Resilience-Building and Access to Justice

In my speech during the MinLaw COS Debate, I suggested that MinLaw chronicle efforts that it led to implement the legal framework that allowed the re-ordering of legal obligations that could not be performed because of the pandemic. This would ensure that future generations of Singaporeans will have access to the learning points and insights gained from this experience as our country prepares itself to face the next pandemic. I also sought updates on suggestions that I made in the past, including the ratification of the Hague Service Convention, that allows parties to serve legal documents more easily across boundaries. I further suggested a relook at the POHA framework to ensure that it will not be misused. Finally, I asked about the Legal Aid Bureau’s experience in running bott services to provide indigent litigants with a better understanding of their legal obligations and rights. My speech may be accessed below.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mdm Chairperson, I beg to move “that the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100”.

Last year, the hon Second Minister for Law lay emphasis on taking steps to secure our place in a post-COVID-19 world to ensure that we, as a country, will continue to thrive. This year, the hon Deputy Prime Minister in his Budget speech highlighted the need for resilience building to meet the challenges of the future. This was the same point I made in the debate last year. In my speech, I advocated that we identify strategic areas to build resilience both in the short and long term even if it means that we have to incur some extra costs and inefficiency.

In the context of MinLaw’s work to build resilience, what was noteworthy during the pandemic was the stupendous amount of work done within a short span of time with its partners, including the Attorney-General Chambers, other Government bodies and the private sector, to enact a legal framework that re-ordered legal obligations that could not be have been performed and simplify insolvency procedures. They drew on technology to provide online platforms for claimants as well as public-spirited volunteers to be assessors of claims. The end products in form of legislative solutions has been widely admired for their elegance, simplicity in implementation and incisive thinking while meeting the ends of justice during a very trying period of time.

The shape of these solutions, drawing as they do on general legal and policy principles, can be used again and again. I had previously suggested that we pass framework legislation that can be triggered should our country face another similar crisis. The hon Second Minister demurred, stating that each crisis is likely to be different.

This may be true but the general principles are likely to be the same. In these circumstances and with a view to ensure that future generations of Singaporeans will benefit from the legal lessons and insights gained from this unique experience, I would like to suggest that the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) chronicle the efforts of itself and its partners over the pandemic period.

First, it would show that the chain of reasoning behind the legal structures which dealt with urgent and significant issues during the pandemic — these provide certainty and precedence for future events. Second, it will show their practical impact and outcome which will allow us to plan better for the future. Thus, even though we have decided against framework legislation, the shape of what justice demands and confers during a pandemic is already known. This predictability and the ability to extrapolate from past experience confers real resilience to our legal system.

Turning to civil proceedings, I would like to ask for an update on the following matters. First, the Hague Service Convention. Some years back, I suggested that Singapore accede to this Convention. The hon Minister in 2022 said that his Ministry is working on it. May I ask for an update please?

Second, the reform of the Civil Enforcement Framework. In November 2022, the hon Minister informed this House that his Ministry is working with stakeholders such as MSF and the Courts to make enforcement of civil and family court judgments easier. May I seek an update please?

Third, an update on the probate e-service system. I had been advocating for this for quite some time. May I seek a confirmation on the rollout date as well as the features of this system?

I now turn to community dispute management issues. It seems to me that, over the years, the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) is seeing a trend of increasing applications filed by persons who have disputes with their neighbours. I feel that it is useful to deploy professional mediation services on site so that these persons are engaged at the earliest opportunity before the problems become more intractable. I wonder if the hon Minister feels that there is value in greater deployment of professional mediators. If so, I would be grateful if he could tell us how to increase our deployment of mediation services in the neighbourhood.

I now turn to Protection from Harassment Courts (PHCs). The online CJTS has made it very easy for a person to lodge a claim. Whilst it is a good development, there are unintended drawbacks too. It is possible for a person to lodge a completely unmeritorious claim. Because of the design feature of the system, such cases will still be registered, the defendants will still have to be served with the Court papers and they still have to be hauled into Court to answer the allegations which, on the face of it, are frivolous and vexatious. In such a situation, ironically, it is the claimant who is the harasser.

We want to make the costs of filing complaints low, but when the cost of filing frivolous claims is zero, it is an invitation to play games. In November 2022, I suggested that applicable rules be amended to allow PHCs to summarily determine and dispose of frivolous and vexatious claims. The hon Minister was not with me. I seek a reconsideration of this matter.

Finally, I would like to ask about the Legal Aid Bureau’s experience in providing legal advice through bot services to litigants in person, particularly those who are unable to afford to engage lawyers. Has this been popular and if so, I wonder if there are any plans to enhance these services?