Committee of Supply − Head E (Judicature)

Mdm Chair, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head E of the Estimates be reduced by $100."

I would like to declare my interest as a litigation lawyer in private practice.

The Singapore Judiciary is widely recognised as being amongst the most efficient and responsive judiciaries globally, dispensing justice with independence, integrity and impartiality. The visibility of the Singapore Judiciary has increased over the years, especially with the launch of the Singapore International Commercial Court in 2015.

Our Judiciary is also a progressive one which continually looks to anticipate future developments in the legal industry and profession. This is evident from the various Judiciary-led initiatives and reforms, such as collaboration between the Family Justice Courts and the Singapore Mediation Centre, to provide parties with more options to settle their family disputes amicably, the reforms to the medical litigation process, and leading the charge for the increasing use of technology in the way law is practised and justice dispensed.

As we continue to strengthen our status as a regional and global legal hub, I propose we update our Court practice of taking oaths in Singapore when giving evidence, to bring this in line with the practice in other major common law jurisdictions and better reflect our nation's multi-religious values and expectations of witnesses who give evidence in our Courts.

Let me start off by outlining the purpose behind taking an oath. I quote from a Canadian case: "[T]he object of the law in requiring an oath is to get at the truth relative to matters in dispute by getting a hold on the conscience of the witness."

The current Oaths and Declarations Act, when it was first enacted in 2000, combined what was previously the Oaths Act, the Oaths of Office and Allegiance Act and the Statutory Declarations Act. Section 4 of the Act allows persons giving evidence to take an oath.

Based on current Court practice and the Act, only persons of the Christian faith are allowed to take oaths when giving evidence. All other persons must make affirmations.

It is noteworthy that the original Oaths Act enacted in 1890 contained a provision which allowed a person to give evidence on oath "in any form common amongst or held binding by persons of the race or persuasion to which he belongs, and not repugnant to justice or decency".

This provision was, however, repealed when the current Act was enacted in 2000 on the basis the repealed provision was largely historical and intended to cater to our largely migrant society in the past where different communities carried with them different customs on how oaths were to be made.

I propose that the current practice in Courts and under the Act be updated so as to allow persons of all faiths to take oaths in accordance with their religious beliefs when giving evidence in Courts, deposing affidavits or making statutory declarations.

This may be viewed as a technical point but, in my respectful view, is nonetheless an important symbolic point that is in keeping with our nation's values and better serve the objective behind the taking of the oath that I outlined earlier.

This also accords with the practice in major common law jurisdictions, such as Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom (UK). For example, the UK Oaths Act 1978 expressly enables persons of all faiths to take either oaths or affirmations as they see fit.

*Question proposed.*

Mdm Chairman, I thank Mr Pillai for his cut. Mr Pillai correctly pointed out that the current practice in our Courts allows Christians to take oaths by swearing on the Bible. This is a long-established practice which can be traced back to the UK tradition, which we adopted. But the important point is that this practice does not affect those with other religious beliefs or those who conscientiously object to the taking of an oath. This is because they can avail themselves of another established alternative − making an affirmation.

Under the Oaths and Declarations Act, the taking of an oath has the same legal effect as making an affirmation. Making an affirmation is, therefore, not an exception to the general rule. It is simply an alternative to oath-taking. Seen in this context, our current practice of taking oath is really a historical exception.

Mr Pillai has suggested that it may be possible to update the current practice of taking oaths, such that people of all religions can take oaths in accordance with their religious beliefs.

First, there is no need to do so, given that an affirmation has the same legal effect as an oath and is neutral.

Second, there are practical issues with Mr Pillai's suggestion. There are many religions in the world today − some are well-established, others less so. It would be difficult to expect us, or the Courts, to have sufficient knowledge about all religions so as to be in a position to administer oaths correctly under each of those religions.

A move to change the current practice of taking oaths may also invite a multitude of claims from people of different religious beliefs. This will come at a considerable cost and does not seem necessary in light of the fact that the existing practice allows for persons of all religious beliefs to take an affirmation, which has the same legal effect as an oath.

It is, therefore, best for us to maintain our current system, which has worked well for us for many years.