them to ensure that we are not out of touch.”
“The Committee will be asked to produce its report by the end of the year. The Chairman of the Committee will, of course, liaise closely with me, as Minister for Law, and the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Judiciary on specific recommendations which will affect the court system. 2.30 pm Dr Ho Tat Kin asked about copyright. Just as the discussion on Internet shows that the laws have to catch up with advances in modern technology, the point raised by Dr Ho Tat Kin shows another area where advances in technology are moving so fast that not only for Singapore, but for many countries, the lawmakers have to ensure that the laws are abreast with modern technology. And indeed the international community has only recently begun to grapple with copyright issues relating particularly to information technology connected with digitisation. We are looking at the trends and what other countries are doing rather than inventing the wheels for ourselves. For example, in the United States, they have recently reviewed their legislation. I understand there is a White Paper entitled "Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure", published late last year. The European Community also has begun to be seized with this issue, and they have issued a Green Paper last year on "Copyright and Related Rights in Information Society". Japan has released a similar paper. Australia has also published a paper called "Copyright in the New Communications Environment". In answer to Dr Ho Tat Kin, we realise and are aware of the problems he has mentioned. We indeed are reviewing our copyright laws and will take into account what are the trends and solutions in other countries and adapt to our own situation.”
“First of all, it will check the trend of Singaporeans and Singapore becoming a more litigious society. Secondly, it provides less expensive and less adversarial methods of settlement of disputes and there is a wide range of ADR alternatives. Thirdly, to encourage the use of speedier dispute resolution mechanisms. More important also, it will assist the courts in reducing the number of cases which could have been brought all the way to the judicial system and more cases could be solved by alternative methods. As Dr Ker has said, it will also help to maintain as an Asian tenet or way of life the method of promoting mediation in disputes. Because we are committed as a Government to promoting ADR, and in order to study how ADR can be comprehensively implemented, the Ministry of Law will set up an Inter-Agency Steering Committee to be chaired by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Law and Home Affairs. We all know that the judiciary has already set the pace on ADR but within the judicial system. We must examine what more can be done to supplement and complement what the judiciary has already embarked on. This Committee will therefore look further into the subject in a comprehensive way together with other agencies and make recommendations on the promotion of ADR processes. He mentioned that we do not have the villages and kampongs of the old. True. But I would also ask the Committee to look into the feasibility of setting up Community Justice Centres where Justices of the Peace or certain outstanding community leaders could mediate in social and community disputes. I intend that the Committee should include representatives from the various Ministries and relevant agencies, including some Members of this House who can convey the views of the grassroots organisations.”
“Sir, first on the comments made by the Chairman of the GPC. I had touched on the ADR last year and it is still an important topic for us to address. I agree with many of the sentiments that he has expressed and let me state that Government's policy is, as a matter of policy direction, to encourage the development of ADR processes such as arbitration, mediation and conciliation and such similar ADR methods. The reasons are pretty much as stated by him because it is important that we move away from the notion that litigation is the only or the best or the preferred way of settling disputes. Because litigation with its inherent adversarial quality means that in effect it is a zero-sum game where there will be a clear loser and a clear winner, leaving no feasible way to save face. It affects the harmonious social relationship, not to talk of the amount of the glare of publicity and the cost involved. Therefore, we should encourage ADR as an alternative method to enable people to resolve their disputes, whether social, family or even financial disputes. Mediation, for example, has many virtues which are not found in litigation. It, of course, requires some give and take on the side of both parties, whatever their legal rights may be. But the mediated solution is the result of voluntary agreement by both sides and it can only come about if each party believes that he has gained something from it. But both can come out of it with a sense of some personal satisfaction. Therefore, I fully support the notion that litigation should be the last and not the first resort of settling legal disputes. The reason why Government will, as a matter of policy, encourage ADR development is its obvious beneficial effects.”
“Parliament is not the proper place to go into the facts and details of the case. I also do not know the details of the case. I did check with the Attorney-General. He told me that in this case, the court has the power to award costs. The two directors who were acquitted did not apply for cost. Why they did not apply for cost, we do not know. But I think Prof. Walter Woon should ask them. 4.32 pm”
“I feel that for the senior citizens of Singapore, ie, those who have been working very hard for decades in our nation building, we should help them by making it easy for them to travel to various places in Singapore. I hope that our surpluses would be used not only for giving rebates and other materialistic support to the people, but also for community development to enhance the cohesiveness of our people, so that the people and the Government could work together. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: If I may just clarify two things. I believe the Minister has misconstrued me on two crucial things. Nowhere in my speech did I ever suggest that people who are acquitted were all innocent. In fact, I was at pains to point out that there can be many reasons why a person is acquitted. But the prosecuting authorities are not perfect. Secondly, nowhere in my speech did I suggest that the cost should as a matter of course follow the event or that it should be a blanket rule. I merely said that the courts, not just the High Court, all the courts, should have a discretion. The key issue is very simple: do you believe that in a prosecution like InnoPac, the two accused were guilty but got off because of a technicality and that they are really crooks or whether they are innocent men who, unfortunately, through circumstance, were wrongly prosecuted? If you think it is the first then, of course, they do not deserve compensation. But if you think it is the second, that they were innocent and mistakenly prosecuted, then they have been unjustly treated by the State and the State has within its power to redress this injustice by the payment of compensation.”
“Just like what Mr Leong Horn Kee said, we should give generously to the people. In this year's Budget, I have two points to make. First, we do not seem to give enough consideration for the SMEs. In the past, when we were not in the high-technology field, many of the SMEs were labour-intensive and if this had carried on, we would have lost our competitiveness. So the Government encouraged them to venture overseas. I feel that the Government should give more consideration, perhaps through the EDB or the TDB, in setting up a special task force to see how we could look after our SMEs, particularly those industries which are not suitable for further development in Singapore and to bring them overseas. Since we have so many enterprises (big, small and medium) going overseas, they enjoy tax incentives and a lot of rebates. If we can give them better assistance, I think they would have more confidence to venture overseas. Another matter which I am concerned about is our aging population. Now that we are going into the 21st century, the aging problem is a very significant one. So in future budgets, we should look more carefully into the problems of an aging population. We could look into these problems before they get out of hand. On the question of an aging population, I cannot help thinking about our senior citizens. One of the important aspects of our daily life is transportation. When we are looking into improving the well-being of our people, the most urgent consideration is transportation. For example, many of our senior citizens have no opportunity to go to places like the Bird Park or the Zoo. So if it is possible, we should try to give more consideration to transportation.”
“The Government is elected by the people and has the mandate to rule the nation once every five years or so after a general election. The happy state of our nation today is achieved through the joint efforts between the Government and the people. The Opposition MPs raised a number of points in this year's Budget and they seemed to be rather gentle in their attitude. In other words, they do not have many complaints against this year's Budget. That is the reason why they are saying that this is an "Election Budget". The fact remains that even the Opposition MPs admire the Government for what it has done. But what are my worries? Looking from another angle, now that the Government has given such a good Budget, would this create some pressure on the Government in the long term? The good point is that this will give the future government a stronger challenge. But, on the other hand, would this raise the expectations of the people from the Government? In future, if the Government is not able to satisfy the expectations of the people, what would be the situation then? So the only way is to elect a good government. This is the only assurance. When we are dealing with our surpluses, I think we have to be very prudent. We have to be consistent in our target. I do not expect to see the Government giving away such good hongbaos every year. But I feel that we would still have to be very prudent in dealing with our surpluses. Perhaps once in two or three years the Government should make a review. As the Finance Minister said in his Budget statement, the time is right because of our economic growth. We have good surpluses, so we should share the wealth with the people. This is a good thing to do. Once every two or three years we should have a review.”
“Walter Woon may not be satisfied with my answer. There will be ample opportunity, I am sure in the subsequent sitting for him to pursue this debate further. But to sum up, our current laws provide that the correct balance between the public interest and private harm is maintained. If the defendant or accused feels that the Public Prosecutor has abused his prosecutorial duties and powers, the remedy is to sue in a civil court for damages. Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as the last Member to speak, I have heard many of my parliamentary colleagues, from the PAP MPs to the Opposition MPs, and I am much comforted by their views on this Budget presented by the Finance Minister because most of them feel that this is a very good budget. As Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay said, this is an unprecedented Budget. In fact, although Mr Low Thia Khiang said yesterday that the hongbaos given away were not enough, he was actually, in a way, praising the Finance Minister for giving away all these hongbaos. But, unfortunately, he said that what the Finance Minister was giving away was only a drop from the ocean. I do not quite agree with what he said. He said that the Government is taking a lot but giving a little. He used the expression chi da pei xiao [ ] (capturing the big and paying the small), which is a term much associated with gambling, and he is describing the Government as the "Banker" in the casino game of dice. This is certainly not an appropriate description. Mr Low is also the Chairman of a Town Council. When he is in charge of the finances of his Town Council, does he operate on the same mentality? I feel this is not a fair way to put it.”
“As I have said in this House before, a general blanket rule on awarding costs against the prosecution can have an inhibiting effect on the Prosecutors and Police. It will be against public interest. As it is, the prosecution takes a considered approach in deciding which cases to prosecute and on what charges. Prosecution and the Police would have investigated and built the case to a point where they know that if things go well, it would win. During this period, the prosecution would have taken into account representations made by the accused. In some cases, charges would be amended, dropped, or a warning issued. In other words, Sir, I would like to repeat the point we have made earlier in this House at the previous sitting, that to have a blanket provision or cost against the prosecution whenever the accused is acquitted or in the cases where Prof. Woon mentioned, in a selective case, would encourage a situation where we move to cases where the prosecution takes up which can be described as "sure-win" cases rather than cases which ought, in the public interest, to be prosecuted because public interest demands it. Finally, Sir, the Attorney-General informed me that Prof. Walter Woon does not seem to have got all the facts correct in the Inno-Pacific case. As he said, the two directors succeeded on appeal but they did not apply for costs. The Attorney-General told me that they could have done so under section 262 of the CPC which says, "The High Court shall have full power in all proceedings under Part VII to award such costs to be paid by or to the parties thereto as the Court thinks fit." Why they did not do so? Was it ignorance of the counsel or the parties, I do not know. Prof. Walter Woon could find out. Finally, Sir, I like to end up by saying that Prof.”
“The state is involved in order to protect the public interest. Unlike a civil case, the state's involvement is not a matter of choice; it is a matter of duty. Unlike a civil case, the state does not stand to benefit financially when it wins a case or secures a conviction. Therefore, the point I am making is that a criminal case is vastly different from a civil case where financial loss or gain is at the heart of the matter. The analogy between civil cases and criminal prosecutions, therefore, is not apt. Civil actions are disputes between private parties which in many cases are avoidable. There is an overriding public interest in a criminal prosecution, whatever its outcome. This argument also ignores the burden of proof between civil and criminal cases. In a criminal case, the burden of proof required of the prosecution is that of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Let me make a third point. When the Attorney-General prosecutes, he is performing a constitutional duty in every prosecution. Under the Constitution, he has the power "exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence". When he does so, he performs a public duty. On whose behalf? He does so on behalf of the Government and on behalf of the public because public interest must be uppermost in his mind. When the prosecuting authorities act, such as the Police, or any other Government servant performs a public duty, the general principle is that it cannot be liable for losses suffered by an individual unless there is negligence or fault. In criminal prosecutions, when there is such negligence or fault, the individual can bring an action against the Government for malicious prosecution.”
“The remedy is to sue for malicious prosecution, which is a civil action where he has only to prove that on balance of probabilities, the prosecution acted arbitrarily or maliciously in bringing criminal proceedings against him. This civil action is more than adequate for the purpose of penalising the prosecution. As Members know, decisions of the lower courts are sometimes reversed on appeal. Sometimes they are declared to be wrong many years later. But no one has suggested, and I have not heard the suggestion made in this House, that the judge in the lower court must be made to pay for the costs of the aggrieved litigant or the accused person. The reason is plain. No one is infallible. Judges, like everyone else, make mistakes from time to time. Public policy requires that judges be immune from tortious claims when exercising their judicial functions. It is a necessary condition for the independence of the judiciary. Similarly, witnesses, investigators and prosecutors also can make mistakes from time to time. There is no reason whatever to make them or the state pay, in terms of costs, for mistakes made in good faith in the discharge of their public duties or functions. But this is not to say that they enjoy absolute immunity from suit because they are liable for damages for malicious prosecution. Let me now deal with the second issue. I think it is wrong to equate costs in civil cases on the same footing as costs in criminal prosecution. Because in a civil case, the matter can be settled easily. It is a private matter, the loser foots the bill. The winner takes all. The plaintiff or the successful party benefits from the court's decision. But a criminal prosecution is vastly different from a civil case. It is not a private dispute between individuals.”
“The reason is simply that the court has a duty to acquit the accused if the prosecution fails to discharge the high standard of proof, that is to say, to prove the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. As long as a reasonable doubt is cast, the accused will be acquitted. Therefore, the function of a court is to determine whether, on the evidence tendered, the accused is guilty or not. If the court finds the evidence insufficient, having regard to that standard of proof, then the judge acquits the accused of the charge. It is not his function to declare the accused innocent of the charge. This is an important point. Because of our rules of evidence and the high standard of proof required of the prosecution in criminal cases, an accused can be acquitted for many and varied reasons, and I think Prof. Walter Woon himself would acknowledge that and has referred to some of the reasons which would have nothing to do with his innocence. For example, witnesses for the prosecution may fail, genuinely or otherwise, to recall essential facts. They may give confusing testimony. They may change their testimony for various reasons. Prosecution witnesses may not be available at the date of the trial. They may also not make a good impression at the date of the trial. The prosecution officer may be less competent or clever than the defence counsel. These are some reasons. In other words, the important point is that not all acquitted accused are innocent. Likewise, an acquittal does not necessarily mean that the prosecution has acted in bad faith or arbitrarily or even negligently. If an acquitted accused believes that the prosecution has acted in bad faith or arbitrarily, there is a remedy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say a few words about the point raised by Prof. Walter Woon on the Inno-Pacific case and the conclusions that he draws from it. I know that he has raised in this House before the question of cost for criminal prosecutions where the accused are acquitted. I was tempted to suggest to him that this be raised in the Committee of Supply, but he has not moved a cut in the Ministry of Law's vote. That is probably why he decided to bring this up in the Budget debate. I do not intend to deal with this at length but I think it is important that I clarify what I consider to be two fundamental flaws in the assumptions which underlie some of the debates on this when Prof. Walter Woon speaks or when the matter is debated in the press by some journalists. There are two fundamental flaws in the assumptions which I want to address today. One is that, in criminal prosecutions, when an accused is acquitted, in all probability the conclusion must be that he is innocent. Secondly, to put on the same footing the view that cost being awarded in civil cases is the same as cost in criminal prosecutions. Let me deal with the first issue. In a criminal prosecution, when a judge finds an accused guilty of an offence with which he has been charged, it means that the judge is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, on the evidence tendered in court and before the judge, the accused has committed the offence charged in that the evidence proves the various essential ingredients of the offence. In other words, the judge is convinced that the accused is guilty. However, when the court acquits an accused, it does not mean or necessarily follow that there is an equally high probability that the accused is innocent of the offence for which he was charged. Why is that so?”
“52% of Singapore's land is State land. Another 21% of land is held by Statutory Boards, some of which then sub-lease the land to private industrial or commercial companies. The data on such subleasing is not readily available. charts - (A) Comparison of Productivity Indicators with Regional Power Companies, (B) SP's Electricity Supply Reliability Indicators (Cols. 749 - 762)”
“Drafting of proposed amendments Sir, the amendments were drafted by a committee led by the Dean of the Law Faculty, comprising members from the Judiciary, the Attorney-General's Chambers, MINDEF Legal Services and the universities. They considered other comparable legislation from Australia, Canada, Malaysia, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom and the USA. Consultations with relevant organisations The Judiciary, National Computer Board, the Auditor-General, the Ministry of Information and the Arts and the Ministry of Finance have been consulted and they support the relevant amendments. The Law Society and the Institute of Certified Public Accountants have also been consulted and many of their views have been taken into account in the final draft of the Bill. Conclusion To conclude, Sir, I believe these amendments will provide a good legislative framework for the admissibility and use of computer generated evidence which we can expect to become increasingly important in today's era of information technology. It will bring our Courts into the forefront of information technology with the use of computer technology in the form of computer generated presentations and graphics in our Technology Courts. The proposed amendments also take into account further developments in computer and information technology in the coming years and into the 21st Century. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 -”
“Section 45A - Reversing the Rule in Hollington v Hewthorn Let me move to new section 45A concerning the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn. Section 45A is to reverse a common law rule (known among lawyers as the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn, an English case) that operated to exclude evidence of judicial findings of convictions or acquittals from admissibility in subsequent cases. This common law rule states that the evidence in an earlier criminal case cannot be admitted against the defendant in a later civil trial, although, as is known, the standard of proof is higher in a criminal case. For example, a criminal conviction for dangerous driving is inadmissible as evidence of negligence in a civil action for causing personal injuries to the other driver. Reversing this rule means that judicial time and legal costs will be saved by not having to litigate all over again issues which have been decided by another court in previous proceedings. The amendments, Sir, on this matter are similar to provisions in the English and Australian legislation. Section 115 - Abolition of irrebuttable presumption that boy under 13 years of age is incapable of rape I move on to the amendment to repeal section 115. Section 115 is repealed to abolish the irrebuttable presumption of law that a boy under 13 years of age is incapable of committing rape. This archaic rule is inconsistent with the realities of this day and age with children reaching physical maturity at an earlier age. The equivalent common law rule in the United Kingdom was recently abolished by the Sexual Offences Act 1993. Of course, the possibility of a rapist below 13 years of age is remote, but such a young rapist, if the case ever occurs, ought not to go off completely scot-free merely because of this technicality in the law.”
“I might add, Sir, that the court must not make an order for video link testimony or include a particular provision in such an order, if to do so would be inconsistent with the court's duty to ensure that the proceedings are conducted fairly for the parties. Secondary evidence - section 65(b) If I may move to section 65(b). The types of secondary evidence have been increased to include computer output, to ensure the proper operation of other admissibility sections. A new illustration has been added to that section to show clearly the nature of the output which will be accepted as judicial evidence. That illustration reads: "(ba) A copy of a document in the form of a print-out, or image on a monitor screen, retrieved from a magnetic or optical storage device, such as a tape, hard disk, laser-disc or CD-ROM, is secondary evidence of the contents of the document if it is shown that the copy retrieved from the storage device satisfies the conditions providing for the admissibility of such output." The amendments to this section will ensure the admissibility of such output as secondary evidence where the conditions for the use of such evidence are justified, eg, where the original has been destroyed. Section 68A - Manner of giving voluminous or complex evidence I move on to new section 68A. This amendment facilitates the use of multi-media technology in the courtroom of the future in the presentation of voluminous or complex evidence. An important safeguard which has been built into this provision is that any relationship among facts or opinions which asserted in the presentation of such complex materials must be subsequently proved by evidence that is otherwise independently admissible.”
“Such evidence may be provided by affidavits or oral examination of the relevant operators and persons. Evidence may also be given by an independent expert appointed or accepted by the court. If the court is still not satisfied, it may call for oral evidence from the deponent of an affidavit. New section 36A on Rules of filing and receiving evidence and documents in court by using information technology (Electronic Filing) Let me now turn to new section 36A. It enables the Supreme Court Rules Committee to make Rules to provide for the filing and receiving of evidence and documents in court by the use of information technology. It will enable the legal framework to be constructed for electronic filing of court documents and the Technology Court. New section 62A on video link testimony Let me now turn to new section 62A which allows a witness with leave of the court to give evidence through a live video or live television link in civil proceedings. This will be allowed in any of these circumstances: where the witness is below 16 years of age; where it is expressly agreed between the parties to the proceedings that evidence may be so given; where the witness is outside Singapore; or where the court is satisfied that it is expedient in the interest of justice to do so. This section is intended to create a proper legislative framework and to clarify and enlarge the court's powers in relation to evidence given by live video and television links. Let me clarify that it does not mean that the Court did not have jurisdiction to order the evidence of a witness to be taken by live video or television links in civil proceedings before the enactment of this amendment.”
“Where a computer output is produced from an "approved process", the presumption is that the output is accurate unless proven otherwise. Such a process is approved when it is audited and certified by an agency that is appointed by the Minister in accordance with the regulations. The audit will need to be carried out by an independent body whose audit will be based on a set of compliance criteria established by the authority. Any institution that takes the necessary steps to obtain certification as an approved process may, of course, then destroy their paper documents with confidence. Certification by Systems Operators or Information Systems Managers Thirdly, where computer output is tendered without express agreement or "approved process" certification, the party tendering such output will have to show through an affidavit and certificate from the Systems Operator (Sysops) or Information System Manager (IS Manager) that there is no reason to doubt the truth or reliability of the output, and that at all material times, the system was operating properly or, if not, that the accuracy of the output was not adversely affected. Where there is no Systems Operator or the IS Manager available, the section allows an expert with access to the system to provide the necessary certification. This provision can also be used where the Systems Operator or the IS Manager is suspected, for example, of computer misuse or other fraud and therefore refuses to cooperate with the authorities. If I may give an example. Police computer experts may, for example, gain access to a system belonging to a suspect purveying electronic pornography. Court may call for further evidence Sir, where a court is not satisfied with the accuracy of the output, it may call for further evidence under section 36.”
“Scope of sections 35 and 36 The amended and re-enacted sections 35 and 36 are wide enough to cover traditional computer print-outs as well as multi-media and graphical outputs. The provisions can cover outputs from a stand-alone or portable computer and those from local area or wide area networks. They also apply to both civil and criminal proceedings. In general, both the private and public sectors are subject to the same requirements unless special circumstances warrant otherwise. Three ways to admit computer output The amended sections 35 and 36 will provide for three different ways to admit computer output. Briefly, they are, firstly by way of express agreement between the parties to the proceedings (or between public prosecutor and defence counsel). The second way is by showing that the computer output came from "an approved process" (where the network is independently audited). The third route is by showing that in a particular case, the output came from a source that is working properly at all material times. Express agreement If I may elaborate on these three matters. Express agreement can be made at any time, even during the proceedings. Section 35(2) provides that in criminal proceedings, the accused must be represented on this issue. That is a safeguard. This is because there should be no room for an allegation that the prosecution tricked the accused into agreeing to admit such evidence. This practice follows that already existing in the Criminal Procedure Code as regards formal admissions. An agreement can be vitiated by proof of duress, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. Approved process Let me turn to the second method, the approved process.”
“Replacing antiquated provisions These amendments provide for the admissibility of information stored in computers, and the use of information technology in our courts. They are intended to replace the existing scheme to be found in sections 35 and 36. Those provisions were more suited to mainframe computers sited in specially designed premises, especially in the 1960s and 1970s. The use of personal computers at home and in the office is now common place, as is the linking of such computers to form vast networks that allow information to be entered, stored, altered and retrieved by a host of users in a global environment. Developments in document imaging technologies have also enabled users to keep images of their paper documents in electronic media, thereby allowing them to save storage costs as the paper originals could then be destroyed. The law has therefore to be updated to facilitate the wider use of these new technologies. Such a law, of course, has to strike a balance between guaranteeing the reliability of evidence produced by such technologies and ensuring that the admissibility of such evidence is not hampered by complicated conditions and procedures. Need for computer-related amendments These amendments are required as large institutions such as the Inland Revenue have already implemented document imaging technology for the processing of taxpayers returns. Many business transactions are now conducted on-line, particularly through the use of Tradenet. Members will also know that the Technology Court has been set up, and many other public and private sector institutions are already working through electronic networks, dispensing with paper transactions and documentation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this is quite a complicated and technical Bill and I seek the indulgence of Mr Speaker and the House as I take the House through the main provisions of the Bill. Mainly, the Bill seeks to amend the Evidence Act for the following purposes: Firstly, to provide for the admissibility and weight of computer output produced by any computer or network as evidence in both civil and criminal proceedings. Secondly, to enable Rules to be made for the filing and receiving of evidence in court by the use of information technology (electronic filing). Thirdly, to allow accurate reproductions of documents produced by electronic, electrochemical, chemical, magnetic, optical or other technical processes to be admissible as secondary evidence. Fourthly, to allow voluminous or complex evidence to be given in the form of charts, summaries or computer output in both civil and criminal proceedings; and Fifthly, to allow evidence to be given by live video or live television links in certain civil proceedings. Most of the amendments deal with these matters which I have just mentioned. But there are two other separate amendments in the Bill. Let me say what they are at this moment. I will elaborate later. These two amendments are: (a) to reverse the common law rule (known as the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn [1943] English case) which excludes evidence of judicial findings of convictions or acquittals in subsequent cases; and (b) to abolish the irrebutable presumption of law that a boy under the age of 13 years is incapable of committing rape. I will now talk about the first category of amendments.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter is really outside the ambit of the question asked by the Member. This is not to say that I or any of my colleagues would shy away from a debate, because I do know that the Member has raised this issue before, and the Minister for Education has in fact responded to her question of quota for medical students. In fact, if you look at the Hansard, it has been debated many years before and Dr Toh Chin Chye gave a full answer here, and that was some years ago. If the Member feels strongly on this vis-a-vis the Convention, she is free to raise a Question at some other sitting. But I might add at this stage that I do not agree that any policies or laws of Singapore are in conflict with Article 10 which talks about equality of access of women in Singapore to educational institutions. In fact, I would have thought that the Member would stand up and cheer for Singapore, as we are one of the most progressive countries in the world in this regard. The National University of Singapore's admission intakes for the last three years show that more women have been admitted for each of these three years than men. In 1993, 3,885 women were admitted; men, 3,770. In 1994, 4,034 women were admitted compared to 3,994 men. Last year, 4,933 women were admitted compared to 4,137 men. If at all, I think the men are the ones who might want to call for a convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against men! Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Sir, the question is not whether we take a lay person's interpretation of the Convention and therefore act accordingly. The Convention is an international treaty. An international treaty carries with it certain treaty obligations, rights and privileges. Let me assure the House and the Member that whatever is legally obligated by the treaty upon Singapore, Singapore will, of course, comply with the obligations. But this is not a lay interpretation. It is a question of interpretation of the treaty and, of course, as a responsible member, we will do what is necessary as required by the treaty. Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Sir, Article 10 of the treaty requires that there be equality in access to education. Would the Minister therefore care to make a comment on the quota of female medical students to the university?”
“Sir, as far as we have been advised by our legal experts, the answer to all three questions is no, because there is no necessity to do so.”
“As far as I can see, the Convention's provisions are in accord with existing laws, regulations and policies and I do not see any imminent need to take any further measures.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are three parts to Dr Soin's Question. First, as to what terms have been ratified, Singapore has ratified the entire Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. On the second part, yes, there are reservations. Sir, this is a very comprehensive international treaty with some 30 different Articles on a wide range of subjects affecting women. Many countries acceding to this Convention, indeed almost a third of all states/parties, have entered reservations. Singapore has also tabled four reservations which are mainly related to the protection of the rights of minorities in our multi-cultural society, our time-tested policies on immigration and citizenship, our labour and other laws which may have restrictions or conditions on the employment of women in certain areas for their own protection or for the protection of their unborn children. The four reservations tabled by Singapore are not unusual because many others have also tabled similar reservations. On the third part of her question, Sir, Singapore is a responsible member of the international community and we take our international obligations seriously. Therefore, before acceding to this Convention, we have carefully studied its provisions in the context of our existing laws, values and practices and we have concluded that we have already met the aims of the Convention.”
“My understanding is that, and I stand corrected if other Members have any other information, if he has reserved judgment and he gives the judgment later, it will be a written judgment, which will therefore contain the grounds of his decision. That is my understanding. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. SINGAPORE PRODUCTIVITY AND STANDARDS BOARD BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“This new set of Rules will be made by a single Rules Committee to be appointed under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. Clause 4 which amends section 80, together with clause 3 of the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill which amends section 69 of the Subordinate Courts Act, both give effect to this proposal. The present Rules Committee appointed under the Subordinate Courts Act will be replaced by the Rules Committee appointed under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. Sir, consequential amendments will also be made to the Interpretation Act, the Small Claims Tribunals Act and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. The amendment to the Interpretation Act changes the reference of the Rules to the new Rules of Court and not the Rules of the Supreme Court/Supreme Court Rules or the Rules of the Subordinate Courts/Subordinate Courts Rules. The Small Claims Tribunals Act is also amended to enable future rules governing the proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunals to be made by the new Rules Committee to be appointed, and not the present Rules Committee under the Subordinate Courts Act. Finally, the consequential amendment to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act will change the composition of the new Rules Committee constituted under section 80(3) to include members of the subordinate judiciary. Sir, these amendments are necessary to make the Courts even more effective and efficient in the administration of justice. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill and the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill are to give effect to the recommendations of the Rules of the Supreme Court Working Committee. The objectives of the amendments are: (a) to empower the Subordinate Courts to punish any person who commits a contempt of court in connection with any proceedings in the Subordinate Courts; (b) to allow a Judge or Judicial Commissioner who reserves judgment in any proceedings to deliver his judgment even though his appointment as a Judge or Judicial Commissioner might have expired or has been terminated; and (c) to establish a new Rules Committee under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to make a new set of Rules which will govern civil proceedings in both the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts. As for the first point, I have already dealt with the matter when I took the Second Reading of the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill. As for the second proposed amendment, clause 3 of the Bill amends section 10 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to allow a Judge who has reserved judgment in any proceedings to deliver his judgment even though his appointment as a Judge might have expired or terminated. In addition, clause 3 of the same Bill amends the definition of a "Judge" in section 2 of the same Act to clarify that this word also includes a Judicial Commissioner being a person appointed to exercise the powers of a Judge. Sir, as for the third proposed amendment, the Rules of the Supreme Court Working Committee has proposed that there should be a single set of rules of court governing civil proceedings in both the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts.”
“Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the main amendment in this Bill relates to contempt of court. The provisions in the Subordinate Courts Act concerning contempt of court are unsatisfactory because contempt of court includes contempt in the face of the court and contempt not in its face. Contempt in the face of the court essentially relates to activities within the court where the court has personal knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to the contempt. Examples would be interrupting court proceedings or refusing to answer questions before a court without lawful excuse. Contempt of court not in its face is wider in that it renders activities both in and outside of the court punishable. This is regardless of whether it is within the court's personal knowledge. Examples would be scandalising the court or refusing to comply with a court order. Under the amendments, the Subordinate Courts presently have the power to punish a person for contempt of court only where contempt is committed in the face of the court. Under the present provisions, the Subordinate Courts are unable to deal with matters which give rise to contempt not in its face. This is clearly inadequate. This lacuna will be remedied by an amendment which seeks to amend section 8 of the Subordinate Courts Act. In other words, Sir, with the amendments proposed, the Courts will be able to punish for contempt both in the face as well as not in the face of the court. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar].”
“It is important that they and their governments must have no doubts that the standard of justice applied to them by our Judges is the same as that for Singaporeans. Therefore, if such unfair attacks are left unchallenged, the image of Singapore, of our system, and of our people, will be unfairly tarnished. They will have an insidious and pernicious effect. Silence in the face of such absolutely ludicrous allegations may be wrongly taken as an admission of guilt that the allegations are valid. Sir, I have sought to spell out some of the important considerations why we should take these attacks seriously. As I have said, they are not just an attack on the judiciary; they are in fact an attack on Singapore. And that is why it is important that we have a clear idea how certain people and political societies, when abroad, respond in the face of these attacks and who stand up for Singapore.”
“A Dutch national was charged for drug trafficking and executed. There was the Michael Fay's case involving caning, the Flor Contemplacion case and so on, and there will be many more. Of course, some of our critics abroad do take issue with us, do disagree with us, on some of our laws, the severity of our laws or the policies underpinning the laws. We can have a debate. They have criticised us on the death penalty, corporal punishment and so on. But no one abroad should have any doubt whatsoever about the decisions and the manner in which our judges decide on these cases. They should have no doubt that the judicial process is fair and that the judges decide on the basis of law and evidence. Members will recall the debate we had earlier this year on the Flor Contemplacion case and I said at that time that we regularly receive diplomatic representations from foreign missions on various cases involving their nationals. But what is important is that no foreign government has ever alleged that our courts have not been thorough or impartial. Take the Leeson's case. Leeson had originally challenged our application for his extradition on the grounds that he did not think that he would get a fair trial in Singapore. The German court allowed our application and Leeson appealed. He has since changed his mind and has withdrawn the appeal and has publicly stated that he thinks he will get a fair trial in Singapore and has apologised to Singaporeans for originally suggesting otherwise. Let us remember that we have some 7 million tourists coming to Singapore every year. In addition, we have hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals working and residing in Singapore.”
“Sir, I was in New York when the verdict in the O J Simpson's case was announced. It sparked off a huge national debate in America. Public opinion on O J Simpson's guilt and the fairness of the trial, as you all know, polarised sharply between black and white Americans. As I watched the television, talk shows and various opinion polls, it struck me what if we reach a situation like that where different ethnic groups have divergent views on the judicial system. The answer is clear. We will be in deep trouble. Of course, in that case, it was the jury's decision which sparked off the debate but the issue is the same - faith and confidence in the entire judicial process as such. Thirdly, confidence in the judiciary and the judicial process has an impact on investment and business climate, as the Senior Minister pointed out yesterday. We have been given very high rankings by the World Competitiveness Report and PERC (Political and Economic Risk Consultancy) and consistently rank very high. Faith and confidence in the legal infrastructure, the judicial system and administration of justice are factors which potential investors and businessmen take into account. They watch very carefully these rankings in making their decisions to invest in any particular country. It is very noteworthy that even Christopher Lingle at Williams College grudgingly conceded that on commercial matters he could not fault our courts. Therefore, if we leave unchallenged such baseless attacks on our judiciary, investment confidence will fall with disastrous results for Singapore. Another reason is that attacks on the judiciary will have an impact on how we are perceived abroad and can affect foreign relations. Look at the kinds of cases that we have had in the past year or two.”
“It is important that people have no doubt that our judges apply the law fairly and equally to all, regardless of status, and that unlike the days in ancient India or China, our judges are not Government servants answerable to the emperor or the king. In order for judges to effectively perform that crucial role, the public must have confidence that they will apply and uphold the law with absolute impartiality and will perform their judicial duties independently without fear or favour. Let us not forget the wide range of decisions which judges have to decide. It may be an ordinary case involving a fine or jail, but it is not ordinary to an ordinary individual. That may be the first time he goes to a court. It may be more serious - lengthier imprisonment, caning or, in extreme, the death penalty. In civil cases, you may have small amounts or amounts in dispute going to millions of dollars and it can have important constitutional questions involving like the one that we had recently on interpretation of the Constitution concerning powers of the President under the Constitution. Whatever the decision, the people must have confidence that the decisions are made by judges on the basis of law, evidence and the merits of the case. Singapore is not a homogenous society. We are a heterogenous society. The plaintiffs, defendants, prosecutors, witnesses, the accused and defence counsel come from different religious, racial, linguistic backgrounds. So too the judges. Therefore, no one should doubt that race, language or religion of the judge or the parties makes any difference in the decisions of our courts. If we allow insidious attacks on the integrity of the judiciary we erode this confidence which is vital for our society.”
“We do not have agricultural or mineral resources but we have these special attributes which we hold dear to us and which many others outside Singapore place a lot of importance on and they have absolute faith and confidence that we will maintain these values. Therefore, scandalous attacks on the judiciary not only undermine faith in the legal and judicial process but ultimately undermine confidence in the Singapore's system of government. Surely that must be the conclusion. How can one believe that the Government of Singapore is honest, incorruptible if it has a judiciary which does the Government's bidding? An attack on the independence and integrity of Singapore judges is therefore an attack on a central pillar of the entire political and social system that we have in Singapore. Secondly, confidence in an independent judiciary, while important for all countries, is especially important for Singapore considering that we are a young nation and that we are multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious. Singapore is still a nation in the making and many of our legal institutions and concepts are in fact inherited from the British. To a large part of our population, a concept like the independence of the judiciary was an alien concept. It is not an indigenous concept. We are all Members of Parliament and we have our meet-the-people sessions. How many times have we had experiences when constituents come to us asking us to write letters to the court or the magistrate and they expressed disbelief when we say that we cannot write to the judge or the magistrate. Therefore, an attack on the judiciary serves to reinforce these traditional views among our people, especially the lesser educated, that the courts are simply part of the Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion. We had one full day's debate yesterday and the debate continues today. One may ask why is it that so much time in Parliament is being taken up on the subject. One may ask why is it that we, Members of Parliament, take such a strong position when unfounded and baseless attacks on the judiciary are made. I would like to address that question, Sir. Most countries, in fact, have laws which punish scandalous statements made about the judiciary and there are good reasons for this, and the reasons were mentioned yesterday. Firstly, unfounded attacks on the judiciary will undermine confidence in the judiciary and in the entire judicial process. Secondly, if untruths are repeated over a period of time, and these are not rebutted, people may begin to believe in them. Thirdly, as Mr Davinder Singh pointed out, the judges are not able to come out and publicly defend themselves directly. One can say that those reasons are universal and that is why most common law jurisdictions have laws to punish for contempt of court. But, Sir, l would argue that in Singapore these considerations are especially important and I would like to explain why. Firstly, such unfounded and scandalous attacks not only attack on the judiciary but they attack on certain core values of the system which we uphold in Singapore. An attack on the integrity of judges is therefore not an attack only on members of the judiciary but on principles and values which we hold fundamental to Singapore's social and political system - honesty, integrity and incorruptibility. In fact, this is what sets Singapore apart from so many other countries.”
“The statistics requested are given below: Statistics on Number of Applications for Protection Orders in 1994 and the First Half of 1995 _______________________________________________________________ Period 1994 1995 (Jan To Dec) (Jan To June) _______________________________________________________________ Type of Orders _______________________________________________________________ Personal Protection Only Not available 269 _______________________________________________________________ Personal Protection & Expedited Orders Only Not available 124 _______________________________________________________________ Personal Protection, Expedited and Domestic Exclusion Orders Only Not available 22 _______________________________________________________________ TOTAL NO OF APPLICATIONS 697 415 _______________________________________________________________ NOTE: In 1994, the Subordinate Courts did not maintain statistics on the number of applicants for the various types of orders. MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AND LAWYERS (Earnings) 3. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Finance how many medical practitioners and lawyers earned $1 million or more in 1993 from their medical and legal practice respectively.”