Sylvia Lim
Singapore
“Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question for Senior Minister of State on PF. It was pointed out in the FATF report that representatives of foreign flag states have a very low understanding of their PF obligations.”
“Thank you Speaker. I have noted what the Minister is proposing that the House do. I am not standing up to object to it. But I think it is important for me to also state that my response on some of the issues that she mentioned, I have made them on 14 January during the debate on the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not thi…”
“Thank you, Speaker. A clarification for the Minister. I think it is quite clear that we are not denying that services were provided and residents had benefited from the services. I also would say that we do appreciate that MND did this internal review to undercover this problem, if I can say that.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, and that is on the necessity for the retrospective legislation.”
“Sir, regardless of which country may have primary jurisdiction over a particular case, both governments may feel pressured to retain cases involving their own nationals. This could be for various reasons, such as the differences in law and punishments or to give their nationals better access to justice in their home countries.”
“One clarification for the Minister. This is in relation to when Singapore may have to give up its primary jurisdiction to Malaysia to investigate incidents and particularly on clause 39(2).”
The complete record
Every one of 1,794 lines we hold for Sylvia Lim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 29 of 36.
“Earlier, the Minister mentioned that the Ministry will work closely with the operations managers of the schools but I wonder whether it is time for MHA to put in more resources to work with the schools to combat this problem at the inception. Last question: It was reported that some of the suspects had attended some programmes conducted by MHA earlier. Could Minister tell us which are the programmes that they attended?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Some supplementary questions for the Minister. First, coming back to the statistics that were shown to us: does the Minister agree that apart from the rioting cases that have been reported: (i) there are probably unreported cases, and (ii) even if there are cases reported, some of these so called gang-related activities could be categorised under other crime types? For example, even a simple crime like voluntarily causing hurt could have had some gang connotation even though it was not classified as rioting. It depends on how the Police classified it. The rioting figure itself does not give us the full picture. Second question: Sir, I understand that as far as the Police's response to secret societies is concerned, it has always been specifically under the CID. About two years back, the Secrets Societies Branch (SSB) was merged into a more generic unit which had to deal also with anti-vice, gambling suppression and so on. It was only some time this year that it was reconstituted into a dedicated Secret Societies Branch. I would like the Minister to comment on whether he thinks it is possible that during this two-year period when the SSB was merged into this generic entity, there might have possibly been some loss of focus on this crime problem and perhaps even some loss in intelligence because the officers were involved in responding to other crimes as well. The fact that it has been reconstituted shows that the Police find that the gang issue is still quite alive in Singapore. Third question is about schools as a possible breeding ground for gang activity.”
“Thank you, Sir. I would like the Minister to elaborate a bit on the expected effect of inflation in Singapore generally and how the Government intends to manage the risk of inflation caused by the Fed's latest move, if it is a concern.”
“Sir, can I clarify? I have the data here actually. One thousand and seventeen registered but on Nomination Day only certain constituencies were contested, so that led to 500-over being eligible to vote. That was what I meant.”
“Sir, I was referring to those registered for the previous GE. It was about 1,017.”
“I wonder whether Deputy Prime Minister Wong could give the House an update on how many eligible voters have registered themselves so far for the coming General Election (GE)? The last round, we had about 1,000-odd voters. So I wonder if he can update us on whether the relaxed criteria has led to a larger number of people registering.”
“WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 3.00 PM F1 RACES (Review and extension) 14. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry when will the review of the extension of Singapore's Formula One races be completed; (b) what are the implications for the economy; and (c) what have been the tangible benefits derived from the staging of the night races.”
“That the Subordinate Courts is committed to having a world-class bench is also evidenced by the fact that judicial training in the Subordinate Courts has been institutionalised by the establishment of a Strategic Planning and Training Division; and indeed this is one reason why our Subordinate Courts continue to blaze the trail internationally signified by participation, for example, with several reputed international agencies in formulating an international framework for court excellence – this was in the papers recently – launched here in Singapore at the Asia-Pacific Courts Conference by the Chief Justice. Members, who are in practice, I am sure, know of and probably refer to, the many books written by our Subordinate Court Judges on civil procedure, family law, sentencing practice and assessment of damages. I say this to assure Ms Lim that, indeed she is right – the responsibilities of a Magistrate have increasingly gone up over the years – whilst the minimum requirement is one year in practice, much more experienced people are appointed. Also, it is not just a matter of appointment, because when they become judicial officers in Sub-Courts, there is continuing education to equip them to be good judicial officers. 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. – [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." – [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes past Five o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.”
“Of course, these are both District Judges and Magistrates. The most junior officer is 31 years old with eight years of experience. Sir, obviously, what I alluded to in my speech in 1993 about the younger Magistrates – I think they must all have grown up, or at least have been replaced by older Magistrates. This actually shows in the enhancement of the quality of the Subordinate Courts. I am told that before a judicial officer is allowed to conduct a hearing on his own, he has to undergo an intensive interview by the Chief District Judge and a Senior District Judge to ensure that he is legally and professionally competent. The expertise of the judicial officers is further enhanced by ensuring that there is specialisation of work. Also, after their appointment as judicial officers, there is continuing judicial education which includes a structured in-house programme, overseas training as well as post-graduate studies for some. This ensures that our judicial officers including the Magistrates keep up to date with developments in law and procedures. I also understand that they have mentoring programmes in relation to communication and court craft skills.”
“And I quote: "In these young hands lies the power to decide the commercial and personal fate of fellow Singaporeans. Dispensation of justice and application of the law do not take place in a vacuum but in the context of Singapore's social milieu. Not only is legal knowledge important but also wisdom that comes from experience in dealing with matters of the world." Would the Government look into this important issue? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for speaking on the Bill and for quoting me. Basically the core of her argument is that the minimum one year qualification for Magistrates should be raised in view of the increased responsibilities. It is true, sometimes words do come back to haunt us [Laughter ]. But happily not this time because just as I was convinced by the very convincing answer by the then Minister for Law in 1993, I hope that likewise Ms Lim's concerns will be assuaged by my response. Now, the key point here to note, firstly, is that the one-year minimum qualification criterion is precisely that – a minimum requirement. A good analogy is the appointment of High Court Judges where the minimum requirement is 10 years' experience. Yet, no one with only 10 years has ever been appointed as a High Court Judge. Similarly, the Subordinate Court's practice is to appoint persons with longer experience and good academic qualifications as Magistrates. Between 2007 and 2010, four legal service officers were posted to the Subordinate Courts and appointed as Magistrates. At the time of joining the Subordinate Courts, their average experience was 10 years, even though the minimum requirement is only one year; and more generally, currently the average age of the Subordinate Court's judicial officers is about 45 years.”
“Sir, I spoke about this earlier under the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill. A wrong decision thus runs the risk of remaining uncorrected, and injustice done. Since this policy of limited appeals is still in force, it is even more incumbent upon us to ensure that our Magistrates are of the necessary calibre and experience to make sound and confident decisions in the first instance. In addition, under the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code passed in May this year, the hearing and sentencing jurisdiction of Magistrates in criminal cases have also been increased. The Magistrates' Court’s jurisdiction is now to hear cases punishable with five years’ imprisonment, up from three years; and its sentencing power has also been increased from ordering two years’ jail to three years’ jail. The totality of the above changes is to make the role of Magistrates far more onerous. Given this greater responsibility, I believe it is time to consider raising the qualifying criteria to become a Magistrate. Under section 10 of the Subordinate Courts Act, a person is qualified to be a Magistrate so long as he has been a qualified person for one year, meaning that one year has passed since he graduated from a recognised law school. This low threshold might have been appropriate in the past with their more limited role. With the developments since then, it is appropriate to re-consider the qualifying criteria to ensure that litigants have greater confidence in the system. Sir, in this regard, I cannot help but quote the observations of the Senior Minister of State himself who spoke in 1993 as a backbencher on this very issue. He noted that some Singaporeans were surprised that some of our Deputy Registrars and Magistrates were relatively young.”
“Sir, I have a concern about the Bill and this relates to the wider powers given to the Magistrates and whether the qualifications of Magistrates should therefore be raised. Sir, under the existing law, the Magistrate hears several cases where the subject matter is worth $60,000 or less. While this remains unchanged by the Bill, clause 14 provides that the Magistrates' Court will now have powers to make all orders which the High Court Judge can make. For instance, the new section 52(1B) provides that the Magistrates' Court can order injunctions and make binding declarations of rights, just as the High Court can. As the Senior Minister of State mentioned earlier, these are additional powers which the Magistrates' Court currently does not have. Granting such orders is not straightforward. For instance, an injunction is a court order to the defendant to do an act or not to do an act, which can have irreversible consequences on the parties. In deciding whether or not to grant an injunction, the Court has to exercise discretion and take into consideration whether such a drastic order is necessary as opposed to simply ordering the defendant to pay a sum of money to the plaintiff. This change, Sir, comes on top of several changes in recent years to make the Magistrate’s role more onerous. For instance, in 1998, a controversial amendment was made to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to restrict appeals from the Subordinate Courts in cases which involved $50,000 or less. Such appeals would only be allowed if the Courts gave permission. This meant that most final judgments in the Magistrates' Court cases became un-appealable as of right, since a Magistrates' Court jurisdiction only extended to hearing cases worth up to $60,000.”
“Sir, I would like my dissenting vote recorded. [Hon. Member Mr Low Thia Khiang raised his hand to indicate dissent.]”
“Sir, I would like my dissenting vote recorded. [Hon. Member Mr Low Thia Khiang stood up to indicate his dissent.] Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it. Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.”
“Well, of course, we can argue till the cows come home which category an application should fall into but, like I have said, these proposals have been put together by a Committee headed by, for the first Report, a Judge of Appeal, Justice Chao Hick Tin, and the second Report – it was a smaller Committee that reported to the Singapore Academy of Law's Law Reform Committee headed by Justice Judith Prakash, and in each Committee there were senior practitioners. I would expect them to have very carefully looked at which interlocutories should go into which box and, in any case, like I have said, it is not cast in stone so that in the future, should Ms Lim be right, and some of these interlocutories should not be where they are, amendments can be made. I think we should let this scheme have an opportunity to run its course before we criticise it because it has been very carefully put together by people who are out there in practice. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.”
“The next clarification is: he mentioned that we do not really want to have too many appeals to the Court of Appeal because there are only four Judges of Appeal there and so on. But from my understanding of the procedures, there are already some, in the sense, disincentives to appeal by way of requiring security for costs of appeal. I think in order to appeal, you have to put down $15,000 to mount an interlocutory appeal. And the statistics show that the number of appeals before the Court of Appeal in 2009 was about maybe 200. Would the Senior Minister of State please comment on these points? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: First of all, Ms Lim is right in that the possibility is there that if an application is made very close to the trial, it is a Judge who hears the interlocutory application in the first instance. So that it is a possibility but, like I have said, not all cases happen this way. In fact, most of the interlocutory applications would be heard at an earlier stage and by the High Court Registrar. The second point is: yes, there are instances where the High Court Judges have granted leave of appeal; there are also instances where they have turned down such applications. But the point to note is that in making the decision, it is made according to established principles and these principles are all there to be applied. So, we have to trust our High Court Judges to properly apply these principles.”
“Thank you, Sir. A few clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. First, in his reply speech, Senior Minister of State mentioned that there were only a few categories of applications where the High Court Judge sits at the first instance hearing. But would he also confirm that besides those kinds of applications, there are also those other cases where the case is being managed by a particular Judge and, therefore, any kind of application, including the applications that Mr Hri Kumar mentioned earlier, interlocutories or further and better particulars, would still go before that particular Judge because it has been decided so by the case management system? So, we are actually talking about quite a number of interlocutory applications heard by a Judge at the first instance and not Registrar. The second point is, he mentioned that the statistics would show that High Court Judges have given leave to appeal against their own decisions. Would he also confirm that the statistics show refusal of leave as well by the High Court Judges to appeal against their own decisions? The third point is, while Senior Minister of State appears to suggest that the interlocutory applications caught by the amendments are relatively minor, does he not agree that applications such as Mareva injunctions and search orders, are actually very, very consequential and, in fact, have been described by Judges in case law as nuclear weapons which can be used in litigation early? So, why is it that the Bill does not provide appeals as of right for these sorts of applications which are heard by a Judge anyway in the first instance?”
“That is why we have made these amendments to put it beyond any doubt that they can continue to hold an office of emolument in their legal practice, for example, or to do business. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair] 4.47 pm Tapping talent outside the Courts judiciously, this scheme has added value to the administration of justice in Singapore. Indeed, other countries and the UK have similar schemes. Now, whilst the Supreme Court presently does not have a similar ad hoc judges scheme in place – it is the Assistant Registrars who are full-time Legal Service Officers who hear interlocutory applications in the Supreme Court – the amendment to section 75 gives flexibility to the Supreme Court to appoint ad hoc Assistant Registrars to hear such interlocutory applications, as have been done in the Subordinate Courts where ad hoc Deputy Registrars have been appointed to hear assigned ad hoc cases, should the Chief Justice consider such a scheme desirable in the future. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think I have answered all the points.”
“We must remember that contentious applications for leave and strenuous multiple appeals can be costly as some of the lawyers amongst us will know and mitigate against acccess to justice for those who cannot afford high litigation costs. So, unless the matter at hand is substantive, we should not weigh litigation in favour of those who have more resources to drag issues out. In any case, let me assure Ms Lim that statistics bear out the fact that our High Court Judges do give leave to appeal against their own decisions, if warranted. Finally, Sir, Ms Lim queries why an Assistant Registrar may now seek the approval of the Chief Justice to hold an office of emolument or to run a business. Let me assure Ms Lim that, first of all, as a matter of policy, there is absolutely no intention for judicial officers who hold full-time appointments, as Magistrates or District Judges or as a Registrar, Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar in the High Court, to hold any other concurrent jobs or to carry on business. As I explained in my speech, section 75 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and section 64 of the Subordinate Courts Act are really mirror provisions. An amendment to the SCJA is for the purpose of maintaining a consistent approach across both Acts in relation to judicial officers. Both section 64 of the Subordinate Courts Act and its mirror provision in section 75 of the SCJA have always been intended to apply to full-time officers. The amendments to section 64 aim to clarify the ad hoc judges scheme in place in the Subordinate Courts. Under the scheme, academics or legal practitioners who are appointed as ad hoc judges to hear a specific case or for a term of a few months to hear assigned ad hoc cases are not required to give up their present jobs.”
“Sir, first of all, I should say that the amendments do not introduce a new practice because this practice already exists – getting leave from the High Court Judge who hears the case. Indeed, I understand, this is also the practice in other countries, such as the UK. I think the key point really is that we must expect our High Court Judges who are men and women of experience and integrity to grant leave when it is justified. And, in fact, the High Court Judge who gave the original order and who is the one most familiar with the case is best placed to make this call as to whether the facts of legal issues raised merit further consideration by the Court of Appeal. Her suggestion as to whether a Judge of Appeal, as a single judge, should hear the case just to see whether leave should be granted – as I have said, we have four Judges of Appeal in the Court of Appeal, which is really shaping our jurisprudence in substantive areas. I am not sure we want a single Judge of Appeal to sit there and examine the entire proceedings and all the issues of law just to see whether leave should be granted. I think the issue also arises with respect to another High Court Judge because that other High Court Judge will still have to go through the entire proceedings and see whether leave should be granted. Essentially, the point to note is we must trust our High Court Judges that they are not personal about it; that he makes a professional decision based on established principles whether or not leave should be granted for an appeal to be made against his own decision.”
“Those that require leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal are those which commenced in the Subordinate Courts and, for these cases, they would already have enjoyed a one-tier of appeal to the High Court either as of right, if the amount is more than $50,000; or with leave of, first, the court hearing a case, say, of $40,000, whether it is Magistrates' or District Court; and if leave is turned down, a second bite of the cherry – asking the High Court for leave. I would suggest that – even though Ms Lim does speak strongly about it – the impact of the amendment may not be such a big one. Now, on the threshold for granting leave to appeal: I think Ms Lim also made that point. The legal principles which govern an application for leave are tried and established. Similar principles exist in other Commonwealth jurisdictions such as the UK. It is not true that they are too restrictive. On the contrary, these leave principles developed by the Courts act as suitable filtering mechanism for interlocutory appeals. For example, should a discovery application concerns novel points of law that warrants being determined by the Court of Appeal, a party who applies these principles can expect that his application for leave will succeed. I do not think there is a need for law reform in this area as Ms Lim suggests but leave it like in other jurisdictions for case law to continue to evolve. Next, Ms Lim argues that requiring a litigant to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from the same High Court Judge who made the Order from which the party's wish to appeal is bad, especially when the High Court Judge's decision will now be final.”
“Sir, in summary on this point, I would say that this tiered approach which is carefully put together – considering where each interlocutory application should go to in terms of the box – strikes the desired balance between maximising the use of the Court of Appeal's limited resources so that it can focus on substantive cases that help shape legal jurisprudence and, at the same time, allowing it to continue to shape our jurisprudence in the area of interlocutory applications. This is because it will still hear some applications as a matter of course, as of right, and others with a leave of the High Court. So that is one balancing point. It also ensures that critical issues raised at an interlocutory stage will continue to receive the attention of a highest Appellate Court. It is for this reason that many other jurisdictions – the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada – have similar restrictions on appeals from interlocutory orders. The next concern that Ms Lim raises is the fact that now the High Court Judge becomes the final gatekeeper for all leave applications. First of all, I think it is important to put this amendment in its proper perspective and to bear in mind that the requirement to apply for leave to appeal usually applies only to the second tier of appeals, that is, the Court of Appeal. As I mentioned earlier, the majority of interlocutory applications are fixed before an Assistant Registrar and, as Mr Hri Kumar has reminded us, would enjoy one tier of appeal to the High Court Judge. Similarly, in a substantive case, cases which are commenced in the High Court can be appealed to the Court of Appeal as of right.”
“Moreover in the middle category, interlocutories can still go to the Court of Appeal provided leave is granted. It is a relatively narrow band of interlocutories that are non-appealable – based on existing section 34(1) – I think Ms Lim also mentions that. It is not an entirely new approach because under the current section 34(1) and (2), there are already some interlocutories that do not go to the Court of Appeal and others that can only go with leave. She is correct in that a small number of applications – she mentions injunctions – which are determined in the first instance by a High Court Judge, not the Registrar. However, in such a situation, a differentiated approach should still apply since the basis for deciding whether the application is appealable or not and need for leave to do so depends on the nature of the application, not the forum before which it was first heard. Hence, even the nature of the injunction sought is differentiated. If the application for injunction is for final relief sought and part of an Order 14, which has serious consequences, it is appealable as of right to the Court of Appeal. Indeed under the existing section 34, no distinction is made between an interlocutory application that is first heard by a Registrar and one that is first heard by the High Court Judge. We will not adopt a differentiated approach with regard to this but look at the nature of the application itself. In fact, the Committee considered this point carefully and decided to retain this approach.”
“There is no blockage as such as the process is there in our procedures for these questions to be answered at trial. As Mr Hri Kumar has mentioned, it should be noted that in the great majority of these interlocutory applications, parties already enjoy one tier of appeal as of right to High Court Judge. So, in other words – I think one of the benefits that Ms Lim has mentioned is that interlocutories can help the parties to come to a settlement before going to trail – the process is still there. That is the point we have to note. The process of interlocutory application at the High Court commencing with the Registrar is still there; and if the parties are not happy with the decision of the Registrar, they still have an appeal as of right to the High Court. They would then be able to convince the High Court why they should succeed. I think Ms Lim also makes a point about the role of the Court of Appeal in having a say. Again, I must go back to the basic matrix. It is not as though there are no interlocutory applications that are going to the Court of Appeal. In fact, there are some that will go there as a matter of course, as of right. These include, for example, an order made to stay proceedings; where amendment of pleadings is sought to add course of action after limitation period and of nature in Order 20, Rule 5, Sub-Rule 3, Sub-Rule 4 and Sub-Rule 5; orders striking of action, claim or defence, it is appealable as of right; orders granting summary judgment; orders refusing to set aside default judgment; and orders dismissing an action. So, in other words, you have a wide range of interlocutory applications where the Court of Appeal can still play a role.”
“So, a lot of pain is taken by the High Court Judge to hear this appeal as though it was de novo, or hearing for the first time. But if the High Court Judge refuses to strike out the claim, this decision will no longer be appealable as of right to the Court of Appeal. This is because the effect of such a decision is that the claim will proceed to trial as it ordinarily would. The substantive rights of the parties are not affected because the case will go on to trial. On the other hand, if the judge agrees to strike out the claim, then the applicant can file a further appeal to the Court of Appeal as of right. This is because the decision means that the case can no longer proceed to trial and it would clearly put an end to the party's substantive rights. Now, Sir, I take some pains to cite this example to show that much thought has gone into categorising the types of interlocutory applications that are non-appealable, appealable with leave, and appealable as of right. In any case, the categorisation is not cast in stone but can be amended if the need arises in the future. Now, it should be pointed out that the default position is that all interlocutory applications are appealable to the Court of Appeal with leave. It is those interlocutory applications which clearly do not affect the conduct of the trial that have been placed in the no-right-to-appeal category which is contained in the Fourth Schedule. Another example of such an application is interrogatories – I think Ms Lim mentions that – which is really in the nature of questions that should the interrogatories be denied at the interlocutory stage, they can still be put to the witness during examination at trial. So, here again, it does not affect the substantive outcome of the trial.”
“Now, this is one more than the substantive suit which logically should not be the case. This is not just because the great majority of interlocutory applications involve procedural points that do not affect the substantive rights of the parties but also because it may sometimes be possible for parties to still re-visit these interlocutory issues when the action reaches actual trial. Now, as Ms Lim herself points out, there are certain interlocutory applications which may potentially affect the substantive outcome of the trial. But this is precisely why the present amendments categorise interlocutory applications into three groups which are carefully differentiated based on their importance to the substantive outcome of the case. Those that are non-appealable and they are really based on the existing section 34 – slightly expanded but still there is a precedent for that – and those which will be appealable as of right and, like I said, these are the interlocutory applications that will substantially affect the outcome of the case. So that remains, appeals to the Court of Appeal from the High Court as a matter of right, and the middle category, which is the norm, is appealable to the Court of Appeal, but with the leave of the High Court. I think we have to see this matrix in context and we are dealing with interlocutory applications which usually do not involve novel points of law or important points of law. Let me illustrate with an example, in the case where a party applies to strike out his opponent's claim and fails. If he is dissatisfied with the Registrar's decision, he can appeal to High Court Judge who hears the application afresh as if it came before him for the first time.”
“This point has been made many times in this House before, that is, it is not necessarily true that having more tiers of appeal will lead to better administration of justice or to justice being better served. What matters most is the quality of the judges handling the cases both at first instance and on appeal. On this, the quality of our judges at both Supreme Court and Subordinate Court levels has improved over the years. Indeed, lawyers who are arguing appeals also play a role by presenting full and developed arguments to help the judges come to a considered decision. We must also bear in mind that having more tiers of appeal will lead to greater uncertainty and anxiety for the parties, and definitely more costs for the parties. Ms Lim then raises a variety of objections with clause 9 which amends section 34 of the Act. First, she says the amendment restricts appeals to the Court of Appeal. She also argues that the Fourth and Fifth Schedules deserve greater scrutiny, saying that some interlocutary orders have drastic consequences and are worthy of appeal. Let me address her objections, first by pointing out that the right of appeal for substantive matters heard at first instance by the High Court remains unchanged. There is a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. What we are really talking about today are appeals relating to interlocutory applications, and these are applications which usually involve routine and uncontroversial points of law. As explained in my speech earlier on, as things currently stand, these interlocutory applications currently enjoy up to two tiers of appeal. So, first if it is the High Court, the registrar hears it; then there is a right of appeal to the High Court and then a further right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.”
“Senior Minister Jayakumar actually took pains to explain then that the requirement for leave to appeal is essentially a screening mechanism to sift out non-serious and unmeritorious appeals. Now, appeals can still be brought to the High Court with leave of Court in cases falling below this current limit of $50,000. Above that, for the Magistrates Court $50,000 to $60,000, the case can be appealed as of right to the High Court. So, we are talking really about smaller claims of $50,000. It is not that there is no appeal process but there is a need to get the leave of Court. Now, it is worth noting that application for leave of Court is not limited to the Subordinate Courts. If the Subordinate Courts, in the first instance, refuse to grant leave, the litigant is entitled to further seek leave from the High Court. In fact, there are two bites of the cherry to secure this leave. Now, in fact, one of the Committees that proposed these amendments saw it fit to recommend that the threshold be raised to $60,000 from its current $50,000. But this would mean that it would be congruent with the monetary jurisdiction of the Subordinate Courts, which will mean that all matters originating from the Subordinate Courts would not have been appealable as a matter of right to the High Court. Well, we did not take up this amendment, thus, preserving the limit at $50,000. Another general point would be on the issue of number of appeals or tiers of appeal. Again, this is an old issue that has been debated quite a few times in this House before. I think I just want to make the general point.”
“I think the point to note is that these amendments were initiated by the Courts and put together by two Committees over a period of time, on which also sat very senior members of the Bar who are in practice. So, in fact, there were two Committees and it is the combined effect of these Committees that have resulted in these amendments. And, indeed, like I have said earlier on, the Law Society also put in its input with respect to amendments to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. Ms Lim does not agree with clause 4 of the Bill, which essentially retains the current section 21. Basically, she disagrees with the rule which requires a person wishing to appeal a Subordinate Court's decision on a matter below $50,000 to obtain the leave of the Subordinate Court or the High Court before doing so. Sir, it is not the clause 4 itself that she is objecting to because clause 4 really clarifies that interests and costs should be excluded when computing the amount in dispute or value of such matter for the purposes of the monetary limit. Rather, she is objecting to a long-standing and essential feature of our legal system. And, as she has said, actually this point is not new. I think she is reiterating it because that is the position that the Workers' Party has taken. And we have debated this point before, which is that the principle that leave to appeal is required coupled with the monetary threshold has always been there in our statute books since as long ago as 1955. In 1998, this monetary threshold was set or raised to $50,000 because of a need to discourage non-serious appeals to the High Court. So, this is the thing to note.”
“Sir, thank you. I like to thank the Member for his queries. Sir, first, regarding his point about items (f) and (i): yes, it is true that those items are actually heard by the Registrar in the first instance. But I think he did not listen carefully to my entire speech which talks about the value of the Court of Appeal in interlocutory applications generally and there were a few points made by me. One is in relation to the fact that the Court of Appeal, on the record, will be seen to have regularly reversed or varied High Court orders, meaning that wrong orders have been given. Whether it is originating from the Registrar or a High Court Judge, the Court of Appeal records will show that. Secondly was the question of jurisprudence and guidance to the lower courts, among other points. In relation to his question on the Mareva injunction, if he looks at the Fifth Schedule of the Bill, he will realise that there is a catch-all provision in item (e), that from now on or when the Bill is passed and effective, any interlocutory order made by a High Court Judge is only going to be appealable with leave. So, therefore, Mareva injunctions do come under the category of interlocutory orders. I think the Senior Minister of State will confirm that. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: First, I want to thank both Mr Hri Kumar and Ms Sylvia Lim for speaking up, and for the clarification that Mr Hri Kumar has made. I will respond to Ms Lim's point about the injunction later. Before I go into the specific points, I think I should make a general point – a reiteration of what I have said earlier on – which is that despite Ms Lim's criticism of some aspects of these amendments.”
“Would the Senior Minister of State clarify why there is a need for this provision and how the Courts will ensure that there is no conflict of interests when such cases are heard?”
“Parties constantly assess their options along the way, based on costs as well as decisions or comments made by Judges on their interlocutory applications. The correctness of interlocutory decisions is therefore not a minor matter and affects the final outcome. Next, loss of jurisprudence. One impact of removing the Court of Appeal from most interlocutory appeals is a consequence at the macro level to jeopardise the development of legal principles to guide lawyers and the public. Once appeals to the Court of Appeal are taken away or drastically reduced, the High Court Judges will have no need to write their grounds of decision. The Court of Appeal will have fewer opportunities to rule or clarify how legal principles or rules should be read and applied. Fewer Court of Appeal decisions mean fewer binding precedents to guide the lower courts and lawyers. Sir, the loss of jurisprudence will be a cost to the Singapore legal system and could potentially lead to confusion and frustration in future cases. This cannot be good for uniformity and consistency. Sir, in summary, I do not support clause 4 of the Bill which re-enacts section 21 to limit appeals from the Subordinate Courts where the amount involved is not more than $50,000. I also do not support the changes by clause 9 to cut off the Court of Appeal from the hierarchy of most interlocutory applications. I believe these provisions of the Bill will weaken the rigour of our justice process and are not good for the quality of justice. Sir, finally, I would like to ask for clarification concerning clause 12 of the Bill. Under clause 12, the Chief Justice will be empowered to allow the Supreme Court Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrars to "carry on any business directly or indirectly".”
“For example, for Mareva injunctions to freeze assets or for search orders, only a Judge can hear the application in the first instance. At other times, I am told that the court management system may require a particular case being managed by a particular Judge under "a docket system" – meaning that all applications in that case, however minor, will be handled by that Judge. In such instances, the Judge will now become the single judicial authority on the interlocutory applications. Such a single-tier system is clearly not sound. Next, Sir, the Court of Appeal reverses or varies interlocutory orders of the High Court regularly. Sir, the records would show that time and again, the Court of Appeal has reversed, or varied, orders made by High Court Judges on interlocutory appeals. This would mean that in the view of the Court of Appeal, errors had been made by the High Court Judges. The value of the Court of Appeal's input was endorsed by the Chief Justice in his foreword to the Supreme Court Annual Report 2009. There, the Chief Justice noted that the current practice of the Court of Appeal was that it was, and I quote, "prepared to hear any relevant argument, even novel and innovative ones, that counsel may choose to raise. Indeed, in appropriate cases, the Court of Appeal even proactively raises legal points which counsel may have missed". To shut out the CA's input will thus come at a cost to the quality of justice. Sir, next, interlocutory decisions do affect the outcome in a majority of cases. Sir, it will be useful to know what percentage of cases filed in Court terminate without going to the final trial or hearing. It is likely that only a small proportion of cases go through the full course of trial.”
“This is a significant departure from the existing law, where an interlocutory order is generally appealable to the Court of Appeal. Interlocutory applications are wide-ranging and some have drastic consequences. Take, for example, an order for an interlocutory injunction, which is basically an order to one party to do something or refrain from doing something until the trial. This could include a freezing of assets, a prohibition on share transfer or a hand-over of properties. Such orders remain in force till the trial, with possible irreversible consequences on the parties. Another example is item (c) – an order refusing to allow discovery and inspection of documents. These documents could be pivotal to a proper assessment of evidence before trial. For instance, the appearance of an incriminating letter could result in a quick settlement or discontinuance, leading to a more efficient use of both public and private resources. Sir, feedback from lawyers I consulted is that the Fourth and Fifth Schedules should be reviewed. The Government should at least put the Bill before a Select Committee so that lawyers and the public can come and give evidence on their experiences and its implications. If the Government is willing to do this, an acceptable Bill may result. Sir, next, I would like to touch on why the Court of Appeal is still vital for interlocutory appeals. First of all, the Court of Appeal is still the first layer of appeal for some interlocutory applications. There were interlocutory applications which are not heard by the Registrar in the first instance but by a High Court Judge. This can be based on the nature of the application.”
“With due respect, the Judge making the order may not be the most neutral person to decide whether his own decision should be appealed against. The Bill severely compounds this problem by removing the Court of Appeal as a further forum to seek leave to appeal. The litigant will now be left at the mercy of the Judge who made the order he is unhappy about. Sir, the removal of the Court of Appeal as a forum to seek leave from is also not consistent with the regime for leave of appeal to the High Court from the Subordinate Courts. There, the prospective appellant can seek leave from either the Subordinate Courts Judge or, failing that, the High Court. Secondly, Sir, the principles for the grant of leave are very restrictive. One has to show that there is a general question of law to be decided for the first time that the Court of Appeal's decision on the question will be to the public's advantage, or convince the High Court Judge that he himself has made an error. This is a high burden. If the Government insists on having a leave system, the difficulties can be somewhat mitigated if some alternatives are considered. First, the Judge hearing the application for leave to appeal should not be the one who gave the order in the first place. Secondly, the Judge hearing the application for leave should ideally be a Judge of Appeal that is from the Court of Appeal. Thirdly, there should be law reform on the principles of granting leave to make it less onerous to meet the threshold for getting leave. Next, Sir, I will talk on the wider net of excluded appeals. The proposed Fifth Schedule lists cases appealable to the Court of Appeal only with leave. Of particular significance is the new item (e), which states that most interlocutory orders will now be appealable only with leave.”
“Item (f) deals with the Judge's order, giving or refusing further and better particulars of pleadings. Item (i) deals with the Judge's order, giving or refusing interrogatories. To simplify, these two items deal with requests to force a party to provide more details of their case, failing which the case may be stalled or even struck off. Past cases have shown that such applications may be taken out tactically as a fishing expedition or even to oppress the other party. Onerous lists of questions may have to be answered. If a wrong decision is made by a High Court Judge to order particulars or interrogatories, is it right to let the matter be? Next, Sir, cases appealable to the Court of Appeal only with leave. Besides the Fourth Schedule of non-appealable matters, the Fifth Schedule will require most interlocutory appeals to the Court of Appeal to be made only with leave. Sir, first let me touch on the problems of getting leave of Court. The first change relates to getting leave itself. By clause 9(b), leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal will now be obtainable only from the High Court. It will change the current position where if the High Court turns down an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, it is still possible to apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. Now, once the High Court Judge turns down an application for leave to appeal, that decision is final. Based on the existing practice, this change would mean that a party unhappy with a High Court Judge's decision is channelled back to that same High Court Judge to ask for permission to appeal against his decision. This is tantamount to expecting the Judge to make an order, and yet give leave to appeal his own order.”
“Courts can make wrong decisions due to various factors, such as lack of time, urgency, or simply human failings. Just because the amount at stake is $50,000 or less does not make the case less important. Businesses could fold, individuals made bankrupt for much smaller sums. Sir, this controversy is not new and was hotly debated in 1998 when this amendment was first moved. Despite concerns raised by many MPs and objections from the Workers' Party at that time, it was passed. As clause 4 of this Bill seeks to re-enact section 21, to reconfirm this position, I am unable to support it. Next, Sir, I will move to appeals to the Courts of Appeal. Clause 9 of the Bill further restrictions appeals to the Court of Appeal on interlocutory matters, meaning matters which the Court can settle before the final trial or hearing. There is a new Fourth Schedule which lists orders which cannot be appealed to the Court of Appeal at all, while the Fifth Schedule lists orders which can be appealed to the Court of Appeal only with leave or permission. It should be explained that interlocutory orders cover a wide range of steps taken at the pre-trial stages. While some steps may be relatively minor, others can have drastic consequences on the final outcome of the case. With this in mind, I shall explain further where the new Forth and Fifth Schedules are of grave concern to lawyers who gave me their views. First, Sir, cases not appealable to the Court of Appeal at all. The Fourth Schedule sets out matters not appealable to the Court of Appeal at all. While some of these items under the Forth Schedule were in the existing section 34(1), there are several new matters now not to be appealable. Of particular concern are items (f) and (i).”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the effect of this Bill is to restrict the right to bring appeals in civil cases to the High Court and the Court of Appeal. As this would have negative consequences on litigants as well as the legal system as a whole, I do not support the Bill. First, Sir, let me deal with the issues concerning appeals from the Subordinate Courts to the High Court. Clause 4 of the Bill seeks to re-enact section 21 of the Act, which restricts appeals from the Subordinate Courts to the High Courts. The current position under section 21 is that where a Magistrate or a District Judge has made a decision in a case, where the amount involved is where $50,000 or less, the losing party is not able to appeal at all, unless he gets permission to appeal from the Courts. This applies not only to the interlocutory orders, but also to final judgment, where a first appeal against a Magistrates' Court's judgment in Open Court must go to the High Court. In other words, an aggrieved party is stuck with the final judgment of the Magistrate or District Judge and does not have an automatic right of even one appeal. Though the Courts can give permission to appeal, such leave is not given easily. Case law has established that the person seeking to appeal needs to satisfy a high burden to show that an error of law has been made, or that the question of law is to be decided for the first time or that is of general public importance to have a higher Court ruling. Many applications for leave to appeal to the High Court have been turned down. Sir, to have a system where parties cannot even appeal at least once against a final judgment, offends one's sense of justice. Judicial officers are human and fallible, and so are the parties and their counsels.”
“Sir, supplementary questions for the Minister. I received feedback, as I am sure the other Members have, from Singaporeans who are close to retirement age who wish to rent out the private property which is the only asset that they have, and to downgrade themselves to live in a resale HDB flat. They are now caught by this rule which requires them to dispose of their private property within six months of buying the resale flat. Does the Minister not agree that the new rules actually would jeopardise such legitimate plans of Singaporeans? The other point, which has been brought up to me, is that there appears to be an anomaly between the rule that allows an owner of an HDB flat to buy private property after five years of the Minimum Occupation Period (MOP), whereas the private property owner has to dispose of his property once he intends or has bought a resale HDB flat. So, would that not lead to a possible situation where permanent residents living in HDB flats are actually able to hold private properties in Singapore after the MOP, while not disposing of their HDB flats? But we may have Singaporeans, in the group which I mentioned earlier, who have to sell off their private property in order to move into a resale flat.”
“Should the member not be given a choice whether or not to pay the additional premium? 5.23 pm”
“Madam, I would like to seek two clarifications on the Bill. First, as regards the definition of "dormant account", the new section 2(1B) defines dormant account as one where a member has reached a prescribed age, prescribed circumstances exist and he has not responded to the Board to confirm that he is alive. According to the new section 13(7B), this dormant status would trigger a count-down towards a transfer to general monies, where the member’s monies will not attract interest payments. Madam, there will be some concern about ensuring that elderly and frail CPF members, including those with stroke, dementia or who are illiterate, are not unfairly deprived of interest because they did not respond to the Board's request. What sort of due diligence will the Board exercise before making the transfer to the general monies of the Fund? Would there be a link-up to nursing homes, welfare homes, etc, to account for those in care? Would there be personal visits by CPF Board officials to the member's last known address? Secondly, Madam, under clause 16(a), the new section 27L (1A) provides that CPF members who have already paid premiums for CPF LIFE annuities when they reach 55 will be required to pay additional premiums just before they reach Draw-Down Age (which eventually will be 65 years). These additional premiums will only be told to them two months before they reach the Draw-Down Age. Madam, at age 55, the member would have made his selection of the CPF LIFE annuity plan based on the premiums and projections told to him then. To require him to pay additional premiums just before Draw-Down Age seems to be a retroactive requirement, since he cannot change his annuity plan unless he gets special permission then.”
“Can the Minister assure us that with this additional clause, privacy and respect of innocent Singaporeans will be protected? And that innocent passengers will not be treated as potential suspects? Will the Minister consider adding a sub-section that states that an authorised officer exercising power under this new section 23(A) is acting under "reasonable suspicion"? This will serve to assure Singaporeans that the normalcy of everyday life will not be disrupted, and it also offers reprieve to the innocent who may be adversely affected.”
“Specifically, I would like to draw attention to the section of the Bill which augments the LTA’s power relating to security of the rapid systems. My main concern with this Bill is clause 12 which introduces a new section, section 23(A). Section 23(A), which relates to the security of rapid transit systems, empowers an authorised officer to inspect and search, without giving any reason, the belongings of a person on the railway premises. An authorised officer may also require any person who refuses to permit his belongings to be inspected and searched to leave the railway premises. Any person who refuses to comply or to leave the premises at the authorised officer’s instructions can be fined up to $1,000. This clause grants an enormous amount of power to the authorised officer. While I appreciate the importance of and the need to ensure security in our current climate, I am also concerned that Singaporeans should continue to enjoy personal privacies and be able to utilise public transportation without concerns about over-enforcement. When I read this Bill, I was reminded of my personal experiences during the SARS period, where over-enthusiastic enforcement of temperature screening by over-zealous personalities made it extremely unpleasant to enter certain buildings. My question is focused on the training of these empowered officers in recognising perceived threat, and what safeguards are in place to protect innocent individuals. I strongly believe that there must be a good balance between issues of privacy versus protection of strategic facilities. Both are equally important, especially in public transport which facilitates our everyday life and which all Singaporeans depend on.”
“Besides adding to the vibrancy of the RTS facilities, I feel that this is important as the other land uses form an integral part of our integrated land use approach and, thus, would help to enhance our optimisation of the use of land resources in Singapore. In addition, this may attract a greater pool of competitive investors to bid for the licences as they are motivated to reap the benefits of operating a rail network and the potential returns from the retail space and other uses. A related amendment to the Act is the creation of a Sinking Fund to procure any capital equipment such as trains and other operating assets for the operation of the RTS. I would like to know if LTA would make the guidelines and processes on the use of the Sinking Fund transparent to ensure greater accountability in its use to ensure its competitiveness in managing the whole rail network. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in summary, the proposed amendments will provide for LTA to bring Singapore to the next phase of our transport and urban development. I am certain that it would drive the competitiveness of our economy and raise the productivity of the people. The key concern of the people as always would be the bread and butter issue of whether these amendments would enhance their quality of life. I would like to strongly encourage the Ministry to constantly communicate its purpose to the people to understand their needs, how the amendments will benefit them and bring Singapore to the next level of development. Mdm Deputy Speaker, on that note, I support the Bill. 4.42 pm Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan (Nominated Member): Thank you, Madam, for this opportunity to raise my thoughts on this Bill.”
“Are there options available to them to operate under the new framework? In addition, with a shorter licensing period under the new financing framework, there are issues being raised on how the LTA will ensure that the new operators preserve and retain the competency and competitiveness in operating and maintaining the system and its fixed assets. This is especially so during the transition period from one operator to a new one. Thirdly, the intent to shorten the licence periods of the rail operators would also mean injecting greater contestability in order to enhance efficiency and maintain cost competitiveness and enhance service standards to benefit commuters. However, will greater contestability in the RTS industry cause operators to bid aggressively to operate the service? Should it lead them to financial distress due to failure in business and investments, would the Government have to bail them out? The purpose of LTA owning the operating assets was to realise an adequate, sustainable, safe, secure and integrated railway transport system in Singapore. However, I would like to know if the future expansion of the rail network will consider integrating the bus system into the framework. This is imperative as the two networks, if integrated, will fully optimise the economies of scale of the transport network and ensure greater connectivity and efficient travelling time for the majority of Singaporeans. Mdm Deputy Speaker, the next issue that I would like to raise is that in land-constrained Singapore, it would be imperative if we fully optimise the space of our assets. I would like to know if the licensing of our rail network includes the operation of other land uses such as retail space at the RTS facilities.”
“With the expected future expansion of the rail lines, the challenge is to manage the space within our land-constrained city state through careful and considerate planning bearing in mind our current resources and meeting the travel needs of our growing population. I am pleased that the Ministry is committed to expanding the rail network, and is mindful of the high costs of building and maintaining the infrastructure. The benefits these new lines bring in serving and connecting the less mature corridors are tremendous as it would bring more new commuters to make use of the expanded network and drive the economy further. It is in this spirit that I would like to state my support for the Ministry’s proposal towards a network-based financial evaluation approach to expand our rail network. In taking over the ownership assets of the network holistically, it provides LTA with greater room and flexibility to manage our rail transportation system, strategic asset and to expand the rail network further in the future. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in doing so, therein lies impending issues and concerns in the details of this proposal. As such, I would like to raise the following points during this reading for further discussion. Firstly, has the new rail financial framework been implemented elsewhere? If so, how successful has this model been and whether this approach has attracted the right strategic investors and benefited the commuters? Secondly, with the shorter rail licence periods proposed, LTA will take over the ownership of operating assets, and lease them at an appropriate charge. The first question that came to my mind was what will be the impact of the new framework on the existing operators who run via the existing framework?”
“Madam, there are some provisions in the Bill which are aimed at enhancing security on public transport. I take it that this is a response to the recent security breach at SMRT Changi Depot and a belated realisation that both the Government and the public transport operators (PTOs) need to take a more active role. This is overdue. On a separate point, I have a concern about the increased cost burdens being placed on the PTOs by this Bill, in particular clause 5. Clause 5 amends section 15 of the Act to provide that the Land Transport Authority can impose more conditions on the licensee of the railway system, such as to maintain infrastructure outside the MRT stations, like overhead bridges, cycle stalls, carparks and even drainage systems. The rationale stated is that such infrastructure can be considered to enhance the transport node. However, is it justifiable for the Government to pass the responsibility of maintaining such infrastructure to the PTOs? How much cost would the PTOs incur to maintain such infrastructure? If the PTOs have to incur large cost to do so, will they be tempted to cut cost elsewhere, leading to a drop in standards of delivery to commuters? Since such infrastructure is of general public use, should the Government not maintain them, instead of literally passing the buck? 4.36 pm Assoc. Prof. Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Marine Parade): Mdm Deputy Speaker, the amendments proposed in the Rail Transport System Act (RTSA), in my view, represent another forward-looking approach to put in place a holistic transport framework. This is important as with Singapore's small size as a city state, we need to optimise the use of our land use resources.”
“Sir, three supplementary questions for the Minister. First, I would like to ask the Minister to confirm whether the reports from the press on 29th March were correct when she was quoted as saying that the Government was moving away from the old system of providing long bus routes and studying which ones could be split into two. Was that accurate? Secondly, could the Minister confirm her answer earlier that the cutting of the longer bus routes is likely to result in profitable results for the public transport operators? And, thirdly, I would like the Minister to elaborate on the review that is going to be done in terms of determining which bus routes are unreliable. What would be the criteria used, what kind of timings are we talking about? And does she not agree that even though a bus route arrival time may be somewhat unpredictable, it still serves the needs of certain groups of the community such as the elderly and the disabled?”
“Sir, one clarification and one supplementary question. The clarification is regarding the deployment of NSF in TransCom. My question actually was relating to the report that it is made up mostly of full-time NSmen. Of course, I am fully aware that NSmen are present in other units but usually they will work together with the regular officers. So, that is the clarification. Sir, regarding the issue of major events, I understand that for the YOG, for example, right now, there is a force-wide leave freeze on officers during this period. My question is: how many times in a year would be reasonable for us to have that kind of deployment order to be fair to the Home Team? I would like to know whether the Minister agrees that there would be a limit to how far we can have such force-wide leave freezes every year.”
“Sir, three supplementary questions for the Minister. Firstly, could the Minister tell us in the Human Factors Study that was conducted, whether there was actually an optimum number of officers recommended and, despite the manpower increase, have we actually reached that number? Secondly, it was reported in the Straits Times today about the Public Transport Security Command (TransCom) that the unit comprised 400 officers, mainly full-time NSmen. I am wondering whether that indicates that there is a shortage of full-time officers as compared to NSmen to go into the unit and how do we ensure that the NSmen are properly supervised when they deal with the public on public transport. Lastly, Sir, as pointed out, if the workload continues to increase, all these measures will still not be enough. Does the Government actually moderate the number of major events that are held in Singapore every year to ensure that we can actually cope with the demands?”