the new phases of justice€¦ · attainment of the singapore quality award this year is but the...

SUBORDINATE COURTSANNUAL REPORT 2006

NEW PHASESThe

of JUSTICE

ContentsForeword by The Honourable the Chief Justice 02Message from the Senior District Judge 04Justice Statement 08Our Constitution and Governance 10Our Bench 20Criminal Justice Division 22Civil Justice Division 34Family and Juvenile Justice Division 46Engaging the Bar and the Community 58Our Quality Corporate Administration 72Organisational Excellence and Performance Indicators 86

15th Subordinate Courts Workplan 2006/2007“Justice @ the Subordinate Courts: The New Phases of Justice”on Thursday, 18th May 2006

Keynote Address byThe Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong

“The Workplan’s theme“Justice @ the SubordinateCourts: The New Phases ofJustice” reflects the qualitativelydifferent context of the newworkyear and the need for newresponses to meet the increasinglymore complex challenges broughtabout by changes occurringdomestically and internationally.More than ever, it is importantfor the Subordinate Courtsto entrench the Rule of Law,enhance access to justice anddeepen public trust andconfidence in its work.”


“It is in the SubordinateCourts where the hand of

justice touches and changesthe lives of those in ourcommunity who seek theprotection and assistance

of the law.”

02

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

CHAN SEK KEONG

THEHONOURABLE

Foreword by

THE CHIEFJUSTICE

03

CHAN SEK KEONGCHIEF JUSTICEREPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE

The Subordinate Courts are the public faceof justice in Singapore, hearing over 95% ofall criminal, civil, family and juvenile cases eachyear. It is in the Subordinate Courts where thehand of justice touches and changes thelives of those in our community who seek theprotection and assistance of the law. This iswhy the quality of the administration of justicein the Subordinate Courts is indispensableto our people’s confidence in the Judiciary asthe guardian of justice and steward of theRule of Law in Singapore.

The Subordinate Courts have steadfastlymaintained their quality of justice throughall these years by continuously setting higherbenchmarks in the pursuit of more accessibleand affordable justice for the people. Theirattainment of the Singapore Quality Awardthis year is but the latest manifestation of theall-round excellence in the Subordinate Courtsin all its endeavours.

As we move into the new phases of justicein the midst of the new challenges facing us,the Judiciary must remain steadfast to thefundamental principle of equal justice forall. Above all, we must never forget thatintegrity of judgment and purpose is the veryfoundation on which the administration ofjustice is based, and what society demandsfrom our judges. Without such integrity, whatwe say or do means nothing.

I am confident that the Subordinate Courtswill uphold the high standards they haveachieved and continue to set ever higherstandards in the administration of justicefor the welfare of our people.


04

THE SENIORMessage from

DISTRICT JUDGE2006 has been a watershed for theSubordinate Courts. Chief Justice Chan SekKeong set the following tone and direction forthe workyear in his Keynote Address at the 15th

Subordinate Courts Workplan 2006/2007:

“The Workplan’s theme “Justice @ theSubordinate Courts: The New Phases ofJustice” reflects the qualitatively differentcontext of the new workyear and the needfor new responses to meet the increasinglymore complex challenges brought aboutby changes occurring domestically andinternationally. More than ever, it is importantfor the Subordinate Courts to entrench the Ruleof Law, enhance access to justice and deepenpublic trust and confidence in its work.”

In this regard, the following seminal initiativeswere implemented:

• The Community Court. The Court adoptsa problem-solving approach that combinescriminal justice and community resourcesfor a comprehensive response to caseswhich involve issues which are close to theheart of the community. This Court hasbeen well received by the public.

• The Family Relations Centre, Family Court.The Centre provides holistic, legal, relationaland therapeutic solutions to divorcingcouples in custody and other ancillarymatters. The Centre has been effective.

• The pre-action protocol for medicalnegligence cases. This protocol allowspotential claims arising from adverse orunexpected outcomes in medical proceduresto be dealt with expeditiously and effectivelywithout having to file a court action. Thisbuilds upon what has been done in the civiljustice division and follows up on the successof the pre-action protocol for ‘non-injurymotor accident’ cases. This protocol hasbeen well received by the relevant healthconstituents.

• The Lay Assistant Scheme. This schemeassists the litigant-in-person in court byhelping the litigant to take notes and organisethe papers and provide moral support andadvice to the litigant. This scheme hasenhanced access to justice.

• The Court Concierge service. This providescourt users with personal one-to-oneattention to assist them in the use of courtservices. This has become a much sought-after service.

05

“...the Subordinate Courts todayare internationally recognised as a

change and thought leader in judicialadministration, as well as having one of

the world’s most technologicallyadvanced courts.”

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

RICHARD MAGNUS


06

THE SENIORMessage from

DISTRICT JUDGE

• The Small Claims Tribunal’s jurisdiction wasexpanded to allow landlords of residentialproperty (where the lease agreement doesnot exceed two years) to recover unpaidrent and to provide a redress to tenantswho have disputes over rental deposits.The expanded jurisdiction enables theaggrieved party to save on legal costs asthey can seek redress at the Tribunalswithout having to engage a lawyer.

• To revisit the integrated criminal justicesystem. This technology platform envisagesan integration of the case managementsystems of the criminal justice agenciesto facilitate online data sharing andelectronic document interchange subjectto confidentiality and legal constraints.

• The Proof-of-Concept Lab. This allowsthe experimentation of cutting-edgetechnologies such as the use of 3G mobiledevices to allow lawyers to conductpre-trial video conferences on the movewithout physically having to come to court.A panel of resource persons from the ITindustry was established to guide the Lab.The Lab has allowed the SubordinateCourts to keep in step with the relevant

development in the IT industry and toevaluate contemporary technology for theenhanced delivery of justice.

• Engaging the Media. Several journalistswere attached to the Subordinate Courtsto enable them to have a more intimateunderstanding of the issues involved inthe administration of justice, as well asthe many considerations which must betaken into account in every case beforethe court. This has allowed them to betterexplain the decisions of the court to thegeneral public.

• Engaging the Bar. The Subordinate Courts’relationship with the Bar was strengthenedand deepened this workyear. There was aseries of substantive law, proceduresand practice lectures on the SubordinateCourts’ practice areas for the Bar and theirparalegals as part of the continuing effortto develop the litigation bar in civil, criminaland family practice. These lectures wereconducted jointly by the SubordinateCourts’ judges, registrars and courtadministrators and practising lawyers.These lectures have helped both the Barand the Subordinate Courts.

07

“The officers at the Subordinate Courts,from the district judges and magistrates to all thecourt administrators, have worked tirelessly in

their dedication to uphold the ideals in our JusticeStatement as we pursue the singular mission ofadministering justice to uphold the Rule of Law

and enhance access to justice.”

RICHARD MAGNUSSENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

• The Specialist Judge scheme. This allowsexperienced and well-respected membersof the legal profession or academia topreside over complex cases in their areaof expertise in the Subordinate Courts,whilst maintaining their busy practiceoutside. Three such Specialist Judgeswere appointed. They broadened theexperience and quality of the SubordinateCourts’ Bench.

2006 also marked the high point of theSubordinate Courts’ journey towardsorganisational excellence, which hasculminated in our winning the prestigiousSingapore Quality Award for institutionalisingthe highest standards of business excellence.In stark contrast to yesteryear, when a cripplingbacklog of cases plagued the judicialsystem, the Subordinate Courts today areinternationally recognised as a change andthought leader in judicial administration,as well as having one of the world’s mosttechnologically advanced courts. A localpublic survey also shows very high confidenceby the public in the administration of justiceby the Subordinate Courts.

This Annual Report records the successfulimplementation of all these initiatives andachievements. More significantly, however,this Report testifies that the SubordinateCourts continue to be faithful in its missionof administering justice and upholding theRule of Law.

The officers at the Subordinate Courts, fromthe district judges and magistrates to all thecourt administrators, have worked tirelesslyin their dedication to uphold the ideals inour Justice Statement as we pursue thesingular mission of administering justice touphold the Rule of Law and enhance accessto justice. I would like to place on record myheartfelt gratitude to all the officers of theSubordinate Courts, without whom theachievements set out in this Annual Reportwould not have been possible.


08

JUSTICESTATEMENT

Subordinate Courts

To Decide and Resolve JustlyTo Administer Effectively

To Preserve Public Trust and Confidence

Three Goals

FourJustice Models

One MissionTo Administer Justice

Two ObjectivesTo Uphold the Rule of Law

To Enhance Access to Justice

Criminal Justice – Protecting the PublicJuvenile Justice – Restorative Justice

Civil Justice – Effective and Fair Dispute ResolutionFamily Justice – Protecting Family Obligations

SixPrinciples

09

To Faithfully Discharge Judicial DutiesTo do Right to All Manner of PeopleAfter the Laws and Usages ofthe Republic of SingaporeWithout Fear or Favour, Affection or III WillTo the Best of their Ability, andTo be Faithful and Bear True Allegianceto the Republic of Singapore

AccessibilityExpedition and TimelinessEquality, Fairness and IntegrityIndependence and AccountabilityPublic Trust and Confidence

The judges and magistratessubscribe to the principles in theirOath of Office and Allegiance

Five Values


10

CONSTITUTIONOur

andGOVERNANCE


12

CONSTITUTIONOur

andGOVERNANCE

Left to right

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGEWONG KEEN ONN

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGELIEW THIAM LENG

REGISTRAR TOH HAN LI

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGERICHARD MAGNUS

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGEKHOO OON SOO

ACTING PRINCIPAL DISTRICTJUDGE MAVIS CHIONH


14

CONSTITUTIONOur

andGOVERNANCE

OUR CONSTITUTIONThe judicial power of Singapore is vestedin the Supreme Court and the SubordinateCourts by virtue of Article 93 of the Constitutionof the Republic of Singapore.

Constituted by the Subordinate Courts Act(Cap 321), the Subordinate Courts consist ofthe District Courts, the Magistrates’ Courts,the Juvenile Court, the Coroner’s Court andthe Small Claims Tribunals. In addition, someof the District Courts and Magistrates’ Courtsare designated as specialist courts, such asthe Family Court, the Criminal Mentions Court,the Commercial Civil and Criminal Courts, theCommunity Court, the Filter Court, the TrafficCourt, the Centralised Sentencing Courtand the Night Courts. The Primary DisputeResolution Centre (also known as the e@drCentre) and the Multi-Door Courthouse alsoform part of the Subordinate Courts.

There are four Justice Divisions in theSubordinate Courts, namely the CriminalJustice Division, the Civil Justice Division,the Family and Juvenile Justice Divisionand the Criminal Mentions, Night Courts andCommercial Courts Division. Each of theJustice Divisions is headed by one or morePrincipal District Judges.

The Senior District Judge has overallsupervision of all District Judges, Magistratesand staff of the Subordinate Courts. He isassisted by the Forum of Principal DistrictJudges, comprising the Principal DistrictJudges of the four Justice Divisions andthe Registrar of the Subordinate Courts.

The District Judges and Magistrates of theSubordinate Courts are appointed by thePresident of the Republic of Singapore onthe recommendation of the Chief Justice.They hold concurrent appointments asDeputy Registrars dealing with civil matters

in chambers; Coroners, and Referees of theSmall Claims Tribunals. The District Judgesand Magistrates who preside over trials aredivided into groups which are each overseenand supervised by a Group Manager (who isa District Judge with seniority) under the GroupManagement of Cases (GMC) scheme.

OUR COURT GOVERNANCEThe aim of the Subordinate Courts is to providejustice to all people in Singapore accordingto the law without fear or favour. Over the past15 years under the leadership of former ChiefJustice Yong Pung How, Chief Justice ChanSek Keong and Senior District Judge RichardMagnus, the Subordinate Courts have beentransformed into a world-class judiciarythrough wide ranging judicial reforms thatwere systematically implemented in thecourse of each workyear.

The Subordinate Courts have, since 1992,introduced various reforms and justiceinitiatives which have strategically andoperationally reshaped and strengthenedthe Courts and the administration of justice.Court governance has been enhanced toensure that the Subordinate Courts’ objectivesof and commitment to the fair and efficientadministration of justice are achieved. In thisregard, best judicial case management andorganisation practices were drawn from aroundthe world and have been institutionalised. Thesereforms have steered the Subordinate Courtssteadily towards achieving higher standards ofexcellence every year. Today, the SubordinateCourts stand out as an outstanding judicialand administrative reformer and innovatoramongst judicial institutions around the worldwhose work in providing timely access tojustice and efficient in-court administration, hasbeen acknowledged by several internationalbodies, such as the World Bank, the AsianDevelopment Bank, the National Centerfor State Courts, the United Kingdom and

15

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICECHAN SEK KEONG

“As we move into the newphases of justice in themidst of the new challengesfacing us, the Judiciarymust remain steadfast tothe fundamental principleof equal justice for all.”

other regional judiciaries. The SubordinateCourts have also been cited as a model ofmodernisation for Latin American countries.

Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, whosucceeded Chief Justice Yong Pung How on11th April 2006, noted in His Honour’sResponse at the Welcome Reference for theChief Justice that:

“Chief Justice Yong’s achievements in theadministration of justice are unique and notcapable of emulation. He has left behind arock solid foundation on which the Judiciary,working closely with the Bar and the LegalService as well as law academics, will havethe opportunity to build a justice system thatis consonant with the times and which isequal to the best in the world.”

In His Honour’s Keynote Address at the15th Subordinate Courts Workplan 2006/2007 “Justice @ the Subordinate Courts: TheNew Phases of Justice” on 18th May 2006,Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong reiterated the

critical role of the Subordinate Courts in theadministration of justice in these words:

“The quality of justice, and how it isadministered by the Subordinate Courts,affects the lives of ordinary Singaporeans.The Subordinate Courts are where mostpeople have contact with the law. What youare doing is an important job because youdeliver justice for those who come to theSubordinate Courts.” The Senior District Judge, who has immediatesupervision of all the District Judges,Magistrates and staff of the SubordinateCourts, spearheads the formulation ofstrategic policies, operational workplansand oversees the execution of strategic plansfor the Subordinate Courts. He has overallresponsibility for the daily management andadministration of the Subordinate Courts, andis directly accountable to the Chief Justice.He is assisted in his duties and responsibilitiesby a core team, comprising the PrincipalDistrict Judges, the Group Managers, the


16

CONSTITUTIONOur

andGOVERNANCE

Registrar, the Senior Deputy Registrar, theSenior Directors and Directors.

The clock-work efficiency of the SubordinateCourts is contributed by a professionalcore of dedicated and competent courtadministrators who provide essential para-legal support and administration servicesrequired by the operational units of theSubordinate Courts.

TRILOGY OF COURT GOVERNANCEThe Subordinate Courts have in place atrilogy of court governance to chart thedirection of the organisation. This comprisesthe Justice Statement, the Framework of CoreCompetencies and the Strategic Framework.Collectively, the three frameworks providethe foundational principles on which theSubordinate Courts’ governance strategy isbased for the fair, efficient and effectiveadministration of justice.

THE JUSTICE STATEMENTThe Justice Statement encapsulates theSubordinate Courts’ mission, values andgoverning principles. These core valuesand principles are timeless and immutable.The Justice Statement also sets out theSubordinate Courts’ four justice models,their underlying philosophies as well asthe principles governing the dischargeof judicial duties.

THE FRAMEWORK OF CORECOMPETENCIESThe Framework of Core Competenciesprovides the knowledge capital to ensure thatthe Subordinate Courts are always forward-thinking and continue to be relevant with theprogress of time. As a result, the SubordinateCourts have been able to adapt and evolveconstantly to meet the changing needs ofsociety. Judges in the Subordinate Courtstake on roles which go far beyond that of the

traditional adjudicator – as administrators,reformers, mediators and educators. Theytake a proactive approach in dealing with allmatters that come before them.

THE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORKThe Strategic Framework sets out eight keyelements that provide a point of reference orbenchmark against which future activities ofthe Subordinate Courts should be assessed.These elements are essential in establishing afirm foundation for the justice system. The broadbenchmarks found in the Framework coverthe desired public perception of the justicesystem, its fundamentals, access to justice,nature of the judicial process, applicablecourt governance principles, strategic use oftechnology, scenario and future planning,talent management and continuing education.

ORGANISATIONAL BEST PRACTICESThe Subordinate Courts have been at theforefront of implementing organisationalbest practices such as the Justice Scorecardsystem, the Net Economic Value system andthe Six Sigma organisational philosophy.

The Subordinate Courts’ Justice Scorecard,which is probably the world’s first applicationof the Balanced Scorecard concept in thejudiciary, was implemented in 1999. It is aninnovative adaptation of the BalancedScorecard system and is used as tool in theperformance management of the Courts. TheJustice Scorecard translates the missionand strategies of the Subordinate Courtsinto operational goals that can be measuredagainst a balanced set of perspectives. TheJustice Scorecard has since become a modelfor many interested organisations whichhave conducted studies of this to learn moreabout the Scorecard’s philosophy andmechanics. It was also featured in the book“Mastering Business in Asia” (2005) by JamesCreelman and Naresh Makhijani. The authors

17

of the Balanced Scorecard concept, RobertKaplan and David Norton, have also quotedthe Subordinate Courts’ ability to use theBalanced Scorecard effectively.

These organisational best practices, whichform the bedrock of the Subordinate Courts’performance architecture, have enabled theCourts to constantly review internal workprocesses and provide an objective standardagainst which judicial performance maybe measured. Such performance reviewprocesses in turn foster a dynamic andresilient judiciary.

As a reflection of its organisational excellence,the Subordinate Courts have been accordednumerous awards, such as the NationalAssociation of Court Management (NACM)Justice Achievement Award 1999, PeopleDeveloper Standard, ISO 9000 for theFamily Transformation and Protection Unit,ISO 9000 for the Information TechnologyDepartment, Singapore Quality Class 2001,Justice Served Award 2001, DistinguishedDefence Partner Award 2006, and morerecently, the Distinguished Public ServiceAward for Organisational Excellence 2006and the prestigious Singapore QualityAward 2006.

THE NEW PHASES OF JUSTICEThe Subordinate Courts are widely regardedas primus inter pares among world-classjudiciaries and enjoy high levels of publictrust and confidence. The high standing ofthe Courts is the result of extensive reformsand initiatives implemented over the years,which have strengthened the Courts andfulfilled the objectives of delivering fair, justand swift justice to the public.

Notwithstanding these achievements, theCourts are aware that the administration ofjustice will continue to be challenging.

Against the rapid changes taking place inthe region and around the world, Chief JusticeChan Sek Keong reminded the Courts at the15th Subordinate Courts Workplan 2006/2007 that:

“It is important for the Subordinate Courtsto remain steadfast in its primary mission ofdispensing justice and promoting theshared values of the people of Singapore.The Courts must maintain the current highstandards in court administration and thedispensation of justice.”

Setting the new direction for the SubordinateCourts at the 15th Workplan, Chief JusticeChan said:

“The Workplan’s theme “Justice @ theSubordinate Courts: The New Phases ofJustice” reflects the qualitatively differentcontext of the new workyear and the needfor new responses to meet the increasinglymore complex challenges brought aboutby changes occurring domestically andinternationally. More than ever, it is importantfor the Subordinate Courts to entrenchthe rule of law, enhance access to justiceand deepen public trust and confidencein its work.”

The watershed 15th Workplan launched byChief Justice Chan saw the introduction ofmany critical initiatives in the administrationof justice. These included the launch of theCommunity Court, the establishment of theFamily Relations Centre, the appointment ofSpecialist Judges, the deployment of CourtConcierges, the expansion of the SubordinateCourts’ internship programme to graduatingSingapore Press Holdings scholarshipholders and fresh journalists, the introductionof iCourtLab and lectures by SubordinateCourts’ judges to the Bar.

“More than ever, it is important for theSubordinate Courts to entrench the rule oflaw, enhance access to justice and deepenpublic trust and confidence in its work.”

The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong15th Subordinate Courts Workplan 2006/2007

18th May 2006


18

ORGANISATION CHART

SENIORDISTRICT JUDGE

PRINCIPALDISTRICT JUDGES

• GROUP MANAGERS• DISTRICT JUDGES• MAGISTRATES

SENIOR DIRECTOR(CORPORATE SERVICES)

DeputyDirector(Finance)

Director(HRM)

DeputyDirector

(Development)

DeputyDirector

(Corp Comms)

Director(Centre forResearch,

eNnovationand Statistics)

Head(Interpreters)

HeadLibrarian

SeniorDeputyHead(SIM)

ServicesInformation

Manager(SIM)/

Assistant QSM

DeputyDirector

(HRM)

SeniorAssistantDirector

(Development)

DeputyDirector(Centre forResearch,


SeniorDeputyHeads(Finance)

SeniorAssistantDirectors

(HRM)

AssistantDirectors

(Development)

SeniorAssistantDirector

(Corp Comms)

SeniorDeputy Head

(Centre forResearch,


Interpreters

CourtAdministrators

(CorporateServices)

Head(Typing Pool)

19

REGISTRAR

• SENIOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR• DEPUTY REGISTRARS• REFEREES (SCT)

SENIOR DIRECTOR(LEGAL)

InformationSystem

Manager

SeniorDeputy Head

(TechnologyServices

Department)

ChiefCourtOfficer

Director(FJJC)

AssistantDirector

(FJJC)

Psychologists,Counsellors,

SocialWorkers

PersonalAssistants/

CourtOfficers

Head(Bailiffs)

SeniorDeputyHeads

(Civil)

AssistantDirector

(Crime)

Director(Legal)

SeniorDeputyHeads(Family &

Juvenile Court)

DeputyCase

Administrator(Multi-DoorCourthouse)

AssistantRegistrars

(SCT)

• Registrars(SCT)

• MXOReferees

(SCT)

BailAdministrator

CourtAdministrators

(Legal)

AssistantDirector

(Legal)


20

BENCHOur

Criminal Justice Division – Commercial /Criminal Special / Mention & Special Trial Courts

Left to right

JUDGE RONALD GWEE

JUDGE DANIELLE YEOW

JUDGE KOW KENG SIONG


JUDGE TOH YUNG CHEONG

JUDGE TERENCE CHUA

JUDGE MAY LUCIA MESENAS

Not in picture

JUDGE JASVENDER KAUR

JUDGE BALA REDDY

JUDGE FRANCIS TSENG

JUDGE CAROL LING

JUDGE JASBENDAR KAUR

The quality of the Subordinate Courts dependsprimarily on the quality of the SubordinateCourts Bench. The Subordinate Courts Benchconsists of the Senior District Judge, DistrictJudges, Magistrates, Coroners and Refereesof the Small Claims Tribunals (SCT), all ofwhom are appointed by the President of theRepublic of Singapore on the recommendationof the Chief Justice. In addition, the ChiefJustice appoints the Registrar and DeputyRegistrars, who oversee the smooth runningof the Civil, Crime and Family Registries ofthe Subordinate Courts. By section 9(2) ofthe Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321), the

Senior District Judge has seniority over allother District Judges.

Under section 9(3) of the Subordinate CourtsAct (Cap 321), a District Judge has to be aqualified person within the meaning of section2 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) for notless than five years. Every person appointedto be or to act as a District Judge is alsoex officio a Magistrate.

Under section 10(2) of the Subordinate CourtsAct (Cap 321), a Magistrate or Coroner hasto be a qualified person as defined in the

21

Legal Profession Act (Cap 161) for not lessthan one year.

All District Judges and Magistrates of theSubordinate Courts are concurrently appointedas Deputy Registrars, Coroners and Refereesof the Small Claims Tribunals.

In addition, many of the District Judges andMagistrates preside in various AdministrativeTribunals and Boards, such as the MilitaryCourt of Appeal, Copyright Tribunal, IndustrialArbitration Court, Anti-Dumping Tribunals,Appeal Advisory Panel, Liquors LicensingBoard, Law Society Inquiry Panel, Inquiry andDisciplinary Committee Panel (Legal ProfessionAct), Land Transport Authority CompensationBoard, MUIS Appeal Board, SingaporeInstitute of Arbitrators, Requisition of ResourcesCompensation Board, and Board of Visitorsof Drug Rehablilitation Centres.

In recent years, an increasing number ofjudicial officers with excellent academiccredentials have been appointed to theSubordinate Courts Bench. At the same time,a number of judicial officers on the SubordinateCourts Bench have been seconded to variousgovernment departments and agenciesin order that they may gain exposure andexperience in policy or legal decision-making.

The Subordinate Courts’ Bench is augmentedby Specialist Judges appointed under theSpecialist Judge scheme introduced on 1st

July 2006. Under the scheme, experiencedand well-respected members of the legalprofession or academia may be appointedto preside over complex cases in their areaof expertise in the Subordinate Courts. Todate, three Specialist Judges have beenappointed.

Civil Justice Division – Registrar, SeniorDeputy Registrar and Deputy Registrars

Front Row – Left to right

JUDGE EARNEST LAU

JUDGE WONG PECK

JUDGE DISA SIM

Back Row – Left to right

JUDGE EDDY THAM


JUDGE JULIAN CHIN

SENIOR DEPUTY REGISTRARCHIA WEE KIAT

JUDGE CHNG HWEE CHIN

JUDGE EUGENE TEO

JUDGE WONG SOOK PING

JUDGE MIRANDA YEO

JUDGE LYNETTE YAP


22

DIVISIONJusticeCRIMINAL

23

“The primary goals of… criminalcourts, will continue to be to preventand reduce the incidence of crimes,to ensure that those suspected, accusedor convicted of crimes are dealt withfairly, justly and with a minimumof delay, to convict the guilty andacquit the innocent, to punish thosefound guilty in a suitable manner andwhere possible, discourage furtheroffending, and to achieve these aimsas economically, efficiently andeffectively as possible.”




24


Criminal Justice Division – Principal DistrictJudges and Group Managers

Left to right

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGEWONG KEEN ONN

JUDGE BALA REDDY

JUDGE VALERIE THEAN


JUDGE TAN PUAY BOON

JUDGE KOW KENG SIONG


26

Our criminal justice system is founded on threecardinal principles, namely, the supremacy ofthe Rule of Law, equality before the law, andthe protection of the public. The integrity ofthe law and a fair judicial process hasengendered public trust and confidence inthe administration of criminal justice. This isespecially crucial since the SubordinateCourts deal with more than 99% of all criminalcases in Singapore.

Within the current penal philosophy ofrehabilitation and prevention, the strict butfair and efficient administration of criminaljustice remains a key priority. The primarygoals of the criminal courts continue to be toprevent and reduce the incidence of crime,to ensure that those suspected, accused orconvicted of crimes are dealt with fairly, justlyand with a minimum of delay, to convict theguilty and acquit the innocent, to punish thosefound guilty in a suitable manner and where


possible, discourage further offending, and toachieve these aims as economically, efficientlyand effectively as possible.

To keep pace with societal changes andpatterns of crime and criminality, all criminalcourts and processes are subjected to periodicreview with the aim of enhancing the qualityof justice in the Criminal Justice Division.

DISTRICT COURTSIn criminal cases, the District Courts can tryoffences where the maximum jail sentencedoes not exceed 10 years. It can sentence aperson to imprisonment for not more thanseven years, a fine not exceeding $10,000and up to 12 strokes of caning. The DistrictCourt has the jurisdiction to try offences andimpose sentences which exceed the abovelimits, where the law expressly provides for it,for example, under the Misuse of Drugs Actand the Prevention of Corruption Act.

27

MAGISTRATES’ COURTSIn criminal cases, a Magistrate’s Court can tryoffences where the maximum jail sentence doesnot exceed three years or which are punishablewith a fine only. It can sentence a person toimprisonment for not more than two years, afine not exceeding $2,000 and up to six strokesof the cane. The Magistrates’ Courts, like theDistrict Courts, possess enhanced sentencingpowers where the law expressly provides for it.

JUVENILE COURTThe Juvenile Court tries criminal offencescommitted by children (below 14 years old)or young persons (above 14 years old andbelow 16 years old), except where the offenceis triable by the High Court or where the childor young person is jointly charged with anotherperson who is above 16 years old. The JuvenileCourt also deals with children who are beyondparental control and who are in need of careand protection.

CORONER’S COURTThe Coroner’s Court is presided over bythe State Coroner. It holds inquiries in caseswhere a person dies in a sudden or unnaturalmanner or by violence, or when the causeof death is unknown and in other situationswhere the law requires an inquiry. An inquiryis also held by the Coroner’s Court inevery case of death of a person detainedin an institution or who suffered capitalpunishment.

SPECIALISED COURTSCriminal Mentions CourtsThere are two Criminal Mentions Courtsat the Subordinate Courts, one to deal withDistrict Arrest Cases (DACs) and the otherwith Magistrates’ Arrest Cases (MACs). Anaccused person is produced at the CriminalMentions Court when the prosecution isready to formally charge him, and in anyevent, not longer than 48 hours after hisarrest and remand, whereupon the chargewill be read and explained to him.

At the Criminal Mentions Court, the presidingmentions judge can deal with varioustypes of applications, such as applicationsfor bail by the accused persons or theirsolicitors or applications by the prosecutionto detain the accused persons for furtherinvestigations. If the accused person entersa plea of guilt, the presiding mentions judgecan either sentence him or transfer thecase to the Centralised Sentencing Courtor to the Senior District Judge’s Court forsentencing. The presiding mentions judgealso fixes the cases where the accusedpersons have claimed trial for pre-trialconferences before a Group Managerunder the Group Management of Cases(GMC) scheme.

Centralised Sentencing CourtThe Centralised Sentencing Court sentencesaccused persons who plead guilty to certainspecified categories of offences.

Criminal Justice Division – Trial CourtJudicial Officers

Left to right

JUDGE WONG CHOON NING

JUDGE AMY TUNG

JUDGE ROY GRENVILLE NEIGHBOUR

JUDGE SIVA SHANMUGAM

JUDGE SHAIFFUDIN SARUWAN

JUDGE HAMIDAH IBRAHIM

JUDGE VICTOR YEO


28

Night CourtsThere are two Night Courts which deal withsummonses issued by various governmentdepartments for regulatory and road trafficoffences. For cases where the accusedpersons claim trial, the Night Courts willtransfer them to the Filter Court for trials orpre-trial conferences.

Filter CourtThe Filter Court generally deals with NightCourt cases where the accused persons haveclaimed trial and other simple criminal caseswhich require up to a day’s trial. It also functionsas a holding court which filters cases to othercriminal trial courts.

Traffic CourtThe Traffic Court tries traffic and traffic relatedoffences.

Commercial Civil and Criminal CourtsThe Commercial Civil and Criminal Courtsdeal with complex civil litigation in emergingareas such as technology, intellectual propertyand the life sciences. They also deal withcommercial offences such as financial fraud,money laundering, computer crimes andintellectual property offences; as well ascases of corruption, special drug offences,outraging of modesty and rape offences.

Community CourtIntroduction

The Community Court was established on 1st

June 2006. Fundamentally, the objectives ofthe Community Court are the same as any othercriminal courts, namely to prevent and reducethe incidence of crimes and to ensure that thosesuspected, accused or convicted of crimesare dealt with fairly, justly and appropriately.The Community Court is, however, additionallycommitted to the dual principles of restorativejustice and rehabilitation and undertakes anon-traditional approach to dealing withoffenders, exploring sentencing alternativesand community based sanctions with inputsfrom criminal justice agencies, social service

providers and criminal justice professionals,to promote rehabilitation and address theunderlying causes of criminality. The CommunityCourt maintains a clear interest in ensuringthat offenders receive the appropriateprogrammes and sentences that will help tocurb future criminal behaviour.

Since its inception till end of the year, it hasseen more than 500 accused persons.

Types of Cases

The categories of cases dealt with by theCommunity Court are:a. youthful offenders (aged 16 to 18);b. offenders with mental disabilities;c. neighbourhood disputes;d. attempted suicide cases (section 309

of the Penal Code);


Legal Divisional Managers withSenior District Judge

Left to right

MS ANNIE LEE

MS YONG KHAI LING


MS NABI HA MALIM



MS ANNE DURRAY

MS THAVER REBECCA KATHERINE

MR GLENFIELD DE SOUZA

MR JOSEPH JOHN

MR PANDIYAN VELLASAMI

29

e. family violence cases (section 65(8) ofthe Women’s Charter for breach ofpersonal protection orders), section 323Penal Code);

f. carnal connection offences committedby youthful offenders (section 140(1) ofthe Women’s Charter);

g. abuse and cruelty to animals (section42 of the Animal and Birds Act);

h. cases which impact on race relationsissues (for example, Section 4(1) of theSedition Act, section 426 of the PenalCode for mischief, section 3(1) of theVandalism Act for vandalism); and

i. offenders who are 65 years and above.

Sentences Meted Out

In considering the appropriate sentences,the Community Court takes into account

all special circumstances surrounding theoffender, such as, the need for him to undergopsychiatric treatment, his willingness to doso as well as his family support. Apart fromthe fines or imprisonment terms, alternativesentences may also be imposed. Anexample is a conditional discharge, thecondition being that the offender must notre-offend within such period of time asmay be determined by the CommunityCourt. The offender’s family member mayalso be required to execute a bond to ensurethe offender’s good behaviour. In appropriatecases, an offender may also be placed onpolice supervision upon his release fromimprisonment after he consents to undergotreatment or counselling for his rehabilitationto prevent future re-offending.


30

Community Court Conferences

In order to address the root problem of anoffender’s offending behaviour, CommunityCourt Conferences are held to bring in relevantstakeholders from the community whocould play a role in facilitating the offender’srehabilitation. During such conferences, actionplans may be worked out and agreed uponby the participants, including the accusedand his family, which can include the accusedconsenting to undergo psychiatric treatmentor counselling at a family service centre.Issues of apology or compensation to thevictim may also be explored. Employmentof the offender or voluntary admission intowelfare homes may also be discussed inappropriate cases.

BAIL AND MANAGEMENTOF REMAND CASESBail is a fundamental aspect of the criminaljustice system. In every bail decision, the Courtswould need to balance the conflicting interestbetween an individual accused’s constitutionalright to liberty and the public interest insecuring the accused’s attendance in court.The exercise of judicial discretion in determiningwhether to grant bail and thereafter theappropriate bail quantum would always involvea careful evaluation of all relevant factors.

The Courts have in place various measuresto facilitate the release of accused personson bail and to prevent unnecessary remandof accused persons during the pre-trial period.To assist the general public, the Courts haveprovided information on the bail processand the responsibilities of the surety throughthe Subordinate Courts Practice Pamphletwhich is also available on the SubordinateCourts’ website. In December 2005, theCourts published the “Bail Guidelines” whichis intended primarily for the criminal lawpractitioners and enforcement agencies. TheBail Guidelines is a comprehensive and usefulguide on how bail decisions are made by theCourts, and the factors the Courts take intoaccount, and the general bail formulae.

There are also measures in place at differentstages of the proceedings to monitor andmanage cases where the accused personsare unable to raise bail. Bail Review hearingsare conducted regularly to review such cases.During the Bail Review hearings, the courtadopts a ‘problem-solving’ approach to thebail quanta, and individualises the bail to beoffered. Where appropriate, the court mayimpose additional conditions so that a lowerbail may be offered to facilitate the release ofthe accused person.


Bail Centre

Left to right

MS PUVANA RAMASAMY

MR DANIEL TAN

MS LATIFAH BINTE HASSAN

MR RAYMOND LOH KEE YONG

“A justice system that enjoys the confidence of the public is one thatpays proper heed to the needs of the community. As fundamental judicialreforms have been institutionalised, the time is right for the establishmentof a specialist court that is responsive to the needs of the community.A new Community Court will be established. There will be sufficientlinkages with community resources to allow for the successfulre-integration of individuals back into community settings. In appropriatecases, offenders who would ordinarily be prison-bound would be linkedto long-term community-based treatment. Consistent with the currentpenal philosophy of rehabilitation and prevention, the Community Courtwill adopt a problem-solving approach that combines criminal justiceand community resources for a comprehensive response…”


18th May 2006

31

Once the case involving an accused inremand is transferred to a GMC group, theGroup Manager will manage and continueto monitor the case to ensure that thecase is disposed of fairly and efficiently. TheCourts have also established a dedicatedRemand Task Group to differentially manageselected cases where an accused personcannot raise bail.

These measures, together with the generalcase timelines imposed by the Courts,requiring cases to be fixed for hearingwithin three months from first mentions andcompleted within six months have helped toensure that accused persons who are not onbail do not remain in remand unnecessarily.They have been successful in facilitating therelease of accused persons on bail pendingtrial, and ensuring that those who do notpost bail, their cases are dealt with fairlyand expeditiously.

INTERACTION WITHFOREIGN JURISTS AND JUDGESAs part of our ongoing continuing judicialeducation, the Subordinate Courts conductinteractive dialogue sessions via video-conferencing with foreign jurists and judgeson a regular basis. In the area of criminaljurisprudence and practices, SubordinateCourts’ judges had useful exchanges witheminent jurists and judges from Australia, theUnited Kingdom and Norway:

a. Prof. Arie Freiburg, Australia;b. Prof. Andrew Ashworth, the United Kingdom; andc. Judges Blom and Petterson, Norway.

These video conferences provide an excellentplatform for exchange of knowledge andviews between the Subordinate Courts andtheir foreign counterparts, and enable ourjudges to keep abreast of developments inother jurisdictions.


32


MANAGEMENT OF MAGISTRATES’COMPLAINTSPrivate prosecution is commenced by thefiling of a Magistrate’s Complaint. An individual,believing that a person has committed anoffence punishable by law, may file a Magistrate’sComplaint at the Subordinate Courts.

The Subordinate Courts see a high numberof such Complaints. Where the complaintsallege serious offences like cheating, theft,consumption of controlled substances,housebreaking, kidnapping, robbery andrape, the Magistrate taking the complaintswould promptly refer the complaints to thepolice for investigation. This is in keeping withthe basic tenet of our criminal justice system,which is the protection of the public.

Many of the complaints, however, do notinvolve serious offences. Very often, they aredisputes of a private nature between friends,relatives, neighbours and colleagues. Whilethe complaints may technically discloseoffences such as assault, harassment, verbalabuse, nuisance and mischief, they areusually symptomatic of some underlyingrelational conflict that needed to be resolvedor addressed.

The Subordinate Courts recognise that thetraditional adversarial criminal trial processmay not be the most effective way of resolvingsuch relational disputes. This is because thesuccessful criminal prosecution of any partymay not bring about a satisfactory conclusionof the dispute or address the grievances,anxieties or relationship of the parties. Suchan end cannot guarantee that the dispute willnot recur in the future. Criminal mediation hasbeen introduced since 1996 as an alternativeto private prosecution and is now an integralpart of the Magistrate’s Complaint process.

Criminal mediation is a classic applicationof Restorative Justice. It involves elementsof therapy, reparation and prevention. Byproviding a safe forum for complainants to talkabout how they are affected by the acts ofthe respondents and how best the damagecan be repaired and further harm minimised,it promotes compassion, healing andforgiveness. At the same time, it encouragesrespondents to take responsibility for theiractions and to make amends, includingreparation or compensation. The terms ofresolution at the conclusion of a criminalmediation may thus involve a compensationpayment by the respondent to the complainant,a face-to-face apology or a public apologythrough the newspapers, or an undertakingnot to harass or verbally abuse each other orto make threats against each other. By helpingthe disputing parties repair their relationshipsor, when that is not possible, to agree on

Criminal Justice Division – Senior Officers

Left to right

MRS MOK-GOH KIT SOON

MS NABI HA MALIM

MR PRAGATHESVARAN LETCHMAN

MR DANIEL ANG

MS SUPALETCHUMI SUPPIAH

33

practical arrangements or measures, futureoccurrences of the offending behaviour canbe prevented.

While criminal mediation is usually conductedby a Magistrate, the Subordinate Courtshave also recognised the importance of theinvolvement of the community in RestorativeJustice. The involvement of the communityempowers itself to handle its own conflictsrather than abdicate the responsibility ofmediating relationship disputes to the Courts.

For this reason, the Subordinate Courts havemade a conscious and deliberate effort to fostercommunity involvement and participation inthe criminal mediation process. Mediatorsor counsellors from counselling centres havebeen invited to mediate in such disputes.Relational disputes are now routinelyreferred to the trained mediators from the

Community Mediation Centres. To foster aneven greater level of community involvement,the Subordinate Courts have also involvedJustices of the Peace in mediating suchdisputes. The involvement of the communityhas helped to divert and resolve such disputesin a harmonious manner and without partieshaving to go through a trial, thereby preservingrelationships, saving public time and expense,and engendering public trust and confidencein our justice system.

The Subordinate Courts continue to conductregular review of its processes to enhance theadministration of criminal justice. Recently,cases involving breach of Syariah Court Orderswere brought under the umbrella of the FamilyCourt processes so that specialist schemesavailable in the Family Court can be tappedto provide effective solutions to the partiesemboiled in the disputes.


34

DIVISIONJusticeCIVIL

35

“Access to justice is a fundamentalcornerstone of any civil justicesystem. Much has been done by theSubordinate Courts to enhance accessto justice to individuals and smallbusinesses… There will however be acontinuing need for the civil justicesystem to improve its processes.”




36


Civil Justice Division – Acting Principal DistrictJudge and Judicial Officers

Left to right

JUDGE TAN BOON HENG

JUDGE TAN MAY TEE

ACTING PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGEMAVIS CHIONH

JUDGE THIAN YEE SZE

JUDGE KATHRYN LOW

Not in picture

JUDGE JAMES LEONG

37


38


The Civil Justice Division comprises the CivilTrial Courts, Civil Registry, Primary DisputeResolution Centre (PDRC), and Small ClaimsTribunals (SCT). Underpinning and guidingthe civil justice system is the principle ofeffective and fair dispute resolution. The civiljustice process employs a seamless integrationof its various divisions to facilitate a smoothand timely flow of cases, thereby, resultingin lower costs to litigants. Civil cases aremanaged in an integrated manner fromcommencement at the Civil Registry to finalresolution either at the PDRC or trial courts.The SCT continues to complement our civiljustice system as a cost effective and easilyaccessible avenue for the public to resolvetheir disputes justly and expeditiously.

CIVIL JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICTAND MAGISTRATES’ COURTSThe District Courts deal with civil claimsnot exceeding $250,000 in value. Wherethe parties to an action agree by way of amemorandum, a District Court can try claimsexceeding $250,000. The District Courts alsodeal with probate matters where the value ofthe deceased’s estate does not exceed $3million. The civil jurisdiction of a Magistrate’sCourt is $60,000.

STATUTORY REFORM – TRANSFEROF PROCEEDINGSThe provisions in the Subordinate Courts Actrelating to the transfer of civil proceedingsbetween the Subordinate Courts and the HighCourt and within the Subordinate Courts,between the Magistrates’ Courts and theDistrict Courts were amended with effectfrom 1st January 2006. The objective of theamendments is to provide for greater flexibilityto the courts to transfer proceedings so thatcases may be dealt with as efficiently aspossible. At the same time, the amendmentsalso seek to remove anomalies and resolve

certain shortcomings highlighted in recentdecisions of the High Court so that transfersbetween courts will be less complex andmore flexible.

REFINEMENT OF PRE-TRIALCONFERENCE (PTC)PTCs are a useful management tool whichhelp Judicial Officers assess the casespending trial and to make directions so thatthe trial may proceed expeditiously withoutany wastage of court resources and trial dates.Parties attending PTCs are now required toprovide certain information such as the numberof expert witnesses at trial, whether thecases involve litigants-in-person or whetherany witnesses require special attention whichthe court may accommodate with advancenotice. Such disclosure would assist the PTCJudicial Officer to make the necessarydirections for expeditious disposal of theproceedings.

ASSISTANCE TO LITIGANTS-IN-PERSONThe Civil Justice Division issued a guidefor litigants-in-person entitled “Conductinga Civil Trial in Person” which is availableonline on the Subordinate Courts’ website.The guide helps litigants-in-person toappreciate and better understand the trialprocess when they conduct a trial on theirown. The Guide provides basic informationon court procedures and etiquette to litigants-in-person.

SPECIALLY MANAGEDCOMMERCIAL LIST (SMCL)The SMCL scheme was implemented inNovember 2003 and it generally deals withcivil commercial disputes such as banking,equity, trusts, credit and security, companymatters and/or intellectual property disputes.Since its inception, 43 out of 47 actions havebeen successfully concluded without trial.

39

Selected cases that fall within the SMCLscheme are actively managed and monitoredto ensure a swift and just resolution. TheSMCL scheme also helps Judicial Officersto build up expertise in hearing a diverserange of commercial cases. The Grounds ofDecision rendered by these Judicial Officerswill contribute to the development of a corpusof jurisprudence in the Subordinate Courts.

QUALITY DECISIONSAND QUALITY JUDGESThe Civil Justice Division introduced a seriesof informal internal forums and knowledge-based sharing sessions with the aim ofupdating Judicial Officers and staff on thechanges in law and legal processes of thecourts and the legal profession in Singapore.

RELATIONSHIP WITH THE BARThe Civil Justice Division continued to engagethe Law Society in 2006 to obtain views onvarious practice matters. Such dialoguesare extremely crucial as they allow a two-waychannel for giving and obtaining feedback onthe workings of the Subordinate Courts, aswell as discussion of new ideas applicablein the civil justice system in Singapore.

The Civil Justice Division also conducted aseries of lectures to solicitors and their lawclerks on probate practice, summary judgment,the new Rules of Court, Subordinate Courtspractices and Court Dispute Resolutionpractice at the PDRC.

DIALOGUES WITH OTHERSTAKEHOLDERSThe Civil Justice Division deepened itsengagement with external agencies onissues of common interest.

The Subordinate Courts initiated dialoguewith the Singapore Medical Association (SMA),

National Healthcare Group (NHG), Singhealthand the Law Society to explore the feasibilityof drawing up guidelines on the timelinesfor the submission of medical reports incourt cases involving personal injury. Themedical profession responded positively andagreed to set timelines for the preparationof medical reports. This will ensure that casesinvolving personal injury claims can proceedexpeditiously.

The Civil Justice Division also held an in-depth dialogue with the General InsuranceAssociation (GIA) to ascertain issues ofcommon interest between parties andexamine and address areas of concern inNon-Injury Motor Accident (NIMA) casesso they may be dealt with efficiently. Suchdialogues with the GIA explore measureswhich may facilitate settlement insteadof litigation thereby saving costs and time.

WORKING WITH THECOMPETITION COMMISSIONOF SINGAPORE (CCS)The Civil Registry has been workingwith the CCS, which is a relatively newinstitution, to draft a standard set ofprocedures applicable to matters underthe Competition Act.

PRIMARY DISPUTE RESOLUTIONCENTRE (PDRC)The PDRC provides court-based alternativedispute resolution services for parties toexplore settlement options with a view to theresolution of their disputes without havingto proceed for trial. The early resolution ofthe conflicts results in the saving of timeand costs. PDRC handles the mediation ofcivil cases.

PDRC was established in January 1995 asthe Court Mediation Centre and in May 1998


40

it was renamed as PDRC. It is also the locationof the e@dr Centre (Electronic DisputeResolution Centre), which came about in 2000.E@dr is an online virtual dispute resolutionsystem which allows a person anywhere inthe world, where parties have not commencedany court proceedings, to seek online mediationfacilitated by a court mediator.

Early resolution at PDRC is also done acrossborders through the scheme known as CourtDispute Resolution International (CDRI). Thisscheme provides co-mediation in civil casesby Subordinate Court Judges with Judges fromother common law or civil law jurisdictions viavideo conferencing. Judges from Australia,New Zealand, the Unites States of Americaand the United Kingdom are on the panel ofCDRI mediators from foreign jurisdictions. Thisis provided at no cost to parties.

For civil proceedings commenced at theSubordinate Courts, PDRC provides a processof providing an alternative to litigation. ForNIMA cases, where the writ has been served,there will be a fixing of such cases for a CourtDispute Resolution (CDR) before a PDRCJudge. During the CDR, early neutralevaluation and facilitative mediation areapplied to assist parties and their lawyersto arrive at an early settlement to reducethe costs of litigation. The twin concepts ofthe CDR and the pre-action protocol hasrevolutionised the process and settlementapproach in such cases.

For cases other than the NIMA cases, CDRis at the initiation of any party’s request andcan be done at any stage of proceedings priorto the setting down of the action for trial.

PDRC includes within its CDR process casesinvolving mortgage actions for recoveryof possession of Housing & Development

Board (HDB) flats. The benefits of mediationin such cases are manifold as it extends notonly to the banks which provided the loansin obtaining monetary recovery, and theflat dwellers (mortgagors) in avoiding theforfeiture of home, but also to the flat dwellers’family members who may be occupiers frombeing dislocated. The results from suchmediation have been very positive. Thespeedy settlement of such cases alsoavoids undesirable social consequences.

PDRC specially manages medical negligencecases as it has been recognised that anyprotracted proceedings in such cases wouldcause more acute anxiety and trauma toparties. Such management includes a rigorousmonitoring with early settlement conferencesbeing conducted. To assist in the managementand conduct of such cases, PDRC has instituteda panel of medical experts by a specialarrangement with the Ministry of Health. Thispanel is involved when there is an impassein the settlement process or where there is a


Primary Dispute Resolution Centre– Judicial Officers

Left to right

JUDGE RAHIM JALIL

JUDGE NG PENG HONG

JUDGE LAURA LAU

1st January 2007 vide ePractice Direction No.3 of 2006. Under this new protocol, potentialclaimants or the executors/administratorsof their estates will be afforded a chance toseek explanations or discuss their cases withthe doctors or hospitals without having tofile a writ to get their attention. This is toencourage early communication between theparties so as to ensure that any appropriateapology or explanation is always offered atthe earliest instance. By encouraging a moreco-operative approach, costs and delaywill be minimised. The ultimate aim of theprotocol is to advance the interest of justiceby facilitating early settlement of meritoriousclaims and discouraging claims which arefrivolous or devoid of merit.

PDRC will continue to periodically organisea series of dialogues with its variousstakeholders to improve on its CDRprocesses and better serve the needs ofthe court users.

41

need to resolve or remove doubts as regardsa particular aspect of the case.

At the Subordinate Courts 15th Workplan2006/2007 on 18th May 2006, The Honourablethe Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong observedthat the civil justice process saw the effectiveapplication of pre-action protocol for non-personal injury motor accident (NIMA) cases.The NIMA protocol introduced a costs andcase management regime which enablesparties to obtain information earlier andpromotes settlement. The Chief Justice alsoannounced at the workplan that a pre-actionprotocol for medical negligence cases will beintroduced to allow potential claimants toobtain satisfactory redress with regard toadverse or unexpected outcomes in medicalprocedures, expeditiously and effectively,without having to institute a costly and lengthycivil action in the courts.

The new pre-action protocol for medicalnegligence claims comes into effect on


42

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNALS (SCT)The SCT were established on 1st February1985 with the enactment of the SmallClaims Tribunals Act. The objective is toprovide a speedy and inexpensive forum forthe resolution of disputes arising from smallclaims. Since then, the Tribunals’ jurisdictionhas increased from a mere monetaryjurisdiction of $2,000 to its current $20,000(but where the claim exceeds $10,000 butnot exceeding $20,000, parties would haveto agree in writing to the Tribunals’ jurisdiction).

Over the years, in addition to the increasein monetary jurisdiction, the Tribunals’jurisdiction has also widened from hearingdisputes arising from goods sold and servicesrendered to damage to property (excludingdamage caused by the use of a motor vehicle),and recently, with effect from 15th February2006, to disputes arising from contracts for

the lease of residential premises that do notexceed 2 years.

Effective 15th February 2006, the SCT appealprocess incorporates the requirement thatthe appealing party has to obtain the leaveof the District Court before proceeding tofile an appeal to the High Court. An appealto the High Court may be made only in casesinvolving a question of law or if the matter isoutside of the Tribunals’ jurisdiction.

Despite the increase and widening of itsjurisdiction, one factor that has remainedconsistent throughout is the lodgment feeof $10 for consumers. The lodgment feeof the Tribunals starts from $10 for claimamounts of up to $5,000. If the claim isbeyond $5,000 but not exceeding $10,000,the lodgment fee is $20. If the claim isbeyond $10,000 but not exceeding $20,000,


Small Claims Tribunals – Registrar,Assistant Registrars and Referees

Left to right

MR JOSEPH JOHN

MR KRISHNA R SHARMA

MR JAMES CHUAH

MR THAM YEONG SHIN

MR LIM ANN MING

Not in picture

MS CATHERINE YONG

give talks to the public. Such talks havebeen jointly organised by the SCT with theNational Library, Consumer Association ofSingapore (CASE) and the SingaporePolice Force.

In line with the SCT’s policy of a fair,economical and expeditious resolution ofdisputes, immediate hearings may beconducted by Referees at the request ofparties or where the case requires, subjectto the availability of resources. Suchimmediate hearings are frequently accordedto claimants who are tourists. To betterserve users, there are plans to introduceinternet e-filing of claims. The provision ofe-filing and e-payment will enable partiesto use the services of the SCT with greaterconvenience.

In addition, the SCT has a debt recoveryscheme, known as Debt Recovery Plans @SCT (“DRP @ SCT”), to assist parties towork out a plan for the debtor to pay thedebt owing under an Order of Tribunal.Under the scheme, an assigned financialcounsellor will help the parties work out aplan of payment acceptable to the parties.DRP @ SCT provides the enforcing partywith an alternative to taking up enforcementproceedings, thus saving costs. It givesdebtors an additional opportunity to complywith the Order of Tribunal, thus saving themthe embarrassment and additional coststhat would be payable, if enforcementproceedings are commenced. DRP @ SCTis provided at no cost.

The SCT will continue to achieve thepurpose for which it was established andwill endeavour to provide itself as a lowcost and effective forum for matters withinits jurisdiction.

43

the lodgment fee is 1% of the claim amount.For non-consumers, the lodgment feestarts at $50.

In 2006, the SCT introduced a new casemanagement process. It principally attemptsto first mediate all claims. Adjudication isonly carried out when parties are still unableto arrive at an amicable settlement atmediation. The SCT’s proceedings are heldin private and parties present their owncases. Representation by solicitors is notpermitted. Costs are generally not allowedexcept where the claim is frivolous or vexatious.

Though its proceedings are held in private,the SCT continues its efforts to raise publicawareness of its processes as a low cost andexpeditious alternative dispute resolution.In addition to providing information throughits website and brochures, SCT officers also

Bailiffs Section

Left to right

MR KAMARUZAMAN KASSIM

MR BAKHIT MOHD RIDWAN

MR MOHD HATTA ABDUL RAZAK


44

BAILIFFS SECTIONThe Subordinate Courts Act specificallyprovides for the appointment of Bailiffs. TheBailiffs are part of the enforcement arm of theSubordinate Courts performing an importantrole in rendering assistance to successfulparties in civil proceedings to enforce whatthe Court has ordered.

In 2002, a one-stop centre for the enforcementof Orders issued by the SCT, known as Bailiffs@ SCT was established. This section dealsonly with the Writs of Seizure and Sale filedin respect of the Orders of Tribunals whichhave not been complied with.

For Writs of Seizure and Sale, the Bailiffsensure that Court Orders for the paymentof monies are complied with. Upon the filingof the Writ of Seizure and Sale, the Bailiffsproceed to seize the Judgment Debtor’sgoods and thereafter auction them andpay the net proceeds of the auction to thecreditors.

Besides enforcing by way of Writ of Seizureand Sale, Bailiffs perform other modes ofenforcement in respect of warrants issued incriminal cases. Given the nature of the work,

the training of the Bailiffs has been enhancedto ensure that the Bailiffs properly understandtheir duties and powers under the law. TheBailiffs have also been given distinctive veststo aid and identify them in the course of theirwork as court officials.

MULTI-DOOR COURTHOUSE (MDC)- COURT INFORMATION CENTREThe MDC was established on 2nd May 1998.It was the first of its kind in the Commonwealthand Asia Pacific region. It is a one-stop servicecentre providing members of the public withinformation on the various court services, inparticular, dispute resolution services anddispute prevention measures.

The MDC entertains both ‘walk-in’ and‘phone-in’ enquiries and furnishes replies toLetters of Representations by Membersof Parliament through various officerswho are case administrators in this aspect.The coordination of the Vulnerable WitnessSupport programme comes under itsauspices.

The Vulnerable Witness Support programmeis designed to increase access to justiceby providing vulnerable witnesses, such as


45

children who are under the age of 16 yearsor those having intellectual capacity belowthe age of 16 years, information on the courtprocesses. The MDC coordinates with theSingapore Children’s Society whosevolunteers provide the support to suchwitnesses. These Volunteer Support Personsalso assist care-givers and families inappropriate cases. Prior to the trial, MDCconducts visits to the courtroom to familiarisethe vulnerable witness and the VolunteerSupport Person with the physical structureand layout of the court and its video-linkfacilities. Procedural matters relating to theconduct of the trial are also explained to thevulnerable witness.

To enhance accessibility to the servicesprovided by the Courts, there will soon be aresource hub for litigants-in-person on theSubordinate Courts’ website. The hub willprovide essential information for those whowish to conduct their cases in person.Information on alternative resolution avenueswill also be easily accessible.

Bailiffs Section

Left to right

MR ISMAIL BIN MAT

MR ABDUL GHANI

MR CHUA HONG SIANG

MR JOHARI BIN SATIMAN

To bring the information beyond its door-step, the MDC will explore working in tandemwith other community organisations andlearning institutions to conduct talks on variouscourt processes. These talks include ‘Court& You’ and cover other initiatives offeredby the Subordinate Courts including e@dr,DRP @ SCT and Automated Traffic OffenceManagement System (ATOMS).

On 1st June 2006, the MDC launched aninnovative initiative known as the “CourtConcierge” so as to extend its assistancebeyond its location within the courts to userswho attend at the Subordinate Courts butwho may not have the opportunity or time toapproach MDC. The Court Concierge initiativeexemplifies and raises the level of assistanceprovided by court administrators. These courtadministrators are easily identifiable by theirmaroon jackets and their Court Conciergetags. The Court Concierge moves around theSubordinate Courts to help users who requireassistance. This helps to ease the anxietyfaced by most first-time court users.


46

DIVISIONJusticeFAMILYandJUVENILE

47

“Family and juvenile justice affectsfamily relationships. The justice systemand processes must be sensitive to thefact that we are not dealing with cases,but with people. By the time familiesand children come to the Court’sattention, the problems are serious. Withevery divorce comes a correspondingemotional and psychological impacton the children, whose young lives areoften torn apart as they witness theensuing battle between their once-loving parents. The scars can be deepand painful. Families affected byconflict, separation or divorce is asignificant community issue.”




48

Family and Juvenile Justice Division– Principal District Judge with Judicial Officers

Left to right

JUDGE HOO SHEAU PENG

JUDGE WONG LI TEIN

JUDGE JEFFREY SIM

JUDGE MAY LOH

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE KHOO OON SOO

Not in picture

JUDGE TAN PECK CHENG

JUDGE SHOBA G NAIR

DIVISIONJusticeFAMILYand JUVENILE


50


Family and Juvenile Justice Division– Deputy Registrars

Left to right

JUDGE JOCELYN ONG

JUDGE CAROLYN WOO

JUDGE MARJORY YEOH

JUDGE REGINA OW

JUDGE DAVINIA FILZA ABDUL AZIZ

Families are the threads from which the fabric ofsociety is woven. The philosophy of the FamilyCourt is to protect family obligations so that familyties may be strengthened and preserved. Inadministering justice and protecting family obligations,the Family Court performs a multitude of roles: it isan adjudicator of family disputes, a protector ofchildren and victims of family violence, a providerand strategic coordinator of services for family litigants,a leader and innovator in family justice programmesand an educator on family justice issues andprocesses. The Juvenile Court’s philosophy is thatof Restorative Justice. Restorative Justice recognisesthe potential for change and reform in young offendersand delinquent youths and seeks to re-integrate theoffending juvenile or delinquent youth back into theirfamilies and community. It seeks to balance the needfor effective deterrence versus the need for rehabilitationand restoration.

FAMILY COURTJurisdiction of the Family CourtThe Family Court hears all matters relating to thefamily, such as divorce, custody, maintenance, divisionof matrimonial property (where the gross value of thematrimonial assets do not exceed S$1.5 million),adoption of children and guardianship of infants.Applications for protection orders, expeditedprotection orders and domestic exclusion ordersare also heard by the Family Court. In addition, theFamily Court enforces orders for maintenance madeby the High Court and the Tribunal for the Maintenanceof Parents. Where there is a marriage under Muslimlaw or a marriage between Muslim parties, the FamilyCourt has concurrent jurisdiction with the SyariahCourt to deal with matters relating to maintenance,custody and the division of property upon dissolutionof the marriage.


52

Women’s Charter (MatrimonialProceedings) Rules 2005On 1st April 2006, the originating process forthe dissolution of marriage under Part X ofthe Women’s Charter (Cap 353) (the Charter)was changed from a petition to a writ ofsummons. This was the culmination of majoramendments to the Rules of Court, and to theWomen’s Charter (Matrimonial Proceedings)Rules (the MPR), the primary piece ofsubsidiary legislation governing matrimonialprocedure. The amendments to the Rules ofCourt and the MPR were undertaken aspart of a larger exercise to streamline andsimplify court processes by reducing thenumber of originating processes from four (writof summons, originating summons, petitionand originating motion) to just two (writ ofsummons and originating summons). JudicialOfficers of the Family Court were heavilyinvolved in the amendment process itself, aswell as in the process of making consequentialmodifications to the Subordinate CourtsPractice Directions and the Electronic FilingSystem. In the critical period leading up to theintroduction of the new writ process on 1st

April 2006, Judicial Officers of the FamilyCourt organised two seminars on 9th and16th March 2006 for practitioners of family lawto raise awareness of the new procedures.Materials from the seminars were thenuploaded onto the Family Court websiteso that they would continue to be availableto practitioners who wish to familiarisethemselves with the new MPR. Judicial Officersof the Family Court also authored an articleon the 2006 amendments that appeared inthe March 2006 issue of Inter Se, a publicationof the Singapore Academy of Law.

Subordinate Courts’ Lectures to the BarAs a result of the substantial changesbrought about by the amendments of theMPR, Judicial Officers of the Family Courtconducted a lecture on 14th July 2006 toupdate solicitors on the new Family Courtpractices. This was part of the series ofSubordinate Courts’ Lectures to the Bar.


Family and Juvenile Justice Centre

Left to right

MR MOHD ABDULLAH RAHIM

MS LOH MEE LING MARGARET

MS SARINAH MOHAMED

MS ANNIE LEE

MR MASILAMANY GNANARAJI

MS SAMSIAH MIZAH

MDM LEE-SEE FONG PHENG

MR RONALD LIM

Not in picture

MS SANDRA SIVANARAYANAN

Family Court Practice (revised edition)The Family Court Practice was jointly publishedby the Subordinate Courts and ButterworthsAsia in the year 2000. Since then, manylegislative and case law developments havetaken place in both the substantive andprocedural aspects of family practice. A teamof Family and Juvenile Court Judicial Officersis working on the revised edition of the bookand the target is to have the revised editionof the book published in 2007.

JUVENILE COURTThe Juvenile Court tries criminal offencescommitted by children (below 14 years old) oryoung persons (above 14 years old and below16 years old), except where the offence istriable by the High Court or where the childor young person is jointly charged withanother person who is above 16 years old.

53

juvenile delinquency and issues relevantto teenagers today. It has also nurturedrelations between the Courts and theMinistry of Education.

Youth Family Care ProgrammeThe Youth Family Care Programme is onewhere volunteer families are matched withyoung persons under Juvenile Court Orders,to act as positive role models for themand their families. The mentor families willbefriend, support, and encourage theseyoung people, by engaging them in familyand social activities.

FAMILY AND JUVENILEJUSTICE CENTRE (FJJC)The FJJC was formed in March 2002 inorder to implement the vision of a holistic andintegrated approach to resolve family related

The Juvenile Court also deals with childrenwho are beyond parental control and who arein need of care and protection.

Peer Group Advisers ProgrammeUnder the Peer Group Advisers Programme,students in selected secondary schools aregiven a chance to sit in court proceedingsas well as take part in discussions with theJuvenile Court Judge in chambers beforejudgment is passed. The aims of theprogramme are to give the Juvenile Court acontemporary peer group perspective of theoffending criminal act as well as to exposeteachers and students from secondaryschools to the Juvenile Justice process.

This preventive programme has beensuccessful in educating students on JuvenileJustice thus far, raising the awareness of


54


cases. The FJJC upholds the philosophy ofpreventive and transformative justice. It seeksto identify criminogenic roots of offendingbehaviour, address familial intergenerationalcycles of crime and disputes, and facilitatepositive transformation of individualsand families. The staff of FJJC comprisesprofessionals from different disciplines.The multi-disciplinary team includes socialworkers, counsellors, psychologists, andinterpreter-mediators, amongst others.

Recognising that courts are not merely placesof complex legal problems but also cruciblesof complex human interactions, the FJJCprovides a host of programmes and services,to assist the court in making decisions, as wellas to help families and individuals managetheir emotions, resolve conflicts before, duringand after the court process. The FJJC alsoworks closely with the community to provideprogrammes to confront issues such asfamily violence, substance abuse, divorce,and children caught in the middle.

Some of the programmes provided by the Familyand Juvenile Justice Division are as follows:

Project SHINE(Supporting, Helping, Integrating,Nurturing and Enabling)Project SHINE is part of the Family andJuvenile Justice Division’s efforts at divertingmaintenance applicants to the communityresources for resolution on the longer term needsof these families steeped in legal, financialand social problems. This programme wasintroduced in 2003. To-date, 16 communityorganisations have come on board to be partof the Project SHINE partners. These areYayasan MENDAKI, Association of MuslimProfessionals, Young Women MuslimAssociation Family Support Centre, SingaporeIndian Development Association (SINDA),Islamic Religious Council (MUIS), CentralCommunity Development Council (CDC),Northeast CDC, Northwest CDC, SouthwestCDC, Southeast CDC, Lutheran Community

Care Services, Catholic Welfare Services,Singapore Buddhist Lodge, Sikh WelfareServices, Cornerstone Community Servicesand Asian Women’s Welfare Association(AWWA) Family Service Centre (FSC).

Project SHINE will be enhanced withCasework @ Courts, a programme targetedat chronic (six times and above) enforcementapplications. Families will be assisted onthe road to financial independence with suchholistic interventions targeted at everymember of the family.

The programme is targeted to start operationsin the first quarter of 2007.

Project CONTACTProject CONTACT is a supervised accessand transfer programme that facilitatesbonding between the non-custodial parentand child after the custody and access ordersare made. Tanjong Pagar FSC, Serangoon

Family and Juvenile Justice Centre

Left to right

MS ANNHANIM MOHD

MR AZHAR BIN MOHD NASIR

MS MEERA JHOGASUNDRAM

MS HO YEW WAI

MS PATRICIA CHUA

MS GOH SOO CHENG

MS SOPHIA ANG

55

Moral FSC, Loving Heart Multi-ServiceCentre and MacPherson Moral FSC areour project partners.

This year, the Thye Hwa Kwan Moral Society,has begun work on setting up the Centrefor Family Harmony, a one-stop centrefocused on facilitating relationship betweenparents and their children. Assistedtransfer and access will be carried out at thecentre, with group work and counsellingfor the custodial parent, access parent andthe children.

Project IMPACTProject IMPACT is a parenting workshopconducted for parents who are divorced tocope with co-parenting after the custodyand access orders are made. In 2005, FJJCworked with Focus on the Family to conductparenting workshops for custodial andnon-custodial parents. Feedback fromthe participants was very positive and the

number of workshops in 2006 was increased.Fei Yue FSC plans to conduct Mandarin-speaking workshops for custodial and non-custodial parents in the year 2007.

Bus Stop – Post-FilingDivorce Information SessionTo minimise the animosity between divorcingcouples, FJJC, in partnership with theMinistry of Community Development, Youthand Sports and Kampong Kapor FamilyService Centre, has piloted a post-filingdivorce information session programme.

The objectives of the information sessionare to assist the divorcing couples to make amore informed and considered decision; toinform them of potential needs and communityresources so that they will be better preparedand know where to get help; to encouragethem to seek help for marital or post-divorcesupport; and to reduce the degree of acrimonybetween them.


56


FAMILY RELATIONS CENTRE (FRC)Over the past decade, the Family Court hasseen an almost two-fold increase of divorce,maintenance and family violence cases.In response to this exponential growthof cases, the FRC was launched on 19th

May 2006. The FRC’s goal is to transformthe culture of family breakdown from oneof acrimony and bitterness to one ofcooperation and reconciliation. To this end,the FRC works to provide holistic, legal,relational and therapeutic solutions todivorcing couples in custody, matrimonialproperty and other ancillary matters.

The FRC has a comprehensive suite ofservices to provide opportunities for familiesand couples to resolve their disputes in anon-trial setting. Situated within the Familyand Juvenile Court building, the FRC has adedicated registry, fully equipped mediationchambers, counselling, conference andcaucus rooms, as well as waiting areas andmeeting rooms designed to facilitate candiddiscussions between parties. As an integralunit of the Family Court, the FRC is led byJudicial Officers with extensive mediationexperience, and a multi-disciplinary team ofpsychologists, counsellors and support staff.

The FRC works on the recognition thatmatrimonial and family disputes are complex,and often not resolved by simply determiningthe legal issues or engaging in legal battles.There are often multiple underlying issuesthat are inextricably bound to the legal dispute.These interrelated issues in family cases canbe dealt with comprehensively at the FRCinstead of parties having to attend multiplecourt sessions for different issues. With a moreconstructive and less adversarial approach ofresolving relationship disputes, the FRC aimsto reduce the emotional costs to families andchildren of conflict and divorce. To this end,the FRC seeks to foster a strong culture ofcooperation and consensus, where parties inevery contested dispute will make an attemptat resolving disputes amicably at the earliest

possible time. An expeditious and fairsettlement at the FRC does not just saveparties the legal costs and time but also bringsclosure and finality, going a long way towardspreserving a civil, if not gracious, relationshipbetween the parties.

Approaches to Resolve Family CasesThe FRC utilises a multi-modal approachthat aims to preserve family and matrimonialrights and responsibilities while protectingthe well-being of the individual and their familymembers. These include:

• Resolution ConferencesThese are facilitated by a Resolution Judgewhere parties and their solicitors are expectedto participate actively in the process. TheResolution Judge’s role is to evaluate the caseand also mediate the dispute.

• Referral to Support ServicesThe Resolution Judge can, where appropriate,direct or refer the parties to complementarytherapeutic strategies such as supportcounselling, parenting consultations orworkshops, and other salient services thatcan reduce acrimony and promote healing tothe parties and their children. The flexibilityand responsiveness of this system meansthat the parties can avail themselves tomore services and at an earlier point of theproceedings than otherwise possible.

• Joint ConferencesA key innovation of the FRC is the use ofJoint Conference mediation sessions, whichare conducted by a Resolution Judge, anda psychologist or counsellor. This multi-disciplinary team allows challenging casesto be discussed and evaluated on bothlegal and psychological dimensions. JointConferences have been successfully usedin settling a significant number of extremelycomplex and acrimonious divorce cases.Settlements forged from Joint Conferencestend to be stronger and more robust, as theyare more responsive to the underlying causes

Family Relations Centre – Judicial Officers

Left to right

JUDGE KEVIN NG

JUDGE MARVIN BAY

57

of the disputes and better address therespective areas of concern of the parties.

Improved Settlement RatesThe pilot study using this multi-modal approachin October to December 2005 involving 460divorce cases resulted in a settlement rate of72%. A second survey of FRC cases mediatedin January to May 2006 showed an improvedcase settlement rate of 83%. The settlementrates for individual issues such as divorce,custody, access and maintenance variedbetween 83% and 97%.

Special Management of Breach ofSyariah Court Orders CasesWith effect from May 2006, the Family Courttook over the management of cases involving

the breach of Syariah Court orders from theCrime Registry to ensure that such disputesare addressed together with any other issuesthat the same family may have pending in theFamily Court.

Breaches of the Syariah Court orders relatingto the non-payment of iddah / mutaah aremediated by interpreter-mediators of the FJJC.Breaches of the Syariah Court orders relatingto custody and access are mediated byResolution Judges.

The FRC shows what dedicated personnel andresources can achieve when combined withinnovative and effective processes. The FRCis steadily debunking the conventional wisdomthat Family Court cases are difficult to resolve.


58

COMMUNITYand theENGAGINGthe BAR

59

“The quality of justice, and how itis administered by the SubordinateCourts, affects the lives of ordinarySingaporeans. The Subordinate Courtsare where most people have contactwith the law. What you are doing isan important job because you deliverjustice for those who come to theSubordinate Courts.”




60

LECTURES AND JUDICIALPUBLICATIONSAs part of our continuing effort to enhancethe quality of justice and develop the LitigationBar, the Subordinate Courts launched a seriesof lectures on substantive law, proceduresand Subordinate Courts’ practice areas forpractitioners in July 2006. These lectures arejointly conducted by Subordinate Courts’judges, registrars and court administratorsand practising lawyers.

The inaugural lecture was held on 14th July2006. Since then, a number of lectures havebeen conducted and are continuing. Theselectures cover a broad spectrum of practiceareas:

• New Family Court Practices 2005/2006• Probate Practice• Summary Judgment• The New Rules of Court and Subordinate

Courts Practices 2005/2006• Lessons from the CDR Practice at the PDRC

• Revisiting Mitigation Pleas• The Bail Principles and Processes• What if you are named a Potential Defendant

in a Coroner’s Inquiry?• Judicial Expectations in Commercial Crime

Cases• Considerations in a Typical Criminal Case• Sentencing Considerations in the

Subordinate Courts

In collaboration with LexisNexis, theSubordinate Courts have also published anumber of books under the Practitioners’Library series. The practitioners’ books onSentencing Practice in the SubordinateCourts and Assessment of Damages:Personal Injuries and Fatal Accidents haverun into their second edition and have beenwell received. The two other publicationsin the series, Evidence in Criminal Trialsand Family Court Practice, have also beenwell received. In the pipeline are four newpublications on various aspects of law andpractice of particular relevance to lawyers

“In the new workyear, the Subordinate Courts will contribute tostrengthen and deepen this relationship [with the Bar]. There willbe a series of substantive law, procedures and practice lectures onthe Subordinate Courts’ practice areas for the Bar and their paralegalsas part of the continuing effort to develop the litigation bar in civil,criminal and family practice. These lectures will be conductedjointly by the Subordinate Courts’ judges, registrars and courtadministrators and practising lawyers, and will supplement thoseconducted by the Singapore Academy of Law.”

The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong15th Subordinate Courts Workplan 2006/200718th May 2006


61

practising at the Subordinate Courts:Commercial Fraud, Law of Corruption inSingapore, Sentencing Law in Singaporeand Coronial Practice in Medical NegligenceCases. In addition, the practitioners’ bookon Family Court Practice will be revised andupdated.

Judges of the Subordinate Courts have alsoco-authored a number of articles with membersof the Law Society which were published insuccessive months in the Singapore LawGazette early this year.

REGIONAL JUDICIAL SYMPOSIUMAt the beginning of this year, the SubordinateCourts successfully organised the InauguralRegional Judicial Symposium, in collaborationwith the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policyand the National Center for State Courts ofthe United States of America. The Symposiumwas held over four days from the 11th to 14th

January 2006 at the Furama Riverfront Hotelunder the auspices of the Ministry of ForeignAffairs’ Singapore Cooperation Programme.

The Symposium saw the participation of manysenior judicial, legal and public sector officialsinvolved in court administration, adjudicationor policy formulation, particularly in the area ofreview and implementation of court or judicialreforms. There were representatives from atleast 24 countries. Most of the participantsof the Symposium hailed from countriesin the Asia-Pacific region such as Brunei,Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Malaysia,India and China and from the Middle Eastsuch as Jordan and Kuwait. In addition, theSymposium had distinguished speakers andguests from the United States of America,Canada, Europe and Australia. The diversegroup of participants and speakers createdan eclectic mix for vibrant discussions andeven cultural exchanges.


62

The Symposium started off with a seriesof visits to the various judicial and legalinstitutions in Singapore. The participants andguests were first given an insight into thefunctions of the Attorney-General and PublicProsecutor in Singapore and the workingsof the Attorney-General’s Chambers. Theparticipants and guests also paid a visit tothe Law Society where they were giveninformation about the practising bar as wellas Law Society’s role in regulating legalprofessional conduct in Singapore. In addition,the Singapore Academy of Law hosted avisit for them and gave an introduction to theirwork and function, which brings together theSupreme Court Bench, judicial and legalofficers in public service, private practitionersand academia.

There were also visits to the Supreme Courtand the Subordinate Courts. The SubordinateCourts shared with the participants and guestson their experiences in handling more than95% of all cases in Singapore, the facilities,programmes and initiatives undertaken overthe years. The Subordinate Courts showcasedthe technology courts and shared with themthe benefits of harnessing technology inthe administration of justice. One of theparticipants commented that this is the areathat he would hope to learn most about inorder to bring back ideas for implementationin his own country. At the Supreme Court,the participants and guests were given atour of the new premises and briefed onthe work of the Court of Appeal, the highestcourt in the land.

Apart from the visits, the Symposium consistedof many hours of fruitful oral presentations,demonstrations, panel discussions androundtable exchanges. The topics wereboth wide-ranging and tackled in depth.They included the use of alternative dispute

resolution in civil, criminal and family cases,integration of technology in the judicial process,community justice, the promotion of judicialand legal training and the interaction betweenjustice and public policy. The Symposium alsodetailed Singapore’s experience and responseto the challenges in judicial processes,management and administration and thereforms that have taken place since 1990.One of the components of the Symposiumincluded a session on mediation and conflictresolution by Professor Robert Rotberg fromthe Kennedy School of Governance, HarvardUniversity at the grounds of the Lee Kuan YewSchool of Public Policy.

The Symposium sessions were always livelyand engaging and peppered with a steadyflow of comments and questions. Many of thejudges of the Subordinate Courts were involvedin either chairing the sessions or presentingthe various topics for discussions.

The Symposium was, however, not all workand no play. There was a Welcome Receptionheld at the Mars Room at Furama RiverfrontHotel where the participants and guestsinteracted with senior Subordinate Courts’Judges as well as members of the organisingcommittee. Each participant and guestwas given the opportunity at the WelcomeReception to share a little about themselves,the work which they do in their respectivecountries and their expectations about theSymposium. They were also treated to avisit to the Night Safari which they thoroughlyenjoyed as they interacted in an informalsetting on a tram ride through the habitatsof night animals. At the Regional JudicialSymposium Dinner held at the SingaporeAcademy of Law Bistro, symposium certificatesand tokens of appreciation were handedout to the participants and speakers by theSenior District Judge.


63

Every participant and guest took backto their respective countries and judicialorganisations the many enriching and fruitfulexperiences that they had in Singapore, andat the Symposium. There were also manyfriendships and networking ties formed inthe course of the many academic sessions,briefings and site visits. The discussions andexchange of views at the Symposium, nodoubt contributed to and enhanced theongoing process of judicial reforms in manyof the countries to improve the effectivenessand efficiency in judicial administration.

SPECIALIST JUDGESAt the Welcome Reference for The Honourablethe Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong on 22nd

April 2006, His Honour stressed that it wasnecessary to start a new chapter in therelationship between the Bench and Barwhich should be marked with cordialityand harmony in the common pursuit of theadministration of justice in Singapore. Inparticular, His Honour recognised, on theprinciple of noblesse oblige, the importantfunction that Senior Counsel have in beingrole models for younger practitioners, inhow they relate to the Judiciary, and how theForum of Senior Counsel acts as a resourcefor ways to improve our legal system.

The Special ist Judge scheme wassubsequently introduced on 1st July 2006to allow experienced and well-respectedmembers of the legal profession oracademia to preside over complex casesin their area of expertise in the SubordinateCourts, whilst maintaining their busypractice outside. Specialist Judges haveall the powers of a judge in the SubordinateCourts, and are likely to be called on in thefields of family law, construction, shipping,medical negl igence and intel lectualproperty rights.

The Specialist Judge scheme gives leadingmembers of the legal profession andacademia the opportunity to give of theirtime for the good of our society. In particular,Specialist Judges will augment the expertiseof the Subordinate Courts Bench, and, atthe same time, give leading practitionersa better insight into the workings of theJudiciary. This, in turn, would help to promotea greater understanding between the Bench,Bar and academia, and improve our legalsystem through a more systematic cross-fertilisation of ideas between talented legalprofessionals of different backgrounds andexpertise.

The introduction of this scheme has receivedsupport from the local bar. It gave feedbackthat the scheme would help save time andcosts since Specialist Judges would alreadybe conversant with the technical intricaciesof the case.

The Subordinate Courts have alreadywelcomed three Specialist Judges to theBench. The first was Senior Counsel TanChee Meng, who was appointed for a term

“The Specialist Judge pilot scheme will give such opportunities to leadingmembers of the legal profession and academia to give of their time for

the good of our society. In particular, these Specialist Judges will bringadditional expertise to the Subordinate Courts Bench and, at the

same time, give leading practitioners and academics a betterinsight to the workings of the Judiciary…”

Judge Toh Han LiRegistrar

Subordinate Courts


64

of two years on 1st July 2006. Judge Tanhas an engineering degree and was a civilengineer before embarking on a career inlaw. He is now a partner with Harry EliasPartnership (HEP) and was appointeda Senior Counsel in 2006. Given hisengineering background, Judge Tan has aspecial interest and expertise in constructiondisputes, and has acted for majorconstructions firms and developers in respectof projects in Singapore and Vietnam. Inconstruction law, Judge Tan practices as anarbitrator, a mediator as well as counsel. Inparticular, he led the HEP team whichrepresented the project insurers in the 89-day inquiry into the collapse of the NicollHighway in 2004.

Judge Tan was therefore an apt choice topreside over the Fusionpolis case, which wasa cluster of five related prosecutions underthe Factories Act arising from the collapseof a scaffolding wall at the Fusionpolisconstruction project, which resulted in twodeaths. The Fusionpolis case involves finetechnical and legal arguments with manyfactual and expert witnesses.

The second Specialist Judge to be appointedwas Senior Counsel Tan Cheng Han.Appointed to the rank of Senior Counsel in2004, Judge Tan is currently the Dean and aProfessor of the Faculty of Law, NationalUniversity of Singapore. As a Senior Counsel,Judge Tan specialises in the area ofcommercial disputes, and is also a memberof the Singapore International ArbitrationCentre's Regional Panel of Arbitrators,a member of the Securities Industry Council,a member of the Competition Commission ofSingapore, and a member of the AppealAdvisory Panel to the Minister for Financeconstituted under the Securities and FuturesAct (Cap 289), the Financial Advisers Act(Cap 110), and the Insurance Act (Cap 142).

Given his vast experience in commercialand company law, Judge Tan was well-placedto hear the Informatics case which was oneof 2005’s largest corporate scandals. Thiscase involved the founder of educationalservices provider Informatics Holdings,Wong Tai, and former chief executive OngBoon Kheng, who faced charges under theSecurities and Futures Act (Cap 289).


65

On 1st September 2006, Senior CounselMichael Hwang joined the Subordinate Courtsas its third Specialist Judge. Judge Hwangis a paradigm example of a SpecialistJudge, having been from the Bench, Bar andacademia. Judge Hwang was formerly aJudicial Commissioner of the Supreme Courtfrom 1991-1992. As Judicial Commissioner,Judge Hwang dealt with a full caseload acrossthe whole range of civil litigation. Now back inprivate practice, Judge Hwang’s practice areasrange over the whole field of commerciallitigation, including banking, real property,corporate disputes, trusts, intellectual property,securities, insolvency, insurance and construction.He also has a family law practice stemmingfrom his former position as a lecturer in thatsubject at the National University of Singaporeand his judicial experience, and has appearedas Counsel in a number of leading family lawcases. In 2005, Judge Hwang was appointedDeputy Chief Justice of the Dubai InternationalFinancial Centre.

Given his vast experience in the legal arenaand specific expertise in Family Law, JudgeHwang was well poised to handle the complexancillary matters for a divorce case at theFamily Court. This case involved complexissues of maintenance, access, custody, careand control of the children to the marriage.There was also a cross-border dimension tothe case with matrimonial assets situated inSingapore and overseas.

VOLUNTEERISM ATSUBORDINATE COURTSThe Subordinate Courts recognise theimportance of engaging the people sectorin its processes to create better appreciationin the judicial process. Volunteerism atthe Subordinate Courts covers a wide areasuch as criminal mediation, mediation offamily and small claims matters, Referee’s

Hearing at the Small Claims Tribunals, PeerAdvisors at the Juvenile Court, the Lay AssistantProgramme and the various family assistanceprogrammes at the Family Court.

The volunteers include Justices of the Peace,lawyers and other professionals, as well asundergraduate students.

In recognition of their contribution to thevarious processses of the Subordinate Courts,these volunteers are honoured in our AnnualBenchmark Award Ceremony.

STRATEGIC COLLABORATIONWITH MEDIA AGENCIES FORSPECIALISED COURT NEWSIn 2006, Corporate Communications workedwith different media agencies for court news.The Subordinate Courts understand that eachmedia agency has its own target audience.

Specialised areas of newsworthy informationare matched according to the needs of therespective media agencies.

INTERNSHIP PROGRAMMEWITH SINGAPORE PRESS HOLDINGSSubordinate Courts conducted an internshipprogramme for the Singapore Press Holdingsjournalists from 28th August to 8th September2006. This enabled the practising journalists tohave an in-depth knowledge and appreciationof the administration of justice and the Rule ofLaw, two critical elements in our society.

Similarly, four Subordinate Courts’ officersattended an attachment programme with theSingapore Press Holdings from 7th to 11th

August 2006. The objective of this attachmentprogramme was to expose some of the seniorCourt Administrators to the modus operandiof the media so that they could betterappreciate the print media expectations and


66

editorial policies. This mutual understandingis a critical component in strengthening thesystematic public education frameworkwhich the Subordinate Courts havecultivated in partnership with the mediaover time.

BOOK ON JUDICIAL GOVERNANCE– SUBORDINATE COURTS’ REFORMSAND PUBLIC POLICY INSINGAPORE 1990-2006The book “When Spades Are Bright”,authored by Mr Koh Buck Song, will beavailable in 2007.

This book covers the wide range of judicialreforms undertaken by the Subordinate Courtsfrom 1990 to 2006, and their impact on publicpolicy. The innovative reforms and programmeswhich gave the Subordinate Courts a worldclass reputation are documented. The bookis a collaboration with the Lee Kuan YewSchool of Public Policy.

COMMUNITY CHEST AWARDS 2006In line with the Subordinate Courts’ aim toengage the community that we serve andin fulfillment of our role as a good corporatecitizen, the Subordinate Courts’ SHARECommittee reinforced its efforts in 2006 topromote regular donations to the CommunityChest. Appreciation events to heightenawareness of SHARE, were undertaken atthe Subordinate Courts’ National DayCelebrations 2006. In recognition of theSubordinate Courts’ contribution, it wasconferred the SHARE Bronze Award for thesecond year running at the CommunityChest Awards 2006.

SUBORDINATE COURTS WEBSITEAS THE MEDIA OF CHOICEThe Subordinate Courts’ website underwenta major revamp in 2006.


67

The new website has a customer-centricstructure which allows easy navigation bymembers of the public, lawyers, litigants andmembers from the media.

The Subordinate Courts seek to make itswebsite the media of choice for court news.The website also provides a forum for theCourts to inform members of public aboutsignificant judgments of cases.

The new website has a distinct corporateidentity. It is designed for easy reading forall manner of people. It also conforms to theInfo-communications Development Authorityof Singapore’s (IDA) Website InterfaceStandard (WIS) which is to be appliedacross all government websites to ensurestandardisation.

FAMILY VISIT TOTHE SUBORDINATE COURTSTo enhance its belief in being a valued-employer, the Subordinate Courts startedthe Family Visit programme in 2006.

Family members of the Subordinate Courts’officers were invited to visit their immediatefamily members’ workplace to get a senseof the work that the latter do in the Courts.This helped to cultivate an awareness andappreciation of the contributions made bythem and their contribution in administeringjustice in Singapore. More importantly, thisprogramme instilled a strong sense ofownership and pride among the officers ofthe Subordinate Courts and their work.

Such visits are organised during the schoolholidays to facilitate attendance by school-going children. In 2006, three family visitswere conducted, and each visit saw moreparticipants than the last.

During these visits, family members andfriends had the rare opportunity to tour thevarious offices and registries to know aboutthe workflow of the court operations. Theyalso visited the various courtrooms and wereable to observe a court in session.

Furthermore, the Family and Juvenile JusticeCentre’s counsellors shared about familyand juvenile issues and concerns whichimpact many families today. Participantswere also treated to a tour of the iCourtLabto experience first-hand the latest technologyand innovation in the Courts.

Nothing could beat concluding each visitwith a bum boat ride which never fails to puta memorable end to an enthral l ingprogramme. The beautiful scenery along theriver from the Riverside Point to the Esplanadewas the Subordinate Courts’ way of biddingfarewell to the family members.

EVERY DAY I see thousands of faces comingto me.

Most look sad and troubled as if the weightof the world is crushing their delicate tinyshoulders.

With their heads bowed and their eyessunken, they drag their tired and heavy feettowards me.

I embrace them as they file past my doors.

Most are innocent.

Coming here only to stand by their loved ones.

Others are guilty.

Breaking the law in a moment of folly, anger,selfishness or greed.

But they come to me for a purpose – to seejustice being meted out and to find a solutionto their problems.


68

SPH INTERNSHIPPROGRAMME

on“NEWS ARTICLE”

I am the Subordinate Courts.

And I have a duty to fulfil.

My job is a difficult one – to administerjustice in an efficient, transparentand fair manner so that society canfunction properly, the innocent areprotected and the guilty punished.

It is an unenviable task.

But I have help.

More than 450 hardworking men and womentirelessly ensure that I am able to carry outmy duties efficiently.

Court officers, interpreters, bailiffs,judges, registrars, counsellors andcorporate communications personnelsift through tonnes of documentsevery day to bring people to justice, sortout disputes, disseminate informationand lend a listening ear to the needy.

The Subordinate Courts’ Internship Programme for SPH scholarshipholders and journalists provided the media interns with an opportunityto gain an intimate insight into the issues involved in the administrationof justice. During their two-week attachment with the Subordinate Courts,they saw the administration of justice from a new and different perspective.

This poem reflects the experience and thoughts of one of the interns.

Andre YeoThe New Paper

for SPH Internship Programmewith the Subordinate Courts

69

But most people have a wrong idea about me.

They think I am unfeeling and cold.

I can tell you that’s not the case.

Every person that comes before me – whetherin the dock, counselling room or judges’chambers – is important to me.

But they are here because of the choicesthey made.

And they were probably the wrong choices.

To help people understand me better,I opened my doors for two weeks to a groupof journalists from Singapore Press Holdingsfrom 28th Aug to 8th Sep 2006.

There were six of them from the Englishand Chinese newspapers – The New Paper,The Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao, LianheWanbao and Shin Min Daily News. Theycame to observe how I got by each day.

It certainly opened their eyes as they hadnever thought so much went on behindclosed doors.

They thought it was just a matter of gettingcharge sheets, statement of facts and thejudge’s grounds for decision.

But spending two weeks with memade them see the other side of court– and life.

For example, they tagged along with threeof my bailiffs to see how they seized itemsfrom ordinary people who had lived beyondtheir means or had lost their jobs resultingin them accumulating thousands of dollarsin debt.

It was heartbreaking for the journalists tosee how TV sets, fridges, hi-fi sets andfurniture were marked for auction.

A sticker meant that the item was no longeryours.

But they saw how my bailiffs carried outthis difficult job in a compassionate andprofessional manner, so that no one washumiliated or made to feel any smaller.

And there are thousands of these casesevery year but most people don’t knowthat. It made these journalists see a sideof society they had never witnessed before.

People who could not afford to maintaintheir lifestyles but did so anyway to keepup appearances, to please their childrenor because they had made the wrongprojections concerning their jobs prospects.

The journalists also got to sit in at theFamily and Juvenile Courts.

Again, they saw how many young childrenneeded help – even those who were guiltyof heinous crimes like molest.

They wondered how these young lives wouldbe lived out in future when they had already

gone through so many sad and painfulexperiences before they had even reachedpuberty.

And it was not just the young who needed help.

Their parents too were also finding theirmarriages in trouble.

So many weary faces walked into the FamilyCourts to put an end to their painful marriages.And it was so easy.

Just hire a lawyer, come before the judge anda union that was once filled with love andlaughter was terminated. Just like that.

What kind of people have we become, thesejournalists wondered?

And what does it take to make a marriagework?

They also met my dedicated counsellors whohad to meet battered wives and an increasingnumber of abused husbands, every day, whocame to file a personal protection orderagainst people they loved so they would notbe hurt again.

It saddened the journalists to read their reportsabout how they were beaten and their kidswere not spared either.

It is such distressing cases that I handleevery day.


70

SPH INTERNSHIPPROGRAMME

on“NEWS ARTICLE”

But it is not all gloom and doom.

At my mediation courts and Small ClaimsTribunals, disputes are handled amicably andvery often with a handshake and a smile.

All because my mediators, judges andregistrars are trained to handle the mostdifficult situations in a calm manner withoutany party needing to resort to violence.

And my Community Court was also introducedrecently to administer justice with mercywith rehabilitation of offenders the mainobjective.

Yes, every day is a busy one for me.

But I relish the challenge.

Nothing pleases me more than to see theinnocent acquitted, the desperate finding asolution and the guilty being administered afair sentence that befits the crime.

Yes, I am the Subordinate Courts.

And I live by my motto – DignusHonore – Worthy of Honour.

For it is only with honour, integrity anda fair judicial system that the survivalof a nation can be guaranteed.

71

“This internship has been aneye-opener for me as it hasshown me that the SubordinateCourts is constantly bustlingwith activity – kept on its toes bythe men and women who worktirelessly daily to ensure thatjustice is administered in anefficient, transparent andcompassionate manner.

Andre YeoThe New Paper

REFLECTIONS FROM OTHER SPH JOURNALISTS WHOATTENDED THE TWO-WEEK INTERNSHIP PROGRAMME

“It was both a fascinating andsobering experience to observe thedaily workings of the SubordinateCourts in depth and in breadth inthis two-week internship.”

Lu CaixiaLianhe Zaobao

“The two week internshipprogramme has been extremelyeye-opening and enlightening,especially for a new reporter likemyself, who have only recentlybegun reporting on court casesfrom Subordinate Courts.

I was also impressed by theemphasis that is placed onmediation and dispute resolutionbefore and when a case is filedand also the proactive approachin helping the public with theirenquiries when they walkthrough the doors of theSubordinate Courts.”

Koh Hsiang YuLianhe Wanbao

“The SPH internship programmehas provided reporters from variousnewspapers a rare chance to gaina better knowledge of Singapore’sjudiciary system. It has also let themexperience how the SubordinateCourts work to uphold justice.”

Yeo Kai LiShin Min Daily News

“I thought I’d seen it all whencovering court cases before thisattachment. But after the two weekshere, I realised there was so muchmore to the Subordinate Courts Ihad never seen before. The courtadministrators are so genuinelywarm and friendly and always readywith the smiles; contrast that to thegloom among the offenders chargedin court and those going througha bitter divorce.”

Ben NadarajanThe Straits Times


72

Our quality

ADMINISTRATIONCORPORATE


74

Our quality


75

Corporate Administration Divisional Managerswith Senior District Judge

Left to right

MR TAN SWAN LIANG

MS FOO YEEN LOO

MR JOHN LEE


MS CHAN WAI YIN


MR LASHMAN SINGH

MR ZAKARIA ISMAIL


MR LEE CHUN YIP

MS NOORAENI AHMAD

MS PAPINDER KAUR

MS DALBIR KAUR

MS SEETO WEI PENG


76

The Corporate Services Division providessupport in the following matters: humanresource management, infrastructuredevelopment and building maintenance,corporate communications, finance, statistics,research, innovation and informationtechnology. Working behind the scenes of adynamic and quality-focused organisation,the Division has introduced variousprogrammes and undertaken numerousprojects, in order to meet the expectationsfor quality service. In addition to theprogrammes and projects listed below,the Corporate Services Division is activelyinvolved in other programmes and projectsundertaken by the four Justice Divisions.

INVESTMENT IN HUMAN RESOURCESJudicial ScholarshipsTwo Judicial Off icers were awardedthe Legal Service Commission (LSC)Scholarships to undertake the Masterin Public Management (MPM) Programmeat the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policyin 2006. They are:

1. Judge Aedit Abdullah2. Judge See Kee Oon

In addition, three Judicial Officers were alsoawarded the LSC Scholarship to undertake theexecutive programmes locally and overseasin 2006. They are:

1. Judge May LohInternational Executive Programme(France/Singapore)

2. Judge Valerie TheanStanford Executive Programme (USA)

3. Judge Danielle YeowStanford-NUS Executive Program inInternational Management (Singapore)

Our quality


District Judge Hoo Sheau Peng alsoattended a 6-week 13th Senior ManagementProgramme organised by the Institute ofPolicy Development (IPD).

Staff WelfareThe Subordinate Courts’ Welfare Committeeorganises and promotes social, cultural,sports, health and other activities for thewelfare of the staff. In 2006, programmessuch as the Chinese New Year and Deepa-Raya Celebrations, Judiciary RecreationClub Amazing Race, Annual Dinner andDance, flu vaccination, informational circularson health matters and in-house healthtalks were organised. The SubordinateCourts were also once again awardedthe Singapore H.E.A.L.T.H Award (Silver)in 2006.

Corporate Services – Human ResourceManagement

Left to right

MS DALBIR KAUR

MRS YEOW-MAK YUEK LING

MS PAPINDER KAUR

MS R THAMAYANTHI

MS WAHIDAH BANU

Not in picture

MR DONALD KOH

MS JOYCE LOH

MS HERLINA ALI


78

Our quality


People Developer Standard (PDS)The Subordinate Courts were first awardedthe PDS in 1999 and successfully attained are-certification in 2002 and 2006. The PDSis a quality standard that gives recognitionto organisations which invest in their peopleand have a comprehensive system forpeople development. The SubordinateCourts’ overall employee education, trainingand development process was evaluatedand improved in accordance with the PDSre-certification cycle.

National Day ObservanceJudges and staff, with their family members,celebrated National Day with a carnival, ablood donation drive and the traditionalobservance ceremony. The carnival, whichwas into its fifth year running, raised a sum of$14,580 from the sales of various items,including pre-carnival on-line auction. Theproceeds were presented to the Children’sCancer Foundation – the Subordinate Courts’adopted charity. Besides donating generouslyin monetary terms, the blood donation drivealso saw the participation of 76 judges andcourt administrators.

National Day AwardsJudges and staff of the Subordinate Courtswere awarded the following medals andawards:

Public Administration (Bronze) MedalJudge Marvin Bay

Efficiency MedalMs Patricia Png Pek Choon

Long Service Medal (25 years of service)Judge Kathryn Low Lye Fong

Ms Suaidah bte Sarnan

Ms R Thamayanthi

Ms Amnah bte Ali

Subordinate Courts’ AwardsCourt Administrator of Year 2006 AwardMs Papinder Kaur

Subordinate Courts 10-year Service AwardDistrict Judge Tan Puay Boon

District Judge Laura Lau Chin Yui

District Judge P Siva Shanmugam

District Judge Wong Choon Ning

Mr John Lee Jong Khai

Mr Nadarajoo Sivanandan

Mr Low Meng Huat

Ms Annhanim bte Mohamed

Ms Meera Jhogasundram

Ms Vijaya Thavamary Abraham

Ms Patricia Png Pek Choon

Mr Shamsul Bahari b Yusoff

Mr Jumahat bin Ahmad

Mdm Bharathi d/o Ayyanarappan

Ms Leung Cheng Yee

Ms Nishad Banu

CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONSTo progress with the new phases of justice,Corporate Communications has moved towardsa new paradigm of mass communications bytaking a proactive approach in engagingthree main groups of justice stakeholders inSingapore, namely, the media, the grassrootsand the public at large.

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENTThe Subordinate Courts’ continual efforts toimprove its services and accessibility wereencapsulated in the following initiatives.

Security EnhancementsAs part of the Subordinate Courts’ on-goingefforts to provide a safe and secure courtenvironment, the current analog security video

79

recording equipment was upgraded to adigital system. This enables all activities tobe recorded in real-time and facilitatestracking and monitoring of activities moreclearly and effectively.

To further enhance court security, theSubordinate Courts have reviewed acourthouse security report by the Office ofCourt Administration, New York and identifiedseveral recommendations to improvesecurity. The Subordinate Courts are workingclosely with the Police on the recommendedsecurity enhancements.

Improvement in Infrastructureand FacilitiesThe waiting area for members of publicattending court matters at the Small ClaimsTribunals and Night Courts was air-conditionedin July 2006 to provide a more conducive

and comfortable court environment for ourcourt users.

FINANCIAL INITIATIVESStrengthening Institutional Knowledgeand Best PracticesThe Finance Officers strengthened institutionalknowledge by reviewing key finance processeson payroll administration, payment processingand revenue collection. The resultant actionplans were collated and implemented totighten best practices. The review, alignedwith Ministry of Finance’s initiative to centralisetransactional finance functions, will beimplemented in April 2007. Further, the reviewoptimised the deployment of manpowerresources. The Subordinate Courts couldeffectively undertake new administrativetasks arising from Ministry of Finance’scentralisation exercise and sustained high-quality services to court users.

Court Administrator of Year 2006 Award

MS PAPINDER KAUR


80

Our quality


Economy Drive (ED) andNet Economic System (NEV)With the implementation of ED initiativesfrom mid-2003, the Subordinate Courts hadattained cumulatively more than $2 million insavings. This was a noteworthy achievementin view of its lean operating budget and civilservice-wide budget cuts. The savings wereeffectively prioritised to implement workplaninitiatives that enhanced the administrationof justice. In 2006, the members of theEconomy-Drive Committee (EDC) continuedto identify and work on new ED initiativesthat further enhanced operational efficiency.Besides the monthly meetings of the EDC,sectional managers brainstormed with theirsupervisors and staff on identifying suggestionsthat improved efficiency. By reinforcing the“value for money” message through all levelsof the organisation, the Subordinate Courtsdeepened and permeated a cost-consciousvalue-creating culture. Further, the SubordinateCourts merged ED activities with the NEVsystem, where sectional managers and their

staff worked on cost drivers to streamlineprocesses and generate savings. In turn, theNEV system was integrated with the JusticeScorecard system that worked toward theattainment of NEV performance target.

CENTRE FOR RESEARCH,ENNOVATION AND STATISTICS (CReST)The Research and Statistics Unit, which wasestablished in 1994 was renamed the Centrefor Research, eNnovation and Statistics, since1st May 2005. CReST’s expanded scopeinclude identification and promotion of bestpractices that enhance court performance,sparking problem-solving innovation, sharinglessons learnt and functioning as a centre forhigh performing court administrators to beattached for projects.

In order to build the innovation capabilityamong the officers in the Subordinate Courts,Court Innovation Agents (CIAs) were appointedunder the tutelage of CReST. Over and abovetheir job, CIAs seek:

Finance Section – Court Administratorswith Senior Court Administrators

IT companies that have promising emergingtechnologies. The ITD will work on newtechnologies every half-yearly. The iCourtLabwas launched on 18th July 2006 by the SeniorDistrict Judge and the Lab showcased sixnew technologies (RFID, 3G video conferencing,video recording-cum-transcription, translationsoftware, 2D barcode-mobile application) toinvited guests and the media. The launch waswell covered by the major media agencies.

An iCourtLab Advisory Council chaired by theRegistrar and comprising representativesfrom Law Society, Gartner, IDA, IBM, HP,National Computer Systems Pte Ltd (NCS),Fujitsu, WordWave and Bizibody was setup.The council will contribute and adviseon opportunities for possible deploymentof cutting-edge technologies in theSubordinate Courts.

Singapore Case Recording andInformation Management System(SCRIMS) IIThe Singapore Case Recording andInformation Management System II orbetter known as SCRIMS II is a casemanagement system that tracks cases fromthe Criminal Courts as well as the Juvenileand Coroner’s Courts.

81

a. to spark problem solving ideas;b. to garner ideas from internal and external

sources; andc. to conduct regular walkabouts to source

for areas for improvement and innovation.

In 2006, the CIAs brainstormed ideas whichwere eventually conceptualised in the birthof the iHub. The iHub is a room which defeatsconvention and provides a nurturing groundfor officers to gather, spark ideas, inventor re-invent problems and solutions. Thisroom was creatively furnished to stimulateexcitement, thinking, ideas and innovation.

Besides sparking innovation, CReST continuedto generate statistical reports to facilitatemanagement’s decision-making and toconduct research and surveys on a regularbasis. The public perception survey has sincebeen concluded in November 2006.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGYDEPARTMENT (ITD)iCourtLab – Proof of Concept LabSubordinate Courts have set up a Proof-of-Concept Innovation Lab named iCourtLabwhere cutting-edge technologies are tobe experimented for potential practicaluses in the Courts. There are tie-ups with


82

Our quality


SCRIMS II will also facilitate electronic dataexchange between the Subordinate Courtsand external agencies such as the SingaporePolice Force, Prisons Department andMinistry of Community Development, Youthand Sports. The interfaces with externalagencies will minimise manual data entry atboth ends and facilitate timely data sharingbetween the agencies.

Another beneficial feature of the new systemis the provision of a functional documentmanagement module, which will serve as arepository of court documents as well asprovide faster online retrieval and referenceof court documents.

The inclusion of the Coroner System inSCRIMS II will consolidate management ofcrime-related cases into a single systeminstead of multiple disparate systems. Thiswill enhance sharing of related case informationand optimise the use of IT investments.

The Coroner’s System in SCRIMS II wascompleted in September 2006. Subsequentphases will be rolled out in the first quarterof 2007.

Centre for Research, eNnovationand Statistics (CReST)

Left to right

MS HARPREET KAUR

MS CHAN WAI YIN

MDM QUEK GEK KING

MS SEETO WEI PENG

Information Technology Department

Left to right

MS FOO YEEN LOO

MS CHAN WAI YIN

MR CHRISTOPHER CHAN

MS SEETO WEI PENG


84

Our quality


Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) 2This project covers the re-development ofthe front-end system that allows e-filing ofclaims by the public to the SCT, as well asthe re-development of the back-end casemanagement system. For the front-endsystem, the e-filing of claims will be extendedto the general public to reach the greatermasses. It will also allow claimants to makepayment electronically upon filing of claims.Admission to claims by respondents will alsobe enabled via Internet. The back-end systemwill have provision for auto-scheduling ofclaims for consultation and hearing, electronicnotification of consultation and hearing dates,and other tasks to support the dailyoperations of SCT.

SCT 2 will be accessible to the public viathe Internet. There will also be Self-Service

Terminals set up at SCT to encourage thegeneral public to use SCT e-services insteadof queuing at the counter.

Development for SCT 2 is underway and itwill be launched in mid-2007.

Enhancements of the Automated TrafficOffence Management System (ATOMS)The ATOMS was first launched in 1996.This allows individuals who have committedminor offences to settle their compositionfines within a certain prescribed time or toplead guilty to these offences. Fines can bepaid using ATM cards at AXS automatedkiosks which are available island-wide. Theservice is jointly provided by the SubordinateCourts, Traffic Police, Land Transport Authority,Housing & Development Board and UrbanRedevelopment Authority.

“An enhanced version of the ATOMS II will alsobe introduced. ATOMS II will be established on anInternet platform to broaden its reach and enhanceaccessibility. This will be available in both Englishand Chinese. When implemented, offenders of minortraffic and parking offences will be able to settletheir traffic or parking fines online in the comfortof their homes or from anywhere in or outsideSingapore. ATOMS II will also extend the time ofpleading guilty to 5.00pm on the day of mentionsfrom the current time of 12 noon.”


18th May 2006

85

Since the launch of ATOMS, court usershave benefited from the conveniencebrought about by ATOMS. The use ofATOMS has also resulted in less humantraffic in the Night Courts. The participatingprosecuting agencies have also benefitedfrom a reduction in the time and expenseincurred in the collection of fines.

As part of the enhancements to ATOMS,individuals can now plead guilty at the AXSautomated kiosks up to 5.00 pm, anextension from the current 12 noon cut-offtime, on the day of mentions.

In addition, the Subordinate Courts areworking to make ATOMS available on theInternet. While ATOMS on AXS stations canbe accessed only via the kiosks, ATOMSon the Internet will be accessible at morelocations by Internet users 24 hours a day,7 days a week. With ATOMS on the Internet,offenders of minor traffic and parkingoffences will have the option of settling theircases (i.e. plead guilty and make payment)

electronically via the Internet or the AXSkiosks.

ATOMS on the Internet project is in linewith Subordinate Courts’ strategic use oftechnology to enhance access to justice.

ATOMS on the Internet will be launched inthe first quarter 2007.

Courtroom Sound ReinforcementThe Courtroom sound reinforcement initiativeis to enable all parties in the courtroom tohear clearly the proceeding of the trial. Thesystem installed also has the capabilityto feed its individual channel sound signalsinto the portable four channel digital FTRaudio recorder deck. The quality soundrecordings can be played back for thedigital typist to produce hard copies ofthe courts’ proceedings. The project wascompleted in September 2006. All largecourtrooms in the Subordinate Courts arenow equipped with the sound reinforcementsystem.


86

andPERFORMANCE

ORGANISATIONALEXCELLENCEINDICATORS

87

“Today, the Singapore SubordinateCourts stand out as an outstandingjudicial and administrative reformerand innovator amongst judicialinstitutions around the world whosework in providing timely access tojustice and efficient in-courtadministration, has been acknowledgedby several international bodies, suchas the World Bank, the AsianDevelopment Bank, the National Centerfor State Courts, the United Kingdomand other regional judiciaries. TheSubordinate Courts have also beencited as a model of modernisation forLatin American countries.”




88

andPERFORMANCE


Since the inaugural Workplan in 1992, theSubordinate Courts have undertaken a widespectrum of judicial reforms that weresystematically implemented in the courseof each workyear. Best judicials casemanagement and organisation practiceswere drawn from around the world and havebeen institutionalised. These reforms havesteered the Subordinate Courts steadilytowards achieving higher standards ofexcellence every workyear.

SINGAPORE QUALITY AWARD 2006The Subordinate Courts were awarded thecoveted Singapore Quality Award (SQA)in 2006.

The SQA was launched in 1994 with thePrime Minister as its patron. It is the mostcelebrated award presented to organisationswhich have instiutionalised the higheststandards of business excellence. The Awardseeks to establish Singapore as a countrydevoted to world-class business excellence.

The keystone in the SQA business excellencemodel is based on commonly recognisedstandards that are found in the US MalcolmBaldrige National Quality Award, the EuropeanQuality Award and the Australian BusinessExcellence Award.

By winning the SQA in 2006, the SubordinateCourts established itself as the first Organ ofState and the first organisation in the legalsector to be conferred with this honour.

The SQA ceremony was held on 12th

October 2006 evening at the Shangri-LaHotel. The Senior District Judge RichardMagnus received the prestigious awardfrom Minister Lim Swee Say amidst muchexcitement from judges and staff in theaudience.

Subsequent shar ing sessions wereconducted on 15th and 16th November 2006.Subordinate Courts’ officers shared aboutthe challenges faced and learning pointsaccumulated from their relentless andrewarding SQA journey.

Our SQA journeyThe journey towards business excellencewas not incidental. The will to achievebusiness excellence was evident even inthe early years when no formal businessexcellence framework was in existence. TheSubordinate Courts progressed steadilyalong this journey with a sense of obligationand duty to its users and winning the SQAis simply part of this ongoing journey.

The 1990s marked a watershed in the historyof the Subordinate Courts as we embarkedon the journey towards judicial reforms. Atthe helm of such change was the formerChief Justice Yong Pung How who was thenthe Head of the Singapore Judiciary and theSenior District Judge Richard Magnus of theSubordinate Courts. The paramount taskthen was to clear the backlog of cases andset in place a Court Charter with timelinesfor the completion or disposal of cases. Thestep towards judicial reform was in tandemwith Singapore’s then positioning itself as acommercial and IT hub in the Asia Pacificregion. The judiciary took a determinedapproach to modernise its justice systemand maximise its resources by enhancing itsefficiency and productivity whilst preservingpublic trust and confidence in the administrationof justice.

By 1999, the World Bank had stated that theSubordinate Courts were world-class andheld us out as a role model for successfuljudicial modernisation efforts to developingcountries. Since then, the Subordinate Courts

have not looked back and gone on to garnerseveral national and international awards,including the following:

a. The National Association of CourtManagement (NACM) Justice AchievementAward 1999

b. People Developer Standard (1999) andrecertified since 2002

c. ISO 9000 for Family Transformation andProtection Unit (2000)

d. ISO 9000 for Information TechnologyDepartment (2001)

e. Singapore Quality Class (2001)f. Justice Served Award 2001 – recognition

for a stunning array of court web features,including multi-door courthouse, e-commerceonline dispute resolution, Justice Online video-conferencing for attorney court appearances,small claims e-filing (and video appearances),and a good self-help centre.

g. Singapore HEALTH Bronze Award in 2003and Silver Award since 2004

89

h. Distinguished Defence Partner Award 2006i. Distinguished Public Service Award for

Organisation Excellence 2006

Today, the Subordinate Courts are internationallyrecognised as a change and thought leader injudicial administration as well as havingthe world’s most technologically advancedcourts. Domestically our daily business ofupholding the Rule of Law and administeringjustice critically contributes to social stability,equality and advancing economic progressin Singapore as the courts’ efficiencyenhanced investors’ confidence.

Under the new leadership of The Honourablethe Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, theSubordinate Courts have moved on to anotherexciting chapter in the implementation of thenew phases of justice. This year’s Workplanlaunched in May by The Honourable the ChiefJustice saw the announcement of innovativeinitiatives which sought to enhance the

“We will not rest on our laurels after winning theaward. In fact, we will work even harder to serve

members of the public who walk through our doors.Our service and actions will bear testimony of the

Subordinate Courts’ SQA status!”

SQA Committee


90

andPERFORMANCE


quality of justice and engage the community.These included the launch of the CommunityCourt, the deployment of Court Concierges,the appointment of Specialist Judges, theset-up of the Family Relations Centre, theintroduction of iCourtLab and lectures to theBar. All these programmes have broughtabout considerable benefits to court users,the Bar and public at large.

The most evident result is the high public trustand confidence which not only the Singaporepublic but the international communityhave in our judiciary. This is evidenced andsupported by the findings and accoladesreceived from international and regionalorganisations like the World Bank, theInstitute for Management Development, theHeritage Foundation and the Political andEconomic Risk Consultancy (PERC), whichhave all given high ratings to the Singaporejudicial systems and their correlation increating a safe business environment forpotential investors, which have contributed toSingapore’s growth as a financial hub.

For something closer to core court operations,appeals against Subordinate Courts’judgments have been consistently low for thepast few years. This reflects the high qualityin the judgments. Moreover, the SubordinateCourts have a staunch commitment to servecourt users within stipulated timelimes, setout in the inaugural Court Charter of 1997which was revised in 2006. To date, theSubordinate Courts have consistently met orsurpassed the targets set out in the CourtCharter. The Judicial Officers have alsocontributed in no small measure to the efficientadministration and dispensation of justice.They have taken the time to share theirknowledge and to give guidance to both thecourt staff as well as court users. The lawyershave benefited from the Subordinate Courts’publication of practice related books onsubjects such as the Evidence in CriminalTrials, the Sentencing Practice in theSubordinate Courts and the Assessment ofDamages. The public have ready access tojustice through the Subordinate Courts’informational brochures which are given free-of-charge, the user-friendly Information Kiosksand helpful information in their website.

The Subordinate Courts’ steadfastcommitment to administer justice and upholdthe Rule of Law has not wavered. From thiscommitment, many innovative programmeshave been implemented over the years. Theability to see beyond a court order sets theSubordinate Courts on a different paradigm.Over the years, the Subordinate Courts haveput in place various initiatives which aregroundbreaking and non-conventional for acourt setting. The determination to help partieswho come through the courts’ doors, the mindto think through innovative options and thewill and ability to implement the necessaryreforms have gone a long way in their journeyto organisational excellence.

91

iCourtLabAt the 15th Subordinate Courts Workplan2006/2007, The Honourable the Chief JusticeChan Sek Keong emphasised the need forgreater strategic use of technology as a meansof improving access to justice, resourceutilisation and planning, administration,efficiency, and transparency of the justicesystem. Chief Justice then announced theestablishment of the proof-of-concept labknown as iCourtLab where cutting-edgeinnovations suitable for implementation inthe courts can be tried and tested within thecourts environment.

The setting up of iCourtLab is a testimonythat the Subordinate Courts are determinedto be in the forefront with technologyexploitation. The judicial system and theadministration of justice must continuouslytransform with new innovations and enhancedpossibilities for the future. The intent is alsoto allow us to iron out the kinks and test thepractical aspects of these technologies.

“I am very happy we have won the SQA! It was a challenging journeyand all of us rallied behind the organisation throughout the entire

process. It was not a three-day site visit event. To us, it was an ongoingjourney which started many years ago. Being able to walk down theSQA path together with my colleagues makes winning the SQA even

more meaningful. It was no less than a collective effort.”

Ms Harpreet KaurManagement Support Officer

The iCourtLab was officially launched on18th July 2006 by the Senior District Judge.For a start, several new technologieswere showcased for possible applicationsin Subordinate Courts. Thereafter, theSubordinate Courts will make an assessmenton the usefulness and implementationpossibilities. During the launch, six newtechnologies were demonstrated, i.e. RFIDtagging, 3G video conferencing, digital pen,video recording of court session, PDA anddesktop translation software and 2D barcode-mobile hearing list, to invited guests and themedia through interesting role-acting of courtscenarios to demonstrate the capabilitiesof these technologies. The launch was wellcovered by the major media agencies.

An iCourtLab Advisory Council chaired bythe Registrar of the Subordinate Courts andcomprising representatives from LawSociety, Gartner, IDA, IBM, HP, NCS, Fujitsu,WordWave and Bizibody was setup. Thecouncil aims to contribute and advise on


92

andPERFORMANCE


Court Concierges

Left to right

MS SARAH LIM

MS WAHIDAH BANU

MR PANDIYAN VELLASAMI

MS ANNE DURRAY

MR LASHMAN SINGH

opportunities for the possible deployment ofcutting-edge technologies. The good mix ofCouncil members ensures that there is aperpetual flow of ideas from different sourcesfor the iCourtLab.

There are other tie-ups with IT companiesin the industry that have emerging andpromising technologies. The iCourtLab willexperiment with new technologies every sixmonths. It is a win-win partnership for boththe Subordinate Courts and the industryplayers. The Subordinate Courts get to try outvarious types of cutting-edge technologies,and the industry players get to use the Labas a resource point to test out the suitabilityof their products when applied in the judicialsystem. The collaboration will result in co-creation, enhanced knowledge exchangesand value innovations for both sides.

NEED HELP? ASK A COURT CONCIERGE!The Subordinate Courts pride itself in providingexcellent service to all who come through itsdoors everyday.

Court Concierges, the first of its kind amongthe judiciaries in the world, are always readyto assist court users in their enquiries andput them at ease in the Subordinate Courts.

The notion of having Court Concierges firstmade its debut at the Subordinate Courts’15th Workplan, and was launched on 1st June2006. The main objective for this programmeis for court staff, regardless of seniority, towalk the ground and assist members ofthe public, especially litigants-in-person,who visit the Courts and use its facilities.

While Court Concierges do not provide legaladvice, they provide information on courtprocedures and processes and also directionalinformation. These concierges proactively

93

“In the next few months, the MDC will be introducinga “Moving Concierge” service in the form of a court

administrator clad in a distinct maroon jacket,moving around the courts to attend to court users

and especially litigants-in-person.”


18th May 2006

“Under the leadership of the then Chief Justice YongPung How and the present Chief Justice Chan SekKeong, the Subordinate Courts have, over the lastdecade, continually raised the threshold of excellencein the administration of justice. The quality of justiceas administered by the Subordinate Courts has animpact on the lives of ordinary Singaporeans. It isat the Subordinate Courts where most people havecontact with the law. We will continue to sustainthe quality of justice and do justice to all withoutfear or favour. We will continue to uphold the highstandards which we set ourselves as the custodiansof justice. While the judges and officers of theSubordinate Courts can take pride in the presentachievement, there should be no ultimate finish linein our quest to improve the quality of justice for ournation. It is our duty to ourselves, our nation andto posterity, to continually strive to uphold the ruleof law through the fair, effective and efficientadministration of justice.”

Senior District Judge Richard MagnusSubordinate Courts


94

andPERFORMANCE


approach users who need assistance orwho look worried or frustrated. This ensuresthat users do not go around in apprehension.Conceptually, the Multi-Door Courthouse hasgone mobile.

Clad in distinct maroon jackets and theirCourt Concierge tags, Court Concierges prowlthe grounds of both the Havelock Complexand the Family and Juvenile Court building.Operating during the peak hours, they provideassistance to an average of about 100 courtusers everyday.

The 80 over Court Concierges comprisean eclectic mix of senior directors, sectionalmanagers, counsellors and court interpreters,just to name a few. Briefings on the etiquettesand guiding principles of service were providedto all Court Concierges. There is also afeedback channel for the concierges to givesuggestions on areas of improvement andfurther development after doing their rounds.This move to rally all levels of SubordinateCourts’ officers to take it upon themselves toserve members of the public has reapedexceptional benefits.

Ask any Court Concierge, ‘How do you feel?’and the answer will be: “It is indeed a satisfyingand comforting thought that I have to a certainextent helped so many members of the publictoday. The satisfaction and smile that I see intheir faces make my day.”

When first introduced, members of thepublic were wary and surprised when aCourt Concierge approached them. Someeven did a quick turnaround and moved away.This was not surprising. No one would havereally expected the Courts to come forwardand offer personal service. This perceptionhas changed months after the launch of theinitiative. Now there are actually court users

95

who approached the Information Counterand specifically requested for the staff in‘maroon jacket’. This is clearly evident thatpeople have accepted the Court Conciergesand are satisfied with the value-added service.

JUSTICE SECTORMONITORING WORKSHOPThe Subordinate Courts were invited by theArab Council for Judicial and Legal Studies(ACJLS) and ABA’s Middle East Programto share its experience in the developmentof benchmarks and methodology for theevaluation of the judicial system.

The workshop on Justice Sector Monitoringwas held in Amman, Jordan from 13th - 15th

December 2006. The objective was to initiatethe process for the development and ultimate

utilisation of benchmarks in the Middle Eastand North African regions.

Experts from the World Bank, the EuropeanCommission for the Efficiency of Justice, theUnited States Federal Judicial Centre, and theUnited Nations Development Programme werepresent at the workshop and shared theirexperience on various aspects of judicialbenchmarking.

Judge Chia Wee Kiat, who represented theSubordinate Courts at the workshop togetherwith Senior Director Ms Anne Durray, gave apresentation on “Judicial Excellence: TheSingapore Subordinate Courts’ Experience”.The presentation was well received andwas a contributing factor to the success ofthe workshop.


96

andPERFORMANCE


PUBLIC PERCEPTION SURVEY 2006The administration of justice of the SubordinateCourts impacts the public at large andpublic trust and confidence is a core value inthe administration of justice. The Rule of Lawis critical to ensure the economic, social andpolitical success of the nation and feedbackfrom the community is vital as they providerelevant performance benchmarks forthe courts’ strategic planning and policydevelopment initiatives.

It is thus critical to take soundings of the public’sperception of the administration of justice bySubordinate Courts through independent localpublic surveys. Public surveys were conductedin 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001 and recently in2006. All such public surveys were undertakenby independent research bodies.

The 2006 survey was undertaken to take anupdated reading of the public’s perception ofthe administration of justice by the SubordinateCourts.

The objectives of the 2006 survey were asfollows:

i. To measure the level of public trust andconfidence amongst Singapore residentsin the administration of justice in theSubordinate Courts; and

ii. To measure the extent to which theyperceived the courts to be accessible,expeditious, fair, independent andaccountable in the administration ofjustice.

A total of 1,002 Singapore citizens andPermanent Residents aged 15 years and abovewere interviewed face to face with questionsframed by the Subordinate Courts. Theessence of the questions asked in the 2006

public survey is consistent with the perceptionquestion on the confidence level in theadministration of justice by other internationalresearch bodies. In addition, the questionsin the 2006 survey are more detailed and morereflective to gauge public perception.

The survey was intensive and was undertakenbetween September and October 2006.

The survey results reflected that:

• 95% of respondents agreed that there is fullconfidence in the fair administration of justicein Singapore.

• 97% agreed that the Court facilities andinformation about the Courts are easilyaccessible.

• 95% agreed that the Court dealt with casesin a timely and expeditious manner.

• 97% opined that the Courts administerjustice fairly to all regardless of language,religion, race or social class.

• 96% agreed that the Courts administerjustice fairly to all regardless of actions byor against individuals, companies or thegovernment.

• 95% agreed that the Courts carry out justiceaccording to the law without influences ofothers.

The works of the Subordinate Courts affectthe lives of ordinary Singaporeans, and it isalso at the Subordinate Courts where the Ruleof Law is translated into practical meaning formost Singaporeans. These survey results haveonce again reaffirmed the high level of publictrust and confidence that Singaporeans placein the Courts which impact their daily lives.

97

Figure 1: PERC – Confidence in Asian Judicial Systems

Source: PERC, 2006Grades range from zero to 10, with zero being the best grade possible and 10 the worst.

Hong K

ong

Singap

ore

Japa

n

South

Korea

Taiw

an

Malays

ia

Philipp

ines

Thail

and

India

China

Vietna

m

Indon

esia

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Grade

1.55 1.87

2.8

4.51

5.25.75

6.356.9 6.95

7.58

8.32 8.65

Top 3 Judicial Systems

“…Despite the fast changing circumstances in the world, itis important for us to remain steadfast in our primary missionof administrating justice and yet be receptive to changes inour society. Hence we must anticipate new trends and develop

new responses to address those challenges.”

Ms Agnes GohManagement Support Officer

Senior District Judge’s Secretariat

RANKING OF THE SINGAPOREJUDICIARY & LEGAL SYSTEM 2006INTRODUCTIONSingapore Judiciary has once again provenitself to be in the top league of the worldjudiciaries. In 2006, Singapore scored wellin various studies conducted by severalinternational and reputable organisations.The results of these surveys are a tribute tothe high quality of justice dispensed by theSingapore Courts.

POLITICAL AND ECONOMICRISK CONSULTANCY (PERC)ASIAN INTELLIGENCE REPORTExpatriates working in Asia found personalsafety to be an attractive feature living inAsian countries. In this survey, PERC askedexpatriates in Asia to grade their personalsecurity concerns on a scale of zero to 10,with zero being the best grade possible,10 the worst, vis-à-vis their home countries.

The result was in turn translated to the levelof confidence in these countries’ judiciarysystems. This confidence level is derivedfrom how the expatriates perceived thecountries’ ability to police and prosecutecrime against persons and property when itarises, protection of intellectual property,fraud and dispute resolution.

In 2006, Singapore was ranked in the leagueof top three judiciaries in Asia. (Figure 1)

The report also indicated that:“Within Asia, Hong Kong and Singapore arethe only two systems with judiciaries that rateon par with those in developed Westernsocieties…

Hong Kong and Singapore stand out favorablybecause they demonstrate three essentialelements or principles of judicial independence.First, the courts and individual judges within


98

andPERFORMANCE


Figure 2: IMD – Ranking of the Legal Framework, 1997 - 2006

The legal framework is supportive of the competitiveness of the economy

Year Ranking of Singapore Rating No. of countries (1 = Strongly Disagree ranked10 = Strongly Agree)

1997 1 8.46 461998 1 8.20 461999 1 8.64 472000 1 8.82 472001 6 8.03 492002 1 8.50 492003 1 8.22 532004 1 8.34 602005 2 7.52 602006 2 8.11 61

these systems are publicly perceived to beimpartial in their decisions. Second, judicialdecisions are accepted by the contestingparties and the larger public. Third, judges areperceived to be free from undue interferencefrom other branches of government.

…the judiciaries in both Hong Kong andSingapore demonstrate great consistency inthe way they interpret and enforce the law.This gives people and organisations usingthese systems a degree of confidence thatis lacking in most other Asian countries.

From their [managers of multinationalsand banks] perspective, Singapore’s judicialsystem is fair and efficient. They feelcomfortable with the consistency of its rulingsand their ability to fall back on the systemto settle disputes. This confidence is reflectedin the good score that Singapore consistentlygets in our surveys of the police and thejudiciary.”

Finally, Singapore has an even betterreputation than Hong Kong for being a“safe” city.

INSTITUTE FOR MANAGEMENTDEVELOPMENT’S (IMD) WORLDCOMPETITIVENESS YEARBOOK 2006IMD analysed and ranked 61 countries in theworld on their ability to create and maintainthe competitiveness of enterprises. In thisstudy, the ranking was divided into twocategories: one group with a population ofmore than 20 million and another with apopulation of less than 20 million.

In 2006, under the category, “legal framework”,Singapore was among the top three countriestogether with Hong Kong and Iceland.(Figure 2)

This category examined if the legal andregulatory framework encourages thecompetitiveness of enterprises.

99

Figure 4: Ease of Doing Business (Top 10 Countries)

Countries Year Ease of Doing Business

Singapore 2006 1

New Zealand 2006 2

United States 2006 3

Canada 2006 4

Hong Kong, China 2006 5

United Kingdom 2006 6

Denmark 2006 7

Australia 2006 8

Norway 2006 9

Ireland 2006 10

Figure 3: FRASER INSTITUTE –Ranking of the Legal Structure and Security

of Property Rights, 2005 & 2006

2005 2006

Judicial IndependenceImpartial Courts

Protection of Intellectual PropertyMilitary Interference

Law and Order

Singapore Singapore

Top15%

“…The Courts have made access to justice readily andeasily available through various mediums such on theInternet (our website), information kiosks, informationalpamphlets/brochures, media (“live” on-the-air talk

shows/interviews, publication of judicial relatedarticles or topics of public interest)...”

Ms Chu Sooi YoonAssistant Director (Legal)

ECONOMIC FREEDOM OF THE WORLD:2006 REPORT FRASER INSTITUTEThis report contained an index measuring thedegree to which the policies and institutions ofcountries are supportive of economic freedom.

In 2006, the report rated 130 countries ontheir degree of economic freedom in fiveareas, namely:

• Size of Government• Legal Structure and Security of Property Rights• Access to Sound Money• Freedom to exchange with Foreigners• Regulation of Labour and Credit Business

Under the umbrella of these five areas, a totalof 21 variables were measured.

The variables measured under Legal Structureand Security of Property Rights include:

• Judicial Independence• Impartial Courts

• Protection of Intellectual Property• Military Interference• Law and Order

Singapore was ranked in the band of top 15%among the 130 countries examined in thisstudy. (Figure 3)

WORLD BANK – DOING BUSINESSREPORT 2007The World Bank released its study “DoingBusiness Report 2007” in September 2006.Overall, Singapore fared better in 2006 ascompared to the previous year, and hasreplaced New Zealand at the top spot. Thelatter glided to the second place, with UnitedStates and Canada assuming the third andfourth places respectively. (Figure 4)

In this study, 175 economies were ranked ontheir ease of doing business. The ease ofdoing business index was an indication ofwhether the regulatory environment wasconducive to the operation of business.


100

andPERFORMANCE


Figure 5: Protecting Investors (Top 10 Countries)

Countries Rank Disclosure Director Shareholder InvestorIndex Liability Index Suits Index Protection Index

New Zealand 1 10 9 10 9.7

Singapore 2 10 9 9 9.3

Hong Kong, China 3 10 8 9 9

Malaysia 4 10 9 7 8.7

United States 5 7 9 9 8.3

Canada 5 8 9 8 8.3

Ireland 5 10 6 9 8.3

Israel 5 7 9 9 8.3

United Kingdom 9 10 7 7 8

South Africa 9 8 8 8 8

The study looked at factors such as easeof starting a business, dealing with licenses,employing workers, registering property,getting credit, protecting investors, payingtaxes, trading across borders, enforcingcontracts and closing a business.

In the variable which examined the extentof protection offered to investors in thebusiness environment, Singapore wasranked second with a score of 9.3 after NewZealand’s 9.7. (Figure 5)

This topic measures the strength of minorityshareholder protections against misuse ofcorporate assets by directors for their personalgain. The sub-indicators are:

• Transparency of transactions (Extent ofDisclosure Index)

• Liability for self-dealing (Extent of DirectorLiability Index)

• Shareholders’ ability to sue officersand directors for misconduct (Ease ofShareholder Suit Index)

• Strength of Investor Protection Index (theaverage of the three indices)

HERITAGE FOUNDATION ANDWALL STREET JOURNAL 2006 INDEXOF ECONOMIC FREEDOM REPORTThe 2006 Index of Economic Freedommeasures 161 countries against a list of 50independent variables, which were categorisedinto 10 broad factors of economic freedom.Low scores are better. The higher the scoreon a factor, the greater the level of governmentinterference in the economy and the lesseconomic freedom a country enjoys.

Singapore was accorded a score of “1.0” insix out of the 10 factors, and has performedvery well consistently in the area of propertyrights. She has maintained the pole score of“1.0” for 12 good years since 1995. (Figure 6)

ECONOMIST INTELLIGENCE UNITBUSINESS ENVIRONMENT RANKINGS 2006The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)’s globalbusiness environment rankings model is

101

Figure 6: Heritage Foundation – 2006 Index of Economic Freedom (Top 10 Countries)

Country 2006 Trade Fiscal Government Monetary Foreign Banking Wages Property Regulation InformalScore Burden Intervention Policy Investment & Rights Market

Prices

Hong Kong 1.28 1.0 1.8 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5

Singapore 1.56 1.0 2.1 3.5 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Ireland 1.58 2.0 2.3 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.5

Luxembourg 1.60 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

Iceland 1.74 2.5 2.4 2.5 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

United 1.74 2.0 3.9 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0Kingdom

Estonia 1.75 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5

Denmark 1.78 2.0 3.8 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Australia 1.84 2.5 3.9 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

New 1.84 2.5 3.9 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0Zealand

PropertyRights

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

“Thank you all for the most memorable experiencein Singapore Courts. What I have seen in judicialmodernisation was most inspiring. I am all hopefuland convey some of the ideas and initiatives I havewitnessed in some of the Asian countries thoroughUNDP projects. Singapore judiciary is setting awhole new high professional standards for the worldto follow. I am also grateful for all of Court Judgesand staff for saving no effort to show me aroundand to explain.”

Mr Asr Toson, Chief Technical AdvisorModernization of Justice Project

United Nations Development Programme

applied to the world’s 82 largest economies,which account for more than 98% of globaloutput, trade and foreign direct investment(FDI). The model considers more than 90factors across the 10 categories:

• The quality or attractiveness, adjusted forcountry size, of the business environmentand its components – the political andinstitutional environment

• Macroeconomic stability

• Market opportunities

• Policy towards private enterprise

• Policy towards foreign investment

• The foreign trade and exchange regime

• Tax system

• Financing

• The labour market

• Infrastructure


102

andPERFORMANCE


Countries Caseload per Judge

Singapore 4,549

United States 3,971

Hong Kong, China 3,792

Australia 2,684

United Kingdom 1,392

Denmark 1,225

Iceland 954

Sweden 193

Norway 84

Figure 8: Caseload to JO Ratios,Comparative Figures

Countries 2001-2005 2006-2010

Denmark 1 1

Canada 3 2

Singapore 4 3

Great Britain 7 4

United States 8 5

Finland 2 6

Ireland 6 7

Hong Kong, China 10 8

Switzerland 9 9

Holland 5 10

Figure 7: Economist Intelligence Unit (Top 10 Countries on the EIU Ranking List)

In the recent report, Singapore improvedfrom fourth position in 2001-2005 to thirdposition in 2006-2010. (Figure 7)

In March 2004, EIU also reported that theSingapore judiciary is experienced, well-qualified and independent, especially incommercial and business matters. The reportalso stated that the Singapore Legal Systemis effective, impartial and responsible indealing with business issues. The SingaporeLegal system is viewed to be highly efficient,effective and professional in dealing withbusiness disputes. Contractual arrangementsin Singapore are secure and are easilyenforceable with no favouritism shown todomestic companies.

CASELOAD TO JUDGE RATIOThe caseload to Judges ratio shows theaverage number of cases handled byeach Subordinate Courts Judge per year.When compared with the latest available

figures of other jurisdictions, the SingaporeSubordinate Courts Judges have a veryhigh ratio; that is each Subordinate CourtsJudge dealt with, on average, relatively morecases than Judges in other jurisdictions.(Figure 8)

CASES DEALT WITH 2006p

Criminal Justice DivisionCriminal Mentions/Trial

Criminal(1) 62,500Departmental/Statutory Board 104,740Traffic 20,430

Special CourtsCoroner 3,540

OthersPrivate Summons 3,020Town Council Cases (Night Court) 9,360Police Summons 2,410

206,000

Civil Justice DivisionOriginating Processes

Writs of Summons (DC & MC)(2) 42,580Probate 3,030

Interlocutory ApplicationsSummons-in-Chambers (includes O.24/37 & O.14)(3) 17,470

OthersTaxation 180Assessment of Damages 430

e@dr CentreNo. of Cases Disposed 7,310

Small Claims TribunalsNo. of Claims Disposed of 19,020

90,020

Family and Juvenile Justice DivisionFamily Justice Division

Maintenance 9,400Family Violence 2,240Divorce Petitions Filed 5,260Originating Summons 180Adoption 510

17,590Juvenile Justice Division

No. of Cases Disposed 1,41019,000

Enforcement ProceedingsWrits filed with Bailiffs Section

Writs of Seizure & Sale 1,540Writs of Seizure & Sale @ SCT(4) 1,480Writs of Possession 140Writs of Distress 30

Lodged with Warrant SectionWarrant of Arrest (Processed) 38,150

41,340

Total Workload 356,360

p - Preliminary: Figures are estimated, based on Jan-Aug/Sep 2006.

Notes:(1) Includes DAC, MAC, DI, OR/OA, MOM,MPA, NPB & NS cases.(2) Includes cases where no action was taken by the plaintiffs for 6 months and hence lapsed.(3) Separate figures for Summons-in-Chambers & Summons for Direction & Summary Judgment disposed of are not available.(4) Bailiffs @ SCT started in July 2002. There is no data prior to July 2002.

103

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

S/No. Activity / Account FY2005 FY2005Budget Actual

1 Maintenance Expenses (buildings & equipment) 3,100,000 3,081,215.103,100,000 3,081,215.10

2 Rental of Office Premises & Equipment 1,200 0.001,200 0.00

3 Public Utilities 1,280,000 1,277,516.631,280,000 1,277,516.63

4 Training, Welfare & Public RelationsLocal Training Courses, Workshops & Seminars 82,000 80,083.78Overseas Training Courses 6,000 5,020.37Overseas Conferences 40,000 36,599.98Scholarship 210,000 206,766.52Staff Recreation & Welfare 25,000 24,841.04Dental & Medical Subsidy 220,000 211,860.47Staff Suggestion & Productivity Schemes 5,000 2,726.00Managing for Excellence Award 70,410 70,406.53Long Service Awards 30,000 26,097.00Campaigns & Exhibitions 1,500 1,500.00Advertising 3,100 3080.88

693,010 668,982.57

5 Support ServicesOffice Supplies 370,000 364,439.42Library Materials 300,000 282,385.64Transport Claims 15,000 12,842.47Telecommunications & Postage 340,000 333,370.14Data Transmission 50,000 49,480.14Data Centre Charges 0 0.00Computer Services 3,300,000 3,276,283.89Professional & Consultancy Services 290,000 289,556.71Books, Publications & Brochures 40,000 36,717.05CISCO & Security Services 220,000 216,232.00Security Systems 580,000 568,370.85Administrative Services 2,860,000 2,852,561.50Purchase of Equipment 580,000 575,919.27Witness Allowances & Payments to Foreign Language Interpreters 510,000 503,426.98

9,455,000 9,361,586

6 Expenditure on ManpowerLegal & Support Services 30,916,200 29,229,434.67

30,916,200 29,229,434.67

7 Development Projects 1,879,600 1,656,777.801,879,600 1,656,777.80

Total 47,325,010 45,275,512.83


104

andPERFORMANCE


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

THE EDITORIAL COMMITTEEJUDGE CHIA WEE KIATCHAIRMAN OF THE ANNUAL REPORT COMMITTEE

JUDGE REGINA OWFAMILY AND JUVENILE JUSTICE DIVISION

JUDGE TAN BOON HENGCIVIL JUSTICE DIVISION

JUDGE AMY TUNGCRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION

JUDGE MIRANDA YEOREGISTRY

MS SEETO WEI PENGHEAD OF CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS

COORDINATING OFFICERMS SARAH LIMCORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER

IN CONSULTATION WITHSENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE RICHARD MAGNUS


JUDGE JAMES LEONG

WITH WARMEST APPRECIATION TOAll who have contributed to the publication.

Designed & Produced by RAINDANCE

SUBORDINATE COURTS

No 1 Havelock SquareSingapore 059724

Tel (65) 1800-JUSTICE/5878423

www.subcourts.gov.sg

The NEWPH

ASES of JUSTICES

UB

OR

DIN

ATE C

OU

RTS

AN

NU

AL R

EP

OR

T 2006

the new phases of justice€¦ · attainment of the singapore quality award this year is but the...

Documents