DELIVERING JUSTICE TO THE COMMUNITY · Act and the Community Disputes Resolution Act, the caseload is expected to increase. These community disputes are managed by the newly-established

DELIVERING JUSTICE TO THE COMMUNITYAnnual Report 2015

SHARED VISIONInspiring public trust and confidence through an effective andaccessible justice system

MISSIONServing society with quality judgments,timely dispute resolution and excellent court services

CORE VALUESFairnessAccessibilityIndependence, Integrity, ImpartialityResponsiveness

CONTENTSFOREWORD BY THE HONOURABLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDING JUDGEOF THE STATE COURTS

ORGANISATION CHART

CELEBRATING 40 YEARS AT HAVELOCK SQUARE

DELIVERING JUSTICE TO THE COMMUNITYLaunch of State Courts Centre for Dispute ResolutionLaunch of Community Justice and Tribunals Division

SERVING SOCIETYSignificant Initiatives

INSPIRING PUBLIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCECaseload ProfileSignificant CasesLocal and International AwardsOur International ProfileVisits by Distinguished Guests in 2015

THE PEOPLE OF STATE COURTSPresiding Judge and Heads of DivisionLeadership TeamState Courts Committees 2015Public Service Month ActivitiesCohesion Day 2015Staff Event HighlightsNational Day and State Courts Awards

2

6

12

13

252627

2930

454648575963

6566676870717276

1

State Courts, Singapore A

nnual Report 2015

The State Courts published their first annual report in 1999 and continued to do so every year since then. These annual reports enable the stakeholders of the justice system, in particular, the members of the public, to better understand the work of the Courts and the role they play in our community. This is important in fostering public trust and confidence in the judiciary as well as for accountability to the people we serve.

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

Foreword by The H

onourable the Chief Justice

2 3

Foreword by

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

The title of this annual report is “Delivering Justice to the Community”. The State Courts’ commitment towards the excellent delivery of justice remains steadfast and unwavering. This annual report reflects the excellent work of the State Courts on so many fronts, as the Presiding Judge and his colleagues continue in their quest to ensure justice for all.

In 2015, the State Courts dealt with approximately 326,450 cases, an increase of more than 14,000 cases compared to the previous year. With the commencement of the Protection from Harassment Act and the Community Disputes Resolution Act, the

caseload is expected to increase. These community disputes are managed by the newly-established Community Justice and Tribunals Division (CJTD).

Another milestone for the State Courts in the year 2015 was the launch of the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution. Like the CJTD, this Centre places an emphasis on the use of mediation to resolve disputes. The use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) through court-based mediation is not new in the State Courts. However, the establishment of a specialised centre to provide ADR services across the entire range of cases highlights the State Courts’ emphasis on ADR as the first stop of the litigation process.

“The ultimate goal is to preserve peace and maintain harmony in our community. At the same time, this helps us ensure that justice can be accessed through a variety of dispute resolution methods, with a continuing focus on controlling costs.”

BACK TO CONTENTS PAGE

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

Foreword by The H

onourable the Chief Justice

4 5

Notwithstanding the heavy caseload and the daily priorities of dispensing justice in the State Courts, I am pleased that the Judges and Court Administrators of the State Courts were able to make time to organise and participate in several legal education and community outreach activities. I applaud, in particular, the programmes organised during the “Public Awareness Week” where the State Courts held a week-long public exhibition in the day, and a series of informative talks in the evenings. The talks were well-received by the public, and I understand that there are plans to continue to hold such talks to increase public awareness of the law and legal rights.

I am also delighted that the excellent work of the State Courts in serving our external stakeholders is matched by a very well-regarded work environment by our staff. In this regard, I congratulate the State Courts for garnering extremely strong results in the Organisational Health Survey 2015. The staff of the State Courts ranked the organisation highly in various categories including “Organisat ional Foresight”, “Service”, “Well-

Being” and “Teamwork”. There is appreciably high staff morale, and I congratulate the leadership team and commend their efforts.

The cover of this annual report features a painting by eminent Singaporean watercolour artist, Mr Ong Kim Seng, of the State Courts Building as it stood prior to 2009. As 2015 marked the 40th anniversary of the State Courts Building, it was felt that the use of this painting on the cover of the annual report would be a fitting memorial of the iconic white octagon-shaped building that has become a familiar and distinctive landmark in our community.

“It reminds us of the contributions the State Courts have made towards developing Singapore’s justice system into what it is today – a world-class judiciary that has consistently enjoyed public trust and confidence, helping Singapore to achieve high international rankings for upholding the Rule of Law.”

Meanwhile, work on the new State Courts Building is already underway and continues apace as we turn our attention to the future.

I ex tend my apprec ia t ion to all the Judges and Court Administrators of the State Courts for their hard work and dedication in serving the people of Singapore. I have the utmost confidence that the State Courts will continue to deliver justice to the community as aptly encapsulated in the title of this annual report.

SUNDARESH MENONChief JusticeRepublic of Singapore


DELIVERING JUSTICE TO THE COMMUNITY

2015 was an eventful year as Singapore celebrated her golden jubilee as a nation. As the State Courts reflected on our contributions to Singapore’s progress over the last 50 years, we are mindful of the need to continue delivering fair and accessible justice to the community to ensure our country’s continued progress in the next 50 years and beyond.

40th Anniversary of theState Courts BuildingOn 15 September 2015, we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the State Courts Building. We were joined by The Honourable Attorney-GeneralV K Rajah SC, Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the Supreme Court, former Senior District Judges Mr Michael Khoo SC and Mr Errol Foenander, former Registrars of the State Courts, our stakeholders in the justice system, and Mr Sonny Chan and Mr Lee Kut Cheung who were the key persons involved in the design and construction of the State Courts Building.

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

Message from

the Presiding Judge of the State Courts

6 7

Message from the

PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE STATE COURTSWe were privileged to be able to convey our appreciation to all our pioneering Judges and Court Administrators who have helped bring us to where we are today.

Two New Justice DivisionsThe justice divisions of the State Courts have traditionally operated according to the areas of law which they deal with. The State Courts now deal exclusively with civil and criminal matters. Although the Civil Justice Division and Criminal Justice Division handle discrete areas of law, there are occasions when the two areas intersect and a holistic approach is called for to better serve our court users. With this in mind, we established the Community Justice and Tribunals Division to provide a centralised location for the resolution of all community justice issues, such as community disputes, harassment issues and small claims. We also established the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution, which consolidates our court-based Alternat ive Dispute Resolution services, and serves as the focal point in providing these services for civil, criminal and relational disputes.


Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

Message from


8 9

Simplifying Civil Processes for Lower Value ClaimsIn 2013, the State Courts began to look into simplifying the procedural rules and processes for lower value civil cases. This project culminated in the introduction of Order 108 of the Rules of Court in November 2014. There are encouraging signs from case outcomes in 2015 that the main aim of Order 108 – to resolve cases expeditiously and at a proportionate level of cost – is being achieved. A user survey conducted at the end of 2015 showed that the mechanism of the early case management conference (CMC) has been well-received. One year after its implementation, the CMC has proved to be effective and has resulted in a faster disposal of lower value civil cases. We will continue to monitor the efficacy of the new process and engage the Bar to obtain feedback for future enhancements to the process.

Extension of Primary Justice Project to Criminal MattersOriginally for parties involved in civil and family disputes, the Primary Justice Project (PJP) was extended to criminal matters. This allows unrepresented accused persons to access two

important plea negotiation processes between accused persons and the prosecution, namely, the Criminal Case Management System and Criminal Case Resolution, which were previously available only to accused persons who are represented by a lawyer. With the extension of the PJP to criminal matters, this will enable more accused persons to make more informed decisions in relation to their cases.

Enhanced Guidance forPlea SchemeAccused persons who are not represented by counsel may have many unresolved needs for information, advice, and support. The Guidance for Plea Scheme (GPS) for criminal cases is a court-directed avenue to assist such accused persons. The GPS was expanded in February 2015 with the assistance of volunteer lawyers to include cases at both the mentions and pre-trial conference stage. It is intended primarily to assist remanded accused persons facing multiple charges, those who have mental or psychiatric issues, or those in cases where an imprisonment term is mandatory or likely upon conviction. There

were 76 cases managed under the Enhanced GPS programme as of December 2015.

Pre-Trial Conference CentreThe new Pre-Trial Conference (PTC) Centre, located on the mezzanine level, began operations on 3 December 2015. Previously located at Court 17, the new Centre enhances the management of criminal PTCs by integrating them into a dedicated centre comprising three PTC chambers fitted with a waiting area and video-link facilities to the remand area.

Strengthening Pre-Action Protocols for MotorAccident CasesReview of the Practice Directions and Pre-action Protocols for Non-Injury Motor Accident and Personal Injury cases commenced in 2015, with the objective of ensuring a higher level of compliance with the protocols and the faster and more effective resolution of such cases. We have since engaged our external stakeholders, including the General Insurance Association of Singapore, Singapore Motor Workshops Association, Monetary Authority of Singapore, Land Transport

Authority, Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre Limited, and the Personal Injury/Property Damage Committee of The Law Society of Singapore. Work is apace to update and revise the protocols and procedures, taking into account the feedback from the consultations with our stakeholders. The revised Practice Directions and Protocols will come into operation in the second quarter of 2016.

Concurrent Expert Evidence(CEE) Procedure The CEE procedure or “hot tubbing” is a procedural technique where opposing expert witnesses will give evidence on expert issues concurrently, in the presence of each other. After conducting an 18-month pilot programme to explore the use of the CEE procedure to admit expert evidence in civil trials and assessment of damages (AD) hearings, the State Courts issued Practice Direction 60A (PD 60A) to make the availability of the CEE procedure a permanent feature in civil trials and AD hearings. Participants in the pilot programme agreed that with the CEE procedure, besides reducing the duration of the


Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

Message from


10 11

trial, expert witnesses are better placed to discuss and consider one another’s opinions on the issues in dispute as compared to the traditional sequential method of cross-examination. This provided greater clarity on expert evidence being presented before the Court.

International RelationsIn partnership with the Civil Service College International, we conducted the Judicial Governance Programme (JGP) for overseas judiciaries from 27 to 31 July 2015. Twenty-seven participants comprising Judges, Court Administrators and officials from 15 jurisdictions in Asia, the Middle East and Africa took part in the JGP. The State Courts shared our experience in leading change and innovating processes and procedures in our ongoing journey towards court excellence. The programme generated much lively discussion and debate, and affirmed that many of the varied challenges facing our judiciaries are common. In the context of governance, they centre on the ‘3 Ps’: what we do as a matter of legal and

judicial Policy, how we manageand operate our Processes, and how we manage People – our staff, court users and justice stakeholders.

Organisational HealthSurvey and Court Administrator DialoguesIn 2015, the State Courts commissioned our second Organisational Health Survey. Comparisons to the Public Service Employee Engagement Survey Norm and the Singapore National Norm showed the State Courts to be doing significantly better than the typical public sector agency as well as public and private sector organisation in Singapore across all comparable categories. Following the Survey, we conducted a series of 17 dialogue sessions with our Court Administrators to solicit their feedback for continuous improvement. We are heartened to note that the Survey and dialogues showed strong improvement in the staff’s perception of the organisation. We will keep striving to do better and keep working at engaging, enabling and energising everyone at the State Courts.

Awards The State Courts were honoured to be conferred several awards in 2015, including three awards for the Integrated Criminal Case Filing and Management System (ICMS). Other initiatives for which we received awards include the FutureGov Singapore Awards in the Community Care Category for the Primary Justice Project, the Outstanding Achievement in Web Development, “Government Standard of Excellence” Award 2015 by the Web Marketing Association for the State Courts website, and the Water Efficient Building Certification (Silver) Award by the Public Utilities Board.

CONCLUSION

As The Honourable the Chief Justice has previously observed, the State Courts are at the heart of justice; we are charged with the important task of serving society by upholding justice through our daily endeavours. Our vision, mission and values are clear. We are grateful for the visionary leadership and guidance of the Chief Justice

and we will continue to keep our core purpose in sharp focus as we discharge our duties with diligence and commitment, to inspire trust and confidence in our justice system.

SEE KEE OONPresiding Judge of the State Courts


Coroner’s Court at Outram Road (1956)

Civil District Court at Empress Place (circa 1940s)

Criminal District and Magistrates’ Court at South Bridge Road (circa 1950s)

Subordinate Courts Buildingat Havelock Square from 1975

CELEBRATINGAT HAVELOCK SQUARE

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

12

ORGANISATION CHART

Presiding Judgeof the State Courts

DeputyPresiding Judge

of the State Courts

InternalAuditUnit

Civil TrialCourts Group

•Civil Registry

•BailiffsSection

CommunityDisputes Trial

Courts•

CommunityDisputesTribunals

•Appeals

•Registry

Specialised & Mentions

Courts Group•

CommercialCrimes Group

•CentralisedPTC Court

•Crimes against Property Group

•Crimes against Persons Group

•Community

Courts Group•

Crime Registry

General Civil Dispute

Resolution•

SpecialisedCivil Dispute Resolution

•CriminalDispute

Resolution•

Centre forDispute

ResolutionRegistry

CommunicationsDirectorate

•Court Services

Directorate•

FinancialPolicy &

Management Directorate

•Infrastructure

Development &Procurement Directorate

•People

Development & Planning

Directorate

Planning, Knowledge

Management & Library

Department•

Organisational Excellence & Performance Management Department

•Information Technology Department

•International

RelationsSection

CivilJustice

Division

CriminalJusticeDivison

Community Justice & Tribunals Division

Corporate ServicesDivision

Centre for Dispute

Resolution

Strategic Planning & Technology

Division


Over the years, the expansion of the Magistrates’ Courts saw some of their Courts being situated at different locations along New Bridge Road.

14

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

15

Celebrating 40 Years at H

avelock Square

History of the State Courts BuildingIn the year of Singapore’s golden jubilee, the State Courts commemorated a significant milestone in their history on 15 September 2015, as their iconic building at 1 Havelock Square turned 40. The date marked four decades of delivering justice to the people of Singapore from the centralised and accessible premises of the State Courts Building, formerly known as the Subordinate Courts Building.

Before the State Courts Building was constructed in 1975, various Courts had existed and operated at different locations in pre-war colonial buildings for many years. The dispersed locations made access to justice a challenge to court users then.

Before 1975: Various Courtsat dispersed locations

Criminal and Coroner’s CourtsThe Criminal Distr ict and Magistrates’ Courts were situated at South Bridge Road. They dated back to 1877 and were also known throughout the years as the “Police Courts”, “Magistrates’ Courts”, and “Criminal District and Police Courts”. In 1951, two temporary courthouses were built in Hong Lim Green. These buildings remained there until the completion of the State Courts Building in 1975.

The Police Court at South Bridge Road, Singapore (circa 1900s)(Source: Lim Kheng Chye Collection, courtesy of National Archives of Singapore)

Known to older Hokkien- and Cantonese-speaking Singaporeans as see pai poh, the former Sepoy Lines Police Station in Outram housed the 1st and 2nd Traffic Courts in the 1930s. The 3rd Traffic Court was created in 1967 at 395 New Bridge Road. They were later re-designated as the 10th, 9th and 7th Magistrates’ Courts respectively.

The Coroner’s Court was housed with the Criminal District and Magistrates’ Courts at South Bridge Road until they moved to Outram Road in 1956.

ANNIVERSARY

Civil District CourtsBuilt in 1827, the Old Parliament Building was home to the Civil District Courts in the early 1900s until the Courts moved to Empress Place in the 1930s. Due to spatial constraints, the 4th District Court operated out of the Supreme Court Building. It only moved back into the Civil District Courts Building in 1948, when the 5th District Court shifted into the South Bridge Road Police Courts.

Coroner’s Court, Outram Road – Entrance front from Outram Road (1956)(Source: Public Works Department Collection, courtesy of National Archivesof Singapore)

Civil District Court, Singapore (circa 1940s)(Source: Courtesy of National Archivesof Singapore)

1970 - 1971: The Need for a Centralised Building

As the Courts were situated at different locations in the city, members of the public were often unsure as to which courthouse they should go to and did from time to time show up at the wrong courthouse. Thus, the move to centralise all the courthouses in one building was a practical and a necessary one.

The Parliamentary debates in 1970 and 1971 also revealed that the various court buildings were in a bad state. As described by one member, Mr J.F. Conceicao, “…an atmosphere of physical gloom, congestion and dilapidation hangs over our subordinate courts…” and visiting these Courts was “quite a depressing experience”. Thus, the Subordinate Courts Building was conceived to locate all the lower Courts under one roof and provide for a dignified courthouse that would befit a modern and forward-looking nation.

Ideals and Symbolismof the BuildingThe Ministry of Law approached a private architectural firm Kumpulan Akitek to propose a design thatwould reflect the gravitas and presence of the Courts. The resultwas an iconic octagonal architecture with circulation spaces that meet the functional needs of the different user groups.


This Building has become an icon; a landmark symbolising our integral role in the justice system. It has served us well. There were “nips and tucks” and additions and alterations to improve the Building’s interior over the years. But by and large, it looks similar to how it was in 1975… This is a strong testament to how resilient and enduring the Building has proven to be, withstanding the test of time over the past 40 years.

Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon, Presiding Judge of the State Courtsin his Address during the “State Courts Building: Celebrating 40 Years” event on 15 September 2015

was one of the first in Singapore to have an environmentally-sensitive design, through the creation of a full height central atrium which was illuminated by natural lighting. It was also reported to be the first government “fireproof” building in Singapore, as a sprinkler system of water pipes were put in place as part of the anti-fire measures to protect thewooden wall panels in the courtrooms.

Due to its special design, the State Courts Building has established itself as a landmark in the Havelock Road area. The Building was gazetted for conservation on 10 July 2013.

1972-1975: Construction of the Building

In 1972, the Singapore government called for tender-bids and construction works at Havelock Square began shortly after in 1973.

In September 1975, the Building was completed. Arrangements were made for most of the Courts overseeing criminal and civil matters, including the Coroner’s Court, to move into the building. On 15 September 1975, the then Subordinate Courts Building opened its doors to court users.

Photograph courtesy of Chew C S

16

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

17


avelock Square

ANNIVERSARY

The design of the Building reflected a conscious intent to reinforce the Courts’ mission to enhance access to justice. Areas commonly frequented by members of the public, like the registries, the Information Counter and the main Mentions Court (Court 26), were located on the ground floor so that court users need not shuttle over different levels for their cases. The Building is also noted for its clever design that allows for the circulation of the judiciary, the persons in custody and the public to take place in separate spaces.

The Building is also symbolic of the forward-looking ideals of the Courts, as its design marked a significant departure from the neo-classical style that was often adopted for courthouses and followed the modern movement towards a new era of design. The building project was also significant as it was the first time that a private architectural firm was engaged to work in collaboration with the then Public Works Department in a public development project. The Building

1980s to-date: Growthwithin the Building

The Building was originally designed to house 26 courtrooms over an area of 30,600m2. To cope with an increasing caseload and a broadening jurisdiction over the years, more courtrooms had to be added. By 1993, there were 40 courtrooms and 28 hearing chambers.

Through the year s , va r ious improvements and enhancements were made to the Building’s interior and facilities. For example, modifications were made with the introduction of the Small Claims Tribunals in 1985, Night Courts in 1992 and the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre (now known as the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution). Changes were also made in 2008 when the Community Court was established, in 2010 when the HELP Centre was set up, and in 2015 when the Community Justice and Tribunals Division was launched. On 7 March 2014 following the name change of “Subordinate Courts” to “State Courts”, the building was renamed the State Courts Building.

The Future of the Building

In 2014, the State Courts embarked on the construction of a new building that will have the capacity to support the long-term demands on the Courts. The new building will have over 60 courtrooms and over 50 hearing chambers to handle the increasing workload of the State Courts.

After the State Courts move into the new building, the current State Courts Building will be retrofitted for the Family Justice Courts.


18

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

19


avelock Square

ANNIVERSARY

Honouring our Pioneers

MR T S SINNATHURAYSenior District Judge

1971 - 1978

MR ERROL FOENANDERSenior District Judge

1984 - 1992

MR TAN SIONG THYEChief District Judge

2008 - 2013

MR MICHAEL KHOOSenior District Judge

1978 - 1984

MR RICHARD MAGNUSSenior District Judge

1992 - 2008

Past Heads since 1975 Judges and Court Administrators since 1975

(Left to Right) First row: Principal District Judge Tan Puay Boon, Deputy Presiding Judge Jennifer Marie,

Mr Errol Foenander, Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon, Mr Michael Khoo SC,Principal Director Bala Reddy, Principal Director James Leong

Second row: Mr Lau Wing Yum, Mr Alfonso Ang, Judicial Commissioner Hoo Sheau Peng,Mr Francis Remedios, District Judge Low Wee Ping, Mr Toh Han Li

(Left to Right) First row: Mr Yong Yung Kiong, Mr Lee Cheong Hoh, Mr Khoo Oon Soo,

Mr Tan Lian Ker, Mr Ibrahim Burhan, Dr S Chandra Mohan, Mr Francis TsengSecond row: Mr Roy Neighbour, District Judge Hamidah Ibrahim,

District Judge Liew Thiam Leng, Judicial Commissioner Foo Tuat Yien,Mr Leslie Chew SC, Mr Sarjit Singh, District Judge Tan Peck Cheng

(Left to Right) First row: Mr Ismail Bin Mat, Mrs Yeow-Mak Yuen Ling, Ms Noraini Binte Haji Omar,

Ms Anne Mathew, Mr Glenfield De Souza, Mr Sivanandan Nadarajoo, Ms Lucy Goh, Ms Carmen Seah, Mrs Mok-Goh Kit Soon, Ms Irene Lee, Ms Rosalind Yap, Ms Jennie Phua, Ms Teresa Teow

Second row: Mr James Chuah, Mr Manickam s/o Pr Periasamy, Mr Mohd Abdullah B Rahim,Mr Jumahat Bin Ahmad, Mr Ajmer Singh s/o Sohan Singh, Mr Chew Chuee Seng, Mr Lee Chun Yip,

Mr Yong Siew Kin, Mr Richard Lau Boon Teow, Mr Lashman Singh s/o Thaman Singh,Mr Mohamed Yusof Bin Mohamed Arshad, Mr Joseph John, Ms Patricia Png,

Mr Kok Long Seng, Mr Ng Han Cheong, Mr Cheong Yuen Kwan


On the evenings of 17 and 18 September 2015, members of the public attended a series of informational talks. Topics covered by the State Courts included Magistrate’s Complaints, filing a claim at the Small Claims Tribunals, making a motor accident claim, court mediation, enforcement of judgments and the key features of the simplified civil process for claims not exceeding $60,000. The participants were also given an insight into the work of the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals which came into operation on 1 October 2015 to deal with neighbourly disputes.

Public Awareness WeekIn September 2015, as part of the celebrations to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the State Courts Building, the Public Awareness Week was held for the public to find out more about the various avenues for dispute resolution available at the State Courts.

The winning entries now adorn several pillars on Level 1 of the State Courts Building, while the other entries are displayed on the wall leading to the Pre-Trial Conference Centre on the mezzanine level. All the entries have also been reproduced on a banner displayed outside the State Courts Building.

Commemorative events forthe 40th anniversary of

the State Courts BuildingTo mark the 40th anniversary of the State Courts Building, the past and present Judges and staff of the State Courts celebrated not just the physical space that played a pivotal role in the delivery of justice since 1975, but also the people who had worked in the Building and had contributed to the administration of justice for the past four decades. The commemorative events started in December 2014,

culminating in the anniversary event on 15 September 2015.

There were 22 entries received, and they were evaluated based on a combination of votes cast by staff for their favourite entries and scores accorded by a panel of judges. Former District Judge Mr Rahim Jalil, known for his keen interest in the arts, was invited to be part of the judging panel.

20

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

21


avelock Square

ANNIVERSARY

State Courts Art CompetitionAn art competition was held from 1 December 2014 to 6 February 2015 for staff and their family members to submit entries in the form of drawings, paintings, graphic designs and photographs based on the themes, “What State Courts Mean to Me” and “Octagon Turns 40”.

A week-long public exhibition was held at the State Courts Atrium from 14 to 18 September 2015, where members of the public visited informational booths set up by the State Courts, Community Justice Centre, Community Mediation Centre, Singapore Police Force and The Law Society of Singapore’s Pro Bono Services Office to find out about court processes and the programmes offered by the participating agencies. Several videos explaining the various processes and services provided by the exhibitors were also screened during the exhibition.

Speakers from the Community Just ice Centre, Community Mediation Centre, The Law Society of Singapore’s Pro Bono Services Office and the Legal Aid Bureau shared the legal assistance schemes available to the community and the programmes their agencies offered. The participants also had the opportunity to have their questions answered by a panel comprising the various speakers.


Guests were also treated to special performances by State Courts’ very own talents. Judge Wong Li Tein sang an original composition, “Court of Honour”.

Courts to the then Subordinate Courts Building. He shared how he had found this Building to be “opulent” and spacious when compared with the old colonial courthouses he had been working in. He also shared how he had seen the vast changes since 1975 when there were insufficient Judges to occupy all the courtrooms then, to the present when there is a shortage of courtrooms and hearing chambers. To him, this demonstrated how the State Courts have progressed over the past 40 years.

22

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

23


avelock Square

ANNIVERSARY

Commissioners of the Supreme Court, as well as former Senior District Judges Mr Michael Khoo SC and Mr Errol Foenander, former Registrars, retired Judges and staff of the State Courts. Mr Sonny Chan and Mr Lee Kut Cheung, who were the key persons involved in the design and construction of the State Courts Building, were also present.

In his welcome remarks, Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon, Presiding Judge of the State Courts, thanked all those who had worked in the State Courts to bring them to where they are today. Special mention was made of the former Senior District Judges, Mr T S Sinnathuray, Mr Michael Khoo SC, Mr Errol Foenander, Mr Richard Magnus and Mr Tan Siong Thye, who led the then Subordinate Courts over the years with dedication and great distinction.

“State Courts Building: Celebrating 40 Years”The anniversary event, “State Courts Building: Celebrating 40 Years” was held on 15 September 2015. The event was attended by 300 guests and staff, including the Honourable Attorney-General V K Rajah SC, the Honourable Judge of Appeal Justice Andrew Phang, Judges and Judicial

Feedback on the talks was positive and the participants agreed that the information from the presentations was useful and relevant. A large majority also agreed that the talks were a good way for them to learn about the various dispute resolution processes and types of services provided to the community.

He also took the opportunity to honour the former Registrars, Judges and staff from Singapore’s Pioneer Generation, and thanked the Judges, staff, stakeholders and justice partners for their contributions and commitment to providing access to justice for all Singaporeans.

A commemorative video specially commissioned to document the State Courts Building’s heritage was screened during the event. The video recounts the history of the State Courts Building and features unique insights and recollections on the Building from Mr Sonny Chan, Mr Lee Kut Cheung, and former and present State Courts Judges and staff. Apart from highlighting the unique design of the State Courts Building, the video also highlights the special role that the Building has played in making justice accessible to the people in the last 40 years.

Mr Francis Remedios, who was Registrar of the then Subordinate Courts in 1975, shared his fond memories of the move of the various


DELIVERING JUSTICETO THE COMMUNITY

24

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

This was followed by a choir of Judges singing the “State Courts Anthem”. Composed specially for the occasion, the lyrics are especially meaningful as they serve as a reminder of the vision and mission of the State Courts.

I am grateful to the Judges and Judicial Officers and the staff of the State Courts for the immense contribution they have each made in helping us to deliver a system of justice that is fair, accessible and affordable. For the last 40 years, they have done their work in this Building and it has become a landmark in Singapore.

The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menonin his Congratulatory Remarks during the “State Courts Building: Celebrating 40 Years” eventon 15 September 2015

STATE COURTS ANTHEM

Music composed byJudges Josephine Kang and David Lim

Lyrics composed byJudges Marvin Bay, Carrie Chan, Kenneth Choo,

Samuel Chua, Ronald Gwee, Josephine Kang,Kevin Kwek, David Lim, Sarah Tan, Terence Tay,

Wong Li Tein and Michelle Yap

We are called to serve with honour and courage

And keep the Rule of Law in our landTo render what’s just with grace and mercy

And guard the rights of every man

Without fear or favour, affection or ill-willWe’ll do what’s right to all manner of people

Upholding justice firm and fairIn the State Courts of Singapore

To inspire trust in this Bastion of Justice

We’ll meet our duty faithful and trueAnd onward we’ll go with our purpose abiding

To mete to each right and wrong its due

Without fear or favour, affection or ill-willWe’ll do what’s right to all manner of people

Upholding justice firm and fairIn the State Courts of Singapore

With pride and courage, duty and honour

We’ll do what’s right to all manner of peopleUpholding justice firm and fairIn the State Courts of Singapore


Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

Delivering Justice to the C

omm

unity

26 27

LAUNCH OF STATE COURTSCENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has been an integral component to the delivery of justice in the State Courts. It is promoted as the “first stop” for all cases that enter the court system. Building upon this philosophy of encouraging the use of ADR, the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution was launched

on 4 March 2015 by The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon.

LAUNCH OF COMMUNITY JUSTICEAND TRIBUNALS DIVISION

On 24 April 2015, the State Courts launched the newly-formed Community Justice and Tribunals Division (CJTD). The CJTD handles a hybrid of civil and criminal

matters, and is a one-stop service to address community-based disputes.

Prior to the launch of the Centre, civil claims filed at the State Courts were referred to the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre for ADR, while Magistrate’s Complaints filed by individuals for minor criminal offences were referred to the Crime Registry for mediation. Recognising that in reality, a dispute between parties may traverse different aspects of the law, the Centre now consolidates the different ADR services to provide an integrated and holistic approach to resolving each dispute.

The Centre offers ADR services for a range of matters in the State Courts. These services include mediation

and neutral evaluation. The ADR sessions are handled by District Judges of the State Courts, Justices of the Peace and volunteer mediators who have been accredited by the Singapore Mediation Centre.

The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon officiated the opening ceremony, attended by stakeholders from the Attorney-General’s Chambers, Ministry o f Law, Min i s t ry o f Home Affairs, Ministry of Community, Culture and Youth, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Social and Family Development, and The Law Society of Singapore.

In keeping with the State Courts’ collaboration with the ADR community, the official launch of the Centre also featured the launch of a Thomson Reuters publication entitled “Mediation in Singapore: A Practical Guide”.

The publication highlights the wider mediation movement within Singapore by featuring the contributions of mediators from a

diverse range of disciplines, attesting to the maturation of mediation within Singapore. The contributors include academics, mediation experts and practitioners, Judges of the State Courts, and solicitors.

The publication covers many aspects of mediation practised in Singapore, including training, mediation within the community and in the Courts, and the cultural and psychological aspects of mediation.

Th e C J T D ove r s e e s t h e Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) established under the Community Disputes Resolution Act which came into effect on 1 October 2015, the ex i s t ing Smal l C la ims Tribunals (SCT), and cases under the Protection from Harassment Act which came into effect on 15 November 2014.

The CDRT hears cases involving disputes between neighbours after all efforts at reaching a resolution through mediation have been exhausted. Proceedings under the CDRT are informal, low-cost and judge-led with no lawyers involved.


Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

28

The SCT provides a speedy and low-cost forum for the resolution of disputes arising from small claims between consumers and suppliers.

The Protection from Harassment Act provides civil and criminal recourse for victims who face harassment in the physical and/or the online world.

The CJTD’s specialisation in dealing with community disputes brings together a synergy of processes and cultivates subject matter experts, thereby benefitting court users and the justice system as a whole. With the establishment of the CJTD, it is hoped that greater harmony will be promoted in society through conciliatory resolution of community disputes.

SERVING SOCIETY


In every case, the Court may modify, simplify and/or dispense with any or all of the procedures prescribed in PD 60A to ensure that the CEE procedure is carried out smoothly without causing any unnecessary increase in costs.

Lawyers and expert witnesses who participated in the pilot programme for the CEE procedure gave positive feedback on their experience. The cases which had utilised the CEE procedure involved quantity surveyors for renovation and construction disputes, accident reconstructionists for road traffic accidents, motor surveyors for assessing the cost of repairs of motor vehicles, and medical specialists for personal injury cases. The participants agreed that unlike the sequential method used in traditional cross-examination, the CEE procedure required less trial time.

In addition, the CEE procedure allowed expert witnesses to be better placed to discuss and consider one another’s opinions on the issues in dispute.

The CEE procedure is also extended to all District Court cases and Magistrate’s Court cases which commenced before 1 November 2014 and are not subjected to the simplified process for civil claims not exceeding $60,000,

and Magistrate’s Court cases which commenced on or after 1 November 2014 in which the parties are permitted by the Court to appoint separate expert witnesses.

PEOPLE DEVELOPMENT

To promote lifelong learning and professional development among its staff, the Civil Justice Division organised a comprehensive series of training sessions on various aspects of the civil justice process. The sessions, conducted by the Judges of the Division, were complemented by regular dialogues held among the members of the Division who also had the opportunity to observe hearings in chambers to gain first-hand experience on how the hearings are conducted. Senior staff members also shared their thoughts on the ethos of the public service to imbue a stronger sense of purpose in the administration of civil justice in Singapore. In addition, the Division developed a mentorship programme to cultivate a better understanding among its team members of the roles that each plays in the civil justice system.

CONCURRENT EXPERT EVIDENCE PROCEDURE

On 1 August 2015, the new Practice Direction 60A (PD 60A) took effect. PD 60A provides for the use of the Concurrent Expert Evidence (CEE) procedure in civil trials and assessment of damages hearings, with the parties’ consent. This followed an 18-month pilot programme from 2 January 2014 to 30 June 2015 to explore the use of the CEE procedure to admit expert evidence in these hearings. PD 60A also makes the CEE procedure a permanent feature in civil trials and assessment of damages hearings.

The CEE procedure or “hot tubbing” is a procedural technique where opposing expert witnesses will give evidence on expert issues concurrently, in the presence of each other.

Unlike the traditional sequential

Unlike the traditional sequential method of questioning witnesses which can take days, the CEE procedure aims to enable parties to save time and costs by encouraging a pre-trial discussion among the experts to narrow the issues in dispute, and by having all the experts testify the disputed expert issues as a panel in one sitting. The CEE procedure facilitates a fair and candid exchange of the experts’ opinions which can be rigorously tested in real time. Such a procedure also assists the Court in understanding the expert issues more readily.

PD 60A also streamlined critical aspects of the CEE procedure to encourage the adoption of the CEE procedure by litigants:

Only a Joint Expert Report needs to be prepared by the parties and experts. The format of the Joint Expert Report is annexed to the Practice Direction so that parties can make reference to it.

The parties and experts have considerable flexibility in scheduling the joint experts’ discussion for preparing the Joint Expert Report. This may take the form of face-to-face meetings, video- or tele-conferences, or other appropriate modesof communication.

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

Serving Society

30 31

Significant Initiatives

CIVIL JUSTICE DIVISION


32 33


COMMUNITY JUSTICE AND TRIBUNALS DIVISION

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

Serving Society

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY DISPUTES RESOLUTION ACT

The Community Disputes Resolution Act (CDRA) came into effect on 1 October 2015.

The CDRA creates a new statutory tort of interfering with the enjoyment or use of places of residence. The underlying principle is that no person should cause unreasonable interference to his or her neighbour’s enjoyment or use of that neighbour’s place of residence. The tort can include any act or omission by a neighbour causing the unreasonable interference, such as excessive noise, smell, smoke, light or vibration, littering, obstruction, surveillance or trespassing.

Disputing neighbours should first seek to resolve the matter amicably between themselves, failing which, they should then approach their grassroots leaders who are trained as community peacemakers to facilitate a resolution. If a resolution cannot be reached, the matter may be referred to the Community Mediation Centre for mediation by volunteers trained in community mediation.

The CDRA also establishes the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) as part of the State Courts, to hear cases involving intractable disputes between neighbours. The CDRT is intended to be the last resort for disputing neighbours, when all other means of resolving the dispute have been unsuccessful.

The CDRT, which is part of the Community Justice and Tribunals Division (CJTD), is located on Level 1 of the State Courts Building.

Pre-Filing Consultation at CDRT

Filing of Documents

Pre-Trial Conference

Tribunal Hearing

An important aspect of the CDRT process is the pre-filing consultation. The consultation enables court users to clarify any questions they might have about the CDRA and the CDRT’s processes. It also helps court users to better understand the options

and avenues for legal advice available to them. To facilitate applications, two computers with printing facilities and the relevant template forms are available for use at the CDRT.

Workflow of the CDRT

NEW QUEUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNALS

To serve court users better, the Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) implemented a new queue management system on 26 August 2015. The key features of the new Centralised Queue Management System are:

• Self-registration of attendanceCourt users attending a consultation at the SCT can register their attendance themselves by scanning the barcode on their Notice of Consultation. They no longer need to get a queue number and wait for their turn to register their attendance at a counter.

• Same queue number for matterson the same dayCourt users can use the same assigned queue number for all matters relating to their SCT case on the same day. For example, the same queue number will be used for their consultation, hear ing o r co l lec t ion o f documents after the consultation or hearing concludes. This reduces the confusion court users might face if they had obtained different queue numbers for different services at the SCT.


34 35

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

Serving Society

SELF-SERVICE INFORMATIONKIOSK AT THE COMMUNITY JUSTICE AND TRIBUNALSDIVISION (CJTD) To provide greater convenience to court users, a self-service information kiosk was installed in the CJTD’s premises. The kiosk allows court users to conduct searches on the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority’s


CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION

EXTENSION OF PRIMARY JUSTICE PROJECT TO CRIMINAL MATTERS

The Primary Justice Project (PJP) was originally meant for parties involved in civil and family disputes. In December 2015, the PJP was extended to accused persons in criminal cases. One of the key objectives for this enhancement was to facilitate the expeditious disposal of suitable criminal matters. Previously, two important plea bargaining processes between accused persons and the prosecution, namely, the Criminal Case Management System (CCMS) and Criminal Case

Resolution (CCR), were opened only to accused persons who were represented by a lawyer. However, there were a significant number of accused persons who did not have a lawyer and as a result, they did not have the benefit of adequate information or legal advice for the purpose of plea bargaining. With the extension of the PJP to criminal matters, accused persons may receive basic legal services at a reduced fee which will cover at least one round of representations to the prosecution as well as attendance at CCMS and CCR. This will enable the accused persons to make more informed decisions in relation to their cases.

INTEGRATED PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE CENTRE

To enhance the management of Pre-Trial Conferences (PTC), the PTC chambers in Courts 17 and 18 were relocated to the new Pre-Trial Conference Centre on 3 December 2015. The relocation allows PTC matters to be heard in a centralised location while Courts 17 and 18 can be reinstated as trial Courts. The Pre-Trial Conference Centre has three PTC hearing chambers, video-link facilities and a waiting area for prosecutors, lawyers, accused persons and their family members. There is also a dedicated service counter where staff will manage the PTC process and attend to users’ enquiries. A queue management system will be implemented to enhance the scheduling of the PTC hearings.

PROCEDURAL CHANGES FOR IDENTIFICATION OF DECEASED PERSONS

When the body of a deceased person is sent to the mortuary at the Health Sciences Authority, the family members are required to turn up at the mortuary the next day for a formal coronial viewing and to identify the deceased. This can be a very traumatic experience for the family members. Thus, procedural changes are being introduced in phases to minimise this trauma. Phase 1, which was implemented on 24 June 2015, made the formal coronial viewing optional if the family members had seen the deceased at the hospital or scene of death. Phase 2 will allow family members to identify the deceased through photographs in cases where they have not seen the deceased at the hospital or scene of death.

SENTENCING INFORMATION AND RESEARCH REPOSITORY

On 14 September 2015, the State Courts’ Sentencing Information and Research Repository (SIR) was made available online to the public via LawNet Premium, a subscription-based service managed by the

(ACRA) database and purchase the search results on the spot, or opt for a copy of the search results to be emailed to them.


under the guidance of experienced mediators. District Judge Dorcas Quek was one of the judges presiding over the finals of the inter-school mediation competition held during the Conference.

SKYPE MEDIATION

Pr io r to Apr i l 2015, adhoc arrangements were available toparties who were residing overseas to par t ic ipa te in media t ionthrough Skype.

to the regulation of the mediation industry, and the development of international mediation.

36 37

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

Serving Society


STATE COURTS CENTRE FORDISPUTE RESOLUTION

MEDIATION FORUM FOR PRACTISING MEDIATORS

In conjunction with the launch of the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution on 4 March 2015, a mediation forum “A Joint Session for Mediators – Discussing What Is Close to the Heart of Mediators” was held in the afternoon for the mediation community in Singapore to come together for a time of collective reflection and exchange of views.The Forum featured a panel discussion with Mr George Lim, SC (Deputy Director, Singapore

International Mediation Centre), Mr Loong Seng Onn (Executive Director, Singapore Mediation Centre), Associate Professor Ian MacDuff (Director, Dispute Resolution Initiative, Singapore Management University), Associate Professor Joel Lee (Director, Singapore International Mediation Institute), and District Judges Ong Chin Rhu, Kevin Ng and Joyce Low.

The panellists and participants shared their thoughts on a range of topics, from the progress made in Singapore in the use of mediation

INCREASING AWARENESS OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Brochures providing information about the mediation and neutral evaluation processes were produced to help lawyers and parties in a dispute prepare for mediation. These brochures were also translated into other languages to assist litigants who do not speak English and are without lawyers. Members of the public can view the brochures on the State Courts’ website under “Interested in Mediation/ADR”.

On 30 October 2015, participants of the Peacemakers Conference 2015 visited the State Courts where they learnt about court mediation. This Conference is organised annually by Peacemakers Consulting Services Pte Ltd for secondary school students to learn and hone their mediation skills,

Singapore Academy of Law. The SIR is an online database that provides sentencing information on cases decided in the State Courts, including those which were appealed in the High Court. Consistency and transparency in sentencing practices is enhanced through the provision of comprehensive and dynamic sentencing information.

The SIR allows users to filter the sentencing information to identify sentencing patterns and map out specific case outcomes. Prosecutors, members of the Criminal Bar, and accused persons

who are unrepresented may use the SIR to understand sentencing trends in order to make informed decisions on their cases.

In recognition that such arrangements are becoming more common with the increased mobility of parties, the Skype mediation scheme was institutionalised in April 2015. Under the scheme, parties who can produce evidence that they have difficulty travelling to Singapore may apply to have their mediation sessions held through Skype, with the consent of the other party. The scheme is also available to foreign incorporated entities with no local presence or representative.


“GUEST AUDITOR” PROGRAMME

In 2015, the IAU introduced a programme to allow a State Courts staff member, who is from another section and has a suitable auditing background, to serve as a “guest auditor”. The feedback from the “guest auditor” serves to improve the State Courts’ financial prudence. Through the programme, the “guest auditor” will also gain a deeper understanding of the internal audit process and will be able to share this with his or her colleagues.

38 39

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

Serving Society


INTERNAL AUDIT UNIT

PROFESSIONALISATION OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)

With effect from 1 May 2015, ADR fees were introduced for higher value civil claims within the District Courts’ jurisdiction. Court ADR fees of $250 per party for District Court cases were introduced under Order 90A rule 5A of the Rules of Court. This change arose from the need to put in place

a system that reflects the value of work done by mediators. Bearing in mind the importance of ensuring that ADR remains widely accessible, the vast majority of civil claims, including all Magistrate’s Court claims, motor accident claims, personal injury claims, and Magistrate’s Complaints for minor criminal offences, continue to be exempted from Court ADR fees.

GUIDELINES FOR INTERNAL AUDITING

The Internal Audit Unit (IAU) developed a set of guidelines to enable the Audit Committee and senior management to review the internal controls for financial reporting and the compliance with laws and regulations. This includes reviewing whether the appropriate levels of response are in place to adequately address audit risks. The guidelines also enable the IAU to determine the amount of resources needed to assess the robustness of recommended remedial actions, and to ensure that follow-up action is taken. Audit issues are monitored and regularly highlighted to the Audit Committee.


CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION

NEW AWARDS TO RECOGNISE GOOD SERVICE

To encourage the service-centric culture in State Courts, the GEM (Going-the-Extra-Mile) Awards were given to recognise staff who “Go the Extra Mile” in delivering excellent service in the course of their daily work.

To further encourage excellent service delivery at the unit or team level, two new annual team awards were introduced in 2015. They are the GEM Team Award and GEM Special Commendation Award. The GEM Team Award recognises the section or registry that had received the highest number of compliments, and the team from the Small Claims Tribunals was the first to receive this Award. The inaugural GEM Special Commendation Award was presented to the Bailiffs Section in recognition of its efforts to provide excellent services in spite of the challenging circumstances it had faced.

LAUNCH OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE PORTAL, SErvice gridS

In October 2015, “SErvice gridS” was launched on the State Courts Intranet as a one-stop portal for staff to access resources that would help them deliver excellent services. The resources include guidelines and protocols on the expected service standards, and service-related training programmes which staff might find beneficial to attend. The portal also provides regular updates on the service performance achieved at the divisional and organisational levels, including information on officers who had received compliments from members of the public.


they could harness their strengths to contribute to the State Courts’ shared vision and mission.

IMPROVEMENT WORKS TO THE STATE COURTS BUILDING

The es tab l i shment o f the Community Justice and Tribunals Division and State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution introduced new registries in the State Courts Building. Efforts were made to ensure that court users who have matters at these registries would not need to shuttle over different levels. As such, several offices on Level 1 of the Building were relocated so that the areas could be refurbished to accommodate these new registries.

AXS m-Station application on their smartphones. With these convenient payment options, court users no longer need to take time off work and make multiple trips to the State Courts to pay their fine instalments.

40 41

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

Serving Society

IMPROVEMENT OFSERVICE CAPABILITIES AND DELIVERY INTHE COURTROOMS

In August 2015, a new framework was introduced to enhance the proficiency and professionalism of court interpreters. Judges could provide direct feedback on the services provided by the court interpreters. This would help to improve service delivery in the courtrooms. In addition, courtrooms were equipped with an enhanced Digital Audio Recording and Transcription system to provide better audio recordings of court proceedings. With the new system, dedicated recording channels are available for all the parties in the courtroom and this enables the transcribers to accurately identify the parties who spoke during the hearing, thereby improving the quality of court transcriptions.

MORE CONVENIENT PAYMENT OPTIONS FOR COURT FINE INSTALMENTS Since 29 January 2015, court users have more convenient payment options to pay their State Courts fine instalments. They can do so before 10pm on the day the instalment payment is due through various AXS channels – the AXS kiosks which are located island-wide, the AXS e-Station on the Internet, or the

UPDATES ON THE CONSTRUCTION OFTHE NEW STATECOURTS BUILDING

Following the groundbreaking ceremony for the construction of the new State Courts Building in May 2014, piling works commenced immediately thereafter. On 27 May 2015, the tender for superstructure works was called and works are expected to commence in 2016.

Tender preparation is in progress for various other works for the new Building. In 2016, the main entrance of the current State Courts Building will be relocated from Havelock Square to Upper Cross Street to facilitate the construction works.

LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL

To encourage continual learning and development among staff, several training events were held in 2015. The “Values and Ethics Awareness Seminar” was conducted on 22 June 2015, where staff discussed the ethical dilemmas they may face at the workplace and how to overcome them. At the “Personal Strengths Learning Journey” on 24 July 2015, staff discovered their personal strengths and learnt how

On 7 December 2015, the “Creativity and Innovation in the Workplace” Learning Festival presented everyone with the opportunity to visit various public and private sector organisations to learn about the different ideation processes practised. The knowledge that staff had gained would help them develop programmes for improving the State Courts’ delivery of justice to the community.

In addition, the inaugural “Talks@State Courts” series was launched to enhance staff’s learning. Experts from different fields were invited to give talks and share their insights on a wide variety of topics, including legal issues, leadership and management, and world affairs and trends. Kick-starting this series was Mr Tan Chade-Meng,


ORGANISATIONAL EXCELLENCE WEEK 2015 The 2015 Organisational Excellence (OE) Week, themed “Get FIT with OE”, was held from 5 to 8 May 2015. The OE Week aimed to refresh and reinforce interest in OE-related initiatives such as innovation and continuous process improvement. Guest speakers from organisations which had received Business Excellence Awards, such as the Defence Science and Technology Agency and OCBC Bank, were invited to share their experiences in innovation and change management. Exhibition booths were also set up and interactive activities were organised to raise awareness of OE.

against two possible scenarios the organisation may face in 2030. The aim was to ascertain if the strategies were robust enough to be used in future for the State Courts to meet the challenges brought about by an evolving society. The exercise enabled gaps in the existing strategies to be identified and improved.

the attendees were able to learn about the latest developments in various fields of work that could have an impact on the work of the State Courts.

a Singaporean who is Google’s cultural ambassador. He shared his experience in combining goodness and mindful leadership at the workplace.

The “Fireside Chat” series was introduced in August 2015 as a staff capability development initiative. The series provides opportunities for staff to meet and interact with leaders from other public sector organisations. Through the sessions which were held in a small-group setting,

42 43

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

Serving Society


STRATEGIC PLANNING ANDTECHNOLOGY DIVISION

FORMATION OF DIVISIONAL PLANNING UNITS

In June 2015, Divisional Planning Units (DPUs) were formed to lead each division in its planning and development-related activities. The Strategic Planning and Technology Division worked with the DPUs to help the Divisions formulate their long-term plans, and improve court processes, procedures and services to court users.

SCENARIO PLANNING

In 2015, a scenario planning exercise was conducted by a core team from the Strategic Planning and Technology Division to identify and prepare for possible scenarios which might arise in future. The team interviewed the State Courts’ key leadership personnel to identify the main concerns and key driving forces that might impact the State Courts in the long term. During the Corporate Retreat in July 2015, the participants tested the organisation’s existing strategies

SERVICE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PROJECT

The State Courts were invited by the Public Service Division to pioneer a Service Management Framework project to improve the delivery of services across seven other agencies in the public sector. As part of a pilot programme in 2015, State Courts’ staff were interviewed as part of an evaluation of the quality of their services. A study was also conducted to determine how the services provided to litigants-in-person filing for Magistrate’s Complaints and applications under the Protection from Harassment Act could be improved.


44

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

JUDICIAL GOVERNANCE PROGRAMME

The State Courts, in collaboration with the Civil Service College International, organised a multilateral Judicial Governance Programme from 27 to 31 July 2015. The programme was well-received, with 27 Judges and senior Court Administrators from 15 countries in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa participating in the programme. The participants held lively discussions about

their countries’ experiences in judicial reforms while the State Courts were given the opportunity to share Singapore’s experience in areas such as leadership and change, and the State Courts’ innovations in organisational processes and procedures. The participants also visited key stakeholders in the legal system, including the Supreme Court, Singapore Academy of Law, Singapore Judicial College and The Law Society of Singapore.

INSPIRING PUBLIC TRUSTAND CONFIDENCE


CASELOAD PROFILE 2014(*) 2015(p)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION 250,222 271,300

Criminal andDepartmental/Statutory Board

Criminal Charges¹ 60,084 59,900

Departmental/Statutory Board Charges and Summonses

116,865 143,700

Traffic Charges and Summonses 67,215 62,000

Others

Coroner’s Court Cases 4,200 3,900

Magistrate’s Complaints 1,858 1,800

CIVIL JUSTICE DIVISION 50,384 44,260

Originating Processes 34,027 29,690

Writs of Summonses (DC & MC) 28,810 29,100

Originating Summonses 408 590

Probate² 4,809 N.A

Interlocutory Applications 14,159 12,370

Summonses3 10,297 9,100

Summonses for Directions (O.25/37) 3,495 3,100

Summary Judgment (O.14) 367 170

Others

Taxation 138 100

Assessment of Damages 2,060 2,100

46 47

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

Inspiring Public Trust and Confidence

CASELOAD PROFILE

CASELOAD PROFILE 2014(*) 2015(p)

COMMUNITY JUSTICE ANDTRIBUNALS DIVISION (CJTD)

11,835 10,890

Protection from Harassment Act

Originating Summonses -Applications for Protection Order (PO)/Non-Publication Order (NPO)4

11 180

Community Disputes Resolution Act

Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals Claims5

N.A 10

Small Claims Tribunals6

Small Claims Tribunals Claims 11,824 10,700

TOTAL 312,441 326,450

Notes(*) Figures for 2014 are subjected to revision. Family and Juvenile Court cases are excluded.(p) Projected Figures.1 Include DAC, MAC, PSS, PS & other charges.2 Probate matters are handled by the Family Justice Courts and excluded from State Courts’ caseload with effect from 1 January 2015.3 Exclude O.25/37.4 Applications for PO/NPO commenced on 15 November 2014.5 Filing for Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals Claims commenced on 1 October 2015.6 The Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) came under the CJTD in 2015. The SCT was part of the Civil Justice Division in 2014.


48 49

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

Significant Cases

CIVIL JUSTICE DIVISION

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN HARASSMENT CASES

(1) Kok Tuck Peng v Gabriel Baldwin(2) Chong Teck Yoon v Gabriel BaldwinThe first two assessments of damages arising from claims under the Protection from Harassment Act were heard in 2015. The Plaintiffs in both suits were claiming against an ex-colleague.

The Defendant was a driver in Supersonic Maintenance Service Pte Ltd (“the Company”) who, after his resignation from the Company in 2014, alleged that there were salary arrears, unpaid leave and overtime pay due to him. As a result, he proceeded to send many text messages to his ex-colleagues which included demands, threats and warnings.

The first Plaintiff was the Operations Manager of the Company and the second Plaintiff was the General Manager of the Company. The first Plaintiff had received a total of 42 messages from the Defendant over a three-day period from 20 August 2014 to 22 August 2014, and over a one-and-a-half-month period from 5 October 2014 to 17 November 2014, while the second

Plaintiff had received a total of 75 messages from the Defendant over the same time period.

In both suits, the Defendant took no part in the proceedings and had allowed a default judgment to be entered against him.

In the Assessment of Damages hearing, the Court found the following:

• The “Guidelines for theAssessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases”, which is widely used and referenced by counsel, is an appropriate reference point for the scale of damages to be awarded in cases under the Protection from Harassment Act.

• The threats made by theDefendant were quite mild in relation to inter alia the commencement of investigations or the lodging of complaints with the Ministry of Manpower against the Plaintiffs.

• Both Plaintiffs had suffered minor distress at best as a result of the text messages.

• Under the above-mentionedguidelines, minor psychiatric disorders would attract awards between $1,000 and $3,000.

• The Plaintiffs should not receivean award higher than an award given to a victim who suffers a mild psychiatric disorder as a result of harassment. They should therefore receive an award on the lower end of the above-mentioned scale.

The Court then awarded the sums of $1,400 and $1,800 (excluding costs) to the first and second Plaintiffs respectively.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Humming Flowers & Gifts Pte Ltd v Lee Gwee NoiThe Plaintiff is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Noel Gifts International Ltd which is in the business of selling flowers, gifts and hampers.

The Defendant was the ex-sales manager of the Plaintiff and had left the company in late 2011.

In 2012, the Plaintiff filed a suit claiming, essentially, that between February and March 2012, it was discovered that its Customer Refer Lists (CRLs) which contained vital customer information were missing and had been removed

from its offices. According to the Plaintiff, internal investigations had confirmed that the two other employees who had access to the CRLs did not remove and/or have possession of the lists. Circumstantial evidence available indicated that the Defendant had wrongfully removed the CRLs from the Plaintiff’s possession.

The circumstantial evidence marshalled against the Defendant was said to be the following:

• The Defendant knew that theCRLs, which were required on a daily basis, were of vital importance to the Plaintiff and would have been of great advantage to a competitor company.

• The Defendant was the primary person-in-charge of the CRLs.

• The Defendant was one of threepersons who had the keys to access the CRLs, and the other two individuals did not takethe CRLs.

• The Defendant had behavedsuspiciously for some months before she tendered her resignation.

• The Defendant had stayed back in the office later than usual between September and October 2011.



Significant Cases

COMMUNITY JUSTICEAND TRIBUNALS DIVISION

50 51

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

• The CRLS were found missingabout a week after she went on garden leave.

• The Defendant had started a competing business.

After the trial, the Court held inter alia that:

• W h e r e a l l e g a t i o n s o freprehensible conduct are made, the standard of proof borne by a plaintiff is “one of a balance of probabilities based on cogent evidence”.

• The discrepancies within the P l a i n t i f f ’s c a s e o n wh a t documents or folders were lost or taken “impugned the Plaintiff’s entire claim”.

• The delays relating to the alleged discovery of the lost CRLs and the belated accusations against

the Defendant “rendered it improbable” that the CRLs were vital customer documents used on a daily basis and/or the Defendant had been behaving suspiciously for months before she resigned.

• If the Defendant had behaved suspiciously and the Plaintiff’s senior management had been alerted, the CCTV footage of the Plaintiff’s premises “should have been preserved for imminent recourse” and would not have been overwritten.

• In general, the circumstantial evidence forming the “construct of the case” against the Defendant was “far from being cogent” and “was utterly defeasible”.

On this basis, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was dismissed.

PROTECTION ORDER UNDER THE PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT

In August 2015, the Applicant commenced proceedings under section 12 of the Protection from Harassment Act for a Protection Order against an ex-boyfriend whom she had broken up with in 2013. Even though the Applicant had changed her mobile phone number after the breakup, the Respondent succeeded in obtaining her new number.

Between May 2014 and August 2015, the Respondent called the Applicant multiple times and sent her numerous messages asking her to meet him and to reconcile with him, threatening her with physical violence and informing her of his attempts to harm himself. The Applicant was granted an Expedited Protection Order against the Respondent pending a Pre-Trial Conference (PTC). An Expedited Protection Order has the same effect as a Protection Order, but is a temporary order granted under section 13 of the Act where the circumstances require an urgent intervention.

At the PTC which the Applicant and Respondent attended, the Court directed both parties to attend a counselling session conducted by court counsellors, as provided under Order 109 rule 2 of the Rules of Court. The Court encouraged both parties to use the opportunity to share with each other their feelings, their intentions for the relationship and how each of them would like the other party to conduct him or herself moving forward.

Through the counselling session, the Respondent understood and accepted that his relationship with the Applicant had irretrievably broken down and that the Applicant no longer wished to have any communication with him.

Having settled the underlying emotional issues surrounding the breakdown of their relationship, both parties entered into a settlement agreement on how they would conduct themselves in future, pursuant to which the Applicant discontinued the court proceedings.



APPLICATION UNDER THE COMMUNITY DISPUTES RESOLUTION ACT

The Applicant and Respondent live in the same block of Housing & Development Board (HDB) flats, with the Applicant living in the unit directly below the Respondent’s. According to the Applicant, stomping and dragging noise of varying duration and volume could be heard from the Respondent’s flat on a daily basis, at various times of the day and night.

The Applicant sought assistance from the HDB Branch Office to alleviate the noise disturbance. Representatives of the Branch Office, as well as the Chairman of the Resident’s Committee, spoke with the Applicant and Respondent. Both parties were also invited to undergo mediation at the Community Mediation Centre (CMC), but the Respondent declined to do so.

In October 2015, the Applicant commenced proceedings against the Respondent under section 4

52 53

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VJAMES RAJ S/O AROKIASAMY

Over a period of about three months in 2013, a person who called himself “The Messiah” hacked into a number of Singapore-based websites, such as those of the People’s Action Party Community Foundation, the Ang Mo Kio Town Council and The Straits Times Blog, and replaced the contents of the websites with various offensive messages.

“The Messiah” was ascertained to be James Raj s/o Arokiasamy (James Raj), who was facing drug charges and was out on bail when he committed the hacking offences. Investigations revealed that he had also unlawfully scanned several government websites, including those of the Prime Minister’s Office and the Singapore Prison Service, for security vulnerabilities. James Raj faced further charges of hacking into a Fuji Xerox server which led to, amongst others, him downloading the statements of a bank’s customers.

James Raj pleaded guilty to 39 charges under the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act and one charge of drug consumption under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Significant Cases

CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION

He consented to 119 charges under the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act and two charges of drug consumption under the Misuse of Drugs Act to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

The Judge opined that the principles of general and specific deterrence were of prime focus in determining the appropriate sentence. The Judge also considered a number of aggravating factors such as the escalation of James Raj’s cyber criminality, his malice in committing the offences and the alarm and fear caused to the public by the very public manner that the offences were perpetrated. Finally, the Judge recognised that as Singapore is a major Information Technology centre, cyber intrusions and threats pose considerable danger to its economy. As such, there was a need to send a strong signal to James Raj and like-minded individuals to deter them from pursuing such criminal enterprise.

James Raj was sentenced to a total of 56 months’ imprisonment.


of the Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 (CDRA) for causing excessive noise. The Applicant applied for an injunction against the Respondent to reduce the noise levels between 8am and 10pm, and to stop the noise between 10pm and 8am.

At the Pre-Trial Conference, the Tribunal Judge ordered the Applicant and the Respondent to go for mediation at the CMC, as provided under section 30(2) of the CDRA.

During the mediation session at the CMC, the Applicant acknowledged that the noise disturbance had improved considerably and both parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement.

After the mediation session, the parties returned before the Tribunal Judge and the Applicant discontinued the court proceedings on the basis of the settlement agreement.


54 55

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V AMOS YEE PANG SANG

On 27 March 2015, shortly after the death of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s first Prime Minister, Amos Yee Pang Sang (Yee) uploaded a video entitled “Lee Kuan Yew is Finally Dead!” on YouTube. In the video, Yee had criticised the late Mr Lee and Christians by likening Mr Lee to Jesus Christ and making remarks against Christianity. Yee then uploaded an image of two stick figures, purportedly representing Mr Lee and the late former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Margaret Thatcher, engaged in a sexual act.

Yee was charged for uploading the video with the deliberate intention to wound the religious feelings of Christians, and for electronically transmitting the obscene image.

An issue that arose in relation to the second charge was whether the image of the two stick figures engaged in a sexual act was obscene. The trial Judge considered that teenagers were likely to access the blog post on which Yee had uploaded the image and that the image would deprave and corrupt them. The trial Judge added that the image would meet with the “strongest disapproval and condemnation” of any right-thinking parent or teacher.

After a two-day trial, Yee was convicted of both charges and sentenced to four weeks’ imprisonment. Yee had previously rejected the options of probation and being sent to the Reformative Training Centre.

Yee appealed against his conviction and sentence. On appeal, the trial Judge’s decision was affirmed by the High Court.

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V ELLO ED MUNDSEL BELLO

Ello Ed Mundsel Bello (Ello), a 29-year-old Filipino, was an assistant nurse in Tan Tock Seng Hospital. Sometime in mid-2014, Ello posted a number of derogatory and offensive comments against Singaporeans on his Facebook page and his comments were circulated extensively on various social media sites.

Ello was charged with two counts of publishing seditious publications under the Sedition Act. He was also charged with three counts of making false statements to the police, including lodging a police report to allege that an unknown person had falsely attributed the offensive online comments to him.

Ello pleaded guilty to one charge under the Sedition Act and two charges for making false

statements. The remaining charges were taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

In meting out a total of four months’ imprisonment, the Judge considered that Ello had published a seditious publication that would promote ill-will and hostility between different classes of people, namely, Singaporeans and Filipinos in Singapore. The Judge also commented that Ello’s provocative conduct, if left unchecked, could result in discrimination against the innocent and law-abiding Filipino residents in Singapore.

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V MUHAMMAD ABDUL GANI

On ten separate occasions between 2012 and 2013, Muhammad Abdul Gani, a welfare and religious teacher at the Pertapis Children’s Home (PCH), meted out inappropriate corporal punishment on the children under his care. PCH is a gazetted Place of Safety and an Approved Home under the Children and Young Persons Act. Its residents are vulnerable and at-risk children between the ages of four and twelve referred by the Youth Court, family service centres or the Ministry of Social and Family Development.

Some of the acts committed by the accused included lifting a seven-year-old off the ground by grabbing


his head below his ears and pushing a ten-year-old’s mouth, causing the back of the child’s head to hit a cupboard behind her. The accused was charged with ten counts under section 5(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act. He pleaded guilty to four charges and consented to the remaining six charges being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

The Judge sentenced the accused to a total of three weeks’ imprisonment, noting that the accused’s actions constituted a gross breach of trust and authority.

CASES OF CHEATING BY SIM LIM SQUARE SALESMEN

In 2014, Chew Chiew Loon Jover (Chew) made headlines in the news when he purportedly gave a customer a refund of $1,010, ordered by the Small Claims Tribunals, in the form of coins. Subsequently, there was a news report of a Vietnamese tourist who had knelt in front of Chew and begged him for a refund after the tourist had purchased an allegedly overpriced mobile phone from Chew’s shop.

Police investigations were conducted after multiple complaints and police reports were filed against Chew. Subsequently, Chew and four of his former employees, Koh Guan Seng (Koh), Kam Kok Keong


OTHER AWARDS FOR INTEGRATED CRIMINALCASE FILING AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Singapore Infocomm Technology Federation (SiTF) Gold Award On 1 October 2015, the State Courts received the Gold Award for “Best Innovative Use of Infocomm Technology (Public Sector)” for their Integrated Criminal Case Filing and Management System (ICMS). The award was conferred by the Singapore Infocomm Technology Federation (SiTF).

FUTUREGOVSINGAPORE AWARDS

On 7 April 2015, the State Courts were conferred FutureGov Singapore Awards in the Community Care Category and E-Government Category, for the Primary Justice Project and the Integrated Criminal Case Filing and Management System respectively. The awards were conferred in recognition of the State Courts’ excellence in administering and delivering citizen-facing programmes, and their vision and project management excellence in deploying technology.

(Kam), Kelvin Lim Zhi Wei (Kelvin) and Lim Hong Ching (Lim), were charged with multiple counts of cheating by conspiracy. Chew was also charged with other ancillary offences related to his dishonest business practices.

Koh, Kam, Kelvin and Lim had pleaded guilty to between one and six charges each while Chew had pleaded guilty to 12 charges; each had multiple other charges taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. They had admitted to adopting unlawful tactics to cheat their customers into paying highly inflated prices for mobile phones sold at Chew’s shop. They had also behaved in a “thuggish” manner to bully their customers into submission when the customers tried to back out from their overpriced mobile phone purchases. Each of them was sentenced to between four and 14 months’ imprisonment, while Chew was sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of $2,000.

CASE OF MISUSE OF CHURCH FUNDS BY CITY HARVEST CHURCH LEADERS

Pursuant to the Commercial Affairs Department’s investigations into the alleged misuse of church funds by certain members of the City Harvest Church (CHC), six accused

56 57

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL AWARDS


persons, including the church’s founder and senior pastor Kong Hee (Kong), were charged in 2012.

The charges involved a substantial amount of church funds that were utilised for sham bond investments between 2007 and 2009 in support of the church’s “Crossover Project”, another substantial amount of church funds that were deployed for “round-tripping” transactions to create the false impression that the sham bond investments had paid off, and the falsification of accounts to facilitate the fraudulent transactions. The “Crossover Project” had promoted the secular pop music career of Kong’s wife, Ho Yeow Sun, also known by her performing name “Sun Ho”, as part of the church’s evangelism efforts.

After 140 days of hearing that spanned over two years, the six accused persons were found guilty of between three and ten charges of criminal breach of trust and/or the falsification of accounts. Kong was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment and the five other co-accused were sentenced to between 21 months’ and six years’ imprisonment.

The accused persons have appealed against their convictions and sentences, and the Prosecution has cross-appealed against the sentences. The case is currently pending before the High Court.

The SiTF Awards recognise local technology innovations and the organisations that develop and harness them. The ICMS received this accolade for its ability to synthesise disparate processes, workflows and systems into one single platform to enable the accurate and timely sharing, retrieval and exchange of


58 59

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

Photograph courtesy of SiTF


Asia Pacific ICT Alliance(APICTA) AwardsIn November 2015, the State Courts were conferred a merit award at the Asia Pacific ICT Alliance (APICTA) Awards Ceremony 2015 held in Colombo, Sri Lanka. The State Courts were recognised in the Government and Public Sector category for the Integrated Criminal Case Filing and Management System (ICMS), which has transformed a predominantly paper-based process to an electronic court environment.

The APICTA Awards is an international awards programme that aims to increase Infocomm Technology (ICT) awareness in the community and assist in bridging the digital divide. It is also designed to stimulate ICT innovation and

creativity, promote economic and trade relations, and to facilitate technology transfer.

OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENTIN WEB DEVELOPMENT, “GOVERNMENT STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE” AWARD 2015

The State Courts’ website was revamped and launched on 31 December 2014 to better serve court users by providing them with quicker and easier access to information about the State Courts. In May 2015, the mHearing application for mobile devices which provides the hearing schedules for pre-trial conference cases was introduced to complement the information available on the State Courts’ website, to further enhance court users’ access to information.

For its user-centric interface and easily navigable web architecture, the State Courts’ website was conferred the Outstanding Achievement in Web Development, “Government Standard of Excellence” Award 2015 by the Web Marketing Association (WMA) in September 2015. Founded in 1997, the WebAwards programme organised by the WMA is billed as the longest-running annual website award competition dedicated to naming the best websites in 96 industries while setting the standard of excellence for all website development.

OUR INTERNATIONAL PROFILEIn 2015, Singapore scored well in various surveys conducted by several international organisations. The results of these surveys are a tribute to the high quality of justice

dispensed by the Singapore Judiciary.

INSTITUTE FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT (IMD) World CompetitivenessYearbook 2015

In June 2015, the IMD assessed and ranked 61 economies in the world on their ability to create and maintain the competitiveness of enterprises. One component of the assessment was whether the legal and regulatory framework encouraged the competitiveness of enterprises. In this aspect, Singapore’s ranking has consistently been high over the last decade. In 2015, Singapore’s

legal framework was once again rated very positively, securing the second position after Hong Kong which took first place (Table 1).

Table 1: IMD – Ranking of Singapore’s Legal andRegulatory Framework

The legal and regulatory framework encourages the competitiveness of enterprises

YEAR

2015

RANKING OF SINGAPORE

2

information among criminal justice stakeholders. Ms Shirley Wong, Chairman of the SiTF and a judge for the SiTF Awards, said one of the notable aspects of the ICMS was how 34 agencies worked together to develop an integrated end-to-end system that transformed Singapore’s judiciary system.

WATER EFFICIENTBUILDING CERTIFICATION (SILVER) AWARD

The State Courts were presented the Water Efficient Building Certification (Silver) Award by the Public Utilities Board (PUB) on 1 October 2015. The award recognises the State Courts for being exemplary performers in water efficiency, through their efforts such as installing water-efficient fittings, adopting water-efficient

flow rates and flush volumes, and implementing the PUB’s water efficiency management system.

RATING (Score of 0=worst,

10=best)

7.86


60 61

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015


Another assessment component was whether justice had been fairly administered. In this aspect, Singapore was ranked 13th (Table 2). The only other Asian economies ranked in the top 20 were Hong Kong and Japan, which took the fifth and 16th places respectively.

WORLD ECONOMICFORUM (WEF)Global Competitiveness Report 2015-2016

The WEF 2015-2016 report ranked 140 countries to present a picture of the competitiveness of their economies. The report evaluated 12 economic pillars, one of which was concerned with the economies’ institutional framework. Strong institutions are a critical component to an economy, as they protect the rights of the people, and provide stability and confidence for individuals and businesses to engage in economic activities.

Under the institutional pillar, there were five sub-indicators relating to the judiciary:

• Efficiency of Legal Framework in Settling Disputes• Efficiency of Legal Framework in Challenging Regulations• Judicial Independence• Property Rights• Intellectual Property Rights

In 2015, Singapore again attained favourable scores and rankings. It stands among the top five global economies, particularly for the efficiency of its legal frameworks in settling disputes, and for protecting property and intellectual property rights. Singapore maintained the first position, which it has held since 2009, for having an efficient legal framework for dispute resolution.

Table 2: IMD – Ranking of Singapore’s Administration of Justice

Justice is fairly administered

YEAR

2015

RANKING OF SINGAPORE

13

RATING (Score of 0=worst,

10=best)

8.07

Table 3: WEF – Ranking of Singapore’s Judiciary

Institution Pillar - Rankingof Singapore(Score of 1 = worst, 7 = best)

2015YEAR

Efficiency of Legal Framework – (i) Settling Disputes(ii) Challenging Regulations

Judicial Independence

PropertyRights

Intellectual Property Rights

2015

Rank

Score

(i) 1(ii) 10

(i) 6.2(ii) 5.2

Rank 23

Score 5.5

Rank 4

Score 6.3

Rank 4

Score 6.2

WORLD BANK GROUPWorldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) Report 2015

The WGI project surveyed 215 economies annually from 1996 to 2014, for their performance across six indicators of governance, including the Rule of Law indicator.

In the 2015 report, Singapore scored well under the Rule of Law indicator.

The Rule of Law indicator measures public confidence level and the degree of abidance to the rules of society. This indicator takes particular notice of the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, the police, and the Courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence.

Singapore has been well-placed in the top 10 per cent over the past 10 years under the Rule of Law indicator (Table 4).

FRASER INSTITUTEEconomic Freedom of the World Report 2015

The Economic Freedom of the World Report measures the degree to which the policies and institutions of the countries surveyed are supportive of economic freedom. The 2015 report ranked 157 countries and territories on their degree of economic freedom in five broad areas, one of which was “legal structure and security of property rights”. The variables measured under this area include:

• Judicial Independence• Impartial Courts• Protection of Property Rights• Military Interference in Rule of Law and Politics • Integrity of the Legal System • Legal Enforcement of Contracts • Regulatory Costs of the Sale of Real Property • Reliability of Police • Business Cost of Crime

Singapore has maintained its position in the top 20 per cent band for this indicator since 2000.

In the latest report, Singapore was ranked first among the Asian countries assessed and sixth out of the 157 countries and territories ranked, surpassing Hong Kong and Japan, which held the 14th and 20th places respectively.Table 4: World Bank Group –

Worldwide Governance Indicators

Rule of Law

YEAR RANKING OF SINGAPORE

10

17

17

17

18

16

15

10

11

11

SCORE(Max.2.5 Points)

1.76

1.63

1.64

1.64

1.60

1.68

1.73

1.77

1.74

1.89

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014


62 63

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

HERITAGE FOUNDATION AND WALL STREET JOURNALIndex of Economic FreedomReport 2015

The Index of Economic Freedom measured 186 countries across ten indices of economic freedom. High scores (on a 0-to-100 scale, with 100 being the highest score) represent high levels of freedom i.e. low levels of government interference in the economy. In 2015, Singapore was ranked the second freest economy, trailing Hong Kong by only 0.2 points.

Singapore also scored 90 points in the “property rights” index, a score that has been maintained since 1995. The strong protection of property rights in Singapore has provided the foundation for the count ry ’s sus ta ined economic freedom. The report also commented that Singapore has one of Asia’s best intellectual property regimes and that the commercial Courts function well.

THE WORLD JUSTICE PROJECTRule of Law Index 2015

The Rule of Law index developed by The World Justice Project measures how the rule of law is experienced by the general public around the world. In the 2015 report, 102 countries were assessed across nine factors:

• Constraints on Government Power • Absence of Corruption • Open Government• Fundamental Rights• Order and Security• Regulatory Enforcement• Civil Justice• Criminal Justice• Informal Justice (not included in the aggregated scores and ranking)

Singapore was ninth in the global ranking and maintained its lead in the Rule of Law in Asia, ahead of Korea (11th), Japan (13th) and Hong Kong (17th).

Singapore performed strongly in all the eight factors assessed, coming in first for “Regulatory Enforcement” and claiming third position for “Absence of Corruption”, “Civil Justice” and “Criminal Justice”. In this regard, Singapore’s justice system was widely recognised as being one of the best. Its criminal justice system was one of the most timely and effective, while its civil system was top for having a “Civil justice [that] is not subject to unreasonable delays”. There were also high levels of confidence that the delivery of justice in Singapore was free of discrimination.

VISITS BY DISTINGUISHED GUESTS IN 2015


Highlights of the 2015 Indexof Economic Freedom:Five “Free” Economies

Hong KongSingapore

NewZealand

Australia Switzerland

1 2 3 4 5

On 12 October 2015, President Tony Tan Keng Yam visited the State Courts and Family Justice Courts for the first time. President Tan was briefed by Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon, Presiding Judge of the State Courts, on the recent initiatives the State Courts had

implemented to enhance the delivery of justice, while Judicial Commissioner Valerie Thean, Presiding Judge of the Family Justice Courts, shared about the Family Justice Courts’ first year of establishment and the challenges for the future.

Photo courtesy of Supreme Court


THE PEOPLE OF STATE COURTS

64

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

DATE DETAILS

3 Mar Judge Abdul Qader Habib, Supreme Court of Afghanistan, and delegation from the Afghanistan Case Management Monitoring Board

30 Mar Magistrate Simon Young, Queensland Magistrates Court, Australia

8 Apr Chief Judge Edward Simarmata, Baubau District Court, Indonesia

12 Aug The Honourable Justice Phattarasak Vannasaeng, Secretary-General of the Office of the Judiciary, and delegation from the National Legislative Assembly of Thailand

20 Aug Mr Sonam Tashi, Deputy Chief Attorney, and delegation from the Office of the Attorney General, Bhutan

9 Sep Counsel Husain Hamza Al Dwaila, Director of Government Case Management, and delegation from the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department, United Arab Emirates

22 Sep The Right Honourable Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

26 Oct Mr Wang Lansheng, Deputy Director General, IT Center of the Supreme People’s Court, and delegation from the Supreme People’s Court, People’s Republic of China

28 Oct His Excellency Dr Bassam Al-Talhouni, Minister of Justice of Jordan, and Judges from the Amman Court of First Instance, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

24 Nov Judge Kwon Chang-hwan and delegation from the Supreme Court of Korea

14 Dec Judge Shin Matsumoto and delegation from the Supreme Court of Japan


PRESIDING JUDGE AND HEADS OF DIVISION LEADERSHIP TEAM

(Left to Right) First row: Deputy Presiding Judge and Registrar of the State Courts Jennifer Marie,

Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon, Presiding Judge of the State Courts Second row: Principal District Judge (Civil Justice Division) Tan Puay Boon,

Senior Director (Strategic Planning and Technology Division) Victor Yeo,Principal District Judge (Criminal Justice Division) Ong Hian Sun,

Principal Director (Community Justice and Tribunals Division) Bala Reddy, Principal Director (State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution) James Leong

(Left to Right)First row: Senior Director Victor Yeo, Principal District Judge Tan Puay Boon,

Deputy Presiding Judge Jennifer Marie, Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon, Principal Director Bala Reddy, Principal District Judge Ong Hian Sun,

Principal Director James Leong Second row: Yong Khai Ling, Lim Lay Kim, Dalbir Kaur, Lim May Leng,Anne Durray, Papinder Kaur, District Judge Wong Peck, Lim Hwei Chen

Third row: District Judge Siva Shanmugam, Phoo Meng Teck, Chan Wai Yin,Teh Ah Seok, Geoffrey Lim, District Judge Lim Wee Ming

66

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

67

The People of State Courts


DIVISIONALPLANNINGUNITS ANDDIVISIONAL

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT,

LIBRARY &TRAINING

REPRESENTATIVES

68

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

69

STATE COURTS COMMITTEES 2015

ECOCOMMITTEE

CORPORATE SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY COMMITTEE

INTERNSHIP COMMITTEE

STAFFWELFARE

COMMITTEE

WORKPLACESAFETY AND

HEALTHCOMMITTEE

STAFF BENEFITS COMMITTEE



The main highlight of D3 was the Nature Discovery Trail where staff from different divisions worked together in groups to complete their missions while exploring the gardens.

Staff also got to learn new skills together during the terrarium, soap-making and coffee-painting workshops as well as Zumba session, while they enjoyed getting to know their colleagues better.

To welcome the staff to the event, members of the various State Courts’ committees performed an energetic opening dance number. Presiding Judge See then launched a colourful light ball to officially kick off the event.

PUBLIC SERVICE MONTH ACTIVITIESIn celebration of SG50, the annual Public Service Week was extended into a month-long celebration in October 2015. In conjunction with this, the State Courts held their Service Excellence Week from 5 to 9 October 2015, during which activities were organised to recognise staff who had demonstrated great service, celebrate the State Courts’ achievements in enhancing service delivery and reinforce the organisation’s commitment towards serving society with excellent court services.

COHESION DAY 2015Cohesion Day 2015 was held on 8 December 2015 at the Gardens by the Bay.The event was entitled “Discovery Day @ the Dome” (D3), and it gave staff the

opportunity to get to know their colleagues better.

70

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

71

The “Say Thanks” activity gave staff the opportunity to express their appreciation for their colleagues who had provided great service. They purchased and penned their compliments on cards specially handcrafted by clients of the MINDS Social Enterprise, an organisation that creates employment opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities. A total of 307 cards were sold with the sales proceeds going to the MINDS Social Enterprise and the State Courts Corporate Social Responsibility Fund.

State Courts’ recipients of the PS21 Star Service Award 2015 were recognised during the Service Excellence Observance Ceremony

on 8 October 2015. The award recipients were Mr Aston Chow (Executive, Financial Policy and Management Directorate, Corporate Services Division), Mr Bakhit Bin Mohd Ridwan (Bailiff, Bailiffs’ Section, Civil Justice Division), Mr James Chuah (Assistant Registrar, Small Claims Tribunals, Community Justice and Tribunals Division) and Ms Shanti d/o Ramakrishnan (Executive, Operations Management, Criminal Justice Division).

Several staff members also visited the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore and Ministry of Manpower’s Contact Centre to learn about these agencies’ best practices in service delivery and their innovative service initiatives.



72

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

73

STAFF EVENT HIGHLIGHTS

2 MARCH 2015State Courts Cup – Indoor Games

Tournament

21 MAY 2015State Courts Cup – Cross Country Run

22 JUNE 2015Learning Day

14 AUGUST 2015National Day

Carnival

9 – 10 APRIL 2015Donation Drive

for NursingHome

21 APRIL 2015Court

Administrators Appreciation

Day



74

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

75

9 DECEMBER 2015“Judiciary Cares”

(Joint Corporate Social Responsibility Day with

Supreme Court and Family Justice Courts)

8 DECEMBER 2015Cohesion Day

5 SEPTEMBER 2015State Courts Cup – Bubble Soccer

Tournament

14 NOVEMBER 2015State Courts Cup –

BowlingTournament


7 DECEMBER 2015Learning Festival


76

Stat

e C

ourt

s, S

inga

pore

Ann

ual

Rep

ort

2015

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Editorial Committee

Cheryl Ho

Henedick Chng

Michelle Chiang

Lim Lay Kim

Advisors

District Judge Samuel Chua

District Judge Carrie Chan

District Judge Sandra Looi

District Judge Michelle Yap

In Consultation with

Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon,Presiding Judge of the State Courts

Deputy Presiding Judge Jennifer Marie

Heads of Divisions

With Warmest Appreciation to

All who have contributed to this publication

NATIONAL DAY AWARDS

Public Administration Medal (Silver) District Judge P Siva Shanmugam

Public Administration Medal (Bronze) Ms Mikaela Oh Yuen Ling

Commendation Medal• Mr Phang Tsang Wing• Mr Muhamad Nezam

Bin Zakaria• Mr Balasubramaniam s/o

Tharmalinggam

Public Service Medal• District Judge Shaiffudin

Bin Saruwan

• Mrs Mary Doris Gnanaraj• Mr Raymond Loh Kee Yong• Ms Asmahan Bte Amir• Ms Noor Israni Ibrahim• Ms Shariza Bte Mohamed Shariff• Ms Low Peck Lan

Long Service Medal• District Judge Christopher

Goh Eng Chiang• Ms Chan Wai Yin• Mr Rick Chia Yew Tuck• Mr Peter Ong Khian Guan• Mr Muhamad Nezam Bin Zakaria• Mr Tan Cheng Siong• Mr Johari Bin Satiman

NATIONAL DAY ANDSTATE COURTS AWARDS

STATE COURTS AWARDS

Manager of the Year• Mr Dean Yeo Sin Haw• Ms Samsiah Bte M Mizah• Ms Lau Pei Pei Alycia

Court Administrator of the Year• Ms Winnie Thong Siew Wah• Ms Tan Jia Hui• Ms Noor Israni Ibrahim

Long Service Award• Ms Rokiah Bte Harun• Mr Lim Geok Kwee Albert• Ms Anees Parvin• Ms Chan Wai Yin• Ms Siti Aishah Bte Ali• Ms Wahidah Banu Abu Bakar• Ms Sandhya Gopinathan


Efficiency Medal

State Courts, Singapore1 Havelock SquareSingapore 059724 1800 587 8423 www.statecourts.gov.sg StateCourtsSingapore
