Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill

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

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

I have three points of clarification to make.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (The Second Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, I thank Members who spoke in support of the Bill from both sides of the House. 

Let me quickly and directly address the questions raised.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next, let me touch on secondments and transfers. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last couple of queries. 

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

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

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

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

Source: Hansard