Our criminal justice system must work well for the vulnerable

Yesterday’s marathon debate on Workers’ Party’s motion, which ended just before midnight, was helpful in identifying the broad consensus between the PAP and WP on important issues concerning our justice system.

In my speech, I thanked Hon. Members Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms He Ting Ru for filing the motion that gave us an opportunity to agree, together, that:

1. Our society has in the past and continues to be firmly based on the rule of law.
2. Since independence, there have been great strides taken to remedy shortcomings and improve the administration of justice in Singapore.
3. There still however remains work to be done. Good ideas were shared at the debate by both PAP & WP MPs. Whether or not the ideas are implementable will depend on how we strike a balance between the interests of crime victims, accused persons, members of public and the state resources.

To reflect the above position, I proposed an amendment to the motion which I hoped would get bipartisan support. The amendments were as follows:

“That this House a̶f̶f̶i̶r̶m̶s̶ RECOGNISES that fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of Singapore’s justice system and AFFIRMS c̶a̶l̶l̶s̶ ̶o̶n̶ the Government’s continuous efforts since independence to build a fair and just society, t̶o̶ ̶r̶e̶c̶o̶g̶n̶i̶s̶e̶ and remedy i̶t̶s̶ any shortcomings̶ in order to enhance justice for all, regardless of race, language, religion, economic means or social status,̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶l̶u̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶f̶a̶c̶i̶l̶i̶t̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶e̶v̶i̶e̶w̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶s̶y̶s̶t̶e̶m̶.

I provided my reasons for moving the amendment:

a. To acknowledge the point recognised by all MPs that, from Singapore’s independence, fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of our Singapore justice system;

b. To again, acknowledge the point recognised by all MPs, that the Government has continuously been putting in the effort, again since independence, to build a fair and just society and remedy any shortcoming to enhance justice for all.

c. I appreciated that WP wanted to have a Constitutional Review Committee. I pointed out the deletion of the reference to review will leave the motion expressed in broader terms. I also pointed out that the House has the responsibility to make the political decision as to whether or not to amend the Constitution.

During the wrap up of the debate, Ms Sylvia Lim stated that she was not able to support the amended motion as it would mean that the Government did not acknowledge there were shortcomings in the past. I took the opportunity to clarify that was not case. I had in my speech on the motion and when moving the amendment made in clear that there were shortcomings which the Government had to remedy to enhance justice for all.

The discussion on our criminal justice system should not stop with the passing of the amended motion. There is certainly a lot to do; especially against the context of the suggestions made in the House. The Minister for Home Affairs has signalled he wishes to consider setting up a Public Defenders’ Office to broaden assistance to those who cannot afford to pay for legal assistance. He is also contemplating making legislative changes to strengthen the framework of discovery of documents in criminal proceedings. I had in the past made some contributions on this front. For example, I recently persuaded MHA to broaden the classes of offences for which community sentences may be imposed.

Our criminal justice system must work well for the vulnerable; by that I mean BOTH victims and accused persons.