Debated in Parliament on 4 Nov 2014.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill amends the Judges' Remuneration Act which, together with the amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill moved earlier, provides a gratuity plan for future judicial and statutory appointment holders.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]
The Bill focuses specifically on the judicial appointments of the Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal and Judges of the High Court. It specifies the terms under which such a gratuity plan may be paid to judicial appointment holders. It also confers on the President the power to make regulations to prescribe a gratuity plan for judicial appointment holders. This is similar to the amendments to the Constitution for statutory appointment holders. The Bill also provides for a death gratuity to be paid to the dependants or estate of judicial appointment holders, should they die in service.
Both the gratuity plan and the death gratuity will be paid from the Consolidated Fund. As the death gratuity will now be provided for in this Bill, the Bill makes a consequential amendment to remove its provision for this group under the Pensions Act. This will prevent double claims for death gratuities under separate Acts for judicial and statutory appointment holders. This gratuity plan will apply only to future judicial appointment holders. Current appointment holders will not be affected by the change.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in summary, the amendments in this Bill, together with those to the Constitution, will make future judicial and statutory appointment holders non-pensionable, like most public officers. I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, I just have one key clarification on the Bill. Under the newly enacted clause 4(5), it states that no Judge has an
Page: 102
absolute right to any gratuity upon retirement. This ostensibly would mean that the Government can determine which judge should or should not receive a gratuity. I understand section 8 of the Pensions Act also extends similar powers to the Government.
However, section 8 of the Pensions Act also states in the event an officer is guilty of negligence, irregularity or misconduct, it shall be lawful for the Pension Authority to withhold the pension, gratuity or other allowance for which the officer would have become eligible. The drafting of section 8 suggests that it is under these latter conditions that a pension could be discontinued. The newly enacted clause 4 of the Bill does not provide such clarity.
Under the new regime, it would be foreseeable that a one-time gratuity would be paid upon retirement. This is unlike the Pension Act where payments can be expected to continue and the scenario of an infraction post-retirement may well result in the stoppage of a pension. Such a prospect cannot be reasonably expected to be invoked after the full gratuity is paid up under the proposed Bill.
Can the Minister explain under what circumstances would a judge not expect to receive a gratuity at the end of retirement under this Bill, especially if he or she qualifies for one and has not been found guilty by a tribunal of his or her peers of misbehaviour, or being unable to discharge the duties of judicial office? Thank you.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill seeks to amend the Judges' Remuneration Act to provide for the payment of a gratuity to any individual who holds judicial office and who either retires from office at 65 years old or dies while holding judicial office.
The gratuity is a new scheme meant for those appointed to any judicial office on or after the date of commencement of the Judges' Remuneration (Amendment) Bill as they would no longer be eligible for pension.
As a basic principle, I am of the view that individuals who hold judicial office as Chief Justice, Judge of Appeal or Judge of the High Court ought to be paid salaries befitting their responsibilities, powers and the dignity of the office. It is always important that the judiciary is able to attract suitable talent to ensure that the quality of justice dispensed by our judicial officers is of the very best and that our judiciary remains uncorrupt.
In 2006, the then-US Chief Justice John G Roberts Jr raised concerns that federal judges are leaving the Bench due to inadequate compensation. Other judges had also raised
Page: 103
concerns that the Bench would not be able to attract the best lawyers in practice if their compensation falls too far below what other careers, like a law professor, would be able to offer. One highly respected judge of the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, Mr J Michael Luttig, reportedly resigned to join Boeing Company as its General Counsel and he cited the need for his obligation to his family, one of whom was approaching college age.
Hence, if our judiciary wishes to attract some of our top legal brains to join the Bench, we cannot expect them to make too great a sacrifice of their legal careers. Whilst the overall compensation package may never and should not be commensurate with what a top lawyer in private practice may earn, there should not be too large a gap either.
The current Bill does not specify what the gratuity amount would be. It merely refers to a "gratuity determined in accordance with a rate prescribed in regulations subject to such limit as may be prescribed in those regulations". I surmised from a reply to a Parliamentary Question by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean in April 2013 that the Gratuity and a Long-term Retention package would be similar in value to the amount of pension forgone by newly-appointed judicial officers.
I had said earlier in my speech that as a basic principle, we ought to pay judicial officers salaries which are befitting their responsibilities, powers and dignity of the office. However, I do wish to caution the Government that paying a high compensation package is not the only way to attract or retain legal talent. If a judicial officer is too highly compensated, it leads to cynicism and sometimes an erosion of respect for that office. Public opinion may be adverse if they perceive judicial officers as being out of touch if they are paid too high, compared to wages of the average man in the street. This may, in turn, cause talented legal brains to shun the call to join the judiciary as they may not wish to face the adverse public opinion.
Hence, I urge the Government to consider a mix of incentives to attract good talent into the judiciary. Besides a fair monetary compensation, we should consider appealing to the person's sense of national service and sacrifice; appealing to the prestige and respect that come with such an appointment to judicial office.
Sir, I believe that talented Singaporeans would willingly answer the call of duty if they feel that there is a need for their skills and talents to serve the people of Singapore. A huge gratuity package, in itself, may not, and, in my humble view, should not be the only solution to keeping or attracting talent. This has always been my stand, not just in respect of judicial office, but also for individuals standing for political office as well.
Page: 104
May I ask the Minister to clarify or confirm that individuals holding judicial office and already eligible for gratuities would not be eligible for pensions, as I cannot find the relevant orders which say that pensions for individuals holding judicial office have been abolished?
Minister Shanmugam.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on Mr Singh's question on pension versus gratuity, pensions are payable continuously for a period of time until the person passes away, and the person would be entitled to medical benefits. With a gratuity scheme, he gets a lump-sum at the end of service and that is that. Yes, if there is misconduct after he receives the money, then, of course, you cannot claw back, because I thought that was the question that was being asked. His misconduct after he receives it – say, at age 75, 80 or whatever – is not going to be relevant for what he received at 65, for example, and he will not get any medical benefits.
In terms of whether he is entitled to the gratuity when he retires, if he retires honourably, then there is no issue. If he does not retire honourably, then, obviously, he would not expect to get the gratuity. But to be more precise, regulations would have to be made by the President on these issues, at least in broad terms.
As regards Mr Lim's question, yes, I agree. The compensation cannot be the only issue. The Deputy Prime Minister explained the points; the committee considered it. The people who come in, by and large, take a pay cut. They have been delinked from political office holders, and the current judicial officers, such as Judges, High Court Judges, their compensation broadly, according to the committee's view, taking into account the entire remuneration, including pension – was acceptable. All we are doing is changing it from pension to gratuity. We are not increasing or reducing it.
*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. – [Mr K Shanmugam].*
*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*
Page: 105
PAPERCUTS