Opening of the Legal Year 2015 speeches

Opening of the Legal Year 2015
Speeches by
• The Honourable Attorney-General, VK Rajah SC
• The President of The Law Society, Thio Shen Yi SC
• The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon
The three speeches were delivered on 5 January 2015.
SPEECH OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL VK RAJAH S.C.
AS DELIVERED AT THE OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2015, 5 JANUARY
Opening of the Legal Year 2015
May it please Your Honours, Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judges
and Judicial Commissioners of the Supreme Court:
1.
This is my maiden Opening of Legal Year speech as AG and I
would like to begin by saying that I intend to uphold the integrity of this
Office, further the good work of all my predecessors and discharge the
responsibilities of an Attorney-General to the utmost of my abilities.
There are many challenges ahead for the Office in the light of the
sweeping changes that have taken place in the total legal environment
of Singapore since 1959, when we attained internal self-government with
control and responsibility for our own legal system.
2.
The Opening of the Legal Year 2015, which marks the 50th
anniversary of Singapore’s independence, is a very special occasion for
all Singaporeans. As the A-G, it is therefore appropriate for me to devote
my address to reflecting on the state of our legal system, its
1
development and progress in the last fifty years and the challenges
ahead. Fifty years is a short span of time for the life of a nation, and also
for the development of a legal system. But in fifty years, Singapore has
managed to create a legal environment that is, and should be, the envy
of the emerging economies of the world. And we can be deservedly
proud: Singapore has been ranked 7th least corrupt nation in the world1,
10th overall in the world in the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index
which measures how the rule of law is experienced by ordinary people2
and 2nd in the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index3.
While there might be some scepticism about ranking systems, they are
nonetheless a good reflection of the impressions that large sections of
the global community have of us. At this juncture, I wish to acknowledge
the presence of former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and former
Deputy Prime Minister Professor Jayakumar. Together with former Chief
Justice Yong Pung How, they played critical roles in transforming
Singapore’s legal landscape over the last 25 years. We are all indebted
to them.
1
2014
Corruption
Perception
Index,
Transparency
International,
available
at:
http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results
2
World
Justice
Project’s
Rule
of
Law
Index
2014,
available
at:
http://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/files/wjp_rule_of_law_index_2014_report.pdf at 172.
3
World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index 2014 – 2015, available at:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/img/WEF_GCR2014-15_Global_Image.png
2
3.
Singapore is best known for its strict and impartial enforcement of
the law at home and abroad. For this, we have earned our fair share of
admirers and detractors. Regardless of external opinion, we will continue
this practice as the enforcement of the law without fear or favour is the
cornerstone of the rule of law. In Singapore, no one is above the law.
The recent high profile prosecutions brought against senior public
officials for corruption is evidence of this. Our public officials must
exercise their powers within the constraints of the law, and act in
furtherance of the public good. If they do otherwise, they will be held
accountable through the law.
4.
Over the past fifty years, Singapore’s challenge has been to
negotiate how the rule of law can be best implemented within our unique
framework of social, economic and security needs. Today, having
achieved a measure of social and economic well-being, we find that our
legal system is steadily moving towards a greater emphasis on the
individual citizen’s experience of justice, within the wider framework of
the public interest.
5.
There has been a great deal of discussion and division on what the
rule of law really is. Too much intellectual ink has been spilt over its
definition. While abstruse and high flown definitions of the rule of law
3
have their place in academia, we should be more concerned with having
a practical and working model — a model that can be understood and
appreciated by the general public. To me, the rule of law is characterised
by four key features. First, that a country’s key institutions are effective,
incorruptible and impartial. Secondly, a culture in which rights are
respected and effectively enforced. Thirdly, that justice is accessible —
costs are not a barrier to resolving disputes for the poor and the
vulnerable, the legal process is easily navigable, and there are no
inordinate delays. Fourthly, the entire legal system is predicated upon
fairness, a concept which implies moderation and proportionality in the
content and enforcement of our laws.
6.
It is my belief that today the general public appreciates the state of
the rule of law in Singapore, and has confidence in my Office in
upholding it. But more can and should be done. To this end, a series of
significant changes have been implemented in my Chambers. These
include setting up the AGC Academy to raise professional standards as
well as improve situational awareness and the Strategic Planning Office
to better prepare AGC for tomorrow, today. Additionally, decision making
processes are being improved and timelines tightened. I turn now to
highlighting key milestones in building the rule of law in Singapore.
4
Criminal Justice
7.
An effective criminal justice system is a key pillar of the rule of law,
as it constitutes the mechanism to redress serious grievances and bring
action against individuals for offences against society. In the early years
of independence, the deterrence of crime, especially gang-related crime,
and continued freedom from corruption were priorities. Today, our
children walk the streets at any time of the day or night without fear and
we take for granted clean Government. Our enforcement agencies such
as the Singapore Police Force, the Corrupt Practices Investigation
Bureau, the Central Narcotics Bureau and the Singapore Prisons
Service have, over the last five decades, played an enormous role in this
transformation.
8.
In the administration of criminal justice, we have not shied away
from jettisoning unsuitable models from the West. The first bold step in
that direction was the abolition of the jury system. This occurred in 1969
for reasons which, while controversial then, are no longer so. For
Singapore, the determination of guilt was best left to professional judges.
To us, criminal justice is better served under this model.
9.
Over time our criminal justice system has gradually moved towards
individualising justice. The overriding principle that has motivated these
5
changes is that of fairness — to victims and accused persons — and the
public interest. The architecture of our criminal justice system has been
meaningfully redrawn to ensure that due process takes centre stage. We
should never allow the process to be the punishment.
10.
The evolution of our criminal discovery regime is an example of the
steps we have taken towards ensuring that the criminal justice process
is more equitable to accused persons. Previously, there was no criminal
disclosure regime (other than in capital cases) and thus no legal
obligation for the Prosecution to disclose any evidence ahead of trial.
Any disclosure was done out of goodwill or to bring about an expeditious
resolution of the case. The Criminal Procedure Code 2010 introduced a
structured
disclosure
regime
through
Criminal
Case
Disclosure
Conferences. The Prosecution and the Defence now exchange their
respective cases ahead of trial. This has better placed the Defence to
advise their clients.
11.
A fair criminal justice system is one in which sentences are
commensurate with the culpability of the offender and seriousness of the
offence and its impact on the victim and society. Offenders must also be
given the opportunity to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. Up
until the 1990s, our dominant sentencing philosophy was deterrence
6
coupled with retributivism, as our priority was crime control. This
approach needed to be updated in the light of changing social trends
including the increasing prevalence of minor mental illness and antisocial behaviour amongst youths. We have thus adapted our penal
philosophy to accord greater weight to rehabilitation and now recognise
that prison may not be best suited for all offenders, particularly if they
have committed minor offences. Evidence of this approach is that our
prison population has decreased by over 30% in the past twelve years.
The fact that we do not feel any less safe in Singapore strongly suggests
that we are on the right track.
12.
Today, our judges have a whole suite of Community Orders to
choose from, which can be tailored to each offender’s rehabilitative
needs. The Community Court also connects offenders with community
resources and Judges are supported by trained psychologists and social
work professionals to address underlying causes of criminality.
13.
At the other end of the spectrum, Parliament has maintained the
policy of mandatory capital punishment for the most serious offences,
7
but in recent years, has given the courts the discretion not to apply the
death penalty in other cases where it was previously mandatory.4
Administration of Civil Proceedings
14.
As our legal system matures, our civil processes have adapted so
that cases can be heard expeditiously. A host of changes were
introduced in the 1990s to eliminate the backlog of cases. It is now
difficult to even imagine that it used to take 5 years before a case came
to the High Court, and a further 3 to 4 years before the case reached the
Court of Appeal. In my view, the contributing factor was not so much the
change in the Rules of Court as the cultural change within the profession
and the Courts that took root after court timelines were enforced strictly.
I was a member of the Bar then and I can say from first-hand experience
that the changes in the 1990s were initially painful for practitioners but
we are now reaping dividends.
15.
The courts have continued to modernise their processes, and in
line with Singapore’s vision to be a “smart nation”,5 an eLitigation system
has been introduced — our second, and improved iteration of e-Filing.
4
The death penalty is now mandatory only for murder committed “with the intention of causing death”
(i.e., murder committed under section 300(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224)). In the realm of drug
trafficking, greater sentencing discretion is provided to judges where the Accused only played the role
of a courier; and cooperated with Central Narcotics Bureau in a substantive way, or has a mental
disability which substantially impairs his appreciation of the gravity of his acts.
5
http://www.ida.gov.sg/blog/insg/featured/singapore-lays-groundwork-to-be-worlds-first-smart-nation/
8
While we seek to harness technology to efficiently administer justice, we
must remember that technology, however essential, is just an accessory
and it cannot assure that justice will be done in every case. In striving to
be a smart nation, we must also be a nation of smart people.
16.
Another cultural change in recent years is the increase in civil
litigation between the public and the state in administrative and
constitutional law issues, accompanied by a concomitant increase in civil
litigation between individuals. This is in part due to the rise of an
educated class with more awareness of their civil and constitutional
rights. When seen in the right perspective, this is not a negative
development as judicial review is the hallmark of the judicial
enforcement of the rule of law, in relations between the state and its
people. Judicial review is essential to the rule of law — the Government
is subject to the rule of law as much as the least of us members of the
public are.
My Chambers is prepared to meet the increase in such
litigation.
17.
As Singapore continues to change, we must keep in mind that
change must not come at the cost of what is essential. There are
institutions, such as the judiciary, that should remain protected with
special measures. Public confidence in the authority of the judiciary to
9
administer justice, and their ability to do so justly must be safeguarded.
We have thus chosen to retain the offence of scandalising the judiciary.
Our law in this regard diverges from the UK, which abolished this
offence in 2013. There, it was determined that the judiciary, given its
unimpeachable historical standing, was not in need of protection. It may
be that the UK is on a different stage in their journey to Singapore, or
that they are on a different journey altogether. In either case, Singapore
must chart her own route. In jurisdictions which have scaled back on
prosecutions under this offence, criticism of the judiciary has become
part of popular entertainment, such that the days of respectful deference
are “gone forever” and the judges are rendered accountable to the
tabloids. 6 Respect, once eroded, cannot be regained, even when the
erosion is based on unfounded criticism. We must guard against this,
particularly as our nation is still young and the constitutional conventions
and divisions of responsibility are not understood by a significant
proportion of the public.
Significant Structural Changes in our Legal System
18.
None of the developments I have detailed above would have been
possible without the growth of an autochthonous legal system in
Singapore. In the early days, Singapore’s legal system was modeled
6
Judicial Accountability in Australia, Michael Kirby, 6 Legal Ethics 41 (2003) at 48.
10
after the British legal system. English judges in the Privy Council could
credibly pass judgments on our cases as many of our laws were British
imports. This remained the status quo even some time after
independence. In the early 1990s, two significant changes took place.
The first change was to ensure that our laws met the conditions of
Singapore's circumstances. In 1993, section 5 of the Civil Law Act was
repealed. More senior lawyers will remember that section 5 had provided
for the automatic reception of English commercial law and statutes
where there was no equivalent local statute. In its place, the Application
of English Law Act was enacted to make it clear that no English
enactment is part of Singapore law except as provided in any written
law.
19.
This paved the way for the second significant change in 1994 —
the abolishment of appeals to the Privy Council and the establishment of
a permanent Court of Appeal in Singapore, along with a new system of
precedents. With this, our laws were now placed fully in the hands of the
judges who best understood them and who were able to interpret them
in the context of our society and culture. In his speech at the Opening of
the Legal Year in 1994, the Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong noted the
“crucial importance of a permanent Court of Appeal lies in its prospective
role in the development of an indigenous legal system appropriate to the
11
needs and values of the society we live in”. Local developments had set
Singapore on a different path to that of the UK, in terms of our political
and social values, especially in public law and criminal law.7 Appeals to
the Privy Council had been progressively curtailed since 1989 —
appeals could only proceed in civil cases where both parties had a prior
written agreement to do so, or in criminal cases where the death penalty
or life imprisonment was involved and the Court of Appeal’s decision
was not unanimous. The retention of the option of appeal in civil cases
was designed to reassure foreign investors who might have lacked
confidence in our courts. In the four years that elapsed between the
curtailed rights and total abolishment, there were only two civil cases
appealed to the Privy Council. 8 This suggested that investors had
confidence in the competence and fairness of our courts in commercial
matters.
Singapore as a Legal Services Hub
20.
Singapore’s status as a centre for arbitration and dispute
resolution has been further cemented in recent years. In addition to the
popularity of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”),
Singapore is presently the most preferred Asian venue for arbitration
7
Singapore had abolished trial by jury, and had instituted changes in burdens of proof in criminal
cases.
8
These were related cases that were heard together. See Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official
Reports (23 February 1994), vol 62 at cols 388 – 389.
12
handled under the ICC rules, and the fifth most frequently selected seat
in the world. 9 These facts testify to the confidence the international
commercial community has in our legal eco-system. The establishment
of the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) and
Singapore International Mediation Centre (“SIMC”) will further strengthen
Singapore’s position as a legal services hub in Asia. May I take this
opportunity to wish the SICC and the SIMC success in this role.
21.
Singapore is also now moving towards becoming a regional
intellectual property (“IP”) hub. The story of the establishment of our IP
regime is one of intense growth in a short period, and demonstrates how
Singapore has been able to adapt her laws to the global environment. In
1984, Singapore was rather unflatteringly described as “the piracy
capital of the world”. 10 By 2006, Singapore was consistently ranked
highly for IP protection and is now ranked second in the world for having
the best IP protection.11
9
See 2013 ICC Statistical Report. The five most frequently selected seats are Paris, London,
Geneva, Zurich and Singapore.
10
Cited in Peters, J. W., “Toward Negotiating a Remedy to Copyright Piracy in Singapore”, Nw. J. Int’l
L. & Bus. (1985-1986), 563.
11
World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report 2014/2015, available at:
http://www.ipos.gov.sg/MediaEvents/SingaporesIPRanking.aspx
13
International Law
22.
As a small state, Singapore depends on respect for international
law for its territorial integrity, economic and social development and
progress as a nation state. We have been a committed and responsible
member of the United Nations since independence and have succeeded
in playing a constructive role in international affairs, well beyond our
geographical size. Singapore was a founding member of ASEAN in 1967
and played a key role in the creation of the Forum of Small States at the
UN in 1992 and still leads it today. We have negotiated a host of
treaties in furtherance of Singapore’s interests. For example, free trade
regimes, brought about by the signing of free trade agreements and
investment agreements have allowed Singapore to increase our
economic power beyond the size of our domestic market.
23.
Singapore
has
relied
on
international
dispute
settlement
mechanisms to resolve disputes with Malaysia on the Land Reclamation
Case, the Pedra Branca Case and the Railway Land arbitration and with
Indonesia in the Basel Convention Case. My Chambers was, of course,
involved in all these cases. The cases demonstrate Singapore’s
commitment to the peaceful resolution of international disputes.
14
Legal Profession and community
24.
In 1965, Singapore had 235 practising lawyers. Today, we have
just under 5000 practising lawyers. While the number increased in the
1970s, in a speech to the Law Society in 1977, Mr Lee Kuan Yew
lamented that while there were many lawyers, there were “not enough
good ones”. 12 He observed bluntly that “the dimmest, dullest wit can
make a living at the Bar and did so comfortably”. It took the growth of
financial services in Singapore in the late 1970s to attract talent to the
Bar.13 From 1976 on, the study of law, along with medicine, became one
of the most sought after degrees in the NUS, and has remained so ever
since.
25.
The NUS Law Faculty has played a tremendous role in the
development of our legal system over the generations. Many of its
graduates have risen to excellence and now dominate the Bar, Bench
and legal offices of the State. In the next fifty years, the SMU Law
Faculty will surely make its mark in Singapore’s legal history. Hopefully,
our third law school will provide another quality avenue for those who
aspire to obtain a law degree. While on this note, I wish to add a
personal observation. Those with the best examination grades do not
12
Address by the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, at the Annual Dinner on the Law Society of
Singapore on 26 March 1977
13
Ibid.
15
invariably have the best lawyering attributes. We need to find better
ways to recognise those who evolve differently or later. Practice is a
marathon and those who sprint too early may not last the race. The third
law school can play a meaningful role in this context.
26.
The quality of our lawyers is well-recognised and our lawyers and
law firms are no strangers to regional and international accolades. Our
legal services sector was strengthened by the introduction of the
Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (“QFLP”) scheme in 2008 through which
licences are granted to global firms to practise in Singapore. This
scheme was introduced in order that local firms and lawyers may benefit
from the increased foreign presence and competition over time.
27.
To ensure that our lawyers keep up with the latest legal
developments, we introduced mandatory continuing legal education and
continuing professional development.
The legal community has
accepted that these measures are essential to maintain our professional
standards, which are already among the highest in Asia.
28.
As professionals, we must also recognise that we have a duty to
be ethical. While our lawyers are ethical on the whole, there is a small
number who take advantage of less literate clients, such as the poor and
16
foreign workers. Let it be said that there is no room in the profession for
lawyers who blithely breach standards of ethical conduct. Our lawyers
should help those without a voice, and meet the needs of the vulnerable,
instead of exploiting their need.
29.
As our society advances, we must be mindful of those whose
fortunes have not risen equally with the tide, and focus more on meeting
the needs of our community. This year marks the first year in which
reporting of pro bono hours is mandatory for lawyers renewing their
practising certificates. It is hoped that this will encourage more members
of the profession to contribute to society through pro bono services. The
best laws will not count for much if people are unable to access them
because they cannot afford to do so — this is where pro bono bridges
the gap.14
Conclusion
30.
Singapore has come a long way, and is almost unrecognisable
from when we first started in 1965. In the first part of our journey, we
looked to England. We have now embarked on a different journey.
Today, we have an autochthonous system and look globally to the best
policies the world has to offer, always adapting them to our local context.
14
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/pro-bono-work-and-legal/1393826.html
17
We recognise that the quest for fairness and excellence is ongoing and
must never end.
31.
The Bench, Bar and the Legal Service are committed to building a
system that is just and fair, for an even better Singapore, although we
must acknowledge that individual interpretations of “justice” and
“fairness” may sometimes differ. However, in our quest for fairness and
excellence we must bear in mind that liberal Western conceptions of the
rule of law do not always suit Singapore’s social and cultural values.
32.
I believe that a good pulse to ascertain the health of the legal
system and the rule of law in particular, is the consensus of the legal
profession. If our own lawyers do not believe the system is just and fair,
there is little hope that the general public would think otherwise. Joseph
Grimberg SC, who is one of the most respected lawyers from the
pioneer generation, said in a speech in 2007 (and I quote):
“In all the 50 years that I have been a lawyer, the administration of
justice has never been in more intellectually competent, more
efficient, more fair-minded and safer hands, than it is now.”
18
The administration of justice today shares these qualities, and I am
confident that they will continue to abide under your leadership, Chief
Justice. We have much to look forward to in the next fifty years as our
nation continues to chart its future. But legal professionals should never
lose sight of the fact that the law exists to serve the community, and we
are all servants of the law.
33.
I close my address with the customary greetings. First, I welcome
Justice Steven Chong’s return to the Bench. AGC is indebted to Justice
Chong for his contributions as A-G. Second, I take this opportunity to
congratulate the five Judicial Commissioners who were appointed in
2014, JC See Kee Oon, JC Valerie Thean, JC Hoo Sheau Peng, JC
Debbie Ong and JC Aedit Abdullah. Third, I extend my best wishes to
Justice Andrew Ang on his retirement after a decade on the Bench and I
am sure we will see him continuing to contribute in other ways. Finally, I
would like to extend my congratulations to Mr Thio Shen Yi SC on his
election as the President of the Law Society. On behalf of my colleagues
in AGC and the Legal Service, I take this opportunity to pledge our full
support to your endeavours to uphold the fair and efficient administration
of justice in Singapore. I also extend our good wishes to your Honour the
Chief Justice, Judges and members of the legal community, for good
health and happiness in the year ahead.
19
20
Opening of the Legal Year 2015
Speech of the President of the Law Society
INTRODUCTION
1. May it please your Honours, Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judges and Judicial
Commissioners of the Supreme Court.
2. It seems a lifetime ago when both Your Honour Chief Justice, and Mr Attorney,
recruited me to work for you at Rajah & Tann. My stay there was brief, but I still
remember the lessons beyond the domain knowledge acquired: First, that the law is
a noble profession. And second, that legal practice conducted with integrity and
purpose, is a career worth having, whose reward is a life well led. You both played a
part in getting me involved in Law Society work, calling the then President Mr
George Lim, SC, to find me a committee that I could safely muddle in. And after 17
years of muddling, I stand before you today.
WELCOME
3. I begin by extending a warm welcome to our overseas guests:
Mr Mark Livesey, QC – President. Australian Bar Association
Ms Fiona McLeod, SC – ExCo member of Law Council Australia
Mr Stephen Hung – President, Law Society of Hong Kong
Mr Isomi Suzuki – President, LAWASIA
Mr Christopher Leong – President, Malaysian Bar Council
1
OVERVIEW OF CHANGES
4. The legal landscape saw many changes in the past 12 months, starting with changes
to the Bench, the Attorney General's Chambers, and the Ministry of Law. Allow me
to chronicle them:
5. Mr Lionel Yee, SC, stepped down as Judicial Commissioner in February, returning
to the AGC as the Solicitor General.
6. In April, Chief District Judge See Kee Oon was appointed Judicial Commissioner
and Presiding Judge of the State Courts.
7. Judge of Appeal VK Rajah, left the bench after more than a decade of service in June
to become the Attorney General. His innings on the Bench saw him blaze a bright
trail in shaping case law, which will inform and guide lawyers for many years to
come.
8. Justice Steven Chong, returned to the Bench after a productive 2 years as Attorney
General. In his time as AG, Justice Chong deepened and strengthened a spirit of
collaboration between his Chambers and the practising bar, for which we are deeply
grateful.
9. In July, Justice Tan Siong Thye was elevated to Judge of the Supreme Court.
10. In the last quarter of the year, the Bench also welcomed new, but familiar, faces:
Judicial Commissioners Valerie Thean and Hoo Sheau Peng in September, the
former also became the Presiding Judge of the Family Courts on 1 November. Later
in November, Judicial Commissioners Aedit Abdullah and Debbie Ong added to the
strength of the Bench.
2
11. At the Ministry of Law, we saw a change of Permanent Secretaries. Dr Beh Swan
Gin, after a too-short stint of 2 years, returned to the EDB on 1st December,
entrusting his post to Mr Ng How Yue.
12. Last, but certainly not least, we saw two retirements from the bench: First, Justice
Andrew Ang, after serving as a Judge for almost 10 years, returned to practice at
Lee & Lee. Those of us fortunate enough to have appeared before him will
remember his strong sense of right and wrong, and his tremendous work ethic.
Second, Judicial Commissioner Lee Kim Shin has also returned to practice at Allen
& Gledhill after serving a year with distinction. We welcome them both back to the
Bar.
13. I take this opportunity to congratulate them and wish them all the best in their new
appointments.
CHANGES TO THE LEGAL SECTOR
14. These appointments are but the tip of a large iceberg of change in the legal sector. I
briefly mention some to illustrate the tectonic shifts that our legal eco-system will
experience in preparation for tomorrow’s challenges.
 2015 will see the regulation of domestic and foreign legal entities under the new
Legal Services Regulatory Authority. Also, for the first time, under the
Professional Conduct Council chaired by the Chief Justice, foreign and Singapore
lawyers will follow a common set of ethical rules, and the Law Society will play a
part in regulating the conduct of foreign lawyers in the same way it regulates
domestic lawyers.
 Last year saw the formation of the Singapore International Mediation Centre.
The Singapore International Commercial Court will be launched today. This
3
potential game changer has caused excitement, amid some concern, in
international legal circles. That a judicial development in our small nation state
can create this level of international buzz, signals how far Singapore has come as
a legal centre.
15. Inevitably, foreign firms who are already here will continue to grow in both
numbers and capability. For some, Singapore has already become their most
important overseas office. New foreign firms will also enter the market. That is the
reality, as Singapore aspires to be a global legal hub.
16. Practising in Singapore is a privilege, and comes with the responsibility to be good
corporate citizens. Our challenge is to engage with, not ignore, the foreign firms.
Their presence is a potential growth story for our legal industry, not a zero sum
game. We can see them as competition or embrace the opportunities for
collaboration, be it commercially, or in the pro bono sphere. The question we must
put to ourselves, is this: Can we be stronger together?
WHAT IS OUR RAISON D'ETRE?
17. Admist this change, and as I contemplate my first year as Law Society President, I
find myself asking: What is the Law Society here for? For surely we take our
mandate from the answer to this existential question.
18. Your Honours, I would hazard to say that it distills to an irreducible truth: Law is
the foundation of any civilised society. Law affects everyone, every day. But law, by
its nature and complexity, is inaccessible to the uninitiated. We lawyers are the
intermediaries between society and the law, and as such are crucial to the effective
functioning of the rule of law. Chief Justice, in your OLY response in 2013, you
called this a ‘sacred trust”. This is our higher calling.
4
19. As this college of lawyers, we must ensure excellence in our standards,
unimpeacheability in our ethics, and a conscience for the community.
20. Ideologically, an independent bar must continuously think about what the law should
be. Do we, as a body, dare speak truth to power, and to exercise thought
leadership in articulating our views? That should be our imperative, exercised
responsibly and in good faith. We remember that our tools are always evidence and
reason, articulated persuasively.
21. So, at its heart, as the world changes, our fundamental purpose remains constant.
22. I want to quickly highlight three areas, that exemplify our core mission; standards,
small firms and service to the community.
STANDARDS
23. Singapore has an exciting journey. From colonial outpost to global city. We were
ranked as the most influential city in Asia by Forbes magazine. We aspire to be a
world class legal center and want to be the dispute resolution center of choice in
the region and beyond.
24. We have a world class judiciary. We need world class Singapore lawyers. From the
biggest law firms to the sole proprietors. The MNC with a cross border deal must
have the confidence that Singapore firms are on par with the international firms,
with world class standards, expertise and service.
25. Similarly, a man who suffers serious injury and loses his job because of an accident
must be able to find a lawyer who will advise him properly, and get the appropriate
compensation so he can continue to support his family. And a wife abused by her
5
husband needs a family lawyer who will guide with wisdom, compassion and a sense
of fairness.
26. The maintenance and the raising of standards is key to our role as a representative
body. We must continue to enhance expertise through our CPD programmes. We
need to prepare our members for the opportunities that the SICC and SIMC will
bring, but at the same time reinforce effective skill sets in lawyers who practice
community law. We will renew our efforts to provide training not only in business
development and practice management, but also critically, in professional courtesy
and ethics, so that lawyers can build and sustain viable and fulfilling practices.
27. This year, CPD is mandatory for all lawyers of 15 years PQE and below. We will
provide value added and value for money programmes, measuring our success by
the number of members we reach. In the first quarter, we will organize two major
conferences, the Administrative and Constitutional Law Conference in February,
and our annual Litigation Conference in March, with the SICC as its theme.
28. The flip side of maintaining standards is the Law Society's disciplinary function.
29. There is a complaints procedure against lawyers. My Council will look into
enhancements to the complaints process to better serve the needs of the lawyer
and the complainant. While recognizing that the disciplinary function is essential if
we wish to remain a self-regulating profession, it is a reality that some clients misuse the process as leverage to bargain down legal fees. If we look at the data, in
recent years, despite the growth in membership, the number of complaints has not
seen a discernible rise. On average, half of the complaints received in the last 3 to 4
years were dismissed by Review Committees as frivolous. Of the rest, typically
more than half are dismissed by the Inquiry Committees. Taking into account
multiple complaints against the same lawyer, only about 10 a year on average (out of
over 4,400 lawyers with practicing certificates) get referred to a Disciplinary
Tribunal.
6
30. There are of course egregious breaches by outliers in any profession which must be
dealt with decisively and robustly in order to uphold public trust and confidence in
us, but these are few and far between. For better or worse, they are widely
publicized, and there is a sense of public Schadenfreude when a lawyer is found to
have transgressed.
31. My point is this - the overwhelming majority of our practitioners are competent,
honourable and ethical. We must find balance - dealing firmly with those that let the
profession, and themselves, down; but ensuring a fair and level playing field for any
lawyer faced with a complaint.
32. This process has already started. Previously, when a complaint went to the Review
Committee, the lawyer would be told, but could not get a copy of the complaint.
That was unfair. We worked with Minlaw to change section 85(5) of the LPA and
from this year, Council must give a copy to the affected lawyer. This may help
lawyers explain themselves before an Inquiry Committee is empaneled, and may
result in fewer IC referrals.
33. We have a continuing conversation with the Attorney General on how to better
structure the process. Gregory Vijayendran, one of our Vice-Presidents, will review
the disciplinary regime to analyze trends and patterns, formulate a wider suite of
more nuanced remedies, and consider how it can be made more effective,
consistent and fair to both the lawyer, as well as the complainant.
SMALL FIRMS
34. Next, I would like talk about small law firms.
7
35. It is true that small firms face pressure. In this increasingly competitive market, their
margins are squeezed. Yet they are indispensable. I believe that the proper function
of the rule of law requires strong and thriving small law firms. Lawyers in these
firms practising community law are legal assets which we must treasure and
support. We may have a world class legal system and judiciary, but if the man in the
street cannot get legal advice, then there is no access to justice, and the rule of law
cannot be said to function.
36. We need to continue to help small firms build sustainable practices in a changing
legal landscape. Council will initiate programmes to help smaller firms identify
market and industry trends that will affect their practices. Which sectors face
margin compression? Where are the growth industries? How can small practices
reduce fee pressure, or develop business efficiencies to improve margins? We are
also working with Minlaw and the IDA to identify how small firms can harness
affordable technology to enhance their productivity.
37. It comes down to training and equipping. We will further utilize our education fund
to subsidise seminars for small firms. Last year, we also worked on an initiative to
implement a Court vacation in the State Courts. That took place for one week in
November. It was very well received and we will continue to work with the State
Courts to extend this. This break will give some smaller firms a much needed and
deserved breather, making practice more sustainable and pleasant!
SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY
38. Turning now to pro bono. I was struck by a point made by the speaker at the 3rd
LASCO awards dinner in October last year. He said:
“It is often said that the practice of law is a calling – an honourable profession
with high standards of ethics and eminent ideals of service. These ideals are
brought to life by lawyers who contribute their time to pro bono services. By
8
doing so, lawyers connect with the disadvantaged in our society who seek
justice but have no means to pay for the legal services needed to access it,
save with their sincere gratitude.”
Chief Justice, we are indebted to you for that observation. It reminds us why our
pro bono efforts must remain core to the Law Society’s mandate.
39. We have seen a huge expansion of programmes and services offered, and our
members, individually and collectively, have stepped up. The last few years were
spent meeting the pent-up need for legal services by people who could never afford
a lawyer.
40. To illustrate, our latest initiatives have been to help those most marginalized migrant workers. In November last year, we launched our first legal clinic for
foreign domestic workers.
41. To their great credit, in addition to financial support, many foreign firms have
expressed a desire to contribute in a hands-on way to Singapore's pro bono scene.
We welcome this. We should consider greater collaboration, and in so doing, tap
their reservoirs of expertise, experience, and manpower.
42. This year, we see the expansion of our Criminal Legal Aid Scheme. The support of
the large firms for the new CLAS Fellowships will allow us to scale up our delivery
of criminal legal aid. We also continue to enjoy the generous support of Minlaw.
However, we must structure and means test CLAS so that it doesn't cannibalise feepaying work from criminal lawyers. Our target end users are people that but for
our help, will face the criminal justice system, unrepresented, unadvised and alone.
43. Our pro bono schemes have succeeded beyond our expectations. But, for the pro
bono programme to be sustainable, we need 2 things – one, a more structured
framework to administer these schemes; and two, a broader base of supporters,
including financial contributors, who understand that pro bono legal services are
9
essential for the functioning of a compassionate and civilized society. This is our
critical path for the next two years.
44. Permit me a segue to our imminent Just Walk event, to be held on 10 January.
Including the government’s dollar for dollar contribution, we have thanks to the
legal community’s generosity, exceeded our target of $2 million. But Just Walk is
not only to raise funds for pro bono, it aims to raise awareness and engagement. It
is a walk around our civic district, highly symbolic in its own right. There is still time
to sign up.
45. The Law Society also serves by speaking up where we believe the law can, and
ought, to be changed. There is visionary leadership at the helm of the Courts, the
AGC and Minlaw. We, the profession, have to pull our weight in thought leadership.
Some of our more immediate initiatives concern criminal practice. These directly
impact the man on the street. For example, we look to launch the pamphlet of
rights - the idea is to make this available in police stations and the Courts to inform
laypersons of their basic legal rights. We continue to have a dialogue on quicker
access to counsel for accused persons, as well as video-taping of police interviews.
The latter initiative, if accepted, has the potential to deliver a win-win result protection for an accused, but also, protection for the investigating officers, and
ultimately, protecting the integrity of the evidence. In this case, both efficiency and
justice are the winners.
CONCLUSION
46. Before I conclude, I record my gratitude to our past President, Mr Lok Vi Ming, SC,
as well as his predecessor Mr Wong Meng Meng, SC. I served in both your
Councils, and thank you for your guidance, patience and friendship. I also thank the
outgoing Council members and the Law Society's Secretariat for their contributions.
10
47. May I record my appreciation to the Judges, Judicial officers, and members of the
AGC, for your efforts in building a spirit of mutual trust and respect between
yourselves and the bar. This has allowed frank, constructive and respectful
discussions amongst us. It is something to treasure and build on.
48. As I strove to capture the mission of the Law Society, I was helped by these
thoughts from Robert F. Kennedy:
“Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work
to change the small portion of events… It is from numberless diverse acts of
courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands for
an ideal, or acts to improve the life of others or strikes out against injustice,
he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope… Those ripples build a current that can
sweep down the mightiest of walls of oppression and resistance. “
49. I assure Your Honour of the Bar’s full support for the Judiciary in all Courts. I
reaffirm our commitment to co-operate with the Attorney-General's Chambers in
the administration of justice and to seek to do justly and act efficiently in all cases
before the Courts.
50. I also extend to Your Honour, the Chief Justice, all your colleagues on the Bench, as
well as the Minister for Law and the Attorney-General, the Bar's best wishes for
your good health, fulfilment in all that you purpose and every other success, as we
enter Singapore's jubilee year.
Thio Shen Yi, SC
President
The Law Society of Singapore
11
RESPONSE BY CHIEF JUSTICE SUNDARESH MENON
OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2015
Monday, 5 January 2015
Mr Attorney,
Mr Thio Shen Yi SC,
Members of the Bar,
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I.
Introduction
1.
It gives me great pleasure to welcome all of you to this morning’s proceedings. I
am especially grateful to the Right Honourable Tun Arifin bin Zakaria, Chief
Justice of Malaysia, and the Honourable Truong Hoa Binh, Chief Justice of the
Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam, and our many guests from abroad who
have travelled to be with us this morning.
2.
Mr Attorney and Mr Thio, you have both alluded to the particular importance of
this, the 50th year of our nationhood. What a distance we have travelled as a
people in that time! Accompanying our progression as a nation has been the
development of our legal system, which, as I observed in my Response at my
Welcome Reference, is foundational to liberty and to order in our society. We
have very much to be grateful for as we look back and very much to anticipate
as we look ahead.
1
A.
Farewells
3.
Let me begin with a brief retrospective of the year just past, which saw a
significant number of changes to the Bench with four departures and six arrivals.
Foremost among these was your appointment, Mr Attorney, following a decade
of great distinction on the Bench. I congratulate you on your appointment and
look forward to your continuing service to our community. I am certain that both
the Attorney-General’s Chambers, and more generally, the Singapore public,
will benefit from your leadership.
4.
I would also like to acknowledge Justice Andrew Ang, who retired after nearly a
decade on the Bench. Justice Ang brought to the Bench the benefits of his
experience accumulated over three decades of practice.
5.
Finally, Judicial Commissioners Lionel Yee and Lee Kim Shin left us after
completing their one-year terms on the Bench. Mr Yee is now the SolicitorGeneral, while Mr Lee has returned to practice.
6.
I thank each of them and wish them well in their future endeavours.
B.
Welcomes and Re-appointments
7.
At the same time, we are pleased to welcome Justice Steven Chong on his
return to the Supreme Court. Justice Chong completed a busy and eventful
stint as the Attorney-General, and this, coupled with his illustrious career as a
commercial lawyer and his successful earlier stint on the Bench, means that we
have regained an experienced Judge with a powerful mix of wide-ranging
experience as a public and as a private lawyer.
2
8.
I also welcome five new Judicial Commissioners to the Bench. Judicial
Commissioner See Kee Oon is concurrently the Presiding Judge of the State
Courts, and comes with more than 20 years of judicial experience. He, together
with Judicial Commissioners Hoo Sheau Peng, Valerie Thean and Aedit
Abdullah joined us following long and successful careers in the Legal Service. I
pause to note that with these appointments, we have a total of nine Judges who
were appointed directly from the Legal Service - a striking indication of the
quality of the Service. Finally, Judicial Commissioner Debbie Ong joined the
Bench following a distinguished career as a highly respected academic with a
particular focus in family law.
9.
With these appointments, we enter the new legal year with 14 Judges and
seven Judicial Commissioners. But as significant as the changes have been in
the composition of the Bench over the past year, we stand at the threshold of
more change. Earlier this morning, the Prime Minister’s Office announced the
appointment of two new Judicial Commissioners. They are Mr Chua Lee Ming
who will join the Bench following a remarkable career spanning various
branches of the Legal Service including the judiciary, private practice as a
litigation lawyer as well as a long stint as General Counsel of one of our largest
companies; and Mr Foo Chee Hock who has served in the judiciary for more
than two decades including the last seven years in the role of the Registrar.
They will each add diversity to the Bench.
10. The Bench will be strengthened further following recent amendments to the
Constitution and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act providing for the creation
of two new judicial appointments, namely Senior Judges and International
Judges.
3
11. Our first batch of Senior Judges comprises retired Chief Justice Chan Sek
Keong, as well as retired Justices Kan Ting Chiu, Lai Siu Chiu, Tan Lee Meng
and Andrew Ang. Justice Chan will sit as an occasional member of the Court of
Appeal on appeals from the High Court as well as from the Singapore
International Commercial Court; while the other Senior Judges will work on a
part-time basis and will hear most urgent matters as well as shorter nondocketed matters. They will also help with the training and mentoring of new
Judges and the Judges of the State Courts. As for our first batch of
International Judges, we have eleven truly eminent international jurists, and I
will speak about their appointments shortly.
12. We will also have a new Registrar of the Supreme Court. I am delighted to
welcome back to the Registry, Mr Vincent Hoong, who has had a distinguished
career in the Legal Service accumulating a wealth of legal, judicial and
managerial experience. He will soon step down from his current position as
Chief Executive of the Singapore Land Authority.
13. Finally, let me take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Lok Vi Ming SC on
completing his term as President of the Society and to extend my best wishes
to you, Mr Thio, as you step forward to serve the profession in this capacity.
II.
The next chapter in the Singapore legal sector
14. We stand at the cusp of Singapore’s jubilee and it is an opportune moment for
us to look back on the development of our legal sector over fifty years and also
to look ahead to the next chapter. The story thus far has mirrored the personal
journeys of so many of us who have come a long way from humble beginnings.
From an initial preoccupation with meeting the basic needs of a small, fledgling
4
nation, our legal system today provides a stable basis for justice to be done,
and to be seen to be done not only in Singapore but also in the wider region.
Indeed, we have become a leading centre for dispute resolution in Asia, and
can lay claim to having generated a critical mass of our own jurisprudence.
15. But we cannot rest on our laurels. To paraphrase from the great American legal
scholar, Roscoe Pound, though the law must be stable, it cannot stand still. We
must forge ahead and as we do so, there are two important principles that
should guide the evolution of this narrative.
16. The first and paramount guiding principle is that our core mission is to serve our
people. For most Singaporeans, legal issues concern intensely important and
personal matters regardless of whether they also concern large amounts of
money. Liberty, family distress and trauma and the accessibility of our justice
system are what viscerally concern our citizens. We must therefore continue to
design our legal frameworks and our processes with these imperatives in mind.
17. At the same time, we must keep in mind a second important guiding principle: if
we are to build a world-class legal infrastructure, we must remain open to the
region and the global community. Singapore’s progress as a nation has always
been yoked to an outward looking philosophy, and our legal system is no
exception. With the constraints of our natural geography there has perhaps
been little choice. But the challenge of our constraints also has the potential to
become an opportunity not only for Singapore and Singaporeans but also for
the immensely exciting region of which we are part.
5
III.
Singapore’s legal sector: The International Front
18. Let me first set the context. Trade flows into and out of Asia are surging in what
some have suggested will be the “Asian Century”. By 2050, according to some
estimates, Asia could account for half of the global GDP, trade and investment.
19. Singapore, as a key legal and business hub in Asia, is well-placed to support
this with some of the required legal infrastructure.
A.
The Singapore International Commercial Court
20. This is the context against which I herald the official opening of the Singapore
International Commercial Court immediately after this morning’s proceedings. It
will be useful to recount briefly the genesis of the idea to establish a dedicated
international commercial court. It was driven primarily by two pressing ideas:
(a)
The first was the recognition that the explosive growth in commercial
activity in Asia will inevitably be accompanied by an increase in
commercial disputes, and hence give rise to a corresponding need for
institutions able to resolve those disputes swiftly, efficiently and
predictably, while laying the groundwork for a freestanding body of
supporting commercial law. This reflects an earnest desire to contribute to
the promotion and development of the rule of law in this critical region.
(b)
The second was the desire to enhance our contribution as a centre for the
resolution of commercial disputes by developing an entire suite of options.
The remarkable success of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre
in recent years can be seen as a harbinger of what could be possible if we
established similar world-class facilities for the resolution of such disputes
6
through mediation as well as by litigation, letting users choose which
among these options best suited them.
21. The establishment of an international commercial court will therefore build upon
and complement the success of our vibrant arbitration sector and make our
judicial institutions and legal profession available to serve the regional and the
global community. At the same time, it will grow our legal services sector and
might even expand the scope for internationalising Singapore law.
22. To realise these aims, we must have a world-class Bench with impressive
expertise in commercial law. I am delighted that His Excellency the President
has appointed a group of eminent jurists of the highest calibre as the first
International Judges of our Court to complement and work alongside our own
Judges. I am confident that together, we are well-equipped to handle the work
of the SICC. The International Judges hail from diverse geographical
backgrounds and both the civil and common law traditions. Some of them
remain serving judges in their own jurisdictions. In alphabetical order of their
home jurisdictions, they are:
(a)
From Australia:
(i)
The Honourable Mr Dyson Heydon AC QC, former Judge of the High
Court of Australia
(ii)
The Honourable Justice Patricia Bergin, Chief Judge in Equity of the
Supreme Court of New South Wales
7
(iii)
The Honourable Mr Roger Giles, former Judge of the Court of
Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and currently
Judge of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts
(b)
From Austria, The Honourable Dr Irmgard Griss, former President of the
Austrian Supreme Court
(c)
From France, The Honourable Justice Dominique Hascher, Judge of the
Supreme Judicial Court of France
(d)
From Hong Kong, Mr Anselmo Reyes, former Judge of the Court of First
Instance in Hong Kong, and Judge in charge of the Construction and
Arbitration List as well as the Commercial and Admiralty List
(e)
From Japan, Professor Yasuhei Taniguchi, Professor Emeritus at Kyoto
University and formerly Chairman and Member of the Appellate Body of
the World Trade Organisation
(f)
From the United Kingdom:
(i)
The Right Honourable Sir Bernard Rix, former Judge in charge of the
Commercial Court and subsequently Lord Justice of Appeal in the
Court of Appeal of England and Wales until his retirement in 2013
(ii)
The Honourable Sir Vivian Ramsey, former Judge of the High Court
of England and Wales and Judge in charge of the Technology and
Construction Court
8
(iii)
Mr Simon Thorley QC, a specialist in Intellectual Property law and
former Deputy High Court Judge of England and Wales and Deputy
Chairman of the Copyright Tribunal of the UK,
and,
(g)
From the United States, The Honourable Ms Carolyn Berger, former
Justice of the Supreme Court of Delaware and formerly the ViceChancellor of the Court of Chancery of that jurisdiction.
23. I am deeply grateful to each of them for having agreed to support this exciting
project. The superb qualities of these jurists and their considerable expertise in
commercial matters will be evident in the materials that are being separately
made available to the media.
24. I also wish to thank the team that worked tirelessly to establish the court, which
has become a reality within two short years. This has only been possible due to
the collaborative efforts of the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Law, the
Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Bar.
B.
The Transnational Convergence of Commercial Laws
25. Another significant development picks up from a subject I have spoken on
previously, namely the realisation that diversity between legal systems,
especially in Asia, can inhibit transnational commerce at a time when the
boundaries continue to become increasingly porous in matters of trade and
commerce. The legal fraternity must respond to this reality by proffering
solutions that reduce avoidable legal diversity.
9
26. To this end, I have established a committee under the auspices of the
Singapore Academy of Law (“the Academy”) to look into promoting the
transnational convergence of commercial laws in Asia. The Committee, led by
Mrs Lee Suet-Fern, will examine concrete ways in which this may be done.
Professor S Jayakumar and I will work with the committee in an advisory
capacity, and we anticipate that this will develop into a conversation that will
gain increasing regional and international attention. To bring this forward, the
Academy intends to host an international conference for regional and
international stakeholders within the next 12 to 16 months on the convergence
of Asian business laws.
27. We are also looking into establishing a permanent institute that will fortify these
efforts through the development of research capabilities. Such an institute will
bring together Judges, academics, legal practitioners, in-house lawyers and
legal think-tanks from the region and beyond to collaborate on the incubation of
Asian business law. This promises to be a boon to businesses and I expect
they will welcome the opportunity to participate in this substantial long-term
endeavour. We are also reaching out to other major like-minded jurisdictions.
IV.
Singapore’s legal sector: The Domestic Front
28. Let me turn to the domestic front and examine some of the key initiatives we
have been working on to enhance the delivery of justice to every member of our
society. Some of these measures are incremental, while others are
fundamental. They are unified by a common thread which I will come to when I
speak about how we will strengthen the fibre at the core of our legal system.
10
A.
Family Justice
29. Let me begin with one of the most significant changes which took place last
year – the creation of the Family Justice Courts on 1 October 2014 when the
Family Justice Act came into effect. This too commenced with an
announcement at the Opening of the Legal Year two years ago and the
introduction of this critically important legislation again resulted from the
collaborative efforts of the Judiciary, the Ministry of Law, the Ministry of Social
and Family Development, the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Bar. I am
deeply grateful to all those who made this possible.
30. The Family Justice Courts consist of the new Family Division of the High Court,
the Family Courts, and the Youth Courts and this month it will also take over
the probate jurisdiction. This structural transformation has resulted in an
integrated family justice system which seeks to develop a better way to resolve
family disputes; while placing at the forefront, the interests of children, who are
often the victims of collateral damage in marital breakdowns. Children will be
given the means to voice their needs so that they can receive the support they
deserve. The Court must become a safe space where children are assured of
being heard and shielded from becoming the pawns of feuding parents.
31. To succeed in our quest to improve the administration of family justice, we must
shift our focus towards the relationships which will continue long after the
lawsuit has been concluded. The processes of the Family Justice Courts will
thus be designed with continuity in mind. Mediators, counsellors and mental
health practitioners are now integral parts of the family court process, so that
sustained support can be rendered to families in need. This must be balanced
11
against the importance of avoiding protracted court proceedings that prolong
the trauma. The ability to strike that balance amidst many dynamic
considerations is not something that can be systemically programmed. It must
come down, instead, to the judicious treatment of each case and each
distressed family and I have every confidence in the ability of the Judges of the
Family Justice Courts to meet their task with distinction.
B.
Criminal Justice
32. I turn to criminal justice. This year, we will see many of the State Court’s
existing efforts come to fruition even as we seed new initiatives. The Progress
Accountability Court has been an ongoing project being developed in
collaboration with the Singapore Prison Service, and this has culminated in a
two-year pilot which will commence this quarter. The final phase of the
Integrated Criminal Case Management System, which was rolled out in July
2013, will also be launched this month.
33. In the second quarter of 2015 we expect to see the completion of the
Sentencing Information and Research Repository, which will be an invaluable
tool for Judges, Prosecutors and members of the Defence Bar. With a common
database, sentencing should be more transparent and consistent.
34. We have also commenced convening special 3-Judge panels in the Supreme
Court to hear selected Magistrates’ Appeals and provide guidance on issues of
sentencing. Three such appeals were heard last year to resolve some difficult
questions, and a framework has been developed by the Sentencing Council
and the State Courts to refer appropriate appeals for hearing by such panels.
12
As the framework becomes more entrenched, we can expect that these
decisions will help promote coherence and consistency.
35. I wish also to touch on the vital issue of access to criminal justice. This year the
State Courts will explore two further avenues to complement the existing
measures. The first centres on enhancing case management and minimising
pre-trial delays. To this end, the State Courts will study the possibility of
introducing a docket system for complex criminal matters, especially where
multiple charges are involved.
36. The second is the provision of legal assistance for accused litigants-in-person
even before the matter reaches the court. The State Courts will study the
possibility of expanding the Guidance for Plea Scheme to cover cases at the
mentions stage, and extending the Primary Justice Project to criminal cases so
that legal assistance can be rendered to deserving accused litigants-in-person
at an earlier stage.
37. Efforts to improve access to criminal justice will also be strongly augmented this
year by the launch of the enhanced Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, which has
been made possible by the Ministry of Law’s agreement to provide funding for
criminal legal aid and by the generosity of the Bar. It is envisaged that up to
6000 accused persons may benefit annually from the enhanced Criminal Legal
Aid Scheme. I am very grateful to all those who have already pledged
contributions to the scheme and commend the Steering Committee that was led
by Justice Tan Siong Thye for galvanising such a groundswell of support.
13
C.
Civil Justice
38. It should be evident that the State Courts play a critical role in our legal system.
I am grateful to the Presiding Judge, Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon, for
his able stewardship of the many changes effected last year to raise the
standing of the State Courts. The team has gotten off to a flying start with
several initiatives, of which I mention just two that impact upon civil justice.
39. The first is the Primary Justice Project, which I referred to just moments earlier.
This was launched in May 2014 in collaboration with the Law Society and the
Community Justice Centre to make basic legal advice available at a fixed low
cost with a view to encouraging early settlement. A substantial number of
practitioners have volunteered their services for this project, a further testimony
to the fact that a more comprehensive approach to pro bono legal assistance is
gaining traction in our community.
40. The second is the enactment last December of the new O 108 of the Rules of
Court, which simplifies the civil process for small value claims with a robust
procedure that is characterised by upfront discovery, active case management
including court-directed ADR, and the option of a simplified trial. We expect this
too will significantly boost access to justice.
41. Let me turn to the Supreme Court’s work in the context of civil justice.
42. Having successfully implemented our docket system for the High Court, our
attention turned to enhancing the processes in the Court of Appeal. A number
of new measures have been implemented. Highlights include the constitution of
5-Judge panels to hear selected cases of jurisprudential significance and
14
inviting submissions from selected non-parties, generally the relevant public
authority to address germane issues of public policy. The Rules of Court have
also been amended to streamline the hearing of applications for leave to appeal
and the filing of documents in the case of consolidated appeals.
43. I am also happy to report that we have once again achieved our key
performance indicator of concluding 85% of writ actions within 18 months of
their filing. But we must continue in our quest to improve. A major concern in
the next phase is the management of litigation costs.
44. Let me mention three steps that have been taken or are being developed with
this in mind:
(a)
Costs scheduling, where parties are required to furnish their costs
estimates before the outcome in a case is known, has been formally
introduced in the Supreme Court Practice Directions. This is a useful tool
to enable the court to obtain a reasonable picture of the level of costs
claimed, and it also discourages satellite litigation over the issue of costs.
(b)
Second, we have sought to lay the groundwork for implementing costs
budgeting in order to ensure proportionality. Because this is not yet a
familiar concept in our jurisdiction, a pilot project involving eight cases has
been launched. With the docket system, the assigned judge should be
well-placed to help ensure that cases are being managed within a
sensible budget. Our Judges have been trained and briefings have been
conducted for members of the Bar. I look forward to its full integration
within our civil practice in due course.
15
(c)
Third, these measures will be enhanced by the imminent publication of
costs guidelines in the Supreme Court Practice Directions and on the
Supreme Court website. Although the issue of costs remains fully at the
discretion of the court, these guidelines will serve as a signpost to the
parties of the level of costs that they can expect at various stages of
litigation.
45. Beyond this, we can and will do more. Our civil procedure, which was originally
largely received from England, has undergone significant, but ultimately
evolutionary and often piecemeal development over the years. I believe that
there is much to be gained from studying the possibility of a revolutionary
change to our civil procedure. To this end, I have constituted a Civil Justice
Commission chaired by Justice Tay Yong Kwang. The Commission’s terms of
reference will not be confined to reform but will extend to considering
transformational changes to the litigation process aimed at reducing the costs
of litigation, enhancing efficiency and effecting modernisation. It is envisaged
that the Commission will undertake a two to three year study which will
undoubtedly be a significant and substantial undertaking; and it must also be a
collective one. The Commission will include members drawn from the Judiciary,
the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Bar and academia. Without pre-empting
the extensive scope of the Commission’s work, I envisage it will examine such
issues as:
(a)
The simplification of the Rules of Court;
(b)
The elimination of time-consuming and costs-wasting procedural steps;
16
(c)
The avoidance of outdated language while preserving established legal
concepts;
(d)
Leveraging on advancements in information technology; and
(e)
Allowing greater judicial control of the litigation process to ensure the
proportionate conduct of litigation.
46. I am confident that the Commission’s recommendations will be both bold and
innovative.
V.
The integral role of the judiciary
47. In the course of my Response this morning I have touched upon many areas
where we are pushing the boundaries of our work within the justice system.
These efforts would not be possible without a strong judiciary. Our judges have
been at the core of our legal development and they must continue to lead this
effort in changing times. It is therefore imperative not only that the right people
are appointed, but also that they are provided with ample opportunities for
continuing education and development.
48. With a relatively small pool of judges, judicial training has hitherto been largely
decentralised, with each court taking the responsibility for organising
programmes suited to its own needs. When I took office a little over two years
ago, one of my early aspirations was to institutionalise and pull together the
various judicial education programmes that had been discretely developed. I
considered that the time for this had come, not least because judges today are
faced with a vastly different operating climate.
17
49. I am delighted to announce that after a period of study and reflection, I have
taken the decision to establish the Singapore Judicial College which will
manage and develop these efforts. It gives me great pleasure to officially
launch the College today. Mr Foo Chee Hock will be its first Dean and will
undertake this responsibility alongside his judicial duties.
50. District Judge Mr Tan Boon Heng will run the day-to-day operations of the
College as its Executive Director. The assignment of two senior judicial
colleagues to drive the initiative to upgrade our training efforts marks a historic
step for us.
51. The immediate objective is to bring all our judicial training under the auspices of
the College and to develop and strengthen the curricula so as to enhance our
ability to discharge our judicial functions. This will cover induction as well as
continuing training and development of our Judges and judicial officers; but it
will also extend to technical assistance and educational programmes that we
may offer to colleagues from other jurisdictions to share experiences including
the experience we have built up over the years in such areas as organisational
excellence, the use of technology, active case management and other judiciaryled reforms.
52. In addition to this, a very special and unique dimension that the College will
develop is an empirical judicial research laboratory with the aim of serving as a
test bed for innovation in judicial studies, practices and policies. The empirical
research will allow new or existing practices in the courts to be tested and to
have the premises or assumptions that underlie them validated (or not as the
case may be). We can experiment with new ideas and study the findings to
18
identify areas for improvement. To move this forward, the College has invited
the Faculty of our two law schools to submit research proposals for
consideration and I am given to understand that these are in the works.
53. The Judicial College will be guided in the development of policies by a Board of
Governors that consists of Judges and academics, chaired by Justice Andrew
Phang with Justice Quentin Loh as the Deputy Chairman. I wish to express my
heartfelt appreciation to each of them. I also wish to thank Justice Heydon and
Professor Joseph Weiler for readily accepting my invitation to serve on the
Board. I know that all of you will join me in wishing the College every success.
VI.
Appointment of Senior Counsel
54. I turn to the appointment of Senior Counsel. The Selection Committee this year
was satisfied that four candidates have demonstrated their suitability for
appointment as Senior Counsel. They join the highest ranks of the profession
and I have no doubt they will be mindful of the heavy responsibility that comes
with this. They are:
(a)
Mr Lee Kim Shin, following the completion of his term as a Judicial
Commissioner;
(b)
Mr Tan Chuan Thye;
(c)
Ms Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi; and
(d)
Mr Edwin Charles Tong Chun Fai.
I congratulate each of them and look forward to their continuing contribution to
the profession.
19
VII. Conclusion
55. By every measure, this jubilee year promises to be a very special one for
Singapore as a whole and we in the legal profession must do our part to build
on the superb foundations laid by the pioneers of this country. If not for them,
we would not have the opportunities that lie before us.
56. We must not forget our past, even as we look to our future, which promises to
be bright. And we must approach the future with a deft balance, aspiring
towards playing a responsible regional or international role, while continuing our
quest for excellence in our domestic legal framework. Pursuing both ends
simultaneously will be challenging. If we are to advance, we will have to break
new ground, or, in the best Singapore tradition, reclaim solid earth from the
legal sea. But if we put our hearts and minds to it, I am confident that we will
successfully write a new chapter in the development of Singapore’s legal sector
and bequeath to our successors a legacy that is enhanced from the one that we
inherited.
57. Thank you all very much for your presence this morning and I wish everyone a
happy, healthy and satisfying year ahead.
20