Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

3.35 pm

The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a second time”.

Sir, this Bill is related to the next Bill on the Order Paper, the Judicial Service (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, which will make consequential changes to various Acts arising from the amendments to the Constitution.

Sir, may I have your permission for the debate on both Bills to take place now. There is substantial overlap to both. Members can raise questions or express their views on both Bills during this debate. We would still have the formal Second Reading of the Judicial Service (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, to ensure that the necessary procedural requirements are dealt with.

Mr Speaker: Please do.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Sir. Sir, this Bill makes several amendments to the Constitution to restructure the Singapore Legal Service. In essence, the Bill will: (a) establish a separate Judicial Service, overseen by a new Judicial Service Commission (JSC); and (b) make consequential changes to the Legal Service, which will be overseen by a reconstituted Legal Service Commission (LSC).

We have consulted the President on the amendments, some of which affect her discretionary powers. The President supports these amendments.

I will begin by briefly touching on the history of the Legal Service. It will give Members some context for the changes being proposed today.

The framework for the Legal Service was established via the 1959 Constitution, which marked Singapore’s transition to internal self-government. Over the years, adjustments were made to the way the Legal Service was run. But the fundamental structure remained unchanged for many decades, until two rounds of major changes.

In 2007, a comprehensive review was done. Major changes were made to create a more systematic talent management system. There were two key changes to the Constitutional structure.

First, the composition of the LSC was expanded. Since independence, Members will note that the LSC had comprised the Chief Justice (CJ), the Attorney-General (AG), the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (Chairman/PSC), a Supreme Court Judge and two members of the PSC, as nominated by the Chairman/PSC. Unlike today, all of the members of the LSC were members by virtue of some other office that they held separately.

The 2007 changes widened the LSC’s membership. The CJ, AG and Chairman/PSC would continue to be on the LSC. But in addition, up to six additional members, who need not be Supreme Court Judges or PSC members, could be nominated by the Prime Minister, the CJ and the Chairman/PSC.

The rationale was to bring in members, including those from the private sector, with a wider range of experience, for example, in personnel management, or who have knowledge of the legal service or the legal profession.

A second key change that was made then was to put in place a system of autonomous personnel boards (PBs), which would have charge over different classes of Legal Service Officers (LSOs). I will cover this in more detail later on in my speech.

The second major change happened in 2014. There was a significant shift in favour of specialisation, in response to the increasing scope and complexity of legal work. Two separate career tracks were introduced for the LSOs in the middle ranks: the judicial and legal tracks.

LSOs in the middle-ranks could elect to specialise along either track. They could be posted to jobs within either the Judicial or the Legal Branch to build experience. The PBs were also restructured along the Branch lines to oversee the career development pathways of the LSOs in the respective tracks.

The enduring challenge has been our very small pool of talent, due to our small size. This has been the raison d’etre for keeping with an integrated model. LSOs could be deployed interchangeably across Judicial and Legal Branches over the course of their career.

This principle was, in fact, recognised very early on.

The 1955 Malayanisation Commission, which was set up to accelerate the pace of localising the public service, in preparation for self-government, recommended that Legal Service officers be transferred from the Judicial side to the Legal side and vice versa, so as to “give officers an all-round training, and also to overcome the present objection of potential recruits to having experience limited to one side of the Service only which leads to a monotonous and incomplete professional career.” It was also agreed that all-round experience was beneficial, and that it would be best for officers to have experience at the Bar, on the Bench, as well as in the Attorney-General’s Department.

At the time of Independence, we only had 45 LSOs. It took 30 years for the Legal Service to grow to 235 LSOs in 1995. This number grew significantly, to 589 LSOs in 2014. But even then, a fully specialist service was not a viable option. There were only 159 officers in the Judicial Branch; and 419 officers in the Legal Branch.

With these numbers, having specialist services would leave officers, on the judicial side especially, lacking in opportunities for growth and career development. An “incomplete professional career”, to quote the words of the Malayanisation Commission. This would hamper the ability to attract and also retain talent.

Sir, the integrated model has worked well for our context. The Legal Service has played a key role in the development of our legal system and, consequently, in building Singapore’s reputation for commitment to the rule of law.

As Former CJ Yong Pung How said previously: “... the Legal Service has played a very important role in the success which Singapore has achieved as a nation. The work of many Legal Service Officers has contributed significantly to the recognition which our legal system has obtained as being among the best legal systems in the world.”

Today, over 800 LSOs serve in various crucial roles. LSOs in the Judicial Branch have contributed to building a world-class Judiciary that is both strong and trusted. LSOs in the Legal Branch, such as in the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and in the various Ministries, support effective and nimble functioning of the Executive and Parliament. For example, officers in AGC's Legislative Division, not only draft all the laws that are tabled and debated in this House, and I am sure Members are very familiar with all the Bills that have come, sometimes at breakneck speed, but also many pieces of subsidiary legislation that are critical for the effective functioning of the Executive.

Our international lawyers, they defend Singapore’s interests on the global front and make an outsize contribution to the continued vitality of the rules-based international order.

The high levels of public trust in these institutions is also worth noting. A 2020 public perception survey by MinLaw found that there is a strong positive perception of our legal system and institutions among Singapore residents: 95% of respondents agreed that we are governed by the Rule of Law; 90% had trust and confidence in our legal system and agreed that we had an efficient legal system; around 90% had a positive view of our Courts and of AGC.

On the world stage, in the Heritage Foundation’s 2021 Index of Economic Freedom, Singapore achieved the highest scores among 184 countries for judicial effectiveness. The World Economic Forum placed Singapore first in its 2019 Global Competitiveness Index, in terms of the efficiency of its legal framework in settling disputes.

Sir, this is not an exercise in theory or just in ranking numbers, but an exercise in building an institution that can actually deliver justice.

The COVID-19 pandemic that we have just been experiencing and we are still in, has shown the depth and excellence of our Legal Service.

LSOs in both the Judicial and Legal branches have worked tremendously hard to deal with the challenges brought about by COVID-19. LSOs in the Legal Branch provided crucial legal support to the Government response to the pandemic.

In January 2020, AGC stood up a Cross-Divisional Task Force, staffed by LSOs from the AGC and the legal divisions in various Ministries to provide urgent cross-cutting advice to the Government on all areas of the national pandemic response. For example, establishing Government quarantine facilities, contract tracing, border security, ensuring continued trade flows for essential goods and services and supplies, financing the various COVID-19 response budgets, and also vaccine procurement.

In the first half of 2020 alone, AGC received over 1,300 COVID-19 related requests for advice. It responded to 69% of these requests within 24 hours and 78% of these within 48 hours. So, it is not just the quality, but also the speed of the responses from our officers.

LSOs, including drafters from AGC, worked closely with policy officers in many Ministries as well as with private sector representatives to roll out a series of urgent measures to mitigate the economic impact of the pandemic on individuals and businesses. These measures, which required major pieces of legislation to be drafted in record time, included, and I think Members will recall over the last 18 months: (a) temporary relief from contractual obligations, (b) a rental relief framework, done more than once; (c) simplified frameworks for financially distressed companies to liquidate their businesses or restructure their debts; and (d) a framework for the negotiation of contracts affected by the pandemic. All novel pieces of legislation.

The quickly drafted legislation also allowed the Government to quickly implement new measures to control the spread of the disease. When circuit breaker measures were imposed to stop the spread of the virus, LSOs in the Courts, AGC and MinLaw, with other officers in the various agencies, worked together to formulate legislation to ensure the continued and undisrupted access to justice in spite of the pandemic.

The Courts operationalised a framework for remote hearings, developed a wide range of pandemic-related protocols. This ensured continued, undisrupted access to justice, even in the middle of the pandemic. To enforce the Infectious Diseases Act and COVID-19-related legislation, prosecutors worked closely with law enforcement agencies to assess the evidence and take quick action in all cases.

On the international front, LSOs in the International Affairs Division ensured that our COVID-19 measures remained consistent with our international obligations. As the situation improved in Singapore, they also assisted the Government in negotiating essential travel and air bubble arrangements to sustain economic exchanges and maintain our relevance as a regional and global hub.

Sir, these are just a few examples of the many contributions of the Legal Service in ensuring the fair and efficient administration of justice in Singapore during the pandemic.

So, what I have just outlined has been the model that we have adopted since Singapore achieved self-government. It has served us well to build up a Legal Service into the excellent institution that it is today and I think Members will agree that Singapore has benefited immensely.

Over the years, the Government has considered the question of whether an integrated or a specialist service would best serve Singapore's needs. We recognise the pros and cons both ways. The challenge has been and continues to be finding the right balance for our own circumstances, our own context and our needs.

As mentioned, the small talent pool has been a constraint and that is something that we keep in mind as we consider the options.

In July this year, Mr Murali Pillai, with the support of other Members, spoke on this matter in Parliament, calling on the Government to study the feasibility of setting up a separate JSC for judicial officers. Several members spoke and made good points about the increasing need for specialisation, including for the Judiciary, given the increasing factual and legal complexities of the cases presented to Court.

Minister Shanmugam agreed with their observations that the benefits of specialisation are likely to continue to grow as the Legal Service continues growing and maturing as an institution.

After studying the matter further and discussing the matter in detail with the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, the Government decided that we can take this step.

As Minister Shanmugam has said recently, the amendment is a finely balanced one. You can make a good case for not changing now and waiting. However, you can also consider the following.

The Legal Service has, since 2014, also grown significantly. It had, as of July 2021, 815 officers. Although this is still a relatively small number in context, it will allow us to have specialist services whilst retaining the benefits of the integrated model through a system of secondments.

Officers today have many opportunities to gain meaningful exposure and develop their careers. Since 2014, both the Judicial Branch and the Legal Branch have made various changes to deepen specialist skillsets. There has also been a significant emphasis on the training of our judges to develop specific competencies required for the judicial role.

In 2015, Members might recall the Singapore Judicial College was established as the central training body for the Judiciary. The State Courts and the Family Courts also run their own training programmes to help their judicial officers develop both deeper subject-matter knowledge as well as the necessary practical skills.

At AGC, the AGC Academy was set up to take charge of managing the training for AGC officers. Competency frameworks were developed so that individual training roadmaps could be drawn for each officer according to their own area of practice and specific level of expertise.

The Academy also organises regular workshops and lectures by subject-matter experts in both core and developing areas of the law, for AGC officers. Cross-departmental clusters and specialist tracks have been established to help build expertise in particular areas of law.

Sir, the proposed restructuring will build on these efforts, better support specialisation of roles and competencies required of LSOs. Each Commission will focus on the particular demands of their respective services. They will have flexibility to adapt their personnel management and development frameworks according to their respective services' specific needs.

The shift to a specialist model is not so much to address the problems of today but really a matter of forward planning, preparing for the challenges of the future. As Minister Shanmugam said in his response to Mr Murali's Motion, the key question is: when is the right time to move?

We could take a wait-and-see approach, given what I have said, and maintain the current system and make small adjustments at the margins, smaller tweaks; or we can make the move now, prepare ourselves for the future. We believe this will, eventually, make sense: to split the two services when the Legal Service grows further.

Sir, I will now take Members through the key provisions of the Bills, starting with the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill.

Broadly, the new provisions seek to replicate the existing provisions in respect of the current LSC, with appropriate adjustments to be made where necessary in introducing the JSC.

Clause 6(a), read with clause 26(1), establishes the Singapore Judicial Service. It will consist of existing LSOs holding posts in the Supreme Court or a subordinate court. All other LSOs will remain in the reconstituted Legal Service.

Clause 14 inserts new articles to establish a JSC and to reconstitute the LSC. The new Articles 111B to 111I relate to the new JSC while 111J to 111Q relate to the reconstituted LSC.

The composition of the Commissions is set out in the new Articles 111B and 111J of the Constitution.

Each Commission will have two ex-officio members. The CJ will be the President of the JSC and the AG will be the President of the LSC. Chairman/PSC will be the ex-officio Vice-President of both Commissions.

The key change here is the hardcoding of Chairman/PSC's role as Vice-President of both Commissions. Other than this, the remaining provisions replicate the current position in the Constitution.

So, the respective Presidents of the Commissions, Chairman/PSC and the Prime Minister may nominate up to two members, whose appointment is subject to a Presidential veto. Where any of them nominate two members, then at least one of them must be legally trained and of adequate seniority in order for both to be appointed. The existing disqualifications that you see today will continue to apply.

Similar to today, Personal Boards (PBs) may be established to exercise certain functions of the two Commissions. However, there will be some structural changes to the PBs, which I will take Members through.

In 2014, Members may recall that I had said PBs were restructured along Branch lines instead of by seniority. This was part of a broader shift towards specialisation, as I mentioned earlier. The two PBs that had been operating since 1995 were replaced by the Judicial Branch Special Personnel Board and the Legal Branch Special Personnel Board, which have been in operation since that time.

These two new PBs respectively oversee most human resource functions in respect of LSOs in the Judicial Branch and LSOs in the Legal Branch, up to Superscale Grade 3. Officers at Superscale Grade 2 and above continue to be overseen by the LSC directly. The two Boards also oversee career development pathways in the Legal and Judicial tracks.

The Boards are currently constituted as such. Both are chaired by CJ, who is President of the LSC.

The Judicial Branch Special Personnel Board comprises CJ and three other Supreme Court Judges, and the Legal Branch Special Personnel Board comprises the CJ and senior members of the AGC, including the AG and a Supreme Court Judge.

As part of the review, we also reviewed the appropriate structure for the PBs in the context of the changes that we seek to make for the proposed specialist model.

With the restructuring, we have decided, following discussions with both CJ and AG, to shift to a system of formalised delegation.

The structure of the Commissions already align authority and responsibility, reducing the need for devolution. CJ and AG, as Presidents of their respective Commissions, will be closely involved in the management of the officers in their respective Commissions. They will each be able to nominate Supreme Court Judges and Deputy Attorneys-General to the Commission if they so choose. Both offices are involved in the management of their organisations and enjoy constitutional protection for their independence.

A system of formalised delegation will facilitate alignment of purpose and efficient decision-making and also facilitate the division of responsibilities between the Commissions and the PBs. Post-restructuring, the sizes of the Services will also be smaller – about 200-plus officers in the Judicial Service and 500-plus for the Legal Service.

Under this proposed structure, Commissions will be empowered to delegate, by way of subsidiary legislation, stipulated functions and powers to one or more of the PBs. These are to be exercised under the Commission's direction and control.

In terms of composition of the PBs, the Articles set out a closed list of persons who may be appointed as PB members. There is also a requirement that PBs must have at least three members to ensure a diversity of voices within a PB and to bring balance to its discussion and decisions.

Safeguards, at the same time, will be retained.

The Commissions may not delegate functions and powers relating to (a) either senior officers at or above a threshold grade; and (b) discipline and dismissal of any officers. So, both of those remain non-delegable.

As is the case today, these matters will be decided at the Commission level because matters relating to senior officers should be decided directly by the Commissions, and functions of discipline and dismissal have serious professional implications and consequences.

The appointment of members to any PB remains subject to the President's concurrence, as is the case today.

Cross-Service secondments will continue to be available on application after the restructuring. I mentioned cross-Service secondments earlier in my speech. Those will continue to be available.

To facilitate this, Articles 111F and 111N, for JSC and LSC respectively, allow them to make joint regulations to provide that their personnel management functions over officers holding prescribed posts may be exercised by the other Commission.

Secondments will be available under a framework jointly developed by the two Commissions. Such movements will likely be subject to the prevailing rules or requirements developed by the two Commissions; the needs of the Services, obviously, given their specific manpower needs, including the availability of positions; and, necessarily, the officers' relevant experience and suitability for the job.

Sir, before I move on from the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, let me just briefly draw Members' attention to clauses 21 and 22 of this Bill.

These clauses do not relate to the Commissions. These clauses amend the references in the Constitution to various statutes relating to Government borrowing. The changes are consequential to the amendments made in the Government Borrowing (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, which was just debated.

Sir, I will now turn briefly to the Judicial Service (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, which makes consequential amendments to various other Acts.

The Bill inserts terms, such as "Judicial Service Officer", "Judicial Service Commission" or "Singapore Judicial Service" into the affected Acts, where appropriate, such that Acts which apply in relation to the Legal Service will also apply to the Judicial Service, and Acts that apply in relation to the LSC will also apply to the JSC and, finally, Acts that apply in relation to LSOs will also apply to JSOs.

Sir, in conclusion, these amendments are intended to build on the six decades of institution-building that has made the Legal Service the premier service that it is today. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

3.58 pm

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer.

I stand in support of the Bills and the restructuring of our Legal Service into the separate Judicial Service Commission and Legal Service Commission.

In July, my fellow members from the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Law, Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Christopher de Souza had spoken about the need to consider whether it would be feasible to set up a separate Judicial Service Commission that would be in a better position to nurture specialist judicial officers.

The Government, in response, has stated that it will consider and study the proposals and, so, I am glad that these Bills have now come to be tabled before this House.

The integrated model of our Legal Service, where officers are deployed to both judicial and legal branches, has previously met our manpower needs and helped us to build up our dispute resolution hub and status as a well-respected judiciary in the world. This is no mean feat, particularly given our small population and limited talent pool.

We have heard from the Minister about the great work that our Legal Service Officers have done, especially to meet our COVID-19 pandemic challenges as well.

But as Singapore adds to its repertoire of being the preferred international dispute hub, we need to ensure that our Judiciary and Legal Service are also well-equipped to meet any new challenges ahead.

In the midst of fast-paced disruptions to our legal environment and profession, we are also facing a real competition with other emerging and lucrative sectors to train and retain the talent pool both in our Singapore Bar, the legal service and our Bench.

In preparation to meet future challenges caused by these changes, we need to build a strong and deep bench, towards specialisation of emerging areas of law and expertise required in the future. However, we also need to ensure good range of exposure, especially for our younger officers. In this regard, younger does not mean in terms of age but for those less experienced.

I do have some clarifications that I would like to cover in three parts: (a) firstly, the career in the Courts; (b) secondly, the challenges in the future; and (c) and the last part is the expertise in community-niche and culturally sensitive areas, which I will deliver in Malay.

The first part, career in the Courts. In relation to clause 26 of the Bill, which is the transitional provision, existing officers in the legal service will be allocated or re-deployed according to the posts that they are holding. For example, existing office holders in the Supreme Courts or other subordinate Courts, like the Family Justice Courts, shall come under the newly-formed Judicial Service Commission (JSC). A "judicial branch officer" is defined as an existing officer who is holding a post in the Supreme Court or a Subordinate Court. My question is: what would be the definition of a "Subordinate Court", besides the Family Justice Courts and the State courts, what others can be taken into consideration? For example, such as Tribunals?

We are also facing the challenge of a limited talent pool. Recently, three judiciary commissioners have been appointed judges in the Supreme Court. They are either Senior Counsel or senior practitioners taken from the Bar, one of whom I have appeared before, he was my arbitrator, another was an opposing counsel, the third I have worked with. As much as I am glad that we have very talented and esteemed appointments to the judiciary bench, the thinning of the talent at the Bar is a very real risk to our legal profession. We need to ensure that the deep bench in our Courts does not come at the expense of the Bar and deplete our talent pool at the Singapore Bar which is detrimental to our status of our dispute resolution hub.

Hence, the talent for our judiciary and the Bench must be built up internally as well. I would propose that despite the separate arms being set up with the Legal Service Commission (LSC) and the JSC, that there should still be some flexibility or a fixed rotation between JSC and LSC officers in the early years of their career. This is so that they can get sufficient experience; and also be exposed to experience in the other courts. Hence, I would like to ask whether there would be flexibility to allow for transfers between both commissions to better prepare ourselves for the future needs of the Bench.

Speaking about the future needs of the Bench, this flows into the second part of my speech on challenges in the future. The future challenges of greater cross-border litigation which not only involve complex legal or factual issues but also inevitably involves issues of conflict of laws and interface between common law and civil law systems in the various legal systems in other countries.

New and specialised areas of law, for example, those involving smart contracts and cryptocurrency, would also require our judges to be equipped with the necessary commercial and perhaps, private practice experience and practical know-how. These would greatly complement the technical and legal skills already on the Bench. Ultimately, a strong Bench would help to attract more disputes and bolster our dispute resolution hub status as a nation.

We thus need judges who understand practice and commercial realities. Thus, without the risk of thinning of the Bar, perhaps the Ministry could look into the secondment of Judicial Service officers in specific private practice areas or international postings in the early parts of their career. Of course, this is subject to issues of conflict of interest in the future and disclosure of associations in the future, once that officer leaves private practice to rejoin the Judiciary. However, such declarations are already the norm now when judges declare any potential conflict of interest prior to being docketed as a judge for a case.

Already, we have seen in the courts how a docket system of specialist judges with the relevant practice experience and managing the case from the outset would improve the case management and our cases in litigation have now progressed efficiently and effectively. Perhaps also to complement the skillset, we can have more invited International Judges (IJs) to be part of our Judiciary and not just for cases before the Singapore International Commercial Courts (SICC), but perhaps the IJs, or International Judges, can also sit in specific High Court cases or appeals whenever necessary.

We not only have to broaden our talent pool to meet future challenges, we would also have to deepen our expertise in certain niche areas where perhaps there would be some religious or cultural sensitivities.

In this regard, Mr Speaker, I will move on to the last part of my speech which I will deliver in Malay, on community, cultural and religious sensitivities.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] To attract international funds or high net worth individuals to establish endowments or invest in Singapore, we must further strengthen Singapore's status as a leading dispute resolution hub. In addition, the Islamic financial sector has seen an increase in cases filed in courts and arbitration processes around the world, including institutions in Malaysia and the Middle East.

These cases require in-depth expertise and a comprehensive legal framework for handling Islamic financial dispute cases. It also requires a prudent and sensitive approach tailored to each specific region. Apart from commercial or civil cases, our courts also deal with cases involving sensitive issues that affect all walks of life in our Muslim community.

These include the interpretation of Syariah law issues, such as the interpretation of the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA), wakaf or Islamic inheritance law (faraidh), as well as marriage or inheritance law for Muslims which are sometimes heard before the High Court.

In my maiden speech in Parliament, I have suggested how a more comprehensive arbitration process or legal framework can be studied to deal with cases of wakaf or estate disputes in our community. This can be done by broadening the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court or deepening the specialisation of our civil courts to handle such cases.

All these issues affect our Muslim community.

Furthermore, our constitution recognises the special position of the Malays and outlines the Government's commitment to protect the interests of our Malay-Muslim community and our Malay language. In terms of law, Muslim law forms part of the law of the land. Thus, our civil courts have the power to interpret Muslim law itself. Civil courts, when faced with questions of Islamic law, are not obliged to seek an opinion from MUIS.

Therefore, I think it is timely for the Government to set up the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). It not only provides the necessary specialization, but also can balance the approach that needs to be taken in dealing with specific cases.

My recommendation is for suitable JSC members to be seconded or take turns handling Syariah Court or Syariah Appeal Board cases to build their understanding and knowledge. I understand that this is already happening, but perhaps the career path and development of the seconded JSC officers can be further clarified so that this rotation can attract more JSC officers. I also recommend that cross-sharing and learning be established between courts, including Syariah Court and civil court officers and all training perhaps can be conducted under the auspices of the Singapore Judicial College.

Finally, I welcome the establishment of this Commission which can meet the needs of the community and address the challenges of more complex cases in the future for our country.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

4.11 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me first start by declaring that I am a practising advocate and solicitor in the Supreme Court of Singapore. The Constitutional Amendment Bill and the Judicial Service (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill before us today provide for the creation of a separate Judicial Service.

The call for a separate Judicial Service is not something new at all. There has been calls for separate Judicial Services over the past 35 years and indeed, from all sides of the House. The Workers' Party former Secretary General and former Member for Anson, the late Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam, called for a separate Judicial Service Commission back in 1986. Former Nominated Member of Parliament and President of the Law Society, Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair, called for it in 2004. In our manifesto for the 2011 General Election, the Workers' Party called for a separate Judicial Service. The hon Mr Murali Pillai proposed a separate Judicial Service Commission in November 2020, and again, in the Adjournment Motion in July this year together with the hon Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Christopher de Souza.

In November 2020, following the Ms Parti Liyani saga, my colleagues, the hon Member for Aljunied, Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms He Ting Ru, the hon Member for Seng Kang, filed a Motion named "Justice for All". In my speech in the "Justice for All" Motion, I said that it might still be worthwhile for the proposed review then, to still consider whether we should have a more specialised or dedicated Judicial track at the State Court level encompassing Magistrates and District Judges, continuing inter-services posting or rotation with other branches of the legal service, particularly with the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC).

Today, I am heartened to see the Government taking the first step to set up a Judicial Service separate from the current legal service. The Workers' Party supports this move and indeed the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill for these changes as this will among other things, promulgate even greater judicial independence. The Bills proposed the setting up of a Judicial Service Commission (JSC) separate from the existing Legal Service Commission (LSC). Currently, the Chief Justice (CJ) is the president of the LSC and the Attorney-General (AG) and the Public Service Commission (PSC) Chairman sit on the commission together with two other members, each nominated by the Attorney-General, the PSC chairman and the Prime Minister.

Under the new arrangements, pursuant to the Bills, the AG will take over as the president of the LSC and the PSC chairman assume the newly considered role of Vice President. The CJ shall be the President of the new JSC, while the PSC Chairman assumed the newly considered role of the Vice President, together with two other members, each nominated by the CJ, the PSC Chairman and the Prime Minister.

I assume that the reconstituted rows in the respective commissions intend that the AG and CJ cannot be nominated by anyone to be members of the JSC and the LSC respectively. And if my assumption is wrong here, I am happy for the Minister to clarify, but this must surely be the case as this would promote independence between the two commissions. And in the case of the AG, not taking a role in a JSC, it would demonstrate greater judiciary independence.

Mr Speaker, the Singapore High Court has always enjoyed a good reputation in the international community for its jurisprudence and effectiveness. In particular, it has always been well-regarded by many commercial lawyers elsewhere.

As a shipping lawyer, I can further attest to that also, because the cross-border nature of our shipping legal work, both contentious and non-contentious, require us to work with lawyers from different maritime jurisdictions. And the issue of finding jurisdiction for both the contracts we draft and the cases we do, often has to do with finding strategic, reliable and reputable jurisdictions, which we can persuade our clients and other stakeholders to accept.

With the new JSC being split from the current LSC, and the more dedicated judicial track, which must surely envisage more dedicated recruitment as well as Human Resources (HR) policies, even more attention to judicial training at all levels, especially lower to mid levels, as well as a more enhanced career progression plans for all judicial officers, it is hoped that the public will be able to see better access to justice, even better quality judgments at all levels, including the various tribunals, State Courts, the High Court and the Appellate Courts above, as well as the delivery of just outcomes for all litigants.

Mr Speaker, I believe that our current LSC is big enough for the split to take place. I believe that a separate JSC should be given optimum autonomy to plan its recruitment in human resource development, independent of the reconstituted LSC. Having a separate JSC will, hopefully, allow it to look at recruitment, professional and continuing training and retention of personnel with a new focus as it strives to work towards building a team of officers who are specialists in being judicial officers, not merely Legal Service Officers.

I hope that with the JSC, our Courts can continue to recruit and develop more specialists in different areas, be it technology, construction, finance, IP, so on and so forth. This should also not just be at the higher levels, such as in the High Court, but also in the State Courts. This will enable our Courts to maintain its high standing among judiciaries all over the world.

Mr Speaker, I have said in my speech during the "Justice for All" Motion that how an average Singaporean thinks of our judges is important. He or she must, of course, be learned in law, and also in the area of specialisation that he or she is known for, beyond pure commercial law and, particularly, in areas like criminal and family law. The ability of judges to understand and empathise with the different challenges faced by litigants of different socioeconomic backgrounds is critical. I hope and have confidence that, with a dedicated JSC, our Judiciary and judicial officers can continue to rise to these challenges.

Mr Speaker, next, according to The Straits Times article of 4 October on the present Bills in question, I read that secondments will be available on application to provide selected officers with experience across both services and permanent transfers may also be available subject to prevailing personnel rules.

I would like to ask the Minister, following the changes under the present Bills, what are the new changes in respect of (a) the career development for the officers under the proposed new LSC and JSC respectively, as well as (b) the changes in respect of inter-service postings between LSC and JSC that officers can expect after the restructuring. I know the Minister touched on some aspects of this earlier, but, essentially, I would like to know how different will the career tracks be after the restructuring, and how will the changes enhance the new and separate Judicial Service. Will there, for example, be a default career progression plan, planned under each of the Services' Commission and transfers across to the other will only be catered upon request by an officer, or by the management of either services?

In my speech at that "Justice for All" Motion, I also said a specialised Judicial Service may be preferable to the current system to provide more distance between prosecutors and those working as magistrates and judges. For example, to avoid having AGC colleagues, some of them being more senior colleagues, arguing cases before them, knowing that they may be posted back to AGC again. I had asked what safeguards will be in place to encourage reasonable distance.

Next, I would also like to ask whether there are plans to differentiate the remuneration frameworks of the Judicial Service and the Legal Service tracks, to account for the differences in specialisation after the restructuring.

Finally, I would like to ask the Minister for an update on how MinLaw views the current caseloads in our Courts, given our current number of judicial officers and given the pace by which the cases are being managed, and whether it thinks that the current number of judicial officers is adequate across the Courts.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarification, the Workers' Party will vote in support of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill and the Judicial Service (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

4.20 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, almost exactly a year ago in this House, I suggested that an independent Judicial Service Commission (JSC) be set up, amongst others, to deepen the competence of judicial officers.

This suggestion to set up the JSC is not mine alone. Several hon Members made the same suggestion in this House, both before and after me, and we have just heard from the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan an account of the other Members who have spoken in this House asking for the setting up of the JSC. All of us are aligned in the request but not necessarily aligned in relation to the reasons for asking for the setting up of the JSC.

The hon Minister for Law chose his words very carefully in replying to me. He said the way our service was structured "is probably the best model for the time being".

As hon Members know, time is elastic. If anyone were to have asked me then as to whether the Government would set up the JSC, my instinctive reply would have been, "Please do not hold your breath!"

Then, in July this year, hon Members Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Lim Biow Chuan joined me in an Adjournment Motion to call on the Government to study the feasibility to set up a separate and independent JSC to allow for deeper specialisation and ensure that the Judiciary is properly positioned for the challenges of the future.

The hon Minister for Law agreed broadly with the points we made and pithily put it as an issue of timing. The Second Minister for Law recounted this just earlier today as well.

Should we retain the current structure and make incremental changes as we go along, or should we split the services now to put our country on a better footing for the future?

If the same person were to have repeated the question on whether the split would have happened after the Adjournment Motion, my response would likely be that I am hopeful it will happen sooner rather than later.

As it turned out, just three months later, we are now considering these amendments to the Constitution to create a separate JSC out of the current LSC. I am really glad to note from the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan's speech that it will enjoy bipartisan support as well. If these amendments are passed, the plan is to put them into effect in January 2022.

I am highlighting this chronology as it is clear to me that the Government was already considering the merits of these changes for a while and decided that now is the time to make these changes in the interest of securing of country's future.

The Government's approach brings to my mind what Prime Minister Lee stated during his National Day Rally speech in 2016. He asked, and I quote, "whether things could get better for Singapore after SG50. Can the best be yet to come? The answer was a resounding "yes!"

He went on to state that one thing we need, as a country, to ensure this is to be, and I quote, "blessed with a divine discontent, always not quite satisfied with what we have, always driven to do better". These amendments we are considering reflect the spirit of "divine discontent" and "drive to do better".

It is also in keeping with the Motion on Singapore's Justice System passed in Parliament in November 2020 in which we affirmed the Government's continuous efforts to build a fair and just society.

Perhaps, this explains why Singapore did well in the Pew Research Centre Report dated 21 October 2021 which conducted research in 17 advanced economies, including Singapore, to identify whether citizens in these economies want significant changes to their political system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to flash a slide of the table from the report on the screen, please?

Mr Speaker: Please do. [A slide was shown to hon Members.]

Mr Murali Pillai: Obliged. Yes. Thankfully, it is clearer. But now it is not.

Mr Speaker: We should use slides that we can read.

Mr Murali Pillai: The chart is entitled "Those who want changes to their political system are not confident political system can be changed". So, you do not want to be high up in the chart from the Pew Research Center that I am showing.

Italy is ranked at the top, meaning, amongst the 17 economies, its people are the least satisfied.

Singapore is right below, meaning her people are the most satisfied.

It is stated in the report that in every economy, except Singapore, there are larger shares of the public who want political reform but lack the confidence that reform can happen effectively as compared to those who are confident that change can occur.

Eighty-two percent of Singaporeans said that they are satisfied with the way democracy is working here, compared to an overall median of 57%. A key feature of our democracy is that real action is taken, to make changes essential to securing our future and keeping all of us united in purpose.

The significance of setting up a separate and independent JSC should not be lost on anyone in this House. Just last month, when this House was considering the FICA Bill, there were insinuations in some quarters, particularly outside this House, that the Government is bent on making itself more powerful to suppress legitimate free speech and expression amongst our people.

Since then, this Government has repealed the Sedition Act, which was introduced during the colonial times to rein in discontent against the Government and it is now moving these Constitutional amendments which will enjoy bipartisan support to create an independent JSC to oversee judicial service officers.

These are not the acts of a power-hungry government, hell-bent on entrenching itself and ignoring the wishes of the people. Fair-minded people decide not based on empty words, but on real action.

The razor-sharp focus of our Government is on securing our people’s future against the backdrop of an ever more challenging global landscape.

For the remainder of my speech, I wish to focus on the proposed reconstituted LSC. In my speech during the Adjournment Motion, I had spoken about the indelible contributions of the current LSC, using the integrated model since 1959, for which, as a nation, we owe much thanks. I have also spoken about the highly-respected judicial system that we have in Singapore and how the JSC will serve to strengthen it even more under the proposed system.

Let me start off by acknowledging the quality of the officers in the Legal Branch of the LSC, past and present.

To illustrate this point, I need only ask hon Members, as the hon Second Minister for Law did just a few minutes ago, to recount their own legislative experience in this House.

In the course of the COVID-19 pandemic last year, we had to pass 12 wide-ranging Bills. Seven of these bills were urgent Bills which included the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill and its three subsequent amendment Bills, Supply Bills, Bills providing for Parliamentary elections and marriage solemnisation during COVID-19. Two hundred and twenty-seven pieces of COVID-19-related subsidiary legislation were also published.

We were able to do this because of, amongst others, a top-rate team in the legislative division of the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC). They had to be creative but meticulous, be daring but keep an eye for the minutiae of details. And all is done, quoting the hon Second Minister for Law, at "breakneck speed".

I still recall the speech of the hon Minister for Law when he expressed his pride and appreciation for the work done by officers involved during the passing of the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Bill. Several hon Members, including myself, joined him to express our appreciation.

This speaks of the quality and dedication of the officers we have in the legislative division headed by the hon Deputy Solicitor-General, Mrs Owi Beng Ki.

The Legal Branch is replete with great examples of dedicated officers, past and present, with a strong sense of duty. I would like to mention some of them whom I have had the privilege of knowing.

The late Mr K S Rajah SC. He served in the Legal Service from 1963 to 1985. This included a stint as the longest-serving Director of the Legal Aid Bureau, which allows people of limited means with important access to civil and family justice.

The late Mr S Tiwari, who was in the Legal Service for 36 years from 1971 to 2007 when he retired. During his career, he headed MINDEF's Legal Department and AGC's Civil Division and later, its International Affairs Division. He was involved in numerous international negotiations representing Singapore.

Mr Daren Tang, who is currently the Director-General of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). In fact, he is the first Singaporean to lead a UN Agency. The hon Minister Mr Edwin Tong described his appointment as, and I quote, "a momentous occasion for Singapore". Prior to that, he was the Chief Executive of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and held several positions in AGC.

Mr Mohamed Faizal Senior Counsel, Senior State Counsel of the Crime Division of AGC – he is an excellent example of how one mixes heavy duty responsibilities with regular volunteer work for our community. For his contributions to the legal profession and the community, he was awarded the Berita Harian Anugerah Jauhari 2020 award. He was also inducted as a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in 2016.

I make these references for a purpose. We must ensure that with the split of the current LSC into a JSC and the reconstituted LSC, the reconstituted LSC should continue to attract and retain its fair share of top talent with the right set of values.

The Legal Service Officers of the Legal Branch perform vital roles in providing legal advice to the Government and playing their role in the administration of justice and helping to uphold of the rule of law in Singapore.

With the reconstituted LSC, there is an opportunity to hasten the pace of specialisation of the LSOs to keep up with the demands of their respective jobs and the ever-rising expectations of Singaporeans. May I ask the hon Minister whether plans have been made to deal with this issue? If so, I would be grateful for an outline of the efforts that will be expended on this front.

Mr Speaker, Sir, laws are unwieldy creatures. The text of the laws passed can be so turgid and formal such that many people cannot help but describe it as "gobbledegook". But they are also such powerful forces. During the pandemic, for example, these laws make sure that workers get paid, our rents reduced and that the promises businesses made to one another can be modified easily without breaking trust. And all these, in an orderly, legitimate and predictable manner.

This could not have been done without the best legal minds at work in the public sector. This restructuring is needed, but we must do it with care. The reconstituted LSC must stand shoulder to shoulder with the JSC as twin pillars in attracting and developing the best human resource talent in the public legal sector that will continue to meet the high expectations of Singaporeans well into the future.

This will allow us to pursue our democratic dream, partnered with divine discontent, not mere dissatisfaction with the way things are, but the power to change them to the way they should be. I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.32 pm until 4.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.55 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (AmenDment) Bill

Debate resumed.

4.55 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, the Bill proposes to establish a Judicial Service Commission (JSC), separate from the Legal Service Commission (LSC). The restructuring will allow both the LSC and JSC to benefit from greater specialisation and flexibility. This is needed to tackle the increasing complexity of the legal landscape.

Our legal system and judiciary are greatly respected for impartially and efficiently dispensing justice. The amendments will help us to maintain the good standing of our legal system.

I have three points of clarification to make.

My first point is on the independence of the LSC, the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the JSC.

The public place great trust in our institutions. Results released in March this year from an IPS study showed that 81% of the public had a great deal or quite a lot of trust in the Government; 82% said this of the Courts, and 80% said this of the Civil Service.

In the 2020 World Justice Project Rule of Law Index measuring the rule of law in countries, Singapore was placed 12 out of 128 countries. The Rule of Law Index looks at, among other things, accountability and open government.

In the 2019 World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report, Singapore was ranked 14 out of 141 countries for judicial independence.

It is very commendable that we have such high levels of trust locally and internationally in our public institutions. We should work hard to maintain this.

My clarification is on how we can safeguard the good reputation of our public institutions by ensuring independence of the JSC, LSC and PSC.

There are some concerns that the proposed Articles may mean some overlap among the Commissions for the LSC, PSC and JSC. For example, the Chairman of the PSC will be the Vice-President of both the LSC and JSC. The PSC will also advise the President on the appointment of up to two members each on the LSC and JSC.

It would be good if the Minister can share some safeguards in place to ensure the public can continue to have high confidence in the independence of the LSC, JSC and PSC.

My second point is on recruiting a wider range of talents from beyond the existing legal service into the JSC.

In July this year, my colleague Mr Murali Pillai delivered an Adjournment Motion with Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Lim Biow Chuan on the feasibility of setting up the JSC for judicial officers.

In his Motion speech, Mr Murali spoke about the flexibility the JSC may have in recruiting a wider range of talent. He gave the example of how someone with experience in programming who is taught law may be able to navigate the technical facts of a case much better than a legally-trained Judge. I echo these sentiments.

Additionally, the three Members spoke on the benefits of the movement of judicial officers and legal service officers across judicial and legal service branches. Such rotations are beneficial for the officers and the respective branches. That said, I think we can all agree that it is important for the judicial service to be staffed by officers from a diversity of backgrounds beyond the legal service. Recruiting talent from diverse backgrounds will help with responding to increasingly complex and specialised cases before the Courts and also for maintaining trust in the judiciary’s independence.

Can the Minister share the plans to diversify the talent pool of judicial officers within the JSC?

Lastly, under the new Article 111D, an appointed member to the JSC may hold office of three to five years and is eligible for reappointment. Under the new Article 111L, an appointed member to the LSC may hold office of three to five years and is also eligible for reappointment.

Both Articles do not set out any limits for such reappointment. Limits on reappointment are not uncommon in private and public institutions. Such limits steer institutions towards leadership renewal and organisational changes.

Can the Minister confirm whether there are limits on the reappointment of any member to the LSC and JSC? If not, can the Minister share the rationale for not limiting the number of reappointments that a member can hold in both the LSC and JSC?

Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of both Bills.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

5.00 pm

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Sir, I declare my interest in speaking on this Bill as a practising lawyer.

In July this year, my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Murali Pillai, filed an Adjournment Motion on the “Feasibility of Setting up a Judicial Service Commission for Judicial Officers”. I spoke in support of the Motion as I am of the view that it is in the interest of our legal system that we have judicial officers who can be equipped to serve in the various specialised Courts and to meet the challenges of the future. I am grateful that MinLaw supports this need to carry out structural changes to the Legal Service.

The Judiciary is one of the three Organs of State. It plays an integral part in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that justice is accessible to all the citizens of Singapore. For that reason, it is important that the Government reviews the structure of the Legal Service to ensure that both judicial officers and Legal Service officers are adequately prepared for the future.

In the 2020 Annual Report of the Legal Service Commission, it was reported that there are 806 Legal Service Officers (LSOs) in service as at 31 December 2020. Of these 806 LSOs, 224 were in the judicial branch and 582 in the legal branch. The judicial branch serves the Supreme Court, the State Court and the Family Justice Courts. The legal branch serves the AGC and the legal service departments in various Ministries and Statutory Boards. As an example, the 582 LSOs serve in Government agencies other than AGC, like they serve in ACRA, the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS), EDB, Health Service Authority (HSA), IMDA, IPOS, IRAS, Office of Public Guardian (OPG), LTA, SLA, NEA, SMC, MUIS and so on. So, it is really a wide scope for these LSOs.

Based on the Singapore Courts Annual Report 2020, the caseload of the State Courts was a total of 187,016 cases in 2020. Out of these 187,016 cases, 143,728 are classified as criminal cases, 31,189 are classified as civil cases and there are 12,099 community and tribunal-related cases. The caseload for the State Courts for 2019 was higher at 249,954 cases. That is almost a quarter million. The caseload for 2018 was even higher at 359,064 cases.

Then we go on to the Family Justice Courts. The caseload is 25,633 cases for 2020 and 27,953 cases for 2019. If you add the total caseloads of the State Courts, the Family Justice Courts and the work in the Supreme Court, many of us will agree that the 224 judicial officers, even with support staff, will be grossly overstretched.

The Singapore Courts Annual Report also gave examples of significant cases handled by the Courts. There was a case about terrorism financing, a case about defamatory comments made on social media against an F&B company; there are cases about protection to be given to litigants under the Prevention of Harassment Act and even a case about euthanasia of a dog.

In a 2020 case involving cryptocurrency, the Court had to make a decision involving cryptocurrency trades and the implications of smart contracts and artificial intelligence. In the not too far future, judges may be called upon to decide who is at fault if there are accidents involving driverless cars.

Another example of the evolving law is in the area of family law. In the past, lawyers acting for parties who have filed for divorce would work towards getting the best resolution for their clients. And that is the nature of an adversarial system. Today, lawyers and judges alike, would have to adjust to this concept of therapeutic justice in family disputes.

Based on the volume of cases handled by the State Courts and Family Justice Courts and the increasing complexity of cases, I would submit that it is timely for us to review the need for our judicial officers to have greater specialisation so as to gain greater depth of knowledge about the latest developments in the law.

There has always been a high regard for our judicial system. The Singapore judiciary and our legal system have always been recognised as among the best in the world. Within Singapore, a recent survey by the Institute of Policy Studies shows that 82% of the respondents had either a great deal or quite a lot of trust in our Courts.

Minister Indranee Rajah had said in her 2014 speech on the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill, “the public reposes a great deal of trust and confidence in the Subordinate Courts – and, indeed, our Judiciary generally. We trust them to apply the law impartially, uphold our laws and dispense justice fairly.”

Our Chief Justice said recently society’s regard for and trust in the Courts are “extremely precious”.

For that reason, Sir, I submit that we need to invest heavily in our legal officers serving both in the Judiciary as well as in the Legal Service so that we can continue to earn and maintain the trust of the people in our legal system. Having a separate Judicial Service Commission and a Legal Service Commission is just a step towards recognising the challenges facing our LSOs and allow them to explore greater specialisation and more equipped for the future. Having a personnel board for each commission also ensures that we continue to attract and retain talent to serve in the legal and judicial services.

Our judicial officers need more specialised knowledge to better grasp the complex laws and facts; they also need equipping to understand the different emotions of the litigant. And that is not an easy task for Judicial officers. I quote Lord Judge, the former Lord Chief Justice in the UK, in a speech which he made in October 2008. He said, “Many qualities are required of a judge… He or she must, of course, know the law, and know how to apply it, but the judge must always be wise to the ways of the world. The judge must have the ability to make a decision."

"Decisions can be profoundly unpleasant. For example, to say to a mother that her children would be taken away from her, or to say to an individual that he is going to prison for the rest of his life."

"Judges must have moral courage. It is an important judicial attribute to make decisions that will be unpopular with the politicians or the media and the public, and, indeed, perhaps, most importantly of all, to defend the right to equal treatment before the law, of those who are unpopular at any given time.”

So, even the person who may be very unpopular or condemned by social media or members of the public, it is the job of a judge to ensure that this person is given the right to equal treatment before the law, even if they are unpopular at any point of time. These are wise words because judicial officers would need to deal firmly with recalcitrant offenders and yet show compassion to an accused person who may have made a mistake due to poor judgement or reacted badly due to a breakdown in emotions. Judicial officers in the Family Justice Courts would have to deal with litigants sensitively, especially where there are young children involved.

Sir, the proposed amendments to the Constitution did not specifically state whether LSOs can still be transferred between the judicial divisions or the legal service division. However, I am glad to hear the Minister's confirmation that cross-service secondments will continue to be available on application where useful, to provide selected officers with cross-service experience.

Sir, I think it is important that legal officers can still be allowed to ask for cross-service postings so as to deepen their knowledge of the work that they do. For example, if a judicial officer in the Family Court wishes to seek a posting to MSF to better understand how family disputes can be resolved, surely that kind of cross-postings should be encouraged. That judicial officer would then be armed with practical life skills that would make him or her a better judge in the Family Justice Courts. Similarly, a legal officer who had served as a prosecutor or a lawyer who had previously worked as a litigation lawyer is better placed to understand the adversarial nature of disputes. I would also submit that all our judicial officers must have some wide exposure to community work and more depth of experience in life before being appointed as judicial officers. Even as we position our legal service and judicial service officers as what former Chief Justice, the late Mr Yong Pung How, described as the “premier service” in the public sector, I hope that we also remind our judicial officers on the need to remain humble as they serve the wider society in Singapore.

Sir, I urge the JSC to encourage their judicial officers to widen their life skills in different areas, including being humble, being patient with others, handling nervous litigants or witnesses and showing empathy and compassion wherever needed. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

5.11 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, like most of the others before me, I declare my interest as a practicing lawyer.

I speak in support of both Bills. These Bills involve the setting up of a Judicial Services Commission in Singapore which will oversee the judicial officers in both the State Courts and the Supreme Court. The Commission’s role includes determining the appointment, confirmation, placement on permanent establishment, promotion, transfer, disciplinary control and dismissal of judicial officers. So, essentially, this controls the personnel function.

These functions were previously carried out by the Legal Services Commission, which oversaw all legal officers in the Public Service, including both the judicial services, those in the Attorney-General’s Chambers and those in other public agencies. The Legal Services Commission will remain, but its remit will no longer cover judicial officers.

Related to these changes, the Chief Justice, who was previously President of the Legal Services Commission, will now be President of the Judicial Services Commission, while the Attorney-General will now be President of the Legal Services Commission.

The rationale for such changes is that it allows specialisation in each of the services and for the senior officers in each branch to properly evaluate and appoint the officers to that branch. This is obviously quite sensible. There is also an argument that this provides a cleaner separation of powers, with judicial officers cleanly separated from those performing other functions, such as in public prosecution. This separation of functions exists in many countries, including many in the Commonwealth.

Having said that, this matter has been raised before, including in this House, and in the past, we had always believed that having a single Legal Services Commission had worked well for Singapore and had certain advantages. This included that officers could be rotated across functions and to develop broader experiences.

Judicial officers, for example, could benefit from having had stints as counsel, such as public prosecutors. Similarly, those acting as public prosecutors may also benefit from having spent time as registrars, or even as district judges, as they will see matters from the perspective of the bench. There is also a perception that the judicial service would be the more desired branch and, in the past, those in other parts of the legal service may aspire to be judicial officers if they performed well.

So, while I note that the separation of functions does not prevent cross-posting of officers, and the Minister in his introductory statement has stated secondments will be available, will such cross-postings be more difficult, now that there are different commissions governing both? Is there also a risk that if an officer stays only in one branch of the service, they may not get the broader perspective they used to be able to get in the past that will help them perform their functions better? Does this also mean that legal careers will be set in stone, depending on which side of the branch they start in? Clarifications notwithstanding, I support both Bills.

Mr Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.

5.14 pm

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, I thank Members who spoke in support of the Bill from both sides of the House.

Let me quickly and directly address the questions raised.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked about the definition of “subordinate court” as used in clause 26 of the Bill. As set out in clause 26, on the appointed date, the existing Judicial Branch officers will be assigned to the Judicial Service, and all other Legal Service officers will remain in the reconstituted Legal Service.

A Judicial Branch officer is defined as an officer holding a post in the Supreme Court or a subordinate court immediately before the date of the commencement of the Act. To avoid doubt, the LSC Secretariat will be notifying the individual officers of the Service that they have been assigned to.

The term "subordinate court" as used in clause 26 of the Bill has the same meaning as that in Article 93 of the Constitution. So, it includes the State Courts, the Family Courts and the Youth Courts.

Mr Louis Ng asked about the safeguards for judicial independence, notwithstanding the "overlaps" in the composition of the JSC, LSC and PSC. I think he refers to the overlap in question, which is the Chairman of PSC.

On Chairman/PSC's presence on both the JSC and LSC, Mr Louis Ng might be interested to know that, in fact, the 1959 Constitution, which I referred to earlier and which first established the LSC, already provided for the Chairman of PSC to be an ex-officio member of the LSC and that, has since, remained unchanged. So, we are simply using that and Chairman/PSC remains now on both of the two Commissions, post-split.

Mr Speaker, there is a good reason for this. It has allowed the LSC to draw from the best practices, particularly from a human resource perspective, of the PSC, while the Commissions remain separate and independent. So, this will continue after the restructuring. The JSC and the LSC can draw on Chairman/PSC's experience and expertise whilst the various Commissions remain separate and independent.

There is no question of Chairman/PSC's ability to act independently. He is himself appointed by the President in her discretion, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, and there are constitutional safeguards, which I have outlined earlier, to secure his independence.

Mr Louis Ng also mentioned that Chairman/PSC nominates up to two members each on the JSC and the LSC. Again, as I have said in my opening speech, this is something that has already been in place since the 1959 Constitution although, prior to 2007, Chairman/PSC could nominate two members of the PSC directly to the LSC, whereas, today, Chairman/PSC advises the President on the appointment of up to two members and the President has the discretion to veto such nominations. That structure remains today in the Bill. In fact, just to be complete, this is on the same footing as the Chief Justice and the Prime Minister. Their nominees are also subject to the President's veto.

Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to accept that there is some risk that Chairman/PSC would not act independently, this concern is premised on the notion that Chairman/PSC's nominees will somehow be unable to act independently as well. But Mr Louis Ng will be assured to know that the appointments of both JSC and LSC members, including the Chairman of PSC's nominees, will be made by the President, acting in her discretion. She discharges her duties with a direct mandate from the electorate.

The eligibility criteria for JSC and LSC members are also set out in the Constitution and designed to make sure that members have no formal political links. Just for Members' information, Article 111K sets out the qualifications, and 111L sets out the disqualifications.

In addition, all JSC and LSC members must take an oath of office and it will be an offence for any member to disclose any information in connection with any matter referred to the Commission.

Mr Louis Ng asked if there are limits on the reappointment of JSC and LSC members and, if not, the reasons for not limiting the number of reappointments that a member can hold on the JSC and LSC.

The short answer to Mr Louis Ng is no. There are no limits on the reappointment of JSC and LSC members. Whilst we understand Mr Louis Ng's concerns about leadership renewal and organisational change, we must also, at the same time, be realistic about the pool of candidates that are suitable and also willing to serve on these Commissions.

Candidates must be suitably qualified – I set out earlier the Articles that prescribe the criteria – and sufficiently senior, with experience, and for those from the private sector especially, must be willing to devote time and energy to Public Service.

We want the best people to sit on both Commissions. Given our small size, this pool is not large. It is not feasible to impose strict limits on reappointments, which would not lead to the best results for both Commissions.

Next, let me touch on secondments and transfers.

Both Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Vikram Nair spoke on the benefits of secondments in providing breadth of exposure for officers. Mr Lim asked for confirmation that such secondments would continue. Mr Nair asked if secondments would be more difficult after the restructuring since there are different Commissions governing the officers and whether there is a risk that if an officer remains in one Branch, they would not get a broader perspective that will help them to perform their functions better.

In the same vein, Mr Zhulkarnain made a number of proposals on secondments for exposure. Mr Zhulkarnain, in particular, asked if permanent transfers will be available where necessary to meet manpower needs and if the possibility for suitable Judicial Officers (JOs) to be seconded to the Syariah Court can be retained.

I welcome Mr Lim's, Mr Nair's and Mr Zhulkarnain's points. The goal of the restructuring is to better support the training and development of officers in the Judicial Service and the Legal Service. This overall objective has not changed. We want to provide the best development opportunities for officers.

As I mentioned in my opening speech, both the Judicial and Legal Branches have now matured to a state where there are diverse opportunities within each Branch – not just across but within each Branch – for exposure.

Nevertheless, as I have mentioned earlier, secondments will continue to be made available under a framework to be discussed and agreed upon by both Commissions.

With the restructuring, I expect that the two Commissions will explore even more innovative ways of enhancing the development of both Legal and Judicial Service Officers. In this regard, I am sure that the Commissions will take very seriously the various proposals and suggestions that Members have put forward.

Mr Pillai and Mr Ng touched on talent attraction and talent diversification in their speeches respectively.

Mr Pillai asked how the reconstituted LSC plans to attract and retain its fair share of top talent with the right set of values after restructuring. Those are perennial problems, not just today, previously but also in the private sector.

Mr Louis Ng queried if there are plans to diversify the talent pool of judicial officers within the JSC.

First, let me thank Mr Pillai's impassioned speech and his recognition of the impactful work undertaken by the LSOs in the past year and a half, at least. It has been a challenging period – as Mr Pillai illustrated with various examples – but the officers, I think we can agree, have delivered far beyond expectations.

The plans going forward are matters for the new Commissions when they are constituted. That is precisely why they are set up with the respective Personnel Boards. Nevertheless, I am sure that both the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, as the future Presidents of the two Commissions, share Mr Pillai's concerns that both their Services must continue to attract the right legal talent with a heart for service and a care for Singapore in their respective domains.

I think Mr Dennis Tan also raised this point and what I have just said will also answer the query he had raised. I should also add to Mr Tan's question that the intent is not to have the Chief Justice nominated to the LSC or for the Attorney-General to be nominated to the JSC. That would not be compatible with the spirit of the amendments that we are proposing.

The issue of talent diversification – I have to come back to this point that I think Mr Louis Ng also raised – and, more importantly, ensuring that we have the right people with the relevant skillsets and also temperament for the Bench will, undoubtedly, be on the forefront of the minds of the JSC.

I had earlier mentioned in my speech how both the Judicial and Legal Branches have been taking measures to deepen specialisation within their own skillsets. They will continue to build on these efforts after the restructuring.

With the restructuring, the two Commissions will have the flexibility to also develop their own unique value proposition in terms of breadth of exposure for their officers, talent development, opportunities for career progression, recruitment and so on. As I have said earlier, the competition is not just within the Service. It is how do we attract the best talent, given that we have developed the legal industry, the legal landscape in Singapore to an extent where the top talent does exist in Singapore.

But I am confident that the two Commissions will be able to chart the way forward for the respective Services as we enter this next stage of institution-building.

On this note, Mr Dennis Tan asked about caseloads. Mr Lim Biow Chuan also cited some figures.

The cases are getting more complex; not just more but also more complicated. But the officers have worked very hard. And just to give Members a sense, between 2018 and 2020, the State Courts and Family Justice Courts collectively dealt with an average caseload of more than 292,000 cases each year. What is also commendable is that, in these three years at least, the State Courts have consistently achieved a total case clearance rate of more than 100% each year, which means that the number of cases they clear exceeds the number of new cases that are filed each year. So, they are progressively clearing a backlog and making sure that cases are disposed of more expeditiously.

I cannot speak for their manpower needs moving forward but, certainly, this demonstrates that officers have been working hard to ensure that justice is not just served correctly but served expeditiously as well.

Let me touch on some questions raised by Members on the opportunities for cross-learning and collaboration.

Mr Zhulkarnain mentioned ensuring opportunities for cross-learning between the two Services and that the Singapore Judicial College could be involved. We thank him for these suggestions. We agree that the Services must continue sharing knowledge and best practices even after the restructuring, and we will pass this feedback on to the two Commissions.

Last couple of queries.

Mr Dennis Tan asked about career development after the split of the two Commissions. The Commissions will study and consider. But I can say to Mr Tan that their focus will be what works best for Singapore, how best to attract and retain talent and how best to develop their respective officers, as I have mentioned earlier.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about the secondments. I mentioned that in the two Articles 111F and 111N., and the framework here is to jointly develop a framework for cross-seondings secondments.

Members might also wish to know that after the Adjournment Motion by Mr Pillai, there were townhalls held by the Working Group. There was a workgroup that was set up. There were at least five townhalls, significant engagement with Legal Service Officers, and they expressed a desire for secondments to continue; to continue to allow them to be seconded so that they can, as Mr Lim puts it, gain a far wider breadth of experience so that this will come to bear positively in the discharge of their services.

Sir, I believe this brings me to the end of the responses to the various questions that are raised. I have touched on, I think, almost all of the queries. With that, Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Clarifications, please. Mr Murali Pillai.

5.27 pm

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make a clarification on my speech delivered earlier.

I had raised attention to the good work of the Legislation Division of the Attorney-General's Chambers, headed by Mrs Owi, the Deputy Solicitor-General. I would like to mention that she had handed the baton to Ms Jeanne Lee, the Chief Legislative Counsel and, under Ms Lee's stewardship, the division continues to deliver high standards. It is my hope that this service of excellence will reach even greater heights under the reconstituted LSC. Thank you, Sir.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications? The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 64 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.

After two minutes –

Mr Speaker: Serjeant‐at‐Arms, lock the doors.

Before I proceed to start the voting, may I remind Members that the Clerk will call the names of Members to indicate their votes in the order based on the current seating arrangement. When called upon, Members are to stand up and raise their vote cards in my direction to indicate their votes. The Clerk will repeat each Member's vote for confirmation. If the vote read is not according to their vote indication, Members should inform me immediately to have their correct vote recorded.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to record the votes.

Whereupon the vote of each hon Member present was indicated and read aloud for confirmation.

Mr Speaker: I will now proceed to declare the voting results. There are 85 "Ayes", 0 "Noes", and 0 "Abstentions". So, the "Ayes" have it. The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Now, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution, a vote is taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, which is 64 Members. Clerk, ring the division bells.

After one minute –

Mr Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third Time."

Mr Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to record the votes.

Whereupon the vote of each hon Member present was indicated and read aloud for confirmation.

Mr Speaker: I will now proceed to declare the voting results. There are 85 "Ayes", 0 "Noes", and 0 "Abstentions". So, the "Ayes" have it. The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Elected and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.