the role of police, prosecution and the ......police force”. it attributed the political...

303

111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINARVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

THE ROLE OF POLICE, PROSECUTION AND THE JUDICIARYIN THE CHANGING SOCIETY - THE SINGAPORE APPROACH

Judge Suriakumari Sidambaram*

I. INTRODUCTION

We live in a world of constant change.Trade and technology interact to acceleratethe rate of change. Science and technologyof today may become history tomorrow,while the knowledge and skills we acquirenow may fast become obsolete. As a result,the current operations in an ever-changingenvironment are constantly faced with newchallenges. With the arrival of theinformation age, complex crimes such ascomputer crimes, phone cloning and otherhigh-technology crimes have emerged.White collar crimes consequently increase.Constant training and upgrading to tie inwith the overall social and economicadvancement is the only way to adapt tochanges very quickly.

Singapore has been transformed from apoor Third World city, to a highlyindustrialized economy within a shortthirty year span. Coupled with bettereducation and increasing influence,Singaporeans now expect a high standardof service quality and efficiency in theirdaily transactions with the public service.They have clear expectations that publicofficers will act correctly, decisively andwith confidence.

Crime prevention and rehabilitation ofcriminals are two problems every society,including Singapore, has to contend with.Although the nature of crimes and approachto treatment of criminals may vary fromcountry to country, the urgency of preventingcrime and effectively rehabilitatingcriminals are common to law enforcement

and adjudication authorities in all countries.Singapore prevents and controls crimethrough two essential means :

a. a body of penal legislation whichprescribes which acts (and omissions)constitute crimes, the procedure bywhich suspected offenders may beapprehended and brought to justice,and the forms of punishment whichmay be imposed on proven offenders;and

b. cr iminal just ice system whichadministers and enforces thislegislation, seeking to ensure itscompliance. This system includes thepublic prosecutor, the police (and otherlaw enforcement agencies), thejudiciary and the prisons (and othercorrectional apparatus).

The aim of the Singapore criminal justicesystem is to reduce crime and encouragerespect for and compliance with thecriminal law through three basicapproaches, namely, individual prevention,general prevention and incapacitation.

The crime rate in Singapore fell for theninth consecutive year in 1997. Crimestatistics for the period January -December 1998 indicate a slight increasein the overall crime rate. Seizable offences,however, decreased in the fourth quartercompared to the third quarter. It hashowever been pointed out that the slightincrease should be viewed against thesteady decrease of crime rates over the lastnine consecutive years and against theintensified and effective enforcement actionby the Singapore Police Force (SPF) on all* District Judge, Subordinate Courts, Singapore.

304

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 55

fronts. Further, this slight increase couldbe likely be associated with the economiccrisis and increasing retrenchment andunemployment rates in Singapore. It hasalso been noted that the number of arrestsand cases solved had also risen, and thatSingapore’s crime rate still continues to beamong the lowest in the world. The majorproportion of crime in Singapore consistsof housebreaking, theft of and from motorvehicles, snatch theft, molestation androbbery. Analysis shows that the majorityof these crimes are committed in a randomand opportunistic way.

II. ROLE OF THE POLICE

The mission of the Singapore PoliceForce (SPF) is to uphold the law, maintainorder and keep the peace in Singapore byworking in partnership with thecommunity to protect life and property,prevent crime and disorder, detect andapprehend offenders and preserve a senseof security in society.

In the turbulent years of the 1950s tothe early 1970s, the SPF played a criticalrole in the quelling of labour, racial andpolitical unrests that marked the era. TheSPF has built in this sense of history ofservice and loyalty to Singapore in each andevery individual officer. As such, in May1996, the Hong Kong based company,Political and Economic Risk Consultancy(PERC) Limited, rated Singapore as thesafest country in Asia. PERC attributedSingapore’s enviable position as “one of thefew cities in the world where it is possiblefor foreigners and locals alike to walk justabout anywhere, at any time of the day ornight, with little fear of being mugged bygangsters”, to “a professional and well-paidpolice force”. It attributed the politicalstability, high economic growth andaffluence of Singapore in no small part toa competent and impartial police forcewhich has the full confidence of the

community it serves. In the light of thistrend, efforts to contain crimes have beenstepped up.

The Singapore police are making greatand tireless efforts to adapt to the changingsociety. In addition to their duties toeradicate crime in Singapore, the policealso make people realize that they are co-producers of public safety. The days whenthe police were viewed as oppressors orpersecutors are gone. Police-communityrelationships have been enhanced throughcommunity policing. About one-third of thearrests of major crimes are made with theassistance of members of public.

A. Community PolicingThe Neighbourhood Police Posts (NPPs)

in Singapore, set up in densely populatedhousing estates since 1983, have servedround-the-clock as bases for activities ofpatrol policemen and as a contact pointbetween the police and the public. The aimof the NPP system is two-fold: to improvepolice-community relations in Singapore,and to prevent and suppress crime throughthe co-operation and support from thecommunity. These police officers at theNPP are on constant alert to handle anyemergency, thereby living up to thedemands and expectations of localresidents.

The NPP system has been successful andwell received by the public since itsinception in 1983. However, under the NPPsystem, the complainant or victim of crimewho comes to the police has to be referredfrom one party to another. He or shesometimes may have to repeat his or herstory to 4 different groups of officers, forinstance, the officers who first respond tothe case; the officers who guard the scene;the officers who collate the evidence, andthe investigatorial officers who conduct theinvestigation. The system therefore hassome drawbacks in that the best use is not

305


made of the NPP officers and the strengthof their local knowledge. The police havetherefore come up with the revampedNeighbourhood Police Centre (NPC)system where the officers will be rotatedamong a wider and more challenging rangeof duties, with increased pro-activefunctions, so that the process is integratedinto a single service delivery process. EachNPC will have about 100 to 150 policeofficers and will be in charge of 3 to 4 NPPs.Eventually, by June 200l, 32 NPCs will beset up island-wide. Each NPC will beresponsible for about 10,000 residents.

With this change, the new NPC willbecome a one-stop total policing centre,carrying out the full range of front-linepolicing duties and providing quality one-stop service for the public. Among otherthings, officers from an NPC will man thecounters at the NPPs, conduct patrols,respond to calls of distress, investigatecrime, and make house visits.

The NPC system will also optimize thevalue contributed by police officers andplaces a lot of emphasis on proactivecommunity policing. NPPOs will no longerperform mundane tasks. Instead, they willnow be totally responsible for the safetyand security of the neighbourhoods thatthey are in charge of. The NPCO isrequired to conduct an on-sceneinvestigation for all cases he or she attendsto. This reduces the time spent by thecomplainant at the scene, thus minimizingthe trauma the complainant has to endure.The NPCO is competent in his/her jobthrough comprehensive training, and manyof the NPC work processes are IT-supported to provide the NPCOs with up-to-date information so as to enable themto carry out their tasks more efficiently.

Under the NPC system, the challenge isto work hand-in-hand with the grass-rootsleaders and other voluntary agencies, to

mobilize the community to take on greaterresponsibility and leadership to ensure itsown safety and security. The formation on27 April 1997 of Neighbourhood WatchZones (NWZs), a volunteer citizenorganization formed by local residents forpromoting crime prevention activities inthe neighbourhood, is a big step towardsthis aim. It is intended that with the NWZsand the new NPC system, the community-police bond will be further strengthened.

The police and the community, includingthe NWZs, therefore have strived toprovide total solutions to root problems byworking closely in the joint planning andcreation of Community Focus Plans(CFPs). The CFPs outline the jointinitiatives, programmes and projects whichwill re-focus the police efforts to addressspecific safety and security needs of thecommunity, and to nurture a strong bondbetween the police and the community.Grassroots liaison meetings are nowcharacterised by open dialogue anddiscussion as opposed to the traditionalreporting of cases. One of the stepsinvolved in the creation of the CFPs isprofiling the community’s characteristics,and this is where their extensive networkin the neighbourhood can be fully utilized.Being leaders, the NWZs can mobilizeresidents to take part in activities andprogrammes recommended in the CFP.

Singapore also has a Voluntary SpecialConstabulary (VSC) with part-timevolunteer police officers who hold full-timejobs in other fields. The VSC officers oftencarry out patrols independently or inpartnership with their counterparts in theregular and national service components.They execute their duties with a high levelof professionalism, discipline andenthusiasm.

B. Juvenile DelinquencvOne of the challenges facing Singapore

306


is the rise in juvenile delinquency. Thepolice hold frequent talks to students inschools and to juvenile delinquents in thecourts regarding crime prevention, secretsociety activities, drug prevention andproblems of juvenile delinquency. In orderto he lp schoo ls counter juveni ledelinquency, the latest innovative measuretaken by the SPF is the appointment ofselected secondary school teachers asHonorary Volunteer Special Constabulary(VSC) officers. This is a system where someof the teachers in each school are givenenhanced authority in their managementof student behaviour, especially withregard to serious disciplinary cases. Thisscheme was launched on 16 July 1997.These “Hon VSCs”, trained by the police,wear police uniforms and exercise certainpolice powers, such as powers of arrest.The teachers, who are also the DisciplineMasters/Mistresses or National PoliceCadet Corp instructors of their respectiveschools, attend a 2-week course where theyare taught elementary law and defencetactics, the way to fill out police reports,call for backup (via PR sets), make arrestsand organise crime prevention talks. Inaddition to being advisors and liaisonofficers between the school and the police,they are also advisors on all police mattersin the schools.

The Ministry of Education conducted asurvey on the scheme after 51/2 monthswhich showed some very positive results.The presence of police authority haddeterred both recalcitrant and potentialoffenders from committing crimes in andaround the school compound. The studentswere aware of the presence of policeauthority and tended to behave better.They were also aware that any breach ofthe law could result in immediate actionfrom the Hon VSCs. The Hon VSCs werecompetent in dealing with difficult cases,parents and unsavoury strangers. Theyalso displayed more confidence in advising

students, parents and teachers on policematters. This has resulted in Hon VSCscommanding greater respect and thusbeing able to perform their disciplinary rolemore effectively. The Hon VSCs alsoreceived better support from the NPPs suchas in increased patrols around the schoolafter school hours. It is expected that bythe year 2000, this scheme will be extendedwith two Hon VSCs in each of the 147Secondary schools and 11 institutes oftechnical education in Singapore.

C. Social ServicesThe Singapore police have been

providing the public with many kinds ofservices which are of benefit to thecommunity in making and keeping goodrelationship between the public and thepolice. The “999” call is one of the mostimportant facilities of the police socialservice. It is very useful for the detectionof crime, as well as for the quick preventionof crime. The police also give the publicthe opportunity to see what the police aredoing by organizing public exhibitions oncrime prevention and distributing leafletswhich give local residents very usefulinformation on crime preventive measuresand the services provided by the NPP.

The police are also engaged in socialservice work such as handling reports onlost and found articles, dealing withgrievances and troubles of the localresidents and running the Boys Club,where activities (including sports) areconducted for the youth. The police alsodisseminate information on crimes andseek the assistance of the public to solvethese crimes through the media of the localnewspapers as well as the production of alocal television programme, Crime Watch.The police also provide such informationv i a t h e I n t e r n e t a t < h t t p : / /www.spinet.gov.sg.>

The SPF also places great emphasis on

307


v i c t i m s b y p r o v i d i n g n e c e s s a r ypsychological support and care. Itcollaborates with voluntary welfareorganizations such as the Samaritans ofSingapore (SOS), Pertapis Home,Marymount Centre, Singapore Council ofWomen’s Organizations (SCWO) and theAssociation of Women for Action andResearch (AWARE).

1. Foreigners Foreigners joining the Singapore

workforce often arrive with little or nocrime prevention knowledge, creatingopportunities for crime to take place. Forexample, some foreign nationals workingin Singapore are known to have left theirfront doors, grille gates and windows openat times when most Singaporeans wouldhave had them locked. The NPP thereforedecided to make its foreign workercommunity more aware of the need forsensible crime prevention measures, forthem to work peacefully in Singapore.House visits were maintained to projectpolice presence, convey a sense of securityto the residents, deter potential criminalsand also to enhance crime preventionawareness among locals and foreigners.Crime prevention talks were organized forthe foreign workers and newsletters weredisplayed at both their factory premisesand on the notice boards of their apartmentblocks.

On the other hand, although the vastmajority of foreign workers in Singaporetry to make an honest living, there are alsothose who seem to think that a life of crimeis more profitable. Illegal immigration alsocontinues to pose a threat to the securityand social stability of Singapore. Lured byhigher wages in Singapore, and affected bythe deteriorating economic conditions inthe region, many foreigners will continueto enter Singapore illegally, or enter legallyand subsequently overstay.

Many of the illegal workers andoverstayers have also contributed to therise in foreigner crimes. An area of concernhighlighted by the police is where foreigncr iminals , who targeted af f luentSingaporeans, would commit crimes andflee the island immediately after,frustrating police attempts to capturethem. The police have also stepped upoperations against illegal immigrants.Careful panning and swift action by thepolice have resulted in highly successfulrates of arrests. Those found without valididentification papers are cuffed andbrought back to the station. Those unableto prove lawful entry and stay in Singaporeare appropr ia te ly pun ished andrepatriated. Harbourers and employers ofillegal immigrants and overstayers, as wellas those who facilitate or encourage theseimmigrants to enter and unlawfully remainin Singapore, are swiftly dealt with andupon their conviction, deterrent sentencesare handed down to them.

Preventive measures such as frequentpatrols of our territorial waters to interceptillegal entry into Singapore and spotc h e c k s , g a t h e r i n g i n t e l l i g e n c e ,investigating and prosecuting offenders aresome of the ways these criminals could beprevented from operating. Strongerinternational ties and collaboration withneighbouring countries are also requiredin order to track down and arrest suchcross-border criminals and to solve crimescommitted by foreign nationals.

D. Case ManagementThe emphasis of the SPF has shifted

from individual investigation to team-based investigation and case management.Police officers can thus look forward to amore supportive working environment,besides benefiting from the cumulativeknowledge and experience of the team. Anew specialist CID unit, the RapeInvestigation Squad, was launched in

308


September 1997. As part of the MajorCrime Division of CID, the formation of theRape Investigation Squad has resulted inall rape investigations being centralized atCID. This move is aimed at providinggreater convenience and better service tothe public, by having better-trained officersmore sensitive to the trauma of rapevictims and a more conducive environmentto interview rape victims. Another newspecialist CID unit launched in January1997 was the Computer Crime Branch,officially under the Commercial CrimeBranch of the CID. It is responsible forinitiating computer crime and majortelecommunications fraud investigations.Officers of the branch are also trained toconduct computer forensic examinations,in order to retrieve evidence contained incomputers, to support the prosecution ofoffenders in police investigations. To-date,the Computer Crime Branch has handledcases of hacking, unauthorized access/modification of computer materials,computer fraud and pager/handphonecloning.

E. Dedicated ServiceThe Singapore police force also has

dedicated police officers who are willing tomake personal sacrifices to solve crimes inSingapore. A recent example is the case ofmurder of a Bulgarian, IordankaApostolova, whose bloated body wasdiscovered in a canal in Tanah Merah on12 January 1998. With the full attentionof a group of CID officers to the case,catching little sleep during the period, theymanaged to solve the case within just 36hours of discovery of the body. The casewas brought to trial and the murdererswere sentenced to death on 14 August 1998.The accused appealed but the appeal wasdismissed by the Court of Appeal on 11January 1999, just a year from the day thevictim was killed. On 30 January 1999,an abettor in the murder, the wife of one ofthe accused who helped to cause the

evidence of the murder to disappear invarious ways, was swiftly brought to justiceand sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.

The Singapore Police Force has provenits mettle by providing incident-freesecurity for international events such asthe WTO Conference in 1996. Regionally,the SPF has taken the lead to enhanceinter-police co-operation among theASEAN countries. Internationally, theSPF men in blue have taken part inoverseas United Nations peacekeepingmissions, such as policing the formerkilling fields of Cambodia and ensuring fairelections at Namibia. The key factors forthe SPF’s success are enhancinginvestigative and crime-solving ability,community policing and the developing ofa problem-solving approach; manpowerplanning and development; discipline,professionalism and rigorous training tomaximize the full potential of the officers.

F. Technological ImprovementsWith the introduction of the NPC,

selected NPPs will be closed during certainhours of the day where the demand forpolice services are low (eg. 11 pm to 8 am).The public will however continue to receiveessential services and police assistancethrough the use of information technologyfrom a “Virtual Cop”. By leveraging ontechnology, the police have developed theEmergency Communication (EC) Systemand Police Kiosks to ensure that no cry forhelp will go unheard. A console called theEC is situated in a conspicuous, brightlylit spot outside each NPP which otherpassers-by can clearly see. A touch of abutton puts the complainant in touch withan officer in an NPC. The console allowstwo-way interaction so the officer canquickly advise you on what to do while thenearest patrol officers are informed of thecomplainant’s location and problem. Theofficer at the other end is even able toactivate flashing emergency lights around

309


the complainant (for instance where thecomplainant is being pursued) as well as aloud alarm to draw the attention of passers-by and to deter the pursuer from furtheraction. The EC is easy to use, and a simpleinstruction panel in all four officiallanguages of Singapore ensures that theinstructions will be clear to most people.The console is designed to be vandal proof,and installed at a height to prevent misuseby young children. The NPC officerdeactivates the EC when the NPP is open.

To prevent the significant reduction ofthe service level of the NPPs when they areclosed, the police have developed the PoliceKiosk. These k iosks have v ideoconferencing capabilities and are linked toa manned service point. If the physicalpresence of a police officer is required, anofficer from the patrol team will bedispatched to attend to the caller. Evenwhen the NPPs are closed, members of thepublic will still have access to policeservices via the video conferencing kiosks.These police kiosks will provide facilitiessuch as enquiry services for members of thepublic who wish to inquire on police-relatedprocedures and policies. With the touch-screen capability of the kiosks, the publicwill be able to obtain directory servicessuch as legal services and counsellingservices, locality maps to show the nearestNPP and information on operating hours.The kiosks will also provide advice andanswer queries on police procedures andmatters. The user will also be able to holdvideo conferences with the officer at theNPC if s/he needs further clarification oradditional information that is not providedby the kiosk.

Besides enquiry services, the kiosks alsoprovide reporting services. Members of thepublic can lodge police reports on crime,routine cases and traffic accidents without,the physical presence of a police officer. Thekiosks can provide computerized lodging of

police reports and automatically generatereport numbers. They can capture digitalsignatures, fingerprints and photographs,and store and retrieve all capturedinformation. Above all, the system allowsthe user to hold a video conference with anofficer at the NPC if s/he chooses to reportthe incident or cases, as in a “999” call.

The police have made successful use ofnew technology in their sophisticatedComputerized Investigation ManagementSystem (CRIMES) - an electronic IP systemgoing the way of a paperless workenvironment. Following the success of thepilot implementaton, the system wasimplemented Force-wide on 1 July 1997.

The SPF introduced the Case PropertySystem (CASPROS) which aims to replacethe manual system for tracking caseexhibits and found property, which is basedon register books. CASPROS would be setup for the various divisional headquartersand will provide an electronic database tomonitor case exhibits and found property,in order for all divisional headquarters toshare this information, so that a betterservice can be provided to members of thepublic in locating their lost items.

The Automated Vehicle ScreeningSystem (AVSS) and the Optical CharacterRecogn i t i on (OCR) Sys tem wereimplemented at Singapore’s Second linkwith West Malaysia. These two systemsgreatly enhance the capability of the SPFto detect vehicles wanted for HDB/URAsummonses, road traffic offences, and othercriminal cases.

In January 1998, the SPF commissionedthe first computerized ticketing system, theSingapore On-The-Spot-Ticketing System(SPOTS) for the Traffic Police, and therebydisplaced the manual issue of summonses.This greatly minimizes the data entryerrors in the Traffic Computer System due

310


to illegible handwriting on the summonsforms and also increases the efficiency ofthe Traffic Police Department.

The SPF Intranet launched in October1997 provides an essential boost to theinternal communications efforts of thepolice. Not only does the Intranet provideofficers with up-to-date information andknowledge, it also serves as a depositoryof crucial information and best practices,making it an invaluable leaning tool.

G. Other ImprovementsIn 1998, SPF procured a fleet of new

generation riot control vehicles comprisingof two new command vehicles and sevennew riot buses for the Special OperationsCommand. These new vehicles areimproved versions of the current vehicles.Painted an aggressive red, and with theirwindows protected with wire mesh, thesevehic les arr iv ing at a r iot sceneautomatically will instil awe in even themost unruly mobs, and establish apsychological edge and impress on riotersthat the police mean business. In the eventof an emergency, the command vehicleserves as the forward command post andhighly trained officers can quickly plan riotcontrol strategies using the staff-aidprovided in the vehicle, which includesdetailed sector maps of Singapore. Theturret on top of the command vehiclepermits trained sharpshooters to stationthemselves at an advantageous elevatedposition to neutralize any foreseeablethreats. The turret gives a better view ofthe riot scene, which enhances tacticaldecision making. The turret also carriesthe public address system which enablesthe police troop to warn troublemakers todisperse before action is taken to dispersethem.

The Police Coast Guard of the SPF hasalso been relentless in its efforts toconstantly upgrade and modernize its fleet

of patrol vessels to meet new challengesand to respond to the chang ingcircumstances. It has acquired a fleet of18 high speed patrol boats and 2 commandboats at a total cost of $58 million toapprehend and deter sea robbers, illegalimmigrants and smugglers. These patrolvessels are propelled by water jets whichare well-known for their propulsion powerand low noise and less prone to damage bysubmerged objects as compared toconventional propellers. Apart from theirhigh speed capabilities, these boats alsocome equipped with the latest technologysuch as the Integrated Command, Controland Surveillance (C2S) System and theNavigational, Communication andcomputerized Engine Monitoring ControlSystem. These new boats, which replacethe PX class boats that were commissionedin the early 1980s, will enhance the PoliceCoast Guard’s ability to fight crime inSingapore waters, as well as help greatlyin search and rescue operations.

Fast Response Cars (FRCs) ensure thatthe police arrive on the scene of a crimequickly in urgent cases, but like all cars,their arrival can be delayed if they arecaught in heavy traffic. The SPF has comeup with an effective solution to thatcontingency - Fast Response Motorcycles(FRMs) that can weave through traffic, andin emergencies, even hop onto pavementsor take short cuts through alleys and anyother available routes. On 1 December1997, this programme was launched andit was found that the response time wasfaster compared to the FRCs. The FRMsare intended for urgent cases only anddeployed during peak periods and atcertain patrol sectors where traffic flow isheavy. They will conduct patrols andattend to urgent messages in pairs. FRMofficers patrol with standard equipmentincluding bullet-proof vests, breath-analyzers, fire extinguishers and first aidboxes. They are not bogged down by bulky

311


equipment such as road block signs andshields.

III. CORRUPT PRACTICESINVESTIGATION BUREAU

It is also apt to mention here the CorruptPractices Investigation Bureau (CPIB),which is an independent body whichinvestigates and aims to prevent corruptionin the public and private sectors inSingapore. Established in 1952, it derivesits powers of investigation from thePrevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).The bureau is headed by a director who isdirectly responsible to the Prime Minister.

The CPIB is responsible for safeguardingthe integrity of the public service andencouraging corruption-free transactionsin the private sector. It is also charged withthe responsibi l i ty of checking onmalpractices by public officers andreporting such cases to the appropriategovemment departments and public bodiesfor disciplinary action. Although theprimary function of the Bureau is toinvest igate corruption under thePrevention of Corruption Act, it isempowered to investigate any otherseizable offence under any written lawwhich is disclosed in the course of acorruption investigation.

Besides bringing corruption offenders tobook, the Bureau carries out corruptionprevention by reviewing the work methodsand procedures of corruption - pronedepartments and public bodies to identifyadministrative weaknesses in the existingsystems which could facilitate corruptionand malpractice, and recommendsremedial and preventative measure to theheads of the departments concerned. Alsoin this regard, officers of the bureauregularly conduct lectures and seminars toeducate public officers, especially thosewho come into contact with the public, on

the pitfalls of and the avoidance ofcorruption.

IV. CENTRAL NARCOTICSBUREAU

In 1971, the Central Narcotics Bureau(CNB) was formed as a result of increasingdrug abuse among youths. The Misuse ofDrugs Act (1973) provides executive powerto detain a drug consumer for compulsorytreatment and rehabilitation. In 1975, anamendment to the Misuse of Drugs Actprovides the death penalty for traffickingof more than 15 grams of pure morphine.It was, however, with the mounting ofOperation Ferret, on 1 April 1977, in whichconcerted efforts were directed againstdrug trafficking and consuming by theCNB, police and customs that successagainst the drug menace was clearly seen.Punishment meted out for drug offencesare severe in Singapore.

The Singapore police are empowered toinvestigate into all kinds of criminaloffences, and when they complete theirinvestigation, they are required to refer theoffences to public prosecutors who enjoy theexclusive right to prosecute offenders. On12 April 1997, the Attorney General ofSingapore, Mr Chan Sek Keong, during theopening of the newly renovated office of theSenior DPP Courts, paid tribute to policeofficers whose good investigative work hadled to successful prosecution. The efficiencyand effectiveness of the police in criminaltrials are reflected specifically in thenumber of convictions obtained from guiltypleas or trials, and generally in theprevailing low crime rate.

V. ROLE OF THE PROSECUTOR

The control and direction of mostcriminal prosecutions and proceedings inSingapore rests with the Attorney-Generalas the Public Prosecutor (Section 336 of theSingapore Criminal Procedure Code). His

312


power, exercisable at his discretion, “toinstitute, conduct or discontinue roceedingsfor any o f fence” , has been g ivenconstitutional status by Article 35(8) of theSingapore Constitution. The AttorneyGeneral is independent in this role, and notsubject to the control of the government.He is ass isted by Deputy Publ icProsecutors (DPPs) who conductprosecutions in Subordinate and HighCourt trials, and Magistrate’s and CriminalAppeals, as well as appear in the Coroner’sCourt and at Preliminary Inquiries. TheCrime Division delegates certain matters,such as criminal trials in the MagistrateCourts, to the Police Prosecution Branch(PPB). Although not administratively partof the Crime Division, the PPB isfunctionally linked to the Crime Division.

The DPPs work includes prosecutingcriminal matters in the courts, directinglaw enforcement agencies in theirinvestigations, evaluating and givingdirections on their investigation papersfrom the police and other enforcementagencies, replying to representations fromaccused persons, giving advice on criminaljustice matters to other departments andagencies, and processing applications forprivate prosecution.

In addition, the Commercial AffairsDepartment (CAD) was established in 1984under the Ministry of Finance (RevenueDivision) to combat complex commercialfraud and white collar crimes in Singapore.DPPs in CAD carry out the role of thepublic prosecutor in respect of mattersdealt with by CAD. The work of the CADincludes investigating and prosecutingcommercial offences under the SecuritiesIndustry Act, the Companies Act,particularly in relation to financialinstitutions and providing advice on inter-agency projects, making applications forthe production, confiscation and restraintorders under the Drug Trafficking

(Confiscation of Benefits) Act, and otheroffences disclosed in the course ofinvestigation.

The role of the public prosecutor in crimeprevention and control must therefore beviewed within the context of this criminaljustice system, to be as follows:

A . The discretion to Prosecute orNot

The Constitution of the Republic ofSingapore vests in the Attorney-Generalthe “powers, exercisable at his discretion,to institute, conduct or discontinue anyproceedings for any offence’’ [Article 35(8)].Section 336(1) of the Criminal ProcedureCode (Cap 68) states that “the Attorney-General shall be the public prosecutor andshall have the control and direction of allprosecutions and proceedings under thisCode.”

B. Advising the PoliceThe police and other law enforcement

agencies responsible for investigatingcrimes refer their cases whenevernecessary and practicable to the publicprosecutor and DPPs for their instructionas whether to charge and, if so, underwhich provision of the law the chargeshould be made. The police are also advisedon matters concerning their investigation,to ensure that procedures set by the laware properly followed. Where the needarises, suitable instructions and guidelinesare also issued by the DPPs to the police inregard to particular types of offences.

C. Bail ApplicationsThe objective of bail is to secure the

accused person’s attendance at courtproceedings, and at the same time, to setthem at liberty before the trial or appeal.It is often a difficult question whether bailshould be allowed. The prosecution takesa stand in each case where the accusedperson applies to the court for bail, whether

313


before trial or pending appeal, opposingsuch applications or agreeing to them(subject to a suitable quantum of bail beingoffered), according to the facts of theparticular case and to the legal provisionsand principles that govern bail.

D. TrialsProsecution in court is a crucial stage of

bringing an offender to justice, for it is atthe trial that the evidence relevant to thealleged offence is presented and tested, thatthe charge must be proved and, if proved,the sentence pronounced. Singaporeadheres to the principle that every personis presumed innocent until proven guilty,and the onus is on the prosecution to provethe charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The public prosecutor and the DPPconduct all criminal prosecutions before theHigh Court. The DPPs also conduct anumber of criminal prosecutions before theSubordinate Courts, which includesprosecutions for offences under the PenalCode, the Prevention of Corruption Act(Cap 241) and various commercial andfinancial crimes. A majority of SubordinateCourt prosecutions, however, areundertaken by the police and governmentdepartments. The DPP’s role here is todirect and advise these prosecutors.

E. SentencingBefore sentence is passed on a particular

offender, the defence mitigates on theirbehalf. The prosecution, in suitable cases,also addresses the court on sentence. Thisoccurs when, in the prosecution’s opinion,a deterrent sentence is necessary; oftensuch a deterrence is required because ofthe prevalence and increasing rate of thetype of crime for which the offender hasbeen found guilty.

In deciding on the charge to be preferred,the DPPs also plays a role in regard tosentencing because a more serious charge

generally results in a more severe sentence,and a reduced charge in a lesser one. Inthe case of an offender facing multiplecharges, the DPPs may also decide toproceed on only one count or a number ofcounts, applying to the court either to takeinto consideration, for the purposes ofsentencing the remainder of the chargesor to withdraw them. In cases where theaccused person pleads guilty, the gravityof the offence (as reflected in theprosecut ion ’s statement o f facts )constitutes a factor in the sentencingprocess.

F. AppealsThe prosecution process does not always

end with the conclusion of a trial, for anappeal to a higher court may be lodgedagainst the decision of the trial court. InSingapore, the prosecution has the rightto appeal against an order of acquittal, justas the defence has the right to appealagainst a conviction. Both sides may alsoappeal against the sentence imposed.

Appea ls f rom dec i s i ons o f theSubordinate Courts, or “Magistrate’sAppeals”, are heard by the High Courtexercising its appellate jurisdiction. UnderSection 60(1) of the Supreme Court ofJudicature Act (Cap 322), where in thecourse of such an appeal any question oflaw of public interest arises, any party mayapply to the court for the question to bereserved for the decision of the Court ofCriminal Appeal. Where the publicprosecutor so applies, such an applicationshall be granted. Appeals from decisionsof the High Court exercising its originaljurisdiction in criminal cases are heard inthe Court of Crimninal Appeal.

All appeals filed by the prosecution inthe High Court or the Court of CriminalAppeal are argued by the DPPs. They alsoappear to respond to appeals lodged by thedefence. To succeed in an appeal against

314


acquittal, the DPP bears the onerousburden of persuading the appeal court that,on the basis of the evidence presented atthe trial and on principles of law, an orderof conviction should be substituted. Wheres/he appeals against the sentence, theDPPs must establish that the sentence wasmanifestly inadequate and should beenhanced.

G. lnitiativesTo keep apace with the fast-changing

world and the speedy progress of workprocesses in the SPF and in the courts, theCrime Division of the Attorney-General’sChambers has also set up a number ofSpecialized Committees to respond to theneed for specialization in various aspectsof their work. Officers in these specialistteams do in-depth research into, and serveas core personnel, in their respective areasof law. These committees also organizevisits, seminars and training sessions.Among these are the CyberCrimeCommittee, which comprises of officersconversant with IT and serves as the in-house specialist team on Computer andInternet Crimes; the Extradition/MutualAssistance Committee, which deals withinternational co-operation over crimerelated matters; and a Special Task Forceon Immigration to deal with the increasingnumber of illegal immigrants.

ACES or “Advisor for Case Sentencing”was developed in 1996 with assistance fromthe Information Technology Institute. Thissystem was introduced to assist DPPs inmaking submissions on sentences and todetermine if appeals should be lodgedwhere the sentences are inappropriate.The Formalized Accelerated System forTrial-or “FAST” - was also introduced. Thisscheme works by identifying cases whichcan be dealt with expeditiously at theearliest possible stage, placing them on the“FAST” track. Co-operation between thepolice and DPPs in the subordinate courts

ensures that cases on the “FAST” track arepromptly resolved. This saves time andensures more efficient case management.

A special Mentor Scheme was alsointroduced to ensure closer monitoring ofjunior officers, upkeeping the continuityand accountability for decisions taken, andto foster better rapport between junior andsenior officers. All officers at Grade 16 orwith 2 years or less legal service experienceare now paired with a senior officer whowill be responsible for ensuring theirproper training, and will guide andsupervise their work.

Likewise, the CAD has also used IT toenhance efficiency. The CAD has devisedan on-line procedural manual or AideMemoire. A database of relevant case lawand legal resource materials was alsocreated. Further, a computerized CaseTracking System was introduced tofacilitate tracking of cases assigned toDPPs. This enabled efficient monitoringof the progress of the cases. The CAD alsoformed a committee to deal with mattersrelating to the security, storage andretrieval of critical operational informationin its Department. In July 1997, the CADhad started an in-house, bi-monthlypublication which contain write-ups onlegal issues, investigative procedures andreports on social welfare issues.

The public prosector and the DPPsoccupy an essential position in the criminaljustice system and actively participate inevery stage of the criminal prosecutionprocess. Their vital role within the systemserves the overall aim of controlling andreducing crime in society, and promotingrespect for the criminal law.

VI. ROLE OF THE COURTS

The judiciary is one of the three pillarsof the State. It administers the law

315


independently of the executive. Thejudiciary is a vital part of Singapore’s legaland judicial system. In order to meet theneeds of the changing demographic, social,political, economic and technologicaltrends, the judiciary has engaged in futurestrategic planning for the 21st century.

In the administration of justice, thecourts have focused on instituting a set oftimeless values which include accessibility,expedition and timeliness; equality,fairness and integrity; independence andaccountability; and public trust andconfidence. These values serve as beaconsfor the administration of justice inSingapore. In line with their core values,the judiciary recognises the importance ofobtaining feedback from the public toprovide relevant performance benchmarksfor the courts’ strategic planning and policydevelopment initiatives.

Recent surveys conducted by variousorganizations, such as the Singapore-basedForbes Research Pty Ltd (Forbes), theHong Kong-based Political and EconomicRisk Consultancy (PERC), and theSwitzerland-based International Institutefor Management Development (IMD), haveall confirmed a high level of confidence inthe Singapore judiciary by both local andinternational communities. The Singaporejudiciary has scored top marks for the fairadministration of justice and is perceivedto contribute significantly to the public’ss e n s e o f s e c u r i t y, a n d t o t h ecompetitiveness of the economy.

The main finding of a recent surveyconducted by Forbes Research during Mayto July 1998, covering 1,519 households,showed that the Singapore public has fullconfidence in the fair administration ofjustice in Singapore. An impressive 97%of survey respondents agreed strongly thatthe courts administer justice fairly to all.The courts have also fared well in the public

perception of crime levels and theeffectiveness of sentencing. A high 99% ofrespondents felt safe living in Singaporeand affirmed that the judiciary hascontributed much to their sense of security;while 93% felt that sentences meted by thecourts are effective as a deterrent topotential offenders. The survey alsoaffirmed that the Singapore judiciarymeets the public’s expectations of theeffective administration of justice.

PERC is an international consultingfirm specializing in strategic businessinformation and analysis for companiesdoing business in East and South EastAsia. In the August 1998 issue of itsfortnightly newsletter, “Asian intelligence”,PERC published the findings of its recentsurvey of over 400 senior businessexecutives on the perceived quality of keyinstitutions in certain countries. Singaporewas rated as having the best nationalinstitutions in Asia. In the ranking of thejudiciary and the police, Singapore toppedagain with a score of 2.87, improving from3.07 in 1997. PERC also commented that“The Singapore courts are also effcient indispatching both civil and criminal cases,using a legal system modeled on the Britishsystem of justice.”

The core of Singapore’s criminal justicesystem is its judicial system. Theadministration of justice is vested in:

(i) The Supreme Court is a superior courtof record, It consists of the the HighCourt; the Court of Appeal; and theCourt of Criminal Appeal. TheHonourable Chief Justice, the Judgesof Appeals, the Judges of the HighCourt and the Judicial Commissioners,d ispense and super intend theadministration of justice in Singapore.The Supreme Court is supported by theSupreme Court Registry headed by theRegistrar who, assisted by the Deputy,

316


Senior Assistant and AssistantRegistrars, engages in the day to dayrunning of the Registry and performjudicial functions such as hearings ofinterlocutory applications as well asadministrative functions. The Justices’Law Clerk, who works directly underthe charge of the Chief Justice, assiststhe judges and judicial commissionersby carrying out research on the law,particularly for appeals before theCourt of Appeal.

In criminal cases, the High Courtgenerally tries cases where the offencesare punishable with death orimprisonment for a term which exceeds10 years. It also hears appeals fromthe Subordinate Courts Registrars,Magistrates and District Judges, aswell as the Registrars of the SupremeCourt. Proceedings in the High Courtare normally heard and disposed of bya single judge. The Court of Appeal isthe final appellate court in Singaporeand the highest court in the land. TheCourt of Appeal consists of the ChiefJustice and the Judges of Appeal. TheCourt of Appeal hears appeals fromdecisions of High Court in both civil andcriminal matters.

(ii) The subordinate courts consist ofDistrict Courts, Magistrates Courts,the Juvenile Court, the Coroner’sCourt, the Family Court and the SmallClaims Tribunal. There are presently27 criminal trial courts (including theTraffic Court) in the subordinate courts,apart from two Criminal MentionsCourts, one Centralized SentencingC o u r t a n d a C o u r t h a n d l i n gMagistrates Complaints . Thesubordinate courts are headed by theSenior District Judge, and he isa s s i s t e d b y D i s t r i c t J u d g e s ,Magistrates, Coroners, Small ClaimsTribunals Referees, Registrars and

Deputy Registrars in the disposal ofcivil and criminal cases within thejurisdiction of the subordinate courts.In 1998, 53 District Judges and 14Magistrates served in the subordinatecourts. Some of the judicial officersconcurrently hold appointments asDeputy Registrars, dealing with civiland criminal matters in chambers;Coroners and Referees of Small ClaimsTribunals.

The subordinate courts introducedand formalized its four justice models inits 1997/1998 workplan, namely:

1. Criminal justice - protecting thepublic

2. Juvenile justice - restorativejustice

3. Civil justice - effective and fairdispute resolution

4. Family justice - protecting familyobligations

These justice models serve asreference points in the formulation ofjudicial policies.

Criminal cases make up about 70% ofthe cases that are dealt with in thesubordinate courts. These include casescommenced by the public prosecutor, casesprosecuted by the various governmentagencies, and private prosecutions.

(a) In criminal cases, the District Courthas jurisdiction to hear most offencesother than those which are punishablewith life imprisonment or death. Ingeneral, it may impose a term ofimprisonment not exceeding 7 years, afine of up to $10,000, caning of up to 12strokes (for male offenders) or anyl a w f u l c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e s epunishments. It may also imposeprobation. In cases of recalcitrantof fenders , i t may also impose

317


reformative or corrective training.

(b) As compared with the District Court, aMagistrate’s Court can try offences ofa less serious nature where themaximum jail sentence does not exceed3 years, or where only a fine can beimposed. In general, it may imposeimprisonment for a term not exceedig2 years, a fine not exceeding $2,000,caning of up to 6 strokes (for maleoffenders) or any lawful combination ofthese punishments. It may also imposeprobation.

(c) There are currently two CriminalMentions Courts, which respectivelyexercise the jurisdiction of a DistrictCourt and of a Magistrate’s Court. TheCriminal Mentions Courts are involvedin the initial management of criminalcases and ensure the smooth runningof the criminal justice system. Whenaccused persons are first charged, theircases are mentioned in one of theCriminal Mentions Courts. TheCriminal Mentions Courts deal with awide variety of applications includingapplications for bail, remand andadjournments.

(d) If an accused person decides to pleadguilty, their case will be dealt withimmediately in the Criminal MentionsCourts. More serious cases will be sentto the Sentencing Courts. However, ifthe accused person claims trial, theMentions Court will either fix a datefor trial or for pre-trial conference. Avideo-conferencing facility for bailmatters and remand of prisoners hasbeen set up between the MentionsCourt and the remand prison.

(e) The Traffic Court manages the conductof traffic cases, except in cases wheredeath has been caused by a road trafficaccident. One significant technological

innovation is the use of an AutomatedTraffic Offence Management System(ATOMS), which was launched on 1November 1996 to enhance theefficiency and accessibility of thesubordinate courts. This system allowsfirst time offenders in many minortraffic offences to settle traffic ticketscontaining an offer of a composition fineat automated kiosks which are locatedthroughout Singapore. In cases wherethe period for payment of thecomposition fine has expired, offendersmay now plead guilty to the offence atan ATOMS kiosk, instead of having toappear in court. ATOMS is unique inthat it is the first automated paymentsystem in the world which allows thepayment of court fines. It is unlikeother similar systems in the UnitedStates, such as the one in the LongBeach Municipal Court which onlyhandles payment of composition finesimposed by non-court agencies. Thelaunch of ATOMS is the actualizationof the subordinate courts’ vision of avirtual courthouse. Since its launch,the service has been well received andutilized by members of the public.

(f) The Coroner’s Court is presided overby the State Coroner. The Coroner’smain duty is to ascertain the cause andcircumstances under which a deceasedperson came to their death, in caseswhere there is reason to suspect that aperson died in a sudden or an unaturalmanner, or by violence or where thecause of death is not known. TheCoroner will also determine whetherany person was criminally involved inthe deceased person’s death.

(g) The criminal courts are supported by aCrime Registry which manages allcriminal processes in the subordinatecourts and monitors the progress ofcases until final disposition (including

318


appeals). The Crime Registry alsoprovides information on the status andprogress of cases, crime trends andstatistics.

(h) Mediation has been introduced inprivate prosecutions, instituted by wayof Magistrates Complaints. Thesecases relate mainly to neighbourhoodand relational disputes, where partiesare known to each other. Such casesinclude simple assaults and threats,nuisance and causing mischief. Manycases have been successfully concludedthrough mediation.

(i) The Juvenile Court was created withthe passing of the Children and YoungPersons Ordinance in 1949. This courtdeals with all types of criminal offencesby young offenders under the age of 16,and focuses not only on punishment,but also on the correction, counsellingand rehabilitation of the juvenileoffender. The Juvenile Court dealswith three categories of cases, namely:

- juvenile offenders;- children and young persons

beyond parental control; - children and young persons in

need of protection.

The Juvenile Court’s approach is basedon a restorative model of justice. In dealingwith juveniles, the Court works closely withthe offender, their parents, peers, teachersand principals, and the various care givingagencies. The paramount concern of theJuvenile Court is that of rehabilitation andreformation. Essentially, this means it hasto consider how best to use its powers andavailable programmes to rehabilitate orsoc ia l ly re integrate the juveni leconstructively back into society. Inchoosing the appropriate “instruments ofreform’’, the Juvenile Court has to bemindful of the individual strengths andlimitations of the offender who appear

before it. To this end, the Juvenile Courthas introduced innovative measures whichinvolve the active participation of thecommunity in the justice process, such asFamily Conferencing, Family CareConferencing and Bootcamp Training.

A. Family ConferencingF a m i l y c o n f e r e n c i n g h a s i t s

underpinnings in the phenomenon of“shame” and “re-integrative shaming”. Theconference brings together the offender andtheir family, and the victim and theirfamily, the offender’s schoolteacher oremployer, the prosecution, the probationofficer and any other significant person.The judge is assisted by a facilitator, who,through skilled interview techniques,facilitate the session in a manner to havethe offender realize the impact of theiroffending behaviour on those near and dearto them. The facilitator explores reasonsfor the negative behaviour and for theparent’s lack of control. The facilitator willalso formulate concrete steps, through theinput of participants, which the offendercan take to make good their offending actto those affected by it. After the conference,the offender and their parents appear incourt for the judge to make an order on thecase. The most common order following afamily conference is a probation order for12 to 36 months with or without residency.

A family conference is convened forselected offenders who have supportive andconcerned parents. Furthermore, theseof fenders must not be hard coredelinquents and must be remorseful. Sinceits implementation in June 1998, a total of130 family conferences have beenconducted. Only 6 out of the 130 (5%)o f fenders who underwent fami lyconferencing have re-offended. This showsthat the programme also helps to minimizethe likelihood of juvenile re-offending. TheJuvenile Court of Singapore has beenreferred to as the only jurisdiction in the

319


common law world that makes re-integration of the child offender an integralpart of the juvenile justice system.

B. Family Care Conferencing The family care conference is also

another integral component of the JuvenileCourt programmes. Its philosophy issimilar to that of the family conference,except that it is targeted at juveniles whoare beyond parental control. These mayinclude instances where parents haveexhausted all means of disciplining them,like seeking professional help from a socialservice agency, liaising with schoolauthorities, etc. The aims of the family careconference include the need:

- To strengthen family units andempower parents and thecommunity to regain control of thejuvenile;

- To encourage the juvenile to takeresponsibility for the delinquentbehaviour:

- To reduce the placement of such aj u v e n i l e i n i n s t i t u t i o n saccommodating offenders;

- To reduce the likelihood of thejuvenile committing an offence.

C. Youth Family Care ProgrammeThe Juvenile Court, in liaison with

TOUCH Community Services, runs theyouth family care programme wherevolunteer families are matched withdysfunctional young persons placed onprobation or statutory supervision. Thesefamilies act as positive role models for thejuvenile and their families. A volunteerfamily will meet the assigned young personto befriend and encourage them for as longas the probation of statutory supervisionorder subsists, or until the court otherwiseorders. The programme is targeted athelping juvenile offenders and childrenbeyond parental control, but who areremorseful and do not have ingrained

delinquent traits.

D. Community Service OrdersA Community Service Order (“CSO”) is

an order of the court compelling theoffender to perform unpaid work for aspecified number of hours. This isimplemented as a term of the probationorder. Through such an order, the offenderis given an opportunity to make amendsfor the offending behaviour by performingservices for the community or its lessfortunate members. Over and abovedepriving the offender of leisure time, theCSO also aims to develop a sense ofempathy and respect in the offendertowards people and property, as well asbroaden their perspective of the worldaround them.

A survey was conducted in August 1998to obtain feedback on the CSO placement.On the whole, the probationers found theCSO placement a worthwhile andenriching experience, while all the parentsexpressed the view that the CSO schemewas beneficial for their child. The CSO hasalso been effective as a rehabilitativemeasure, as the responses showed that theCSO exper i ence had he lped theprobationers to develop empathy andconsideration for others, while gainingmeaningful social experiences. Mostprobationers felt that their CSO placementhad a positive impact on their relationshipwith their families and have helped thempersonally in the development of theirpersonality and character, and that theyhave acquired new skills/knowledge/traits.All the agencies were also satisfied withthe performance of the probationers. TheCSO scheme as a condition of probation hasbeen effective and has provided theprobationer with a different perspective onlife. They did not encounter any majorproblems when assigning work to them.

The Community Service Unit (CSU) was

320


set up on 7 December 1996 to implementthe CSO scheme in close consultation withthe subordinate courts, participatingagencies on the CSO scheme, andinvestigating probation officers. TheJuvenile Court imposed its first CSO on17 December 1996. The first CSO for anadult probationer was imposed by asubordinate court on 22 June 1997.

E. Peer Advisors ProgrammeIn this programme, students from

selected secondary schools are given achance to sit in court proceedings, as wellas take part in discussions with a JuvenileCourt judge in chambers before judgementis passed. The aims of the programme areto give the Juvenile Court a contemporarypeer group perspective of the offendingcriminal act . The peer advisors ’participation, together with the teachers,will also benefit them through a betterunderstanding of the justice process andthe consequences of involvement incriminal activities.

F. Teen Development ProgrammeThis is a 16 week “After School Care”

programme which the court canincorporate into a community-based optionfor certain offenders. It aims at non-hardcore offenders who have beenexperiencing problems at home and atschool. It targets youths residing in thewestern part of Singapore. This is a non-residential programme aimed at providingan alternative to institutional care for teenswith delinquent traits at home and atschool, and who may have committedoffences. The programme aims to providean environment that is safe, structured andconducive for the development of positiveand socially acceptable attitudes andbehaviours like perseverance, self-control,respect, trust and honesty. It also servesas a platform to counsel the juvenile andhis/her family.

G. Boot CampThe subordinate courts conducted their

first “boot camp’’ in 1996. Unlike the bootcamps in other jurisdictions (that are courtsentences), this boot camp was deliberatelyconducted as a pre-sentence evaluationprocess. Apart from the strict physicalregime of the boot camp, counsellingsessions are held for the juveniles and theirparents. Programmes at the boot camp aredesigned to bring about behaviour changesunder a controlled environment, so that thesupervised behavioural changes willremain with the participants once they arereferred back to society.

An integral aspect of this programme isthe intensive post-camp follow-upcomponent designed to address theoffending behaviour of the participants andto prevent them from committing offencesin the future. This aftercare componentalso aims to develop sel f -esteem,responsibility, discipline and good workethics in participants, and to increase theiracademic and job related skills throughpersonalized supervision by counsellors.

H. Streetwise ProgrammeThe Streetwise Programme commenced

in 1997. This is a government fundedproject and is a developmental programmeaimed at changing the behaviour of youthswho have unwittingly drifted into gangs.It is an intensive 6 month structuredprogramme which incorporates elements ofcounselling, family conferencing, peersupport, recreation and academicactivities. The programme aims to helpthese youths “turn around” and gain a freshstart in life.

I. Pre-complaint Counselling: EarlyIntervention

The Juvenile Court recognizes that thefamily unit has the primary responsibilityof disciplining the child. At the same time,the Children and Young Persons Act allows

321


parents to seek the Court’s interventionwhere their children are beyond theircontrol. In fulfilling its restorative role ofpromoting parental responsibility, theJuvenile Court has successfully utilizedcommunity resources to intervene infamilies with children who are beyondparental control, as an intermediate stepbefore the matter is brought into thejuvenile justice system. This is to avoidthe situation of having parents lodgingcomplaints against their children inmoments of desperation without firstseeking the help of the extended family orthe resources within the community. Thisalso seeks to ameliorate the undesirableimpact on the “pre-delinquent” child, as thelatter will likely be remanded in the Boys/Girls Home, pending the social report, afterthe complaint is laid by their parents. Thisis to ensure that parents have exhaustedall available avenues to help their childrenbefore they are brought into the juvenilejustice system as a last resort.

Pre-complaint counselling is aninitiative devised by the Juvenile Court asa diversionary measure to keep borderline‘beyond parental control cases’ away fromthe court system. Essentially, the Courtutilizes community intervention at the pre-complaint stage. The Court will referborderline BPC cases to the Family ServiceCentres when the complaint is laid by theirparents. The Family Service Centres willdo a preliminary assessment of the case todecide if they can work with the family tohelp them with the child. In the meantime,the case will be adjourned. If the FamilyService Centre is able to work with thefamily, the case will be closed in theJuvenile Court when the family returns onthe adjourned date. If the Family ServiceCentre is unable to help the family, thematter proceeds on in the juvenile justicesystem.

J. Peer MediationOn 14 April 1997, the Juvenile Court

introduced the Peer Mediation programmein selected secondary schools, as part of itspreventive and restorative measures. Peermediation encourages the use of non-adversarial conflict resolution as aneffective alternative to violence and otherforms of anti-social behaviour, peermediation aims to undercut disciplinaryproblems in schools before they start, byimputing practical skills to manage andresolve conflict before it escalates into abehaviour which requires intervention bythe schools, police or the courts. In the peermediation programme, the students receivespecial training to enable them to act asthird party mediators between two or moreof their peers in the same school who areinvolved in petty quarrels and want to seeit resolved constructively. The results ofthe inaugural peer mediation scheme havebeen very encouraging.

K. Typology of Youth RiotersBesides a number of preventive

measures undertaken by var iousgovernment and voluntary organizationsto deal with this problelm, the courts havealso been getting tough with rioting cases.To gain further insight into the profile ofjuvenile delinquents, the Research andStatistics Unit conducted a study in 1998on the profile of youth rioters. The meanage of a young rioter was 16.9 years.Studies show that in Singapore’s case, thelack of positive parental guidance, senseof alienalion, powerlessness and low self-esteem because of a lack of traditionalsupport structures such as the family andschool, and built up feelings of frustrationand anger, and a desire to obtain supportoutside the traditional institutions, lack ofcommon ground between the offenders andtheir parents, and negative peer influence,seem to be the risk factors for the youths’violent, delinquent behaviour. Whilespending time with negative peers, the

322


youth picks up bad habits like smoking,alcohol consumption and drugs. Casestudies show that the family structure andsocio-economic status of the family havelittle impact on the youths’ moral valuesand delinquent behaviour. The studyrevealed that in general, the sentencesmeted out by the courts were mainlyrehabilitative in nature. In most cases,youth rioters were remorseful of theiroffending acts. Tougher sentences had beenmeted out to hard core offenders. To-date,the breach rate of these youth riotersremains low.

The Juvenile Court, with its restorativejustice philosophy, has made deep inroadsin the management of juvenile offenders.It has been, and will continue to be, thecatalyst in the development andimplementation of innovative juvenilejustice measures. It seeks to forge effectivelinks with community resources to addressjuvenile crime and delinquent behaviourboth in the present and as we move intothe next millenium.

One of the objectives of the subordinatecourts is the enhancement of access tojustice for the public through improvedcourt services. A large majority of the casesthat come before the subordinate courts arefor offences like littering in public, offencesagainst environmental public health andminor traffic violations. For mostSingaporeans, it is in the subordinatecourts that they come into direct contactwith the various processes of the law. Forexample, Night Courts were established inApril 1992 to deal with the huge volume ofregulatory and traffic offences. Thesecourts function for the convenience of theworking public who would otherwise haveto take time off from work in order to attendcourt. These courts function from 6 pm toabout 9 pm, Mondays to Fridays. Thereare two Night Courts, each with its ownprofile of cases. One (Court 13N) deals with

summonses issued by the variousgovernment departments such as theHousing and Development Board, theUrban Redevelopment Authority, CentralProvident Fund Board, the Registry ofCompanies and Businesses, and the InlandRevenue Authority of Singapore. The other(Court 23N) deals with road traffic offencesbrought by the Traffic Police and regulatoryoffences brought by the Land TransportAuthority.

Section 137(2) of the CPC also providesthat in any case relating to an offencepunishable by fine only or by imprisonmentnot exceeding three months, and in whichthe presence of the accused has beenrequired by a summons issued by aMagistrate, such an accused desiring toplead guilty to the offence and be sentencedin their absence may, by letter addressedto the court, plead guilty and submit to payany fine which may be imposed in respectof such offences. Public awareness of thisprovision would result in less caseloads andunnecessary attendance.

A Multi-door Courthouse (MDC), thef i r s t s u c h c o u r t h o u s e i n t h eCommonwealth and Asia-Pacific region,was established on 2 May 1998. The MDCis a one-stop service centre for thescreening and channelling of cases. Thus,it seeks to increase public awareness ofdispute resolution processes, offer and co-ordinate a selection of high quality disputeresolution programmes, and assist partiesin selecting the most suitable disputeresolution process. The MDC pairs adispute within the jurisdiction of thesubordinate courts, with an appropriatesolution forum. It renders information toenable members of the public to makeinformed decisions in respect of theirjustice needs in the area of civil, criminal,family and juvenile law, etc. It aims to bea centralized intake and diagnostic centreto screen cases to the most appropriate type

323


of dispute resolution process. It serves toenhance a paradigm shift from thetraditional adversarial adjudication ofdisputes to management of disputesthrough the use of alternative disputeresolution mechanisms.

The MDC launched the VulnerableWitness Support Programme in August1998. This programme provides supportto vulnerable witnesses who have to testifyin public prosecution of criminal cases.“Vulnerable Witness” refers to victims ofcrimes, such victims of rape or molestationor family violence cases, or witnesses underthe age of 16 or those having intellectualcapacity below the age of 16 years.Amendments have also been made to theSingapore Criminal Procedure Code (Cap68) for the evidence of vulnerablewitnesses, in certain types of offences, tobe heard through video or television links.With the assistance of the SingaporeChildren’s Society, a support group is beingput into place. In each instance, a supportperson will help the vulnerable witnesswalk-through the court environment beforethe trial, to allow him/her to understandcourt procedures so as to alleviate thestress levels of such witnesses. This willcut down the anxieties of the vulnerablewitness. Volunteers will not discuss anymatter of the case with the witness or his/her parents or guardians. Referrals underthe programme are from two sources,namely, the Attorney-General’s Chambersand/or the police. Referrals to the MDCare also made by the counsellors in theFamily Court of victims in family violencecases.

As part of the sentencing process, VictimImpact Statements for sexual offences havenow become a feature of the criminal justiceprocess in the courts. A victim impactstatement is a statement made by thevictim of a crime detailing how the crimehas affected the victim physically,

emotionally and financially. This haseffectively introduced into our criminaljurisprudence a balance between the rightsof the accused and the victim. Thestatements are used judiciously, and aspart of the mitigation process. The firstvictim impact statement was presented incourt on 30 June 1997.

In order to assist the community inaccessing justice easily, the subordinatecourts, in collaboration with the Ministryof Law, the National Council of SocialService, People’s Association and SingaporePolice Force, launched the “StrengtheningCommunity Links Project”. The primaryobjective of the project is to institutionalizeand operationalize various community-based programmes and initiatives in orderto strengthen community links. This isdone via the integration of the respectiveprimary roles of the various participatingagencies, and through the provision of aco-ordinated service package to membersof the public to enhance their welfare,security and community bonds.

L. Problems Relating to Court Congestionand Trial Delays

Aside from improving court services, aprime objective of the courts has been tomaintain a responsive justice system, asmeasured by the timely and effectivedisposition of cases. In his speech at theSingapore Legal Opening 1999, theHonourable the Chief Justice said “In 1998alone, the subordinate courts dealt with,in round numbers, a total of 364,000 casesand other matters. Compared to the 1997caseload, there is an increase by 28.1%...Strict case disposition and judgementtimelines continued to be maintained forall cases. The subordinate courts have nobacklog.” His Honour also added that “Thesubordinate courts went further in 1998 tooffer, what they called a “Hotwash”; anopportunity to members of the Bar, thepublic prosecutor and the other prosecuting

324


and enforcement agencies to have theircivil or criminal cases heard before the endof the year and expedited earlier than theprescribed timelines. This invitation wasinitiated along with other pro-activemeasures as part of the subordinate courts’desire and commitment to keep ahead ofthe flow of cases and work, and tocommence 1999 afresh and on top of things.It was also an attempt by the courts to meetthe special needs of the parties.”

Court congestion, trial delays, protractedhearings and rigid trial procedures areailments which afflict most judicialsystems. The resulting impression is thatthe machinery of justice is mismanagedand inefficiently run. Singapore is mindfulof such pitfalls and solutions are constantlysought and reforms introduced tostreamline the court administration toensure continued fair and speedy trials.

In the years 1992 to 1993, the courtsfocused on the problems of clearing thebacklog of cases awaiting hearing dates andon improving the waiting periods for thedisposal of cases. In 1993 and the yearsfollowing, the focus shifted from problemsolving to overhauling the organizationalstructure and work systems of the courtsto gu ide jud i c ia l o f f i cers in theadministration of justice and the fine-tuning of the justice system. In March1997, the Chief Justice of Singapore in hisKeynote Address during the Introductionof the Subordinate Courts Sixth Workplanfor 1997 and 1998 said : “... our visionshould be for the subordinate courts tobecome world-class; among the best in theworld. This vision will further strengthenpublic confidence in the justice system. Ona broader front, it will enhance Singapore’sreputation for the rule of law.”

The courts have a duty to the State andall persons involved in legal proceedingsto facilitate the timely and expeditious

disposition of cases. Justice delayed isjustice denied. As such, the stand takenhas been that the pace of litigation and casedisposition must be set by the courts.Reforms have been instituted in thesubordinate courts on the premise thatjudges have a major role to play in thetimely and expeditious disposition of thecases before the courts.

Unlike in the past, where judges wereexpected to play a non-interventionist role,case management is now a legitimatejudicial function. The challenge facing allcourts is to dispose of their cases efficientlyand expeditiously, without affecting thequality of justice. This is of primaryimportance in the area of criminal casemanagement, where there is a constanttension between the aim of preventing anunnecessary waste of time in the hearingand determination of criminal cases andthe need to keep intact the basic rights ofan accused person which ensure that s/heis given a fair trial.

In April 1993, a group management ofcases (“GMC”) system for criminal caseswas introduced in the subordinate courts.Under this system, trial courts are dividedinto four groups and a senior judge isappointed group manager for a number ofjudges, with the task of managing a courtcalendar for their group, to expeditiouslydispose the criminal cases allotted to thatgroup. The disposal of the assignednumber of cases within specified timeperiods is the responsibility of the groupmanager and the judges in that group. Atthe time of its inception, its first aim wasto clear the backlog of cases which hadaccumulated. Since then, the GMC schemehas proven to be a success in clearing thebacklog of cases and making it a thing ofthe past. The disposition rate attained bythe GMC groups has been consistentlyhigh.

325


T h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f P r e - t r i a lConferences (PTCs) in 1993 coincided withthe implementation of the GMC schemeand marked a paradigm shift in thephilosophy of the courts towards casemanagement. The courts now play anactive role in the management of cases, byascertaining the status of the case anddefining and clarifying the contentiousissues of the trial. At PTCs, parties areurged to disclose the nature and extent oftheir case, their lists of witnesses andphysical evidence. Where parties can agreeon facts which are not in dispute, the courtwill direct for the preparation of statementsof agreed facts, so that the trial will focusonly on contentious issues. Parties areencouraged to tender conditionedstatements (these are statements preparedunder conditions that will enable thestatements to be admitted during the trial,to the same extent as oral evidence). Thiscuts down on the time for hearing and saveswitnesses the inconvenience of attendingcourt, when their evidence will not bedisputed by the other party. Issues andareas of dispute are identified andreasonably accurate assessments, inrespect of the time required for the trial,can then be made.

In May 1997, a Differentiated CaseManagement (DCM) Scheme has beeninstituted for two categories of criminalcases in the subordinate courts, to ensureeffective, efficient and expeditiousmanagement and disposal of such cases.The first is for cases initiated by the CPIB,and the second relates to immigration casesinvolving foreign witnesses. A special courthas been set up to manage each of thesecategories of cases. After these cases arementioned in the Criminal Mentions Court(Court 26), where the accused claims trialin such cases, they are fixed for a PTC intheir respective special court within one totwo weeks from the date of first mentionin Court 26. Where the accused elects to

plead guilty, these cases would betransferred immediately to the CentralizedSentencing Court (Court 24) for sentencing.

In both civil and criminal matters, astrict “no adjournment” policy is adopted.Applications for the adjournment orvacation of hearing dates are scrutinizedcarefully, and these applications would berefused unless there are good grounds.Strict control is exercised for even thoseapplications for adjournments made onmedical grounds. With effect from 15February 1997, only medical certificates,which state certain prescribed details suchas the diagnosis, full name and designationof the medical practitioner, and a statementthat the patient is to be excused from courtattendance and not merely from workattendance, are accepted. Lawyers andlitigants are now aware that they will haveto be prepared for the trial to proceed atthe assigned hearing dates. In addition,efforts are taken to ensure that part-heardcases are kept to a minimum. The Court’spolicy is that cases should be heard anddisposed of within the hearing periodsallotted for the trial. Judges are alsovigilant in ensuring that there is no misuseof the legal process through unnecessaryand prolonged questioning by counsel,resulting in protracted trials.

Besides ensuring that waiting periodsfor trial dates are favourable, the pace ofcase disposition is monitored by the courtsfrom the time a case is commenced in court.In criminal cases, the progress anddisposition of a case is monitored from thetime the accused is first charged in courtthrough the mechanism of pre-trialconferences leading up to the trial. As ofJanuary 1999, the following waitingperiods for trials were maintained:

326


Criminal Trial CasesDistrict Arrest Cases 2 to 4 weeks from last Pre-trial

Conference (PTC)Magistrate’s Arrest Cases 1 to 4 weeks from last mention of PTCPolice and Private Summonses 1 to 4 weeks from last mentionTraffic Cases:

General 1 week from last PTCDrink and Drive 2 weeks from last PTC

Coroner’s Cases:General 8 weeks from date of deathSpecial 4 to 6 weeks from date of death

Crime RegistryMagistrate’s Complaints 2 weeks from filing of Notice

Juvenile CourtJuvenile Arrest Cases (Hearing) 2 weeks from last mentionJuvenile Arrest Cases(Sentence Report) 4 to 6 weeks from order of sentence

reportFamily Conferencing 2 weeks from submission of sentence

reportFamily Care Conferencing 2 weeks from submission of social

report

M. Harnessing of TechnologyIn his keynote address at the Technology

Renaissance Courts Conference on 24September 1996, the Honourable ChiefJustice of Singapore, Mr Yong Pung How,said:“As the technology revolution unfolds,there will be implications for the judicialsystem. Judges will have to deal withcountless new ways to acquire, receive andprocess data, contend with old informationthat is being expanded by the new, andadjust to changing expectations. And associety changes, so will conflict. Thejudiciary must take the lead in assessingtechnological and scientific advancementsto ensure that the law can address the legalissues of tomorrow. The judiciary must bethe first to understand advancements inbiotechnology, molecular biology, robotics,and artificial intelligence and assess thenew legal issues which these changes willbring. The rapid rate of innovation and

diffusion of technology will also mean thatjudges and court administrators will havet o c o n d u c t o n - g o i n g t e c h n o l o g yassessments of the vast opportunitiesoffered by technology to the administrationof justice. For example, the subordinatecourts are already using video conferencingtechnology to conduct remote bail hearingsfrom prisons. And through a video link,vulnerable witnesses are able to giveevidence away from the courtroom, therebyavoiding direct confrontation with theaccused person....”

The Chief Justice also said at thatconference: “Whatever changes the futurebrings, we must always remember thatjustice must be assisted, not dominated, bytechnology. Technology alone does notimprove the system. It is people, assistedby technology, who make the justice systemwork. We must be careful not to blindly

327


substitute technology or become slaves oftechnology. Neither should technology beused to avoid human contact for what istechnically feasible, may not always bedesirable. Efficiency, as an objective,should never rep lace thought fu lconsideration. Instead, improvementsgenera ted by t e chno logy shou ldcomplement tested and proven methods ofadministering justice. Justice should neverbe on the “cutting-edge” of technology, fordignity and due process are too importantto jeopardise through potential systemsfailure or malfunction.”

In its efforts to enhance the efficiency ofthe courts and to improve standards ofservice to the public, the subordinate courtshave attempted to harness the rapidadvances of cutting-edge technology. Thecourts have made extensive use oftechnological advances to improve courtservices for lawyers and court users, andto enhance the efficiency of the courts.Technology will enable the subordinatecourts to offer new and more convenientservices to the public. Court services couldprogressively be made available withoutthe public having to physically come tocourt. Over time, with informationtechnology it would be possible for theoperation of “virtual” courts, which wouldallow businesses and individuals totransact court matters from their officesand homes. The subordinate courts havecertainly come a long way since the dayswhen it struggled to put a computer on thedesktop of every officer.

The courts have adapted suchtechnological advances for use in the justicesystem to further enhance the court’sproductivity, and these have had a majorimpact on the justice process and worksystems. For instance, the ATOMSlaunched by the subordinate courts inNovember 1996, allows the payment offines for minor traffic offences through the

more than 100 automated teller machineslocated at convenient public locations. Thisdispenses with the need for defendants toappear personally in court to answer thecharges against them.

In the Criminal Mention Courts (inCourt 26), we have utilized video-linktechnologies to connect the courtroom tothe remand prisons, so that applicationsfor bail can be made through a Bail Video-Link without the need for the prisoner tobe brought physically to the courtroom. AWitness Video-Link (in Court 16) enablesvulnerable witnesses, such as childwitnesses or victims of sexual offences, togive their evidence without beingphysically present in the courtroom to facethe accused. Similarly, video conferencinghas also been introduced to hear familyviolence cases (in Court 46). These casescan be heard with the witness testifyingthrough video-link instead of in thecourtroom. By testifying through videoconferencing, the trauma of the familyviolence victims can be reduced.

Technological innovations have also beenused to improve the work systems withinthe courts to assist the judicial officers. Inaddition to being able to carry out legalresearch from their personal computers, ajudicial officers’ database was launched inearly 1998. Judicial officers are now ableto access through their personal computersbench manuals and other papers in thecourts database. This has enhanced thedissemination and sharing of resourcematerials among judicial officers.

The Technology Court was launched in1995 in the Supreme Court. Varioustechnologies to facilitate the presentationof evidence and other information havebeen installed. Within this Court, thereare video conferencing facilities, anintegrated audio-visual system togetherwith a litigation support system. Evidence

328


is recorded digitally as computer files. Thisenables transcription to be done muchfaster than previously with audio tapes.A l m o s t a l l j u d g e s a n d j u d i c i a lcommissioners have presided over hearingsin the Technology Court and it has been inconsiderable demand. Likewise, a criminaltrial court in the subordinate courts hasbeen converted into a Technology Court.The subordinate courts also has 10 DigitalRecording Courts and a TechnologyChamber. In lengthy trials, the judges mayuse the digital recording machines to recordthe evidence of witnesses. All these courtsare linked up by a computer network whichin turn are linked to the subordinate courtsnetwork with security protection.

In August 1998, the Chief Justice andthe Judges of Appeal spearheaded thetransition into the age of the paperlesscourt with the introduction of the electronichearing of all Magistrates’ Appeals andAppeals to the Court of Appeal in both civiland criminal matters. This year, it isplanned for electronic hearing to beextended to trials in both civil and criminalmatters also. The conduct of appeals inthe electronic environment has been foundto be much faster and more efficient thanin a non-electronic environment, asdocuments referred to in the appealhearings could be retrieved and projectedover the monitor screens instantaneouslyand effortlessly for all present in thecourtroom.

The subordinate courts are currentlyworking on the Singapore Case RecordingInformation Management System(SCRIMS), a fully computerized filetracking and information managementsystem for criminal cases. The system willhouse databases containing all vitalinformation concerning criminal casesdealt with in the subordinate courts. Alsoin the pipeline is the Integrated CriminalJustice Information Management System

(ICJS) which essentially involves thesetting up of an integrated networkingbetween the subordinate courts andagencies such as the Attorney-General’sChambers, Prisons Department and thePolice Criminal Records Office. Thenetwork will enable these organizations toshare information and common operationaldata.

The Supreme Court Internet website isa t < h t t p : / / w w w. g o v. s g / j u d i c i a r y /supremect.>. All significant speeches of theHonourable Chief Justice delivered since31 July 1996 are now posted there. Thesubordinate courts launched its Internetwebsite located at <http://gov.sg/judiciary/subct.> on 1 March 1997 which accordswith the subordinate courts’ strategic planto maximize the use of informationtechnology to enhance its services to thepublic. A highlight of the website using“photobubble” technology, is a virtual “walkthrough the courts”. This segment takesthe viewer on a visual 360 degrees walkthrough of the subordinate courts.

N. Family Violence The amendments to the Women’s

Charter took effect from 1 May 1997.Pursuant to the amendments, applicationsfor Personal Protection Orders (PPO) at theFamily Court can be made not only forspousal or domestic violence involvingchildren, but also by family members suchas parents, siblings and other familymembers as deemed fit by the court. Theamendment has therefore resulted in achange in the profile of persons seekingprotection from family violence at theFamily Court. The scope of family violencewas expanded to include causing hurtknowingly, restraining a family memberagainst their will, placing a person in fearof hurt and continual harassment.

Further, “family violence” now includesnon-physical acts of violence that amount

329


to abuse of the complainant. The powersof the Family Court have also beenincreased such that parties can be orderedto attend counselling. Breach of a PPO isalso a criminal offence. These changes givegreater protection to all members of thefamily.

The time taken for the issuance of a PPOis of utmost importance to a victim of familyviolence. Once an application for a PPO isreceived by the Court, the Court will takecognizance of the complaint. In caseswhere there is imminent danger of familyviolence being committed against theapplicant, the Court will issue an expeditedprotection order immediately after thelodgement of the complaint. In otherwords, the victim will have the benefit of aprotection order on the very day when anapplication for protection is made. Such aprotection order is effective from the dateof service and is valid for 28 days or untilthe hearing or mention date.

With regard to the application for a PPO,the application is fixed for mention withinone week. Where parties wish to instructcounsel, the case may be fixed for furthermention. PPOs may be granted on themention date in suitable cases. Where atrial is necessary to ascertain the veracityof a complaint, the trial will be fixed withinone to two weeks. In the interim,counselling sessions may be fixed insuitable cases. Unlike an expeditedprotection order, there is no fixed durationfor a PPO which is granted on the mentiondate or after trial. The PPO remains validuntil the order is rescinded or set aside.

Since 1 November 1997, the FamilyCourt has set up the Family ProtectionUnit, which is a dedicated and specializedunit to handle applications for protectionorders. Professional court counsellors areattached to the Unit. They conduct intakeinterviews of victims of family violence,

carry out risk evaluation (includingassessment of the severity of the acts ofviolence), and offer support and advice tovictims on safety measures. Victims offamily violence who require long-termemotional support will be referred towelfare agencies or crisis shelters in thecommunity for counselling support, shelterand other assistance. They may also referparties requiring legal advice to the FamilyCourt Legal Clinic, which is manned byvolunteer lawyers who offer legal advice atno charge. Since December 1998, the Uniteven houses a medical clinic operated byvolunteer doctors working on roster fromthe Association of Women Doctors(Singapore) to provide free medicalexamination to applicants for PPOs. Thisservice enables applicants to procuremedical evidence for the hearing whenapplying for PPOs. Previously, suchapplicants were referred to designatedhospitals for expedit ious medicalexamination, after which, the medicalexamination form would be forwarded tothe Court before the next hearing.

With the setting up of the FamilyProtection Unit, the Family Court alsoprocesses applications for PPOs within ashorter timeframe. In cases where thereis imminent danger of family violence beingcommitted against the applicant, the Courtwill issue an expedited order uponapplication. The expedited order is servedon the same day or by the next workingday. All applications for PPOs are also fixedfor mention in the Court within one week.In other words, parties are brought beforethe Court expeditiously so that theapplication can be dealt with at the earliestopportunity. Thereafter, the Court willclosely monitor the progress of a case toensure that the necessary orders are madequickly. All these add up to a systemwhereby protection is afforded to a victimwithout undue delay.

330


VII. PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE

The Singapore court system iscontinually evolving to meet the needs ofsociety. To ensure that the Supreme Courtis well prepared for the challenges ahead,departmental workplans have been set outannually since 1992 and presented to alls ta f f a t the Supreme Court andSubordinate Courts Workplan Seminars,respectively. The departmental work plansset out our specific work targets, strategiesfor achieving these goals, and theindicators or checklist of tasks that we willuse to benchmark our performance in thework year. The Seminar serves as acompass in our continuing journey towardshigher levels of excellence and to guide uswith greater precision and accuracy. As theworkplans are conceptualized annually,they enable the courts to reset and mapout immediate goals and targets againstthe courts’ long term strategic direction andpolicies. These workplans are not justmandatory, but fundamental to our goal ofbeing a world-class judiciary. In fact, inhis speech at the Opening of the Legal Year1999, the Chief Justice of Singaporeremarked that “the subordinate courtshave realised their vision of becomingworld class.”

VIII. THE JUSTICE STATEMENT

The vision of the Sixth WorkplanSeminar of the Subordinate Courts 1997/1998, held on 1 March 1997, was to becomeworld-class in the 21st Century. Moreemphasis was placed on enhancingSingapore’s reputation for the rule of lawand strengthening public confidence in thejustice system. To provide a framework ofvalues for the judges of the subordinatecourts bench, it is necessary that timelesscore values are established to guide thejudiciary in the administration of justice.At the Seminar, the Justice Statement ofthe Subordinate Courts was also unveiled.It sets out the mission, objectives, core

values and principles for the discharge ofjudicial duties. This Justice Statementserves as a constant reminder to judicialofficers of their duties, and a writtencommitment by the courts of their dutiesto the public.

“Vision without action is merely adream. Action without vision just passesthe time. Vision with action can changethe world”, Joel Arthur Baker. Mere targetsetting is not enough to inspire true passionand commitment. It is big goals andchallenges, and a common purpose, thatbrings on excitement and the sense offulfillment which makes life worthwhile.The core values determine the means ofreaching the destination and are the soulthat guide and align our actions. They arethe compass by which we navigate throughchallenges and rapid changes, and advancetowards our ultimate goal. With the corevalues as our faithful commandments, thecourts will be serving the public good withconscience. Faithful adherence to theseprinciples is therefore necessary for thecourts to become Dignus Honore, or worthyof honour, of the public trust which thenation and community have bestowed uponthe institution and its officers.

IX. CODE OF ETHICS FORJUDICIAL OFFICERS

Another management challenge is theinculcation of judicial ethics in judicialofficers. It is crucial to any justice systemthat the judicial officers are committed tohonour the spirit and letter of their judicialoath. A Code of Ethics for Judicial Officershas been prepared and will provideguidance and a framework for regulatingthe conduct of judicial officers, and will alsoenhance the public accountability of thejudiciary. The areas covered range frompersonal propriety to judicial duties, as wellas extra-judicial activities. The provisionsin the Code reflect the values of judicial

331


oaths of office and allegiance. The Codedoes not seek to govern but to guide judicialofficers, and as such, it does not impingeon independence in judicial decisionmaking.

A. The Strategic FrameworkTo ensure that the subordinate courts

remain focused on achieving their missionof administering justice faithfully in theevolving environment of the nextmillenium, the courts established astrategic framework. In his KeynoteAddress at the Introduction of the SeventhWorkplan Seminar of the SubordinateCourts 1998/1999, the Honourable ChiefJustice, Mr Yong Pung How, set out theelements of such a framework to be asfollows:

(a) The publ ic perception of theSingapore justice system must be oneof confidence in and respect forSingapore courts and the rule of law.

(b) The justice system must maintainhuman dignity, uphold the rule of law,and enhance access to justice;

(c) All persons will have ready access tojustice in the subordinate courts,which will provide a range of effectiveand expeditious means of disputeresolution, without undue cost,inconvenience or delay;

(d) The subordinate courts will ensureindependent , fa i r and equalapplication of the judicial process andadminister justice in accordance withthe law;

(e) The subordinate courts will beadministered in accordance withsound court governance principleswhich foster the efficient use of publicresources and enhance performance;

(f) Technology will be strategicallyemployed to increase access ,convenience and ease of use of courtservices, and to assist the courts inenhancing the quality of justice;

(g) The impact of socio-economic and

legal forces will be closely monitoredin order that the subordinate courtscan effectively lead and managechange amidst a rapidly changingnational and global environment;

(h)The subordinate courts will beadequately staffed by the best judgesand court personnel, who will besupported by continuing educationand performance evaluations.

This framework, together with theSubordinate Courts Justice Statement,provides a reference or benchmark againstwhich future activities should be assessed.

B. The Courts CharterOn 15 February 1997, the judiciary

launched a charter for court users (“TheCourts Charter”) in an effort to furtherincrease public understanding of our courtsystem and to enhance its accessibility.Copies of the Charter are distributed freeto the public at the various servicecounters. There is overwhelming demandfor copies of it. The Charter is alsoavailable on the Supreme Court’s website.The Charter sets out the mission of thecourts as professionalism and excellence inthe expeditious and efficient dispensing ofjustice in accordance with the law. It alsolays out our values to be accessibility,expedition, equality, fairness and integrity,independence and accountability, andpublic trust and confidence. The Charterdescribes the range of services and theresponse or processing time for theseservices. It will serve as a usefulperformance indicator of the effectivenessand efficiency of the judicial system. Asthe Chief Justice of Singapore, Mr YongPung How, said at the Opening of the LegalYear 1997, “For without public trust andconfidence in the justice system, the ruleof law will not have any practical meaning.”

The Courts Charter was also includedin the Creativity 27, by the US-based “The

332


Creativity Annual”, a publication whichrecords outstanding international creativeworks. The Charter was chosen among 77entries from the United States andcountries around the world.

X. THE JUSTICE POLICY GROUP

The Singapore judiciary recognizes thatas one of the institutions in the justicesystem, it must remain relevant to thesociety which it operates within. Thecourts must be prepared to deal with thechallenges resulting from changes in theconditions and environment within whichit operates. The anticipation of futurechallenges, and the measures to be taken,are important components in the long-termstrategic planning and direction of thecourts, and the formulation of judicialpolicies. The courts have taken a pro-activeapproach in this respect. Future planningfor the century ahead has commenced anda Justice Policy Group (JPG), serving as athink-tank, has been formed. The JPG willadvise on and assist in the formation ofjudicial policies. It is also concerned withthe charting of strategic directions for thesubordinate courts. The JPG’s chief role isto facilitate research and development invarious disciplines. It also sourcespertinent ideas from eminent foreignexperts in this respect. The results of thisresearch will then form a credible basisfrom which informed policy decisionsemanate.

XI. ANNUAL REPORTS

The Supreme Court and the subordinatecourts jointly issue a report annually. Theannual reports set out all the developmentsand achivements for the past year, togetherwith the milestones for future activities.The annual reports not only enhance theefforts of the courts towards publicaccountability and commitment, but alsoshape and mould the perception of ourconstituents and the public.

XII. THE CENTRE FOR JUDICIALEDUCATION AND LEARNING

(CJEL)

The Centre for Judicial Education andLearning (CJEL) was established in mid-1996. Programmes and lectures during theyear focused on enhancing bench skills,professional knowledge, case management,ethics and good practice, and social contexteducation. Some of these courses were alsoextended to court administrators.

The criminal justice system embodiesand secures the rule of law and protectsthe public. The openness of our economycannot prevent us from insulating againstregional crime trends. The range of crimesis becoming increasingly broad andcomplex. The subordinate courts continueto anticipate the changing trends of crime.Sentences and sentencing philosophy arereviewed. Effective deterrent and severepunishments are imposed on offenders whocommit crimes of particular concern to thepublic, as well as dangerous and chronicoffenders.

The courts will adopt appropriatemeasures to further enhance and extendthe quality and scope of their services tothe public. More attention and resourceswill also be focused on public awarenessprogrammes to reach out to the public. Theleve l o f publ i c awareness o f theprogrammes implemented by theSingapore courts is relatively high. Themain sources of information for suchprogrammes were gathered through themedia of newspapers and the television.The feedback obtained will also be relevantfor setting performance benchmarks for thejudiciary.

XIII. CONCLUSION

In the face of news of countries wheredrugs, crime and violence seem common-place, Singapore has been able through the

333


efforts of the police, the prosecutors andthe courts, managed to keep its crime ratesdown for nine successive years. As theChinese saying goes, “To develop a businessis difficult, to keep the business going iseven more difficult.” Success managementis therefore a challenge for our community.The police, the prosecutors and the courtscan constantly survey their service qualityand public perception of and confidence intheir organizations. The officers in theseorganizations should uphold their corevalues, mission, goals, objectives and keypriorit ies . Management in theseorganizations should be effectively engagedin strategic planning and, at the same time,work with their subordinates to discoverways to provide quality service to thepublic. If an organization’s structure failsto serve its purpose, it needs to be changed.

The future depends on initiative. Itdepends on people taking action, reflectingon the consequences, and finding ways ofdoing it better next time. Learning fastenough to survive is becoming an essentialrequirement for success. This requires thepolice, prosecutors and the courts to be ina position to change its services andprocesses to reflect what is learned.Creating the future, which once lay in thehands o f others , has become theresponsibility of all. Therefore, thepotential of all officers, be it the police,prosecutors or judges, should be developedand utilized, so that instead of beingpassive observers of events unfoldingbefore them, they may be act iveparticipants in exploring and finding betterways in the future, so that the country andits people can really benefit from theirenergies and capabilities.

The most important task is to anticipatecrisis. To wait until crisis hits is alreadyabdication. Management in the police andpublic prosecutor’s offices, as well as in thecourts, are engaged in strategic planning

to anticipate and plan ahead for any crisis.In this respect, the subordinate courts placestrategic goals and milestones into theirannual workplans. As the HonourableChief Justice, Mr Yong Pung How, said atthe Asia - Pacific Courts Conference inAugust 1997: “As leaders, there are threeerrors which I think we must avoid at allcost. They are the failure to learn fromthe past, the failure to adapt to the present,and the failure to anticipate the future.”

With fast changing techology, the natureof crime, especially in the commercialwor ld , wi l l become complex andsophisticated. We must be alert to harnesssuch advances in technologies to help usin achieving better performance to benefitour society. By constantly applying andtesting such advances in our workenvironment, we can explore the greatestvalue of technological advancement.Officers will therefore need to have theknowledge to deal with high-tech crime asthe new century unfolds. Moreover, thenature of crime usually involves the police,prosecutors and the courts, it may benecessary to harness the knowledge ofthese strategic partners with the aid ofmodern technology.

Combating crime is not only theresponsibility of the police, but the publicprosecutor and the courts as well. Crimewill continue to occur and evolve in moresophisticated and complex ways. Criminalminds manoeuvre within the loopholes ofthe law and policies, using their expertiseand positions. The competency of thepolice, the prosecutors and the judges isvital to handle sophisticated crimes.Training is fundamental to gain theexpertise and resources to be in a positionto battle complex and especially, white-collar and computer crimes.

As Singapore becomes an even moreglobal, cosmopolitan city in the 21st

334


century, drawing talents from around theworld, the social composition and structureof the country will inevitably change. Toadd fuel to the engine of our economicgrowth, Singapore has to compete to attractforeign talents to its shores. The publicwi l l there fore no l onger remainh o m o g e n e o u s l y l o c a l . F o r e i g nprofessionals and workers alike will bringwith them their different expectations andculture. In turn, Singaporeans mightfollow this new benchmark. To meet thechallenges ahead, the Singapore police,prosecutors and the courts should betrained to better relate to and communicatewith the public.

International ties with police forces allover the world are essential as crime goesinternational; a result of the growinga f f l u e n c e a n d i n f o r m a t i o n a g e .International ties could be in the form ofinter-forces games, liaison meetings,training work attachments , jo intoperations and criminal arrests. As a resultof such close ties, more exchange ofintelligence, networking of liaison officersof direct contact and shared databasesystems can be made possible. In the sameway, closer ties with other departments ofthe home team can also be established.

The widespread unemployment andrising prices in South East Asia will havea ripple effect on the crime situation inSingapore, with the threat of illegalimmigrants entering Singapore andcommitting crimes. Being a mere city-state, Singapore’s margin for error isextremely small and therefore there is aconstant need to improve and upgradeservices for its people, who are its mostimportant asset, in whatever they do andto continue to enhance their capability tomeet the challenges that lie ahead. Theability of its people to change quickly isessential.

The Singapore Prime Minister, Mr GohChok Tons, has said that “We, cannot afforda mindset that instinctively shuts offchallenges to the existing status quo. Wemust always be willing to look at issuesafresh. From time to time, when aparticular strategy or policy has served itsusefulness, we must dare to break themould and start anew. ”

In today’s fast changing world,yesterday’s successfull practices may nolonger be effective today. Our organizationsmust not be complacent about their pastsuccesses and start to rest on its laurels.As the saying goes, “Success is a journey,and not a destination.” The path is never-ending; human competitive nature tobetter yesterday’s achievements and toreign supreme in the rat-race providesstrong impetus to continually raise thestandards of performance, and to reach forthat pot of gold at the further end of therainbow. Besides valuing the past, theleadership must keep challenging existingassumptions and existing ways of thinkingand acting.

Scenario planning, which is not tryingto predict the future but perceiving thefuture in the present for each organization,i.e., on what to do if a certain event takesplace, may be useful to better prepare forthe future. To operate in an uncertainworld, we need to question the assumptionsabout the way the world works, so as tohave a clear view of the world and how theworld may impact on the police force. Theend result for scenario planning is not topresent an accurate picture of tomorrow,but to provide better decisions about thefuture and how worldwide events affect us.

The challenges ahead for the police, theprosecution and the courts as they moveinto the 21st century, with their impressiveand successful track records so far, perhapsresonates with the broader challenge for

335


our government on how the three arms ofjustice can continue to attract the best andoptimize the development of our officers asa vibrant organization. The future seemsto be pointing towards the trend of globallearning. Therefore, a much widerperspective than the past is required andemphasis on organizational learning andservice excellence will propel us to greaterheights of success and achievement.Organizational learning is where theorganization continually enhances itscapabilities, and through innovativethinking on different ideas and approaches,discover how to create results it trulydesires for its future. In reality, learningand training are the two sides of the samecoin. The purpose of training is to helpsomeone to learn, and to learn how to learn.Learning is said to have taken place whena person acquires new skills, knowledgeand behaviour. Gandhi once said “we mustbecome the change we want to see. ”

Therefore, as we prepare for the dawnof the new millenium, the three arms ofcriminal justice should be spurred by theirachievements and milestones to continuetheir hard work and effort in the journeytowards an even brighter and bettertomorrow.

Sources

• Keynote Address of the Chief Justiceat the Introduction of the SubordinateCourts Workplan for the years 1997/1998 and 1998/1999.

• The Chief Justice’s Speech at theOpening of the Legal Year 1997, 1998and 1999.

• Keynote Address of the Chief Justiceat the 1997 and 1998 AIJA/APICConference.

• Keynote Address of the Chief Justiceat the Technology Renaissance CourtsConference on 24 September 1996.

• The Singapore Judiciary AnnualReports 1997 & 1998.

• The Singapore Police Force AnnualReport 1997/1998.

the role of police, prosecution and the ......police force”. it attributed the political...

Documents