Committee of Supply – Head E (Judicature)

12.06 pm

The Chairman: Head E, Judicature. Ms Sylvia Lim.

Litigants in Person

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Chairman, I beg to move. "That the total sum to be allocated for Head E of the Estimates be reduced by $100".

Our Constitution provides at Article 12 that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. Today, I wish to focus on the challenges of litigants who do not have lawyers. I will highlight cases from the ground to illustrate difficulties they face in normal times and in COVID-19 times.

At the onset, I wish to acknowledge the attention that the Courts have been paying to the litigants in person. There are training programmes at the Singapore Judicial College to sensitise judges on how to handle such litigants in Court. Lawyers also see judges going the extra mile to explain to unrepresented persons, the requirements of the law and legal procedure. There are also inquiry counters at the Courts and education brochures in the four official languages.

My purpose is not to criticise current efforts but to highlight some observations from the ground for the Courts' consideration for possible further enhancements.

There are three main challenges I wish to highlight. First non-English-speaking litigants. Second, the need for public buy in of Court procedures. And third, particular challenges caused by COVID-19.

First, non-English-speaking litigants. It is common at my Meet-the-People sessions to encounter Chinese-speaking residents showing me court documents and saying that they are unable to read them and do not know what they should do next. Indeed, according to the General Household Survey 2015, there remains nearly 20% of the population above 15 years old who are not literate in English.

I am aware that court interpreters can be applied for in advance of court hearings, and are available for Mandarin, Malay and Tamil, and other specific languages and dialects. However, this has to be applied for through e-litigation in advance, otherwise, deployment will be subject to availability. I wonder if many litigants in person have used e-litigation to apply for such interpretation services.

As for court documents, they are issued in English. Residents sometimes tell me that they do not understand the contents of Orders made by the courts. As the national language policy recognises Chinese, Malay and Tamil as official languages, I wonder if the courts could consider providing translations of court issued documents to litigants in these languages, either for free or for a nominal fee. If this is not possible for all documents, then is it possible at least for court orders, so that litigants are clear what is required of them?

My second point is the need for public buy in of Court procedures. To illustrate the point, I note some unhappiness from residents who had their neighbour disputes adjudicated by the CDRT which was discussed in the earlier Committee of Supply debate. The unhappiness was both about the hearing and the outcome.

To this end, I would hope that CDRT judges are specially selected with empathy and patience as key traits, and also have the ability to explain issues to litigants in simple and vernacular language. As for the Orders made by the CDRT, some residents are shocked to be ordered to stay out of their homes for a few weeks. After all, this is a most drastic order that undermines their property rights.

Finally, additional difficulties caused during the COVID-19 pandemic. The courts had to close for several weeks during the circuit breaker and continues to restrict physical hearings and counter services. There must now be a significant backlog of cases due to COVID-19. While some hearings took place via remote means such as Zoom, I wonder how many litigants in person had the resources and the wherewithal to avail themselves of that option.

I would like to illustrate the point using an elderly resident's case. He was conducting a civil claim for damages after a road accident which left him partially disabled. After obtaining interlocutory judgment, his next step to quantify his damages was delayed due to court closures. An application by him was dismissed by the court remotely and he did not understand why. In the meantime, he suffered a stroke and is much weaker now. Time is of the essence to him.

So, my final point is, how have litigants in person been supported during COVID-19, and how can urgent cases be flagged out for expedited handling?

Question proposed.

The Chairman: Mr Edwin Tong.

The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Sir, we share Ms Lim's concerns to the extent that we would, of course, want to support a litigant-in-person's access to our justice system. And I am grateful to Ms Lim for recognising some of the efforts to handle litigants-in-persons in court.

Both my Ministry and the Judiciary remain committed to ensuring access to justice for all. And indeed, one of the guiding principles of the Civil Justice Reform Committee established by MinLaw was to advance access to justice for all persons, including litigants-in-person and SMEs.

Let me highlight some of the on-going efforts.

First, we are simplifying and streamlining legal processes and designing them with the ultimate end-users in mind. The new Rules of Court, which is scheduled to come into operation later this year, will be written in modern, layman language, easy to understand and to apply. Forms and processes will also be simplified. Cases can take a judge-led approach where appropriate.

Second, we are leveraging on technology to make legal processes more accessible and convenient, and to channel timely and useful information to those facing legal issues, especially litigants-in-person.

For example, the Community Justice Centre (CJC)’s Automated Court Document Assembly System (ACDA). This is a free online service that provides step-by-step guidance to generate and file certain court forms, such as applying for deputyship, which a lay person can do on his own. If necessary, court staff will also be available on hand to assist.

Third, we have taken steps to enhance awareness and also support structures to help litigants-in-person. I spoke earlier about the improvements that we are making to legal aid for civil and criminal matters, to support litigants of limited means who are unable to afford their own lawyers. The Community Justice Centre (CJC) also runs a one-stop HELP (Helping to Empower Litigants-in-Person) Centre. These provide support services such as free on-site legal advice, and also emotional and psychological support through the Friends of Litigants-in-Person (FLIP) scheme.

Elderly or less well-educated persons ought not feel intimidated or apprehensive in participating in legal proceedings. Ample support is available to help them navigate the court process. If the litigant struggles with English, the Community Justice Centre will endeavour to source for volunteers who are conversant in other languages.

For litigants-in-person who require a court interpreter, they can make a written request, and the reason to have to make the written request in advance is obviously the number of intepreters might be limited. If all go for a Mandarin speaker or a dialect speaker on the same day, there needs to be an allocation. So, something in advance would be necessary. But to the extent possible, the courts will allocate the appropriate interpreter to ensure that the process can take place. And that the individuals who do not understand English can still continue to take part in the proceedings. Certainly, the Judge will not proceed with a hearing, if one party is unable to follow the proceedings due to language difficulties.

Ms Lim asked about the translation of court documents. For cases before the Community Courts and Tribunals, or cases involving simple court Orders, litigants-in-persons who need assistance understanding court correspondence may call the court's hotline. They will be assisted by staff who can explain the content of documents to them either over the phone, or on occasion, in person when they meet.

For other cases, if a translation is required, litigants can be referred to third parties who provide translation services. We are in the midst of exploring with the CDCs and with LSPBS, a range of options to assist litigants who need assistance who have English court documents, and the avenues being considered are platforms to explain the documents verbally in a language that the litigant is comfortable with, providing advice where needed, as you heard Ms Hany Soh explain earlier, or in certain cases, assisting with the cost of engaging translation services, where needed.

Ms Lim raised some questions on the impact of COVID-19 on the Courts and litigants-in-person.

Some amount of disruption in the past year has been unavoidable due to the need to combat the spread of COVID-19 to save lives and the pandemic has had an immense impact not only on court processes but really on all aspects of our daily lives.

12.15 pm

There has been some backlog and the State Courts have lost a number of hearing days due to the vacation of hearings because of the circuit breaker period – likewise, the Family Justice Courts as well as the High Courts. Nonetheless, as of present-date, the vast majority of the cases which have been backlogged have been re-fixed for hearing and many have already been disposed of.

As far as remote hearings, and more generally, the increased usage of technology in the Courts are concerned, MinLaw and the Courts are keenly sensitive to the needs of court users who are not represented and less technologically inclined.

Ms Lim asked whether litigants-in-person have the resources to use Zoom. They can do so on their own if necessary. Alternatively, those who require assistance can receive assistance through telephone or over the counter, on online live-chat or through email communications.

Remote hearings serve to make it more convenient for the user, ultimately, but those who are unable to do so can ask for their matters to be heard physically if they are unable to attend remotely. Alternatively, the Courts have also set up dedicated video-conferencing facilities in the Courts to cater to litigants who themselves lack the means or knowledge to connect via video-conferencing facilities.

Ms Lim raised the case of her resident who was looking at quantification of damages. This resident can avail himself of any of the above measures that I have mentioned. In addition, the litigant can also write to the Court Registry to explain the situation, ask for an earlier hearing date and they can do so through any of the various modes I have mentioned.

I spoke earlier about how MinLaw is working with agencies to review the Community Dispute Management Framework (CDMF). Let me address the specific concerns that Ms Lim has raised in her speech here.

Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) cases are heard by District Judges who are designated as Tribunal Judges. They are empowered to handle cases in a less adversarial way and to ensure that proceedings are simple for litigants to navigate. The CDRT is not bound by the rules of evidence and proceedings are designed to be judge-led. These judges are trained in mediation and they continue to assist in every case, assess each case and assess the parties for suitability in mediation even as the case proceeds on an adversarial basis.

If, despite all these measures, after exhausting all attempts at an amicable solution, there is still a dispute, then the CDRT will have to make a decision and issue an order. These orders then have to be complied with.

Ms Lim spoke about the residents' concern, that they can ordered to stay out of their homes. Let me explain.

What Ms Lim refers to are Exclusion Orders (EO), which require the respondent to temporarily move out from his place of residence. Such an order is intended to deal with the most egregious of cases. There have only been two Exclusion Orders since October 2015. The CDRT can only make an Exclusion Order if the respondent has failed to comply with the initial CDRT order as well as the subsequent Special Direction; two times.

The timeline in both cases for the EO roughly have been about 17 to 18 months, between the initial CDRT order and the Exclusion Order. So, for a period of more than one year, almost one and half years, this individual defendant has been disregarding the initial order, have been heard by the Courts and yet chose not to comply with the initial court order.

Hence, where the Court is shown evidence that the respondent is recalcitrant and continues to cause nuisance to his neighbour in contravention of the court order and remains in continuous default, it is only right that firm measures be taken to stop the offending conduct and deter the continuation of the nuisance.

Even then, there are statutory safeguards. For instance, the CDRT must consider the impact of the order on the contravening party and any other individual who may be reasonably affected by the order.

Access to justice, Sir, remains a key cornerstone of the Ministry and we will continue to advance our efforts in this regard. We thank Ms Lim for her feedback and suggestions.

The Chairman: Ms Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. One clarification for the Minister concerning my suggestion on the translation of court orders into other languages.

In his response, he mentioned that there were avenues available through staff or perhaps through the CDC network to explain verbally to the resident the contents of the orders. But I wonder if he will agree with me that having a written translation is certainly something that is a better and stronger reference point for the resident, because sometimes when people talk to you, you cannot retain the information or you remember inaccurately, whereas if you have a translated document, you can refer to it and it is, in a sense, a more reliable source.

I would like to ask again that the Courts, through the CDC network or through themselves, do consider this avenue of providing a translation of court orders if such is sought by the resident and at a nominal fee, or if not, free.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: As I outlined earlier, this is something that is being looked into by the CDCs working with LSPBS. In the appropriate cases, we can consider a full translation of the court document.

But I think Ms Lim would also appreciate that it is not in every case that a full translation automatically means that the person who is receiving this document, even in its translated language, can readily understand it. That is why the suggestion earlier that I made, which I think Ms Hany Soh also weighed in on, is for pro bono lawyers to assist in this process, not just in the translation but also in the elucidation and explanation of the impact of the document and what it means to the litigant-in-person.

That said, I think, through various means, we want to ensure that the litigants-in-person are able to understand the process, understand what the judge is saying, what the other party is seeking to achieve. This, I think, upholds the integrity of the process. We will take these necessary steps to ensure that litigants-in-person will be able to understand the process through a variety of means.

The Chairman: Ms Lim, would you like to withdraw the amendment?

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Chairman, it is good to hear the Courts' continuing commitment to justice for all, especially litigants-in-person, and I would highly urge that the Courts continue in this direction to address any gaps. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $308,728,600 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $92,444,700 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.