Debated in Parliament on 21 Jan 2014.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Madam, this Bill seeks to amend the Subordinate Courts Act to enhance the standing of the Subordinate Courts.
The Subordinate Courts play an integral role in the administration of justice in Singapore. It is before these Courts where a vast majority of people seek access to justice and the protection of our laws each day. More than 95% of our Judiciary's total caseload is handled by the Subordinate Courts and its annual volume averages about 350,000 cases.
In October last year, the Subordinate Courts were conferred the World Class Award. This is the highest honour for global performance excellence conferred by the Asia Pacific Quality Organisation. The Subordinate Courts have also received very positive feedback in court user surveys.
These are impressive achievements, and reinforce the continued faith the country has in the Judiciary.
Page: 75
Over the past few years, the Subordinate Courts have introduced initiatives to ensure that it remains a beacon of integrity that discharges its functions impartially, fairly and professionally. In 2010, the Subordinate Courts reviewed and launched a new Justice Statement, which emphasised public trust and confidence. Last year, its judges began donning robes, a symbol of authority, when presiding over hearings in open Court.
Today, this Bill introduces three changes:
First, to rename the "Subordinate Courts" as "State Courts";
Second, to replace the office of the "Chief District Judge" with the office of the "Presiding Judge of the State Courts"; and
Third, to increase the minimum statutory requirement for a legally qualified person to be a Magistrate and District Judge from one year to three years, and five to seven years respectively.
I will now take the House through the main features of the Bill.
The majority of the Bill concerns the renaming of the "Subordinate Courts" to the "State Courts". However, the amendments go beyond a name change. They underline the reality that the lower Courts are the primary dispensers of justice.
As the Chief Justice noted in his address at this year's Opening of the Legal Year, "The revised nomenclature will better reflect the primary position that these Courts occupy within our judicial system".
The nomenclature "State Courts" was chosen as it reflects the important national function that the State Courts perform in adjudicating disputes and dispensing justice, and combines dignity with gravitas.
With these amendments, the "State Courts" will replace the "Subordinate Courts" as the collective name for the District Courts, Magistrate Courts, Juvenile Courts, Coroner's Court and Small Claims Tribunal.
There will, however, be no change to the designations, scope of work and jurisdiction of these constituent Courts. Judicial Officers of the State Courts will also continue to be appointed as Magistrates and/or District Judges of the State
Page: 76
Courts.
Second, clauses 5 and 6 replace the office of "Chief District Judge" (CDJ) with the office of the "Presiding Judge of the State Courts" (PJSC). The office of the CDJ is the apex post of the Subordinate Courts. In 2010, we re-designated this post from "Senior District Judge" to "Chief District Judge". That was mainly a nomenclature change.
Today's Bill goes further. Whereas the office of the CDJ has traditionally been occupied by officers of the Singapore Legal Service, the Bill provides that the PJSC shall be a Judge or Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court. The elevation of the position of the PJSC reflects the wide-ranging jurisdiction and the power vested in the State Courts, and the growing complexity of the cases filed there. For instance, the civil jurisdiction of the State Courts has increased from $100,000 to $250,000 over the years. The sentencing powers of the Magistrates' Courts and District Courts were recently increased. The ability to make orders for community sentences was introduced. It is also an assurance of the highest standard of leadership for the State Courts.
There are four other characteristics of the PJSC that I would like to highlight.
First, having regard to the fact that a Judge or Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court will be the PJSC, the title "Chief District Judge" will no longer be appropriate. The Bill, therefore, proposes to replace the title of "Chief District Judge" with "Presiding Judge of the State Courts".
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Seah Kian Peng) in the Chair]
Second, the PJSC is to be appointed by the President, on the recommendation of the Chief Justice, under a new section 8A of the amended Act.
The language of clause 5, which introduces section 8A, follows that for the appointment of the CDJ, District Judges and Magistrates under sections 9 and 10 of the Subordinate Courts Act.
Third, clause 5 empowers the PJSC to sit in any State Court.
Page: 77
When he so sits, he will have the same jurisdiction, power and privileges of the State Court he sits in.
Fourth, the PJSC will continue to be able to hear cases in the High Court during his appointment as PJSC, by virtue of his appointment as a Judge or Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court.
For instance, he may preside over appeals from the State Courts, save for matters which he had previously dealt with as the PJSC.
Clauses 5 and 11(7)(b) of the Bill confirm this position.
Next, clause 6 increases the minimum statutory requirement for a legally qualified person to be a District Judge from five years to seven years.
The minimum statutory requirement for a legally qualified person to be a Magistrate will also be increased from one year to three years under clause 7.
When the Subordinate Courts Act was amended 20 years ago in 1993, Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee said before this House:
"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 with experience in dealing with matters of the world."
As our legal profession matures, it is timely for these minimum statutory requirements to be reviewed.
The Subordinate Courts' practice has been to appoint Judicial Officers with longer experience than statutorily required to these positions. In fact, the average length of experience before they are appointed is about 17 years. These officers have delivered stellar results over the years.
Given the expanded functions and powers of these Judicial Officers, raising the criterion to appointment to guarantee a more experienced and mature Bench will underscore the importance of the responsibilities which these Judicial Officers carry out. This will, in turn, enhance the standing of the State Courts.
Page: 78
We recognise that because of the raised criterion, there could be situations where deserving candidates may not qualify for appointment as a District Judge or Magistrate as soon as they could have under the pre-amendment criterion.
For instance, mid or second career officers who seek to join the Subordinate Courts may not satisfy the raised minimum statutory requirement, but may have such substantial work and life experience as to qualify them for consideration as Judicial Officers.
As such, clause 6(d) accords the Chief Justice a discretion to waive the requirement of seven years as a legally qualified person for appointment of a District Judge to five years, having regard to that person's qualification and experience.
Clause 7(b) creates a similar exception for Magistrates who only have between one to three years' experience.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, I would say that the public reposes a great deal of trust and confidence in the Subordinate Courts – and, indeed, in our Judiciary generally. We trust them to apply the law impartially, uphold our laws and dispense justice fairly. The mission of the Subordinate Courts is "to provide an effective and accessible system of justice, inspiring public trust and confidence". These amendments reflect that mission. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Sir, I support this Bill. This Bill brings three important changes which I believe will potentially enhance public confidence in the justice meted out by the lower courts.
First, a sitting member of the Supreme Court Bench will now be the Presiding Judge of the renamed State Courts. This change will potentially promote closer links to the Supreme Court and tighten its supervisory role over the lower Courts, as compared to the current system of having the Chief District Judge with no direct connection to the Supreme Court. Having a sitting member of the Supreme Court head the State Courts also enhances its standing as an institution which, after all, hears the vast majority of cases affecting
Page: 79
Singaporeans.
The second change is that the qualifying criteria for appointment of District Judges will be raised. A person to be appointed as a District Judge will now need to have at least seven years' post-qualification experience rather than five years.
The third change is that the qualifying criteria for the appointment of Magistrates will also be raised. Instead of needing just one year's post-qualification experience, a potential Magistrate will need to have three years' experience.
The raising of the qualifying experience is desirable and, indeed, necessary as the powers of District Judges and Magistrates to make orders and sentence persons have been increased significantly over the years. At the last debate on the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill in 2010, I spoke in some detail about Magistrates, and the concern about giving them powers to grant injunction orders and how some of their decisions can be unappealable under the current rules. This is worrying if we only require Magistrates to have graduated just one year before.
To this end, I am glad the Government has reviewed this matter for both District Judges and Magistrates. I believe the public will also feel more confident appearing before Judicial Officers with longer working and life experience.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to declare my interest as a practising lawyer in speaking on this Bill.
There are four key changes in this Bill: the renaming of the "Subordinate Courts" to the "State Courts"; the re-designation of the Chief District Judge as the Presiding Judge of the State Courts; third one is the amendment of the requirement for a District Judge to be a qualified person for not less than seven years, which is an increase from the present five years; and the fourth change is the amendment of the requirement for a Magistrate to be a qualified person for not less than three years, an increase from the present one year.
I support the changes to increase the qualifying criteria for the appointment of a District Judge to seven years and for the appointment of a Magistrate to
Page: 80
three years.
District Judges and Magistrates play an important role in the administration of justice in our Courts. Amongst other things, they have to deal with criminal matters which involve the imposition of hefty fines and incarceration of offenders. They also have to adjudicate on civil disputes involving cases of up to $60,000 for Magistrates and $250,000 for District Judges.
In the 2012 Annual Report of the Subordinate Courts, it was reported that the Subordinate Courts handled a total of 352,763 cases of which 254,959 cases came under the Criminal Justice Division. Thus, the bulk of most litigants who have to appear in Court to pay a fine, to be sentenced to jail or to have their disputes adjudicated upon, will have to face either a Magistrate or a District Judge. It is critical that each litigant who appears in Court be given assurance that their case would be heard fairly and justice is dispensed in an impartial manner by an appropriately qualified person. It is, hence, important that we have qualified persons who are not too junior in age or in experience to be sitting in a judicial capacity to decide on the litigant's fate.
One commonly expressed concern is whether the qualified persons have sufficient exposure in life's experiences and wisdom, without which, they may not appreciate the challenges that a litigant may face. This is especially so in the Small Claims Tribunal and the Magistrates' Courts.
Mr Deputy Speaker, whilst raising the minimum statutory requirements of a District Judge and a Magistrate is a step in the right direction, I believe that more can be done. Hence, I would suggest that every new Judicial Officer be sent for an exposure stint at any Community Development Council (CDC) or a registered Volunteer Welfare Organisation (VWO) before their appointment. This is to allow each young or inexperienced Judicial Officer to better appreciate the daily challenges that an average citizen faces in life. Such a stint would allow our Magistrates and District Judges to see, firsthand, the struggles of families in dispute and how family background affects juvenile offenders. By allowing these officers to interact with applicants for social welfare, some of them may better appreciate the need sometimes for mercy whilst dispensing justice. And for officers working with a VWO involved in protecting women from violence, they may also gain better insight as to the pain suffered by victims of family violence.
I note that whilst the minimum statutory requirements to be a Magistrate and a District Judge have been increased, the minimum qualifying criteria of a
Page: 81
Registrar and Deputy Registrar under clause 12 of the Subordinate Courts Act have not been increased. Deputy and Assistant Registrars also play a key role in the Courts especially when they sit in a judicial capacity to decide on applications for summary judgments, for striking out of cases, for assessment of damages and so on. May I ask the Minister to consider instituting an internal Court guideline to ensure that Deputy or Assistant Registrars are suitably qualified and experienced before they are allowed to sit in a judicial capacity.
On the renaming of the "Subordinate Courts" to "State Courts", my personal view is that it is not quite necessary. For many years, our judicial system has been well regarded and well ranked internationally, which Senior Minister of State had alluded to earlier in her speech. The many accolades referred to in the Subordinate Courts Annual Report 2012 from pages 52 to 58 say it all. Whether the Courts are renamed as "State Courts" or they remain as "Subordinate Courts", the main focus should really be on the many dedicated people running the judicial system.
The new Bill even provides for a Presiding Judge of the State Courts to be someone who is either a High Court Judge or a Judicial Commissioner. Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that the Chief Justice had felt the renaming necessary so as to raise the standing of the Subordinate Courts. Perhaps, the Minister could clarify how the renaming of the Subordinate Courts would raise the standing of the Courts, as compared to the costs implication of having to change the name of an institution which has been around for many years.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Ms Lim and Mr Lim for their support of the Bill. The Members' response has been encouraging and certainly shows the support that the Subordinate Courts have in this Chamber.
There were several questions that were raised by Mr Lim Biow Chuan. The first was a suggestion that new Judicial Officers could perhaps be attached to a VWO or CDC. That is a suggestion that certainly merits consideration and I will relay that to the Chief Justice and to the Courts, because at the end of the day, we want to be sure that those who dispense justice also have empathy and an understanding of the struggles and difficulties faced by the people who come before the Courts for their disputes and woes to be adjudicated.
Page: 82
The second point that Mr Lim had raised was whether the Minister could institute internal guidelines for suitably qualified persons for the Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrars. The Minister may not, but the Minister will relay this to the Chief Justice as Court guidelines come under the purview of the Chief Justice. But I think that I can say that the Courts do pay a great deal of attention to the appointments of persons to any judicial function, recognising the responsibility that they discharge in their functions.
The third point which Mr Lim wanted to know was whether or not the name change was really necessary and particularly so with respect to the costs of the name change. Mr Lim is correct that a name change in and of itself does very little. It is the other things which are done – the appointment of Presiding Judge of the State Courts, the raising of the qualification criteria, all the things which are part and parcel of the Subordinate Courts system, that make it what it is. So, the substance is there.
But nomenclature is also important because it is a reflection of what an entity or an organisation does. In this case, the Subordinate Courts are the Courts that come into the greatest contact with the everyday lives of people. It is the Court that has the greatest interface with the people of Singapore, adjudicating upon their disputes, and helping to resolve many of their difficulties. For that reason, it was felt that the new nomenclature would be better. "Subordinate Courts" implies subordinate, slightly lower and lesser in status. "State Courts", on the other hand, reflects that everyday interface which is a function of the State in adjudicating the disputes of the people that come before the Court. So, that is the reason for the name change.
With respect to the costs incurred, this would mainly be with regard to the replacement of the signage, name cards and other stationery. Name cards and stationery would have to be replaced in any event as stock runs out, so the costs would not be greatly significant.
*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. – [Ms Indranee Rajah].*
Page: 83
*Bill considered in Committee.*
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Seah Kian Peng) in the Chair]
The citation year "2013" will be changed to "2014", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
Clauses 1 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.
PAPERCUTS