About Singapore’s Justice System

Last week, thanks to the hon Members Ms Sylvia Lim & Ms He Ting Ru who filed a motion on the Singapore Justice System, I got the opportunity to speak in the House about my views on the matter. In my speech, I drew on my 28 years of experience as a police officer and later, a legal practitioner dealing with criminal cases.

What I felt noteworthy about the debate by Honourable MPs is that there is broad consensus from both sides of the House on the core issues brought up by the motion:

1. Singapore, since independence, is a country that is governed by the Rule of Law
2. On the issue of administration of justice, we have made significant progress in addressing shortcomings. The Government must continue with its efforts on this front.

I later moved an amendment to the motion to reflect the consensus in the House.

SPEECH

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to start off my speech by conveying my sincere thanks to the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms He Ting Ru for moving this Motion and triggering this enthusiastic discussion, despite the lateness of the day.

It is clear from the speeches that we have heard that there is broad consensus on much that is touched by the Motion. There is broad consensus on the point that fairness, access and independence have been and continue to be cornerstones of Singapore’s justice system. There is consensus that justice must apply equally to all, irrespective of means or social status. And I would add that, it should also not matter what one’s race, language or religion is.

These are matters for which there is overwhelming consensus not just in this House, but outside this House as well. It reflects the founding values of Singapore from Independence — a point I will develop later in my speech.

As Ms He pointed out, there are constitutional articles where these values are enshrined and against which all other laws and Executive action are void and ineffective. Articles such as Article 9 which deals with no deprivation of life or liberty, safe in accordance with law. Article 12, which requires all persons to be equal before the law and be entitled to equal protection of the law. Article 93, which vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court in the State Courts.

There is also a broad consensus over the fact that whenever there are shortcomings affecting the judicial system, steps must be identified to remedy them. This has been the case before, now and will continue to be the case.

In this regard, we need to understand the separation of powers within our Constitution which is modelled on the Westminster system. The Executive arm of the Government is accountable to this House for the actions of its enforcement officers. The Judiciary is an independent arm of the Government. So is the Attorney-General. He derives his power from an independent constitutional grant. Our apex Court has described his office as a high constitutional office equal to that of the Judiciary.

They are separate processes spelled out in the Constitution and other legislation to hold judicial and prosecuting officers to account in a way that does not compromise the independence of our Judiciary and the Attorney-General’s office. The hon Leader of Opposition referred to the fact that the DPPs in the Parti Liyani case were referred for disciplinary action in relation to whether or not they had breached the Kadar obligations.

So, this is a separate process that will have to take place. And if these DPPs are held to be in breach, then they would have to suffer the consequences, while maintaining the independence of the Judiciary and the Attorney-General’s office.

I agree with Ms Lim in her view that the justice system must work fairly for disadvantaged and vulnerable persons navigating the system as defenders. For them, we need to ensure equal access to justice.

Access to justice does not necessarily equate to assess to lawyers. These are not my words. These are the words of Lady Hale, the retired President of the UK Supreme Court. In Singapore, Courts have taken great pains to explain their decision so that people could understand the law, particularly in the criminal law sphere.

And I would even say, for sentencing the Courts have come up with frameworks to allow people to understand for a certain kind of offence, what would be the probable sentence. This would assist lay people to appreciate what decisions they would face if they were to be convicted in a court of law.

But one accepts that a Judge would generally be in a better position to decide on the merits of the case as a neutral umpire hearing both sides, as opposed to entering into the fray to help frame questions and arguments for the unrepresented person.

The main points I wish to make in my speech are as follows.

This is a country that is governed by the rule of law. That has been my experience over the past 28 years as a former regular Police officer and now a lawyer. The hallmark of the rule of law is independence and transparency of the Judiciary. And I am very glad to note that hon Members from the Workers’ Party agree fully with this point.

The second point I wish to make is that in the context of administration of justice that involves more stakeholders; the Police, the DPPs, the State Courts, Judiciary and so on, we have made improvements over time, over years. We certainly have not arrived yet. And today we have heard very good suggestions from both sides of the House which should be considered, debated and distilled.

The point that the hon Minister for Home Affairs made just a few moments ago, is something that we should bear in mind. While there can be good ideas, at the end of the day, it is a balancing process. We need to balance the interests of the victims, the accused persons, the public and, of course, the state resources of which the Minister for Finance is in charge of.

With that as a background, I wish to recount my experience in the Police force. Sir, like the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim, I joined the Police force as a regular for a few years, before I joined private practice as a lawyer — again, just like her. In fact, Ms Lim was my colleague; a very capable colleague, I would add.

The work of the Singapore Police Force officers, then and now, has always been focused on protecting the vulnerable amongst us. Although it has been decades since I left the force, I can still vividly remember some cases I personally dealt with. I will highlight two, where I was involved, was covering the duties of CIO 1 Tanglin Police Division.

The first case involved a rape case, of an 11-year-old girl who was going for tuition in the day. She was raped at a staircase landing of a flat. It was a terribly trying moment for her. But amazingly, she was able to provide a good description of the assailant. We devoted full attention to the case, leaving no stones unturned. That helped us nab him within a few days. He was charged in Court and convicted and sentenced to a long imprisonment term.

I still remember the note from the girl’s father who expressed his appreciation over the work that we did. He said that the apprehension and conviction of the assailant brought closure which allowed him and his daughter to move on. His daughter would be about 36 or 37 years old now.

The hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim shared her experience of a rape victim who unfortunately was not told the reasons why the AGC did not proceed with her complaint and charge the accused in Court. But she would certainly agree with me that between the time when we were in the Police force and now, great strides have been taken to improve the process.

Previously, rape cases were dealt with at the Division level. Now, we have the Serious Sexual Crime Branch under the CID, where Police officers are given special training to give special attention to victims of sexual offences and, in the process, make sure that they would get the justice that they deserve. We have not arrived yet, but we have made great progress.

The second case I will never forget involved my colleague, the late SI Boo Tiang Huat. He was the OC of Whitley NPP, if I remember correctly. At that time, there was a spate of housebreaking at homes under the charge of the NPP. He personally led anti-house breaking rounds, night after night, to deter such incidents. He felt it his personal responsibility to lead these efforts.

In the early morning of 30 November 1994, SI Boo was murdered by a person whom he stopped to check along Newton Road. The person was apparently walking home after an aborted robbery attempt. He chopped SI Boo with an axe that he extricated from a bag he was carrying.

Personally, for myself and colleagues who attended the scene, it was tough to accept that a colleague we saw earlier in the morning has sacrificed his life in the course of duty. It was tougher for his wife and his young children, whom I accompanied to the scene to pray for SI Boo’s soul later that day.

Police officers, past and present have spilled blood, sweat and tears in their mission to ensure the safety and security of Singapore. Deputy Prime Minister Heng and Senior Minister of State Mr Heng Chee How and several other hon Members have storied careers in the Police force They know this for a fact. The core values of the Singapore Police officers are courage, even if it means to risk their lives, loyalty, integrity and fairness.

On fairness, SPF’s published credo is as follows and I quote,”We are fair in our dealings with people, irrespective of race, religion, gender, age, standing in life and irrespective of whether they are victims, suspects or convicts.”

This is this unstinting devotion to duty that allowed Singapore to achieve the enviable reputation of being a relatively safe country with low crime rate. That is not to say there is no discipline cases within the force. Yes, from time to time, we have black sheep. These persons will be dealt with effectively by SPF, CPIB and the Courts. But their conduct is not representative of the vast majority of upright, dedicated and hardworking Police officers. And earlier today, we heard Minister Shanmugam saying, maybe even overworked Police officers.

I joined legal practice in 1996. I continued to be involved in criminal and pro bono work. As a pro bono lawyer, I have acted for vulnerable and disadvantaged people. In fact, this eventually led me to politics. I highlight two cases where I was involved in.

My very first trial was a pro bono case to defend a young man accused of shoplifting. He just completed his National Service (NS). He and his family had very modest means and could not pay for a lawyer. He had walked out of the department store with items that he did not pay for. Luckily for him, the Court was persuaded that he walked out of the store accidentally and acquitted him.

Recently, I took on a Court-assigned pro bono case involving a mentally disordered person with little education. His father had passed away and his mother was a cleaner at a hawker centre. He was accused of stealing coins from a vending machine. He was diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder. I was exploring a community sentence, a Mandatory Treatment Order, to be imposed on him even though his prognosis for recovery was not good. As it turned out, he subsequently assaulted his own mother. That put paid to my efforts and he was sentenced to prison for his offences.

At this point, I wish to state that it is a matter of pride for me that over the years, the Law Society of Singapore has nurtured a strong culture of pro bono work amongst its lawyers, especially through the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme or CLAS started in the 1980s by the late Mr Harry Elias, Senior Counsel, and now supported by MinLaw.

Mr Anil Balchandani, the lawyer who acted for Ms Parti Liyani, is a good example of a selfless legal professional devoted to the cause of justice on behalf of persons who ordinarily would not be able to afford to pay for the services of a lawyer. I am confident that many more lawyers would be motivated by his example. This can only auger well for our country.

I also wish to state that I have acted for people who have occupied important positions and have been charged in Court for various criminal offences. For example, I acted for Mr Choo Wee Khiang, a former Member of Parliament and Mr Chuang Shaw Peng, a former Nominated Member of Parliament.

In none of the cases that I dealt with, for the vulnerable persons and the “connected” persons, if I could use that word, did I get the feeling that the justice system was tilted in favour of “connected” persons, as compared to the persons who are disadvantaged.

And this may be a convenient time for me to deal with a few points that the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim raised in her speech.

She pointed out that bails could work adversely for poor people because they cannot post bail. I wish to state that the provision of bail is a judicial decision. The Judge deciding whether to grant bail or allowing the person to be released on his own cognisance, would be something that has to be dealt with after considering the offence that the person is charged for, the kind of sentence that may be imposed and, of course, the strong presumption of innocence until proven guilty. So, it is a balancing act. And I have seen Judges deciding to allow persons of humble means to be let off, to be bailed or rather, to be released on a personal bond.

Ms Sylvia Lim also mentioned about the difficulty of paying fines for indigent persons. And that is a fair point but again, I come back to the important note that the imposition of a fine is a punishment by the Judge acting in his judicial discretion. The Judge would have to decide in the circumstances of the case, whether a fine is an adequate punishment.

And there are other options as well, particularly in the last few years, we have, as some Members have pointed out, the community sentence option in addition to the usual options. So, there is a discretion given to the Judge to make sure that the ends of justice, not just from the perspective of the accused, but from the perspective of the victim and the state, are met.

There have also been great strides in improving the criminal justice system. I would not go through ground that has already been highlighted by hon Members who spoke before me. I would just go straight to the fact that clearly, there is broad agreement between Members from both sides of the House about the importance of fairness, access and independence being the cornerstones of Singapore’s justice system from inception and recognition that there has been continuous efforts to improve the justice system to build a fair and just society, regardless of one’s personal background, race, religion or social economic background. These efforts must continue on.

With that in mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your permission to move an amendment to the Motion under discussion to reflect this broad agreement.

Mr Speaker: Do you have a copy of the amendment?

Mr Murali Pillai: Yes, Sir. May I hand it out now? [A copy of the amendments handed to Mr Speaker.]

Mr Speaker: Do you have copies for Members?

Mr Murali Pillai: Yes, Sir. I have handed them to the Clerk. May copies be distributed to hon Members, please.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed. [A copy of the amendments distributed to hon Members.] Please move your amendment.

Mr Murali Pillai: Obliged, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the following amendments:

(1) In line 1, to delete “affirms” and insert “recognises”;

(2) In line 3, to delete “calls on the Government to recognise” and insert instead “affirms the Government’s continuous efforts since Independence to build a fair and just society”;

(3) In line 3, to delete “its shortcomings” and insert “any shortcoming”;

(4) In line 4, after the words “regardless of” to insert the words “race, language, religion, economic”; and finally,

(5) In line 5, to delete “, including facilitating a review of the justice system” and insert a full-stop.

With your leave, Sir, I would like to explain the proposed amendments.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali, can you pause for a while. Leader, would you like to suspend the Standing Orders for the extension of time for Mr Murali?

TIME LIMIT FOR MEMBER’S SPEECH

(Suspension of Standing Orders)

10.58 pm

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit to remove in respect of Mr Murali Pillai’s speech so that he can explain.

Mr Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of the hon Members present to so move?

Hon Members indicated assent.

With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) in respect of Mr Murali Pillai’s speech. — [Ms Indranee Rajah].

SINGAPORE JUSTICE SYSTEM

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali.

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, I am obliged to the Leader of the House for moving the Motion.

Sir, I was at the point of explaining the proposed amendments. Let me just say that it is my hope that these proposed amendments would get bipartisan support.

With that, let me now go through the amendments.

The first point is really replacing “affirms” with “recognises”, to be more precise. And that is to state the fact that from the outset, from Singapore’s Independence, fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of the Singapore justice system.

And the next point, Sir, it is in relation to the usage of the word “affirms”. And this is really to state as a matter of truth, that the Government has been continually putting in the effort since Independence to build a fair and just society, to remedy any shortcoming to enhance justice for all regardless of race, language, religion, economic means or social status. So, I added the words “race, language, religion” and I do not think that should be controversial.

I have proposed to delete “including facilitating a review” of the justice system. Let me explain why. This is to leave this Motion in broad terms so that at the end of the day, it is an affirmation that the Government would continue to remedy any shortcoming that is brought up, and to allow the conversation to happen in this House about what further steps need to be taken.

One should realise this. At the end of the day, the buck stops with this House. It is this House that has to make the political decisions to pass legislation, to move amendments to the Constitution in relation to the justice system. So, the buck must stop here and this Motion reflects that reality. I do not think anything is taken away with the amendments that I propose.

Sir, I am clear in my mind where the PAP Government stands on this. The raison d’etre of the PAP is to build a fair and just society, founded on justice and equality for all people, especially the disadvantaged. This applies in and out of Court.

Just a few days ago, Miss Lim, a daughter of a man who was on his deathbed approached me. She was served with a Stay-Home Notice or SHN, and she was extremely concerned that she would not be able to see her father at the deathbed because she had to serve the SHN. Within three hours, she was able to see her father in the hospital. Which other country would be able to do this and this was way after office hours?

Sir, let us not forget, while we wish to improve the system, we have every reason to be proud of the justice system and, in fact, the Government system that we have in place today. This is not the time to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And I believe my hon friends from Workers’ Party across the aisle would also hold true to the same values. With that, I beg to move.