SUBORDINATE COURTS SINgApORE · Foreword by THe Honourable THe CHieF JusTiCe 02 Message by THe...

SUBORDINATE

C O U R T S

S I N g A p O R E

s e r v i n g

s o c i e t y

A n n u A l

r e p o r t

2 0 0 9

Foreword by THe Honourable THe CHieF JusTiCe 02

Message by THe CHieF disTriCT Judge 04

ConsTiTuTion and JurisdiCTion 09

overview oF THe subordinaTe CourTs 12

Key MilesTones oF 2009 25

inTernaTional ProFile oF THe subordinaTe CourTs 40

serving soCieTy 49

signiFiCanT Cases in 2009 53

Caseload and sTaTisTiCs 64

noTes oF aPPreCiaTion 67

Judges & sTaFF oF THe subordinaTe CourTs 70

HigHligHTs oF sTaFF evenTs 80

/ ConTenTs

/ Subordinate Courts/ 02

/ Foreword by THe Honourable THe CHieF JusTiCe

This Annual Report for 2009 closes the end of a decade. The last decade has been eventful to say the least, starting with the heightened fears of terrorism arising after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to fears of another great depression towards the end of the decade. Thankfully, the worst of the economic crisis appears to be behind us and we look forward to the new decade with cautious optimism for the future, yet ever vigilant of the new challenges ahead.

It is fitting that the Subordinate Courts have a new Justice Statement for a new decade. The new mission of the Subordinate Courts is:

/ To provide an effective and accessible system of justice, inspiring public trust and confidence. /

Our new mission statement builds on our reputation for judicial efficiency and reminds us that an accessible system of justice is equally important to the public that we serve. A justice system that is accessible to all including the poorest members of society enhances the social contract that forms the bedrock of our society.

In line with our mission statement, our main initiative in Workplan 2010 is the launch of a HELP Centre for self-represented litigants. The acronym HELP stands for Helping to Empower Litigants-in-Person. The HELP Centre provides resources and assistance for litigants-in-person to enable them to obtain basic information on court processes, procedures and practices and to understand the available options. The service is available at no cost to all self-represented parties and will go a long way in empowering litigants-in-person to make more informed decisions about their cases. An informed litigant is likely to appreciate the Court’s processes better and is able to participate effectively in those processes. His prospects in his case are enhanced. Even if the outcome is not in his favour, he is likely to accept that justice has been done.

Only our Judges and Court Administrators can breathe life and give meaning to our mission statement by living out this mission daily. They must carry out their duties and responsibilities to our Court users and to the people of Singapore, to inspire public trust and confidence that our justice system is effective and accessible.

Our Courts have an excellent international reputation. In the World Bank’s Doing Business Report 2010, Singapore was ranked the 3rd most efficient judicial system in Asia in enforcing contracts. In a

/ Annual Report 2009 / 03

2009 World Bank Institute report on the rule of law (covering the period from 1996 to 2008), Singapore was the leader amongst Asian countries. In the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report for 2009-2010, Singapore had the most efficient legal framework in settling disputes amongst the 133 countries which were ranked.

The high international standing enjoyed by our Judiciary reflects our past successes and I am confident that our Judges and Court Administrators will continue to deliver and build on this message in future.

CHAN SEK KEONGCHIEF JUSTICERepublic of Singapore

/ Subordinate Courts

/ Message by THe CHieF disTriCT Judge

/ 04

The Subordinate Courts deal with more than 95% of the cases in Singapore. Hence, we must provide the best services to our people. We must ensure that our services are accessible to the people, especially the litigants-in-person. Thus, we have chosen the theme of this year’s Annual Report as “Serving Society”.

BROAD OvERvIEwLast year was an exciting year for the Subordinate Courts. Many strategic changes were introduced to position the Subordinate Courts for the challenges of the new decade. We embarked on a transformation journey in pursuit of court excellence. The Subordinate Courts underwent a strategic re-organisation to establish four separate engines of growth to better serve court users. We also unveiled a new Justice Statement with

our mission crafted out of numerous dialogue sessions with the Leadership Team and staff. The ship “Subordinate Courts” and her crew are ready, committed and driven to sail this new decade.

/ We are determined to provide the best services to the people of Singapore with an effective and accessible system of justice that inspires public trust and confidence. /

QUAlITy JUSTICEThe Subordinate Courts exist to serve the people of Singapore by delivering quality justice. People bring their problems and disputes to the Courts. They share one thing in common - they want quality justice. They want the best possible resolution to their disputes. It is our duty to provide quality judgments and settlements in each and every case before us.

What makes a quality judgment and a mediated outcome? We provide litigants and their lawyers a fair and impartial hearing. We listen attentively and understand their side of the story with an open mind. Thereafter, we deliver a just outcome that is in accordance with the law. We also communicate the reasons for the decision to help the parties, especially the losing party, understand how the Court arrived at the judgment which is not capricious but according to law.

TRANSfORmATION Of SERvICE ExCEllENCEAn important aspect of delivering quality justice is providing excellent service at every level. Our shared vision is to be a “leading subordinate court, serving society”. To fulfill this, we have to transform our service standards from ordinary to extraordinary. This requires a paradigm shift in the Courts’ culture.


The traditional view of a court-centric culture has enabled us to have an effective case management that cleared our backlog of cases in the past. That era has now passed and the court-centric culture may no longer be relevant and necessary.

It is imperative to change our well entrenched court-centric culture to a service-centric one. Our goal is to provide the highest quality of service while maintaining the efficient functioning of the Courts. To serve our court users better, we have undertaken various initiatives. These include improving our service standards, physical infrastructure and processes with the court users’ needs in mind.

ENhANCED SERvICE STANDARDS

/ As our society develops, court users will rightly expect a higher standard of service and effectiveness from the Judiciary. To meet these challenges, we cannot rely on yesterday’s solutions or past performances. /

The provision of excellent court services is the responsibility of every Judicial Officer and staff member. Thus, we established a dedicated Service Relations Unit to constantly enhance our service standards. This unit now oversees the information counter; solicits feedback from court users; and handles complaints and correspondence from the public promptly and courteously. It also sets service standards to guide our counter staff members in the three operational Divisions, namely Criminal, Civil and Family and Juvenile Justice Divisions, in their interaction with court users. We have enhanced service training for our court officers. Regular formal and informal dialogues with our stakeholders provide us with feedback to fine-tune our service to meet their needs.

SUBORDINATE COURTS’ pUBlICATIONAs part of improving our services to our stakeholders, we intend to publish our own newsletter on relevant issues and events in the Subordinate Courts. The newsletter is another medium to educate and stay connected with our stakeholders for better accountability of our work.

ImpROvEmENT TO phySICAl INfRASTRUCTURE We have also made many improvements to our physical facilities for court users. These include building a sheltered walkway between our courthouses in the Havelock Complex and the Family and Juvenile Courts and a walkway to the People’s Park Centre. We have re-designed the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre to provide a convenient waiting area for lawyers to negotiate with one another to settle their matters. We have improved the directional signs to help court users navigate our courthouses more easily. We have installed TVs and water dispensers in all our registries as a service to our court users. Wireless Internet access is now available in the Courts and registries for litigants and lawyers who may need to access the Internet for research or make efficient use of their time. We will continue to upgrade our physical facilities to make the Subordinate Courts a conducive and effective place to conduct business.


/ MessAge by tHe cHief District JuDge

lEvERAgE ON TEChNOlOgyOne of our tenets in the new shared vision is to employ the innovative use of technology. We have indeed leveraged on advanced technology in the course of our work. For example we are replacing the Night Court case management system for regulatory and departmental cases i.e. the Tickets and Summons System (TICKS) with a new computerised system known as the Regulatory Offences Case Management System (ROMS). ROMS will make the case flow more efficient.

REDUCTION IN BUREAUCRACy Of OUR wORk pROCESSES: SAvINg TImE AND EffORT fOR COURT USERS The world-renowned business thinker and strategist, Gary Hamel, has said that “[t]he fundamental challenge companies face is reinventing themselves and their industries not just in times of crisis - but continually”. Hence we must focus close attention not only on results but on processes. To sustain excellent performance, it is imperative that our systems and practices are not bureaucratic but simple and user friendly. To achieve these, we must have a culture that is open to suggestions and criticism.

The Subordinate Courts have undertaken many projects to improve our work processes so that business at the Courts can be conducted in a more efficient and convenient manner. For example, we removed the need for lawyers to attend Court to record consent judgments and settlements. These can now be done by way of letters, e-mail or the Electronic Filing System.

A second example is to expeditiously process applications for adjournment that have merits, at our Night Courts. This obviates the need for such applicants to wait for more than an hour to mention their case before the presiding Judge grants such adjournments.

ADOpTINg A lEAN mANAgEmENTCharles Handy, one of the foremost business philosophers in the United Kingdom, said, “Don’t let the past stand in the way of your future. Because the future is going to be different. And we have to unlearn the way we dealt with the past in order to deal with the future.” Thus, we shall not be entrenched in the way we perform our routine work. Instead, we shall think out of the box and keep a constant lookout for ways to improve. Sometimes, the hardest thing to see is the most obvious one. We can increase our productivity with our existing resources through innovation and lean management.

To adopt a lean management, we have trained all Judicial Officers and Court Administrators on the Kaizen methodology, which is translated from Japanese as “change for the better”. It refers to a philosophy that focuses on continuous improvement of work processes through eliminating waste. This challenges our officers to continually think of how to remove unnecessary red tape to make it more convenient and faster for court users to complete their business with us. We have instituted a practice for each Justice Division to submit a minimum number of Kaizen initiatives monthly. This imposes discipline on our officers to continually strive towards process improvements which translate to better service for court users. We are mindful not to be overzealous in our implementation and will not sacrifice quality for expediency.

ThE SUBORDINATE COURTS STRIvE ON ChANgEI would like to quote John Kotter, one of the renowned change management gurus from the Harvard Business School and author of “Leading Change” and “Our Iceberg is Melting”, in his latest book “A Sense of Urgency”:


“….complacency is much more common than we might think and very often invisible to the people involved. Success easily produces complacency. It does not even have to be recent success. An organization’s many years of prosperity could have ended a decade ago and yet the complacency created by that prosperity can live on, often because the people involved don’t see it. A smart, sophisticated manager can be oblivious to the fact that two levels below him in the hierarchy is an organization so complacent that his dreams of the future will never be realized. That same manager can sometimes be just as oblivious to the fact that he too is being dangerously complacent.”

/ We shall not rest on our laurels or let the momentum for innovation fizzle out. Instead, we would build on our current success to scale greater heights in learning and thinking. We shall continue to learn and grow or risk stagnation. /

TRAININg AND CONTINUAl lEARNINgAs a learning organisation, the Subordinate Courts continue to emphasise on training and development of her people. This includes proliferating group facilitation sessions at all levels and across work units to brainstorm ideas to solve challenges that we meet in the course of our work. We have engaged consultants to develop and improve leadership skills amongst the members of the leadership team and provide recommendations on how to capitalise on the strengths of individual members to produce a stronger team. We equip our Judicial Officers and Court Administrators with skills to perform at a higher level through training. We have institutionalised forums for Judges to tap on the collective wisdom of their colleagues when they encounter novel or challenging areas of law. We have established a LEARN Centre, i.e. Learn, Empower, Activate, Reflect, No-holds barred, to implement the values of a learning organisation.

pEOplE-CENTRIC mANAgEmENT fOR gREATER pRODUCTIvITy AND BETTER SERvICESPeople-centric management is critical in our pursuit of our mission of delivering quality justice. An organisation whose staff has high morale will be motivated to yield higher productivity and will render better services to the court users. Thus, we have taken steps to improve our human resource policies, physical infrastructure and to modernise the use of technology and knowledge management. To improve team synergy and cohesion we have actively promoted team bonding activities at every level. This includes holding organisation-wide cohesion events; sports tournaments; informal lunches across work units; and organising and participating in a fund-raising event for our adopted charity, the Children’s Cancer Foundation.

RE-ORgANISATION fOR mORE SyNERgy AND gREATER gROwTh The Subordinate Courts have over the years grown into a large organisation with close to 500 people. The organisational structure has remained largely unchanged. Thus, it may not adequately meet the challenges of the new decade. We have to be nimble and responsive to serve the wide spectrum of court users so as to meet their needs and expectations. Hence, we have reorganised the Subordinate Courts into four Divisions, namely Criminal; Civil; Family and Juvenile; and Corporate and Court Services. Each of these divisions is now headed by a Senior District Judge and has its own divisional leadership


/ MessAge by tHe cHief District JuDge

team. This provides greater ownership and autonomy to each division to develop and serve their own people better.

ESTABlIShmENT Of AN ORgANISATIONAl ExCEllENCE UNITIt is important that the Subordinate Courts’ organisational capabilities, e.g. our leadership, management, training, services, governance, etc., are comparable if not ahead of the top organisations in the private sector and other judiciaries. Hence, we established an Organisational Excellence Unit which monitors our performance against key benchmarks to ensure that we maintain a high standard of organisational excellence and continue to be a leading judiciary.

In this regard, we have done very well in our re-certification of the People Developer Standard last year. We have improved significantly from band 4 in 2006 to band 5, i.e. we scored between 650 to 699. Thus, we are very close to achieving the People Excellence Award (PEA) which requires a minimum score of 700. We shall be applying for the PEA as well as the Singapore Quality Award with Special Commendation next year.

CRImINAl mEDIATION In our recent Workplan Seminar, The Honourable the Chief Justice mentioned that about 41% of criminal cases fixed for trial in 2009 “cracked”. This resulted in wasting of trial dates which could be used for other cases waiting to be tried. To reduce the number of cracked trials we have introduced a voluntary criminal case resolution programme. Under this programme, a senior District Judge will function as a neutral mediator facilitating the negotiation between the prosecution and defence with a view to parties reaching an amicable agreement. That Judge will, of course, not be hearing the case if the mediation is unsuccessful. For a start, only represented accused persons would participate in the programme.

ESTABlIShmENT Of ThE mENTAl CApACITy COURTThe Honourable the Chief Justice also announced another major initiative, i.e. that there would be a Mental Capacity Court to deal with cases arising from the Mental Capacity Act which came into force on 1 March 2010. Judges and Court Administrators have been trained to handle such cases. The Court will also have the power to make decisions on behalf of a person who lacks mental capacity or appoint a deputy to make decisions on the person’s behalf, and require a donee or deputy to provide security for the discharge of his functions and to provide reports.

CONClUSIONLast year indeed had been a very exciting and fruitful year. The Subordinate Courts have seen numerous changes which have not gone unnoticed. I am glad that my colleagues have embraced these changes positively and are supportive of the new initiatives. Despite these changes, the staff morale is high.

TAN SIONG THYECHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

/ constitution AnD JurisDiction /


/ ConsTiTuTion and JurisdiCTion

CONSTITUTIONThe judicial power of Singapore is vested in the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts by virtue of Article 93 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.

The Subordinate Courts, as constituted by the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap. 321) (“the Act”), consist of District Courts, Magistrates’ Courts, the Juvenile Court, the Coroner’s Court and the Small Claims Tribunals. Some of the District Courts and Magistrates’ Courts are also designated as specialist courts – these include the Family Court, the Criminal Mentions Courts, the Community Court, the Traffic Court, the Bail Court and the Night Courts. The Primary Dispute Resolution Centre also forms part of the Subordinate Courts.

The District Judges and Magistrates of the Subordinate Courts are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Chief Justice pursuant to sections 9(1) and 10(1) of the Act respectively. They hold concurrent appointments as Deputy Registrars, Coroners and Referees of the Small Claims Tribunals.

The Chief District Judge has seniority over all District Judges, Magistrates and staff of the Subordinate Courts. The Chief District Judge leads the Subordinate Courts in the administration of justice.


JURISDICTIONCriminal CourtsThe Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68) sets out the Penal Code (Cap. 224) offences and offences under other Acts that may be tried by the District Courts and the Magistrates’ Courts. Generally, the District Courts may sentence a person to imprisonment for a term of not more than 7 years, a fine not exceeding $10,000, and up to 12 strokes of the cane. Generally, the Magistrates’ Courts may sentence a person to imprisonment for a term of not more than 2 years, a fine not exceeding $2,000, and up to 6 strokes of the cane. Certain statutes may confer upon the District Courts and Magistrates’ Courts enhanced sentencing powers. For example, the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap. 185) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap. 241) grant the District Courts enhanced sentencing powers.

Civil CourtsThe Civil Trial Courts comprise District Courts and Magistrates’ Courts. The District Courts handle civil claims not exceeding $250,000 in value, while the civil jurisdiction of a Magistrate’s Court is $60,000. Where the parties to an action agree by way of a memorandum, a District Court may also try claims exceeding $250,000 in value. In addition, the District Courts deal with probate matters where the value of the deceased’s estate does not exceed $3 million.

The family Court and Juvenile CourtThe Family Court deals with all types of family proceedings in Singapore. The jurisdiction of the Family Court covers divorce, nullity and judicial separation proceedings, as well as maintenance, division of matrimonial assets and custody matters under the Women’s Charter (Cap. 353) and the Guardianship of Infants Act (Cap. 122). The Family Court also hears applications for personal protection orders, and enforces maintenance orders, including orders made by the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents, the Syariah Court and certain foreign courts.

The Juvenile Court handles criminal offences committed by children (below 14 years old) and young persons (above 14 years old and below 16 years old), except where the offence is triable by the High Court or where the child or young person is jointly charged with another person who is above 16 years old. This Court also deals with children and young persons who are beyond parental control or who are in need of care and protection.

With effect from 1 March 2010, any proceedings under the Mental Capacity Act 2008 (Act 22 of 2008) commenced in the High Court on or after that date shall be transferred to and be heard and determined by the District Courts. A Mental Capacity Court has been created within the Family and Juvenile Court building to deal with applications under the new Act such as applications for the appointment of deputies to act on behalf of persons lacking mental capacity and applications involving lasting powers of attorney.

/ 12 / Subordinate Courts

/ section

/ overview of tHe suborDinAte courts /

/ 13/ Annual Report 2009

RE-ORgANISATION Of ThE SUBORDINATE COURTS’ CORpORATE STRUCTUREIn 2009, the Subordinate Courts’ organisational and reporting structure underwent an overhaul – its first in more than three decades.

The old organisational structure had the primary advantage of a centralised administration, with decisions coming from a single focal point to be disseminated throughout the whole organisation, and a common pool of District Judges, Magistrates, Court Administrators and resources.

/ The new organisational structure, however, seeks to empower all staff, provide clear lines of authority and accountability, and allow the most able to demonstrate their leadership skills. /

To achieve this, the four previous Justice Divisions were re-organised into three: the Criminal Justice Division, the Civil Justice Division and the Family and Juvenile Justice Division. Each Justice Division is not only a grouping of Courts, but a functional division with responsibility for all aspects of processes and systems within the respective practice areas. Within each division, decisions will be made on how a case is handled from the moment it is filed to the moment it is finally disposed of. The differences between criminal, civil and family justice processes can then be addressed by each division. Each division will also be able to engage its own group of stakeholders more effectively and frequently. The three Justice Divisions are supported by the Corporate and Court Services Division and the Strategic Planning and Training Division.

With the re-organisation, it is hoped the sense of ownership and autonomy engendered will steer the Subordinate Courts to greater heights in service to our nation in the administration of justice.

RE-DESIgNATION Of SENIOR DISTRICT JUDgE AND pRINCIpAl DISTRICT JUDgESWith effect from 17 February 2010, the designation of the apex post in the Subordinate Courts was changed from “Senior District Judge” to “Chief District Judge”. This change in title was effected via the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2010 (No. 4 of 2010). References to the former term in the Subordinate Courts Act and other legislation have been changed accordingly.

The re-designation does not involve changes to the scope of the role. The Honourable the Chief Justice decided on this change in title because the former term may not fully convey that this is the apex judicial position of the Subordinate Courts. The title of “Chief District Judge” is also used in the lower courts of other jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and Hong Kong.

The District Judges heading the Criminal, Civil and Family and Juvenile Justice Divisions, and the Corporate and Court Services Division used to be named “Principal District Judges”. Their designations have been changed to “Senior District Judges” to reflect the seniority of each head in their respective divisions.


Civil Justice Division

Family & Juvenile Justice Division

Criminal Justice Division

Corporate & Court Services Division

• Strategic Planning & Training Office• Centre for Research & Statistics • Information Technology Department• Research & Resource Centre• Organisational Excellence Unit

• Civil Trial Courts• Bailiffs Section• Primary Dispute

Resolution Centre• Small Claims

Tribunals• Civil Registry

• Family Trial Courts• Juvenile Court• Counselling &

Psychological Services• Family Resolutions

Chambers• Maintenance

Mediation Chambers• Family Registry

• Criminal Trial Courts• Specialist Courts - Bail Court - Centralised Pre-

Trial Conference Court

- Community Court - Coroner’s Court - Criminal Mentions

Courts - Neighbourhood

Court - Night Courts - Traffic Court• Crime Registry

• Court Services - Digital Recording - Interpreters - Records Management - Typing Pool• Corporate Services - Communications • Corporate

Communications • Service Relations - Finance - Human Resource

Management - Infrastructure

Development

Chief District Judge

Strategic Planning & Training Division

SUBORDINATE COURTS’ ORgANISATION ChART

/ overview oF THe subordinaTe CourTs


CRImINAl JUSTICE DIvISION

/ Safeguarding public interest by ensuring that the public is protected against crime. /

The Criminal Justice Division is the largest division in the Subordinate Courts. It is made up of the Criminal Mentions Courts, Criminal Trial Courts, Specialist Criminal Courts and the Centralised Pre-Trial Conference Court. These Courts collectively handle more than 99% of all criminal cases in Singapore and seek to ensure that those accused of crime are dealt with fairly, justly and without undue delay. These Courts are also committed to safeguarding the public interest by ensuring that the public is protected against crime.

In line with the overall strategic re-organisation of the Subordinate Courts, the Criminal Justice Division was re-established into seven groups, each headed by a Group Manager with the division’s Senior District Judge having overall supervision. Such a re-organisation creates greater divisional synergy and strengthens the Criminal Justice Division so as to meet the growing demands and challenges of criminal cases.

Group 1 comprises the Centralised Pre-Trial Conference Court. All criminal cases are centrally managed by this Court. It performs essential day-to-day case management functions and ensures that judicial resources are properly and efficiently allocated.

Group 2 consists of Criminal Trial Courts that hear commercial crimes, corruption, immigration, special drugs and intellectual property cases.

Group 3 consists of the Community Court and the Neighbourhood Court. The Community Court hears community and public order matters, and the Neighbourhood Court hears relational disputes initiated by private prosecution.


Group 4 consists of Criminal Trial Courts that hear cases involving:/ property offences/ housebreaking/ offences under the Common Gaming Houses Act and gambling offences/ offences under the Employment Act and Employment of Foreign Manpower Act

Group 5 consists of Criminal Trial Courts that hear cases involving crimes against persons.

Group 6 consists of the Criminal Mentions Courts, as well as Specialist Courts such as the Bail Court, Traffic Court, Night Courts and Coroner’s Court.

Group 7 comprises the Crime Registry which forms the administrative backbone of the Criminal Justice Division. Its judicial functions include dealing with Magistrate’s Complaints and other Chamber Magistrate matters as well as presiding over mediation of criminal matters arising from Magistrate’s Complaints.

The work undertaken by the Criminal Justice Division is wide-ranging. Various committees have been set up within the division, which focus on specific aspects of the division’s work.

Criminal practice and policy groupThe Criminal Practice and Policy Group is tasked with advising and guiding the division on matters relating to criminal law, practice, evidence, and procedure. It also advises on policy matters that may impact the division, such as the proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code.

Sentencing Steering CommitteeSentencing is an important aspect of the judicial work undertaken by the Criminal Justice Division. The Sentencing Steering Committee is tasked with enhancing this aspect of judicial business and overseeing all matters pertaining to sentencing. Together with its sub-committees, it regularly revises and updates existing sentencing benchmarks, which assist District Judges and Magistrates in arriving at sentences tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

The Committee also administers the Sentencing Advisory Forum, which provides a consultative platform so that the sentences meted out by District Judges and Magistrates are consistent and remain relevant. The Committee is also responsible for referrals to the Sentencing and Bail Review Panel chaired by The Honourable the Chief Justice.

Night Courts CommitteeThe Night Courts are an important means of access to justice for the working public, who would otherwise have to attend Court during office hours to deal with their regulatory and departmental matters. The Night Courts Committee ensures the smooth running and operation of the Night Courts. The Committee meets regularly to discuss issues that may arise out of proceedings in the Night Courts as well as to refine existing practices and processes.

/ overview of tHe suborDinAte courts


CIvIl JUSTICE DIvISION

/ The Civil Justice Division is the face of individualised justice for the layperson. /

The Civil Justice Division comprises the Civil Trial Courts, Civil Registry, Primary Dispute Resolution Centre, the Small Claims Tribunals and the Bailiffs Section. The civil justice process is seamlessly managed from the commencement of the case at the Civil Registry to final resolution in either the Civil Trial Courts or at the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre. The smooth and timely flow of civil cases results in lower costs for litigants. The Small Claims Tribunals are also an integral part of the civil justice system in providing a cost effective and accessible way for the public to resolve their disputes.

The Bailiffs SectionThe Bailiffs are a crucial part of the enforcement arm of the Subordinate Courts, performing an important role in rendering assistance to successful parties in civil proceedings to enforce what the Court has ordered. The Bailiffs ensure that court orders for the payment of monies are complied with. Upon the filing of the Writ of Seizure and Sale, the Bailiffs proceed to seize the judgment debtor’s goods and thereafter auction them and pay the net proceeds of the auction to the judgment creditors. Besides enforcing by way of Writ of Seizure and Sale, Bailiffs perform other modes of enforcement in respect of warrants issued in criminal cases. Given the nature of the work, the training of the Bailiffs has been enhanced to ensure that the Bailiffs properly understand their duties and powers under the law.

The primary Dispute Resolution CentreThe Primary Dispute Resolution Centre (PDRC) conducts mediation of civil disputes through Court Dispute Resolution conferences conducted by District Judges. Since the 1990s, the Subordinate Courts have been encouraging the use of mediation as a non-confrontational and less costly process of settling disputes. Mediation services have been provided by the Courts to save time and money and more importantly, to preserve relationships. A wide variety of civil cases – including motor accident cases, commercial disputes, employment disputes and defamation suits – have been successfully resolved through Court Dispute Resolution conferences.

The Civil Trial Courts Where a case is not settled at the PDRC, directions would be given for it to be adjudicated by the Civil Trial Courts. A case may proceed for trial in either a District Court or a Magistrate’s Court. In general, the District Courts handle civil claims not exceeding $250,000, while the civil jurisdiction of a Magistrate’s Court is for claims not exceeding $60,000.

The Small Claims Tribunals The Small Claims Tribunals commenced operations on 1 February 1985. It is now a key provider of affordable, efficient and effective civil justice to members of the public. The Tribunals were set up as a forum for the resolution of claims below $10,000 (or $20,000 with the consent of both parties to the dispute). Its current jurisdiction allows it to hear a variety of disputes, including contracts for sale of goods and services, certain property damage actions in tort, claims arising from residential tenancies of not


more than 2 years, and certain actions under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. Operating on a “mediation-first” ethos, the majority of cases are settled amicably before an Assistant Registrar skilled in mediation techniques to reach a win-win solution for litigants. Cases are fixed for adjudication before a Referee only if a settlement is not reached. Although litigants cannot engage lawyers at the Tribunals, the procedures for lodging claims and the conduct of hearings are simple enough to ensure easy access to justice for all.


The Civil RegistryThe Civil Registry of the Subordinate Courts performs various roles integral to the civil justice process in the Courts. District Judges and Deputy Registrars hear originating summonses and pre-trial applications, and give directions to ensure that cases that are not dealt with summarily are ready for trial. Taxation and assessment of damages hearings are also conducted by the Deputy Registrars. Apart from discharging important judicial functions, the Registry also provides administrative support to the Civil Justice Division.

fAmIly AND JUvENIlE JUSTICE DIvISION

/ Protecting family obligations and exercising restorative justice. /

family CourtThe Family Court deals with all family proceedings in Singapore, including divorce proceedings, maintenance, division of matrimonial assets and custody matters. Its philosophy is to protect family obligations so that family ties may be strengthened and preserved.

Juvenile CourtThe Juvenile Court deals with youth affairs in Singapore under three categories of cases – juvenile arrest cases for criminal offences, “beyond parental control” cases, and “care and protection” cases. The principles of restorative justice are applied to help the young offender take responsibility for his


misbehaviour and to reintegrate him into society as a useful and productive member. The Juvenile Court makes care and protection orders for children who are or are at risk of being wilfully assaulted, ill-treated, abandoned or exposed in a manner likely to cause unnecessary physical suffering, emotional injury or injury to health or development. Parents in all cases are required to take responsibility for their role as caregivers and may be required to attend counselling sessions and be referred to community agencies for welfare assistance and medical services.

The sentencing philosophy of the Juvenile Court is that the potential for change is present in every young person and the Court’s role is to give due consideration to helping him to do so. The Court therefore strives to achieve a balance between deterrence and public protection, and the juvenile’s reform and reintegration.

Counselling and psychological ServicesThe Counselling and Psychological Services (CAPS) unit plays an important role in the Family and Juvenile Justice Division. The multi-disciplinary team at CAPS includes psychologists, counsellors and social workers, amongst others, who provide strong support for many of the Family and Juvenile Courts processes. CAPS also provides a host of programmes to assist the Courts in making decisions, and to help families and individuals manage their emotions and resolve conflicts before, during and after the Court processes. In addition, the unit works closely with community agencies to provide programmes to confront issues such as family violence, substance abuse, divorce and children’s issues. CAPS is involved in various areas of research in the Criminal and Family and Juvenile Justice Divisions of the Subordinate Courts. The results of the research enable appropriate programmes to be designed or fine-tuned in order to achieve the Courts’ goals of preventive, transformative, and deterrent justice.

protection Order ServicesThe Protection Order Services (POS) unit within the Family Registry is a specialised intake centre for applications relating to family violence. At the POS unit, the safety of victims of family violence is the utmost concern. At the time of intake, the POS unit assesses the risk of further abuse, and works out a safety plan with applicants of personal protection orders.


family Resolutions ChambersThe Family Resolutions Chambers (FRC) is a dedicated centre to help families resolve their matrimonial disputes in a non-trial setting. It promotes and encourages the holistic and amicable resolution of family cases, seeking a more co-operative and problem-solving approach between parties, rather than the adversarial “win–lose” emphasis often seen in Court proceedings. This saves time and costs for the parties, prevents the escalation of acrimony or conflict and minimises the adverse impact on the children.

maintenance mediation ChambersThe Maintenance Mediation Chambers (MMC) is a specialised unit to deal with all maintenance complaints filed in the Family Court; breach of orders made by the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents; and breach of Syariah Court orders pertaining to the non-payment of “iddah” and “mutaah”. The objectives of the MMC are to assist parties to settle their maintenance disputes and to arrive at a mutually agreed and workable settlement and to reduce the number of enforcement complaints filed by introducing case reviews, monitoring show payments and simplifying work processes. The MMC also seeks to empower and educate the parties to take control of their financial and economic situations by referring them to related programmes and initiatives offered by Family Service Centres. MMC ensures that the parties are ready for the hearings of the complaints should they fail to settle, so that the matter can go on for adjudication expeditiously.

family RegistryThe Family Registry provides registry services to the Family and Juvenile Courts. These services include the processing of applications filed for various family-related cases.

CORpORATE AND COURT SERvICES DIvISION

/ Serving with care, commitment and distinction. /

Providing essential support to the Justice Divisions is the Corporate and Court Services Division. Staffed by a team of subject specialists, it is the administrative backbone of the Subordinate Courts.

Corporate ServicesCommunications SectionThe Communications Section comprises the Corporate Communications Unit as well as the Service Relations Unit.

The Corporate Communications Unit serves as a link for communication between the Subordinate Courts and external parties, particularly the media, local and overseas agencies, and the general public. The unit is responsible for enhancing public awareness, understanding and appreciation of the Subordinate Courts’ role in the judicial system. The Corporate Communications Unit also hosts numerous local and overseas delegations from educational institutions, government agencies and judiciaries who visit the Subordinate Courts to learn more about our court administration, processes and operations.



Following the announcement by The Honourable the Chief Justice at the Subordinate Courts Workplan 2009, the Service Relations Unit was formed on 1 September 2009. Its role is to build a culture of service excellence in the Subordinate Courts. To this end, the unit will identify the necessary training for service staff members, set standards concerning service and supervise service-related activities such as the Information Counter and telephone enquiries, the processing of letters of complaints and compliments from court users and the duties of the Quality Service Manager.

Finance SectionThe Finance Section ensures that the Subordinate Courts’ financial resources are optimised and is responsible for providing accurate finance services promptly and in compliance with set guidelines.

Human Resource Management SectionThe Human Resource Management Section aims to position the Subordinate Courts as an employer of choice through its recruitment, staff development, retention strategies and promotion of work-life integration. It is also committed to developing competent, motivated, engaged and high performing officers.

Infrastructure Development SectionThe Infrastructure Development Section’s responsibilities include planning, upgrading, developing, managing and maintaining the courthouses’ facilities, and overseeing court security. The Section also manages the procurement of all office equipment and supplies to ensure smooth court operations.

Court ServicesRecords Management SectionThe Records Management Section was established on 1 July 2009 to manage court records by effective safekeeping, retrieval and preservation. The preservation of court records is important to both litigants and the public generally and a sound approach in safekeeping, retrieval and preservation ensures that these records are readily available upon request.



Interpreters’ SectionThe primary scope of duties of the Interpreters’ Section entails provision of interpretation and translation services. Its work extends to hospital and prison visits for purposes of reading charges to accused persons. Interpreters also assist in mediation and related duties at the Family Court.

Besides interpreting in trials, a significant component of the Section’s work involves the Mentions and Pre-Trial Conferences. The interpreters also assist in the recording of complaints made by members of the public at the Crime and Family Registries, in bail processing and in the operations of the Night Courts. Some interpreters are currently involved in overseeing the activation of foreign interpreters to courts. On occasion, the services of our interpreters are also required at the Criminal Law Advisory Committee and Adult Probation Case Committee sessions.

Further, interpreters also serve as Commissioners for Oaths in administering declarations and affidavits for litigants-in-person.

STRATEgIC plANNINg AND TRAININg DIvISION

/ Charting the strategic thrust of the Subordinate Courts and preparing for the future. /

The Strategic Planning and Training Division (SPTD) aims to ensure that the Subordinate Courts are responsive to the challenges and opportunities arising out of changes in society, the economy and the nation.

It identifies driving forces and trends of the socio-political landscape and is involved in charting the strategic thrust of the Subordinate Courts so that the organisation will be able to anticipate, respond and adapt to these changes and challenges.

In addition, the division works to ensure that the Subordinate Courts have the flexibility and resources to deal with unexpected situations and contingencies.

The division also seeks to have greater strategic collaboration and partnership with its judicial and other relevant counterparts in other countries as we seek to have more active and institutionalised exchange of ideas on judicial reform, judicial standards and other areas of topical interest which affect judiciaries around the world.

The division seeks to institutionalise the Subordinate Courts’ current judicial education programme with a focus on building up the core competencies of our District Judges and Magistrates. Just as important, training of Court Administrators is focused along the strategic thrust of the Subordinate Courts with the development of a master training roadmap.


The division includes the Strategic Planning and Training Office, Centre for Research and Statistics, Information Technology Department, Research and Resource Centre and Organisational Excellence Unit.

Strategic planning and Training OfficeThe role of the Strategic Planning and Training Office is two-fold. First, in the area of strategic planning, the work of the office is critical to the division’s work in identifying short-term and long-term strategic challenges to the Subordinate Courts, and drawing up strategies to meet those challenges. Second, the office charts and oversees the training road map of all Judges and Court Administrators to ensure that the learning and development of the officers allows them to maximise their potential in the organisation.

It is essential that Judges keep abreast of legal, cultural and social developments. The office builds on the current judicial education programmes, with a focus on the core competencies of our District Judges and Magistrates. The training for senior management will focus on various subjects on leadership and managing a good-performing team. Court Administrators should have a basic understanding of the laws and legal principles that underlie the work of the Subordinate Courts.

Centre for Research and Statistics (CReST) CReST’s main role is to assist the senior management and Justice Divisions to track, monitor and assess the quantitative Key Performance Indicators of the organisation and the Justice Divisions through the timely provision of critical and reliable statistics. CReST also conducts community and internal users’ surveys to elicit essential feedback for the purposes of enhancing the services and standards of the various court processes, as well as the entire administration of justice. Towards this end, in 2009, CReST embarked on a series of surveys targeted at improving the Subordinate Courts’ services to litigants-in-person.

CReST conducts research studies that highlight some of the recent trends in the profile of cases and court users of the Subordinate Courts, allowing the Courts to respond through the refinement of the court processes and case management, and dynamic deployment and building up of resources and know-how. One such study conducted in 2009 was on the profile of the parties in family maintenance cases. CReST also undertakes environmental scans of the rankings of our legal and judicial system.

Information Technology DepartmentThe Information Technology Department (ITD) helps the Subordinate Courts to better serve society through the use of Information Communication and Technology (ICT). Using business process reviews, needs analysis and prototyping of solutions, the ITD systematically recommends changes to the existing use of technology. A large part of this department’s work involves ensuring high quality of ICT services. ITD manages application and infrastructure project development and maintenance, and handles procurement of projects as well as manages contracts and vendors of outsourced projects. ITD is also instrumental in managing the ICT Master Planning and Governance. Master Planning is normally done over a three-year period by getting inputs from the stakeholders to derive the ICT roadmap. Governance is carried out through the ICT Steering Committee which reviews and approves ICT policies and standards.



Research and Resource CentreThe Research and Resource Centre (RRC) has two core functions. The first is its traditional library function as the resource centre for the Subordinate Courts. It also extends the use of its facilities to the legal profession and pro se litigants who have cases before the Courts. The second is the provision of research and analytical support for various research-based programmes and initiatives. This includes environmental scanning of the international legal landscape and judicial developments, benchmarking in all areas of the administration of justice, developing research papers and comparative studies on various aspects of the administration of the Courts as well as the judicial and legal process. Organisational Excellence UnitIn 2009, the Organisational Excellence Unit (OEU) was set up as the central body to provide a more focussed and coordinated approach to developing and institutionalising initiatives to pursue higher benchmarks in the Subordinate Courts’ organisational excellence journey. The OEU facilitates the Subordinate Courts’ drive towards sustained organisational excellence through the implementation of programmes and the putting in place of international standards to develop and strengthen our management systems and processes.

/ Key Milestones of 2009 /


kEy ORgANISATIONAl mIlESTONESDevelopment of a New Justice StatementIn 2009, a Working Group was formed to review the Justice Statement of the Subordinate Courts. While the old Justice Statement contained many values and principles relevant to the work of the Subordinate Courts, being more than a decade old, it no longer adequately addressed the challenges that face the

Subordinate Courts in the coming years.

/ The Subordinate Courts are likely to face increased pressures on our ability to provide both fair and efficient justice. The new Justice Statement had to capture our desire to maintain a balance between both of these. /A new Justice Statement was developed in June 2009. After many rounds of discussion and consultation with all levels of the staff over half a year, the text was finalised and confirmed in October 2009. This was a necessary process as we wanted to ensure that all staff members felt a sense of ownership over and truly believe in what is stated in the new Justice Statement. Many participated and shared their frank views in the

numerous dialogue sessions that were held. This process enabled the final formulation to represent the collective aspirations of the whole of the Subordinate Courts.

The new Justice Statement was officially unveiled by The Honourable the Chief Justice at the Workplan Seminar on 26 February 2010.

Inaugural Corporate Retreat 2009The Subordinate Courts’ inaugural corporate retreat was held on 24 and 25 April 2009 at Chevrons Club. This was the very first time that all the District Judges and Magistrates and senior Court Administrators came together to brainstorm and chart the strategic directions of the Subordinate Courts. Two specific areas were discussed:

(a) To review the vision and mission statement of the Subordinate Courts;(b) To identify the strategic thrusts of the corporate planning cycle for the next work year.

Just as important, the Corporate Retreat sought to promote and enhance the espirit de corps among all participants.

/ Key MilesTones oF 2009


Inaugural Court volunteers’ Appreciation DinnerOver the last few years, the Subordinate Courts have partnered with various organisations, professionals and individuals in relevant fields, members of the Bar, university students and lay persons to introduce different volunteer programmes to ensure greater accessibility to justice and support for litigants in the

/ Source: The Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Reprinted with permission


three Justice Divisions. On 24 September 2009, the inaugural Court Volunteers’ Appreciation Dinner was held at the Goodwood Park Hotel as a gesture of appreciation from the Courts to our volunteers to thank them for their continued and dedicated service.

Guest-of-Honour The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong delivered a keynote address and presented awards to outstanding court volunteers in the student, advocate and solicitor and open category, namely, Ms Cheryl Seah Li Min, Mr Lee Chow Soon and Mrs Chia Swee Tin respectively. About 200 guests including court volunteers, representatives from partner organisations, programme coordinators and staff of the Subordinate Courts attended this event.

The Distinguished Defence partner AwardThe Total Defence Awards were introduced in 1986 to recognise the vital role that Employers and Civil Resource Owners play in the Total Defence of Singapore.

/ A recipient since 2006, the Subordinate Courts were honoured to once again receive The Distinguished Defence Partner Award in 2009. /

This award is presented to organisations that have consistently demonstrated outstanding support for national defence. Recipients of this award are regarded as avid supporters of national defence and are among the top 20 percent of award participants. Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye received the award from Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen at the awards ceremony held on 30 July 2009.

/ Key Milestones of 2009


people Developer Standard Re-CertificationThe Subordinate Courts were first awarded the People Developer Standard (PDS) in 1999 and successfully attained a recertification in 2006 and 2009. The PDS certification is a quality standard that gives recognition to organisations which invest in their people and have a comprehensive system for people development.

The Subordinate Courts’ overall employee education, training and development process was evaluated and continually improved in accordance with the PDS re-certification cycle.

CRImINAl JUSTICE DIvISION kEy mIlESTONESRe-organisation Of The Criminal Justice DivisionIn line with the overall strategic re-organisation of the Subordinate Courts, the division, which originally comprised five group management clusters, was re-configured into seven groups to provide greater synergy within the division. Three new groups were established, namely the Centralised Pre-Trial Conference (PTC) Court group, the Mentions and Specialist Courts group and the Crime Registry group. The Centralised PTC Court singularly manages all criminal cases as well as rosters courts to hear cases. Given the increasing importance of Mentions Courts as well as Specialist Courts such as the Coroner’s Court and the Traffic Court, it was thought that they could be managed more effectively as a group. The Crime Registry has traditionally been fused with the Civil Registry with District Judges and Magistrates dealing both with Chamber Magistrate and civil interlocutory matters. With the de-coupling of the Civil Registry, the Crime Registry group now deals exclusively with criminal matters including the hearing of Magistrate’s Complaints and other Chamber Magistrate matters, as well as presiding over criminal mediations.

Enhancing The pre-Trial Conference (pTC) processPreviously, each group manager presided over PTCs, which required five PTC courts to function on a daily basis. We re-examined this model to make the PTC process more efficient and effective.

/ After consulting our stakeholders, including the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Law Society of Singapore, we adopted a new centralised PTC model where all the PTCs were centralised in one court and managed by a single group manager. /

This alleviated the difficulties previously encountered by parties who had to attend PTCs in different courts for multiple matters. It also freed up judicial resources so that more cases could be heard.

Reducing Bail processing TimeAfter receiving feedback on our bail processing time, we embarked on a thorough review of the bail process with a view to shortening the time taken to process bail. In 2008, after streamlining our bail


process, we were able to release an accused person within the hour from the time his bailor is ready to bail him out with all the necessary documents. In 2009, the waiting time for bail processing was reduced further to 15 minutes. Extending police Bail Instead of putting all persons brought to court on fresh court bail, we have now re-adopted the practice of extending police bail for cases where the police bail does not exceed $10,000. This accords with the presumption of innocence and that an accused person should be released as soon as possible once bail has been granted. When his police bail is extended by the court, he may be released immediately without the need to find a bailor.

Streamlining Night Courts processesWe reconfigured the allocation of Night Court cases to even out the volume of cases for each evening session so that there will not be any unduly long sessions in any given week. To alleviate standing queues, defendants who arrive early are now seated in the public gallery instead of having to queue outside the courtrooms. A new system was also put in place to effectively deal with the majority of Night Court cases where defendants are seeking adjournments with no objections by the prosecuting agencies. These cases are now dealt with by the presiding Judge in chambers before the session starts without having to mention them in open court, thus allowing defendants to leave the court complex sooner after their matters have been dealt with.

CIvIl JUSTICE DIvISION kEy mIlESTONESSimplification of procedure and Case managementThere have been a number of initiatives in 2009 to reduce the number of procedural steps leading to the conclusion of a civil writ action and thereby reduce the cost of litigation. Three initiatives were introduced on 16 September 2009 by way of Registrar’s Circular No. 3 of 2009.

First, court attendance of counsel for consent withdrawals of certain interlocutory applications and Registrar’s Appeals has been dispensed with. This cuts down unnecessary court attendances as the order for withdrawal can now be made based on a paper “hearing” by the District Judges and Deputy Registrars hearing such matters.

Secondly, Judges in the Civil Trial Courts regularly hold confirmatory Pre-Trial Conferences (PTCs) to engage counsel with regard to the final preparations for trial so that the case can proceed with all due dispatch on the trial date.

/ At PTCs, counsel are now required to complete a “Civil Trial Checklist” which they can also use to guide them on all the preparatory steps just prior to trial. Where appropriate and possible, settlement of the cases prior to the hearing date is encouraged. /



Thirdly, a Specially Managed Civil List (SMCL) was introduced in 2006 for certain categories of cases to be placed in a separate list for the purpose of closer case management by a specially designated PTC Judge. In 2009, the list was expanded to include cases in which the claim exceeds $150,000 and cases which lawyers indicate should fall under the SMCL.

In 2009, the Civil Justice Division also examined the pre-trial preparation and conduct of high volume litigation, namely industrial accidents, NIMA (Non-Injury Motor Accidents) and PIMA (Personal Injury Motor Accidents). Our Judges held dialogues with practitioners to have a better understanding of how these cases are handled as well as to highlight various issues arising from what had been observed at trials and PTCs.

Improving probate practiceA study of probate practice was conducted and statistics from the last quarter of 2008 showed that about 25% of probate applications were rejected by the courts because of basic errors in form filling. To address this, The Honourable the Chief Justice in his Workplan Keynote Address on 27 February 2009, suggested that the Law Society examine probate practice and conduct continuing courses on probate law and practice for law firms. The Civil Registry worked together with the Law Society to hold a roundtable entitled: Probate Practice and Procedure: Quality Control in the Preparation and Filing of Probate Documents, on 24 July 2009 at the Subordinate Courts as part of the Roundtable Series on Practice and Procedure. The Subordinate Courts also commenced an on-going review of the probate process.

Encouraging the Use of mediationSince 1994, the Subordinate Courts have been emphasising the appropriate use of mediation to resolve disputes in a conciliatory manner, save costs and preserve relationships.

/ The Civil Justice Division, through the Primar y Dispute Resolution Centre, has been increasingly collaborating with key players in the mediation field so as to collectively expand the use of Court mediation and raise the quality of mediation within the Courts. /

One such initiative is the establishment of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Advisory Council in 2009 to act as strategic advisors to the Subordinate Courts in its development of the Courts’ ADR practice. The Council consists of a Panel of Experts, whose members are local experts in the field of ADR, and three focus groups comprising representatives of the key stakeholders of the Subordinate Courts’ Civil, Criminal and Family and Juvenile Justice Divisions. The Courts have been holding regular consultation sessions with the Council to discuss the Courts’ plans to expand the use of Court mediation and to enhance the quality of mediation.


Another significant initiative was the setting up of the Associate Mediator Programme. Under this joint collaboration between the Courts, the Law Society Pro Bono Services Office and the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC), selected lawyers are accredited by SMC. These lawyers then volunteer to mediate civil cases in the Courts as well as accumulate hours for the Law Society’s Pro Bono programme.

The Civil Justice Division has been holding dialogues to raise the awareness of mediation amongst legal practitioners and the general public. A roundtable discussion on Court Dispute Resolution for non-injury accident cases was jointly organised by the Courts and the Law Society in August 2009. It was well attended by members of the Bar and there was candid dialogue between the Bench and the Bar. A seminar concerning mediation advocacy was also held in November 2009 to raise legal practitioners’ awareness of Court mediation and the best practices when acting for their clients in mediation.

The Small Claims TribunalsThe Small Claims Tribunals are a key forum for the quick and inexpensive resolution of small claims. There were many initiatives introduced in the past year to enhance the Tribunals’ public service standards. The Courts collaborated with the National University of Singapore and Singapore Management University to run the “University Court Friends” programme for student-volunteers to assist the Tribunals’ users. Lawyers and other professionals have also been engaged to serve as volunteer mediators and referees. In addition, the facilities in the Tribunals’ waiting area have been improved to reduce waiting time and increase user comfort.



fAmIly AND JUvENIlE JUSTICE DIvISION kEy mIlESTONES

/ Effective administration of justice in the Family and Juvenile Justice Division requires more than expeditiousness and timeliness, fairness and impartiality. /

After the acrimony of divorce, parties with children still need to work together in co-parenting of some form.

Our processes are geared towards facilitating co-operation and minimising the acrimony between parties.

A high proportion of parties appear in the Family and Juvenile Courts in person. The division therefore faces a greater challenge in facilitating access to the Courts through its processes.

The division continued to make changes to better serve litigants and give effect to its operating philosophy.

Simplifying Divorce processesIn his Keynote Address delivered at the Subordinate Courts Workplan 2009, The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong observed that the formality of granting interim judgment in open Court for uncontested divorces had existed for many years. Given the brief nature of the uncontested hearing, requiring the attendance of parties in Court would seem rather wasteful in terms of time, resources and legal fees. Accordingly, The Honourable the Chief Justice announced that the desirability of doing away with this stage of the proceedings will be re-examined with a view to allowing the Family Court to grant the interim judgment for uncontested divorces without requiring the attendance of parties and counsel.

After feedback sessions with the Family Law Practice Committee, the Law Society of Singapore and the Legal Aid Bureau to obtain their views, a programme was launched where parties could obtain interim judgment without Court attendance. These are cases where the grounds of divorce are three years’ separation with consent, unreasonable behaviour, two years’ desertion or four years’ separation, where the defendant has filed a Memorandum of Appearance stating that he is not contesting the divorce or has signed his consent to the divorce and/or ancillary matters.

The benefits to parties are savings in time and legal costs, especially parties who reside or work overseas. This programme, which was implemented in November 2009, will be reviewed at a later stage to see if it should be extended. family Court’s Referral Support programmeUnderlying the average of 12,000 applications a year relating to maintenance, divorce, children and family violence matters dealt with by the Family and Juvenile Justice Division are a mesh of complex issues and serious family conflicts, such as emotional and mental trauma, psychological scarring, loss of esteem, loss of employment and financial support.


With the economic uncertainty in 2009, the Family and Juvenile Justice Division commenced a pilot programme in September 2009, called the Referral Support Programme. This was done in collaboration with Tanjong Pagar Family Service Centre, Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) and National Council of Social Services (NCSS).

This service is aimed at helping low-income families in adversity and who require social and financial assistance.

/ The aim is to channel such families to existing community resources to provide some measure of social support and financial assistance in the form of immediate therapeutic intervention to help them cope after divorce or with single parenthood and the provision of food vouchers and rations. /

During the pilot phase of the programme, a social service professional from Tanjong Pagar Family Service Centre will be on-site three days a week. This programme will be reviewed later to ascertain the client profile, the usefulness of the service and whether the service should be expanded.

Juvenile CourtIn May 2008, the new Children Care Court was set up to deal specifically with cases involving children and young persons in need of care and protection, as well as those involving children and young persons who are beyond parental control. Since its inception, additional support is given to the Court by the Counselling and Psychological Services (CAPS) unit. CAPS officers assist by providing case assessments and acting as facilitators in family conferences that are convened by the Court. The Buddy Care programme, where older, more stable youths are paired with young persons who are beyond parental control to act as their mentors and role-models, provides additional support to parents who find it a challenge managing their children’s behaviour.

CORpORATE SERvICESCommunications SectionIn 2009, the Corporate Communications Unit initiated a series of meetings between key members of the Subordinate Courts and different levels of media representatives to strengthen our working relationship with the media. A workshop was also conducted by a specialist to facilitate a better understanding of the workings of the media for key staff members who may have to address the media in their course of work.

One of the unit’s major initiatives this year was the production of a new corporate video. This video provides an update of the Subordinate Courts’ functions and services, and features our use of technology in court administration. The production of a series of information videos to provide court users with a better understanding of the processes at the various divisions is also underway.



The new Service Relations Unit (SRU) conducted dialogue sessions with organisations in the public and private sector renowned for their standards of service delivery. The key learnings from this best practice study were distilled into a formalised set of standards and protocols governing interactions between Subordinate Courts staff members and court users via telephone, correspondence and counter interactions.

/ In the coming year, SRU will focus on improving the Courts’ call management methodology, central correspondence tracking and service etiquette. These initiatives will contribute to the Courts’ efforts to develop a service-oriented culture that delivers excellent services to our users. /

finance SectionThe Finance Section streamlined processes relating to instalment payments of fines. This translated into both time and cost savings for the Court officers and finance officers as users can now rely on computer-generated payment advice slips to effect instalment payments.

To enhance services to court users, the Finance Section now operates throughout lunchtime at the main cashier counters. In addition, the Night Courts’ cashier collection counter was also relocated to the respective Night Courts for greater convenience to the users.

In order to study and plan for the implementation of a more comprehensive finance management system, the Finance Section worked with sectional supervisors to gain an in-depth understanding of their processes and workflows. It is hoped that the improved system will integrate and enhance revenue collection and payment processing in the Subordinate Courts.

human Resource management SectionIn line with the increasing emphasis on leadership development and team building for enhanced organisational performance, the Subordinate Courts used the Clifton Strengthsfinder (CSF) tool and the 360 - degree Appraisal programme to hone the leadership competencies of its management team. The CSF tool not only helps each individual maximise his potential and perform at his best in both his professional and personal role, it also enables teams to draw on complementary strengths for better dynamism and greater productivity. Through the 360 - degree Appraisal programme, each manager had the opportunity to view himself through the lens of others. Appropriate developmental tools could then be implemented to make him a more effective leader.

Another significant area is the development of a more open and transparent appraisal system to allocate timely and flexible rewards to performing officers with the aim of motivating and retaining them. Based on an extensive review of best practices, the section embarked on a review of the performance management system. Dialogue sessions were held to brief all staff members on the enhancements to the appraisal and ranking processes to generate awareness and confidence in the system.


With a more rigorous performance management system in place, staff members are assured that their contributions and results will be recognised.

Infrastructure Development Section

/ The Infrastructure Development (ID) Section spearheaded several infrastructural projects in 2009 that were targeted at improving physical access to the Subordinate Courts as well as enhancing court users’ experience. /

The Section also carried out major retrofitting works to make the work environment for staff members a more conducive one. In addition, the Section was involved in the successful implementation of the government-wide e-invoicing system. This system streamlines the payment process for procurements made by the Subordinate Courts and enables centralised monitoring and tracking of invoices to ensure timely payments, benefitting both our vendors and internal users.

COURT SERvICESRecords management SectionSince its inception, the Records Management Section has revised and updated its records retention schedule to cover judicial records. A mass sorting exercise was also carried out to streamline the filing for all criminal Courts as well as to effectively manage the culling of old records.

Following this, the Records Management Section will focus its efforts on the preservation of old paper records through microfilming. Newer technologies that will enhance the efficiency of the Section’s work will also be studied.

Interpreters’ Section

/ In the face of ever-changing times and the advent of new technologies, interpreters must keep abreast of new terms, coinage and catch-phrases that have emerged. /

The compilation of a technological glossary of terms is an ongoing project. This glossary will not only serve as a useful working tool and reference but will also inspire and remind the Section to always seek to maintain a high level of professional standard in its interpretation and translation work.

The responsibility of managing all Foreign Interpreters (FIs) was handed to the Indian Interpreters’ Section on 1 July 2009. The Section now handles all requests and activation of FIs to Courts. As FIs are usually needed on an ad hoc but urgent basis, the Section is reviewing the FI scheme to increase



the availability of qualified FIs and improve the activation response time so that Court schedules are uninterrupted.

The Section also contributed to a number of cross-departmental projects. The first involved the translation of Bail Centre pamphlets, which led to cooperation with Bail Centre colleagues to streamline its work processes. Police bail may now be extended in specific cases while affidavits are no longer required for bail amounts which are less than $15,000. These initiatives ultimately cut down the waiting time for bail processing. Secondly, the Section provided integral support to the new Corporate Video project by providing translations for its script and graphics into Mandarin. This will enable the public education effort to reach a wider audience of court users and overseas dignitaries.

STRATEgIC plANNINg & TRAININg DIvISION kEy mIlESTONESIn 2009, the Strategic Planning and Training Division was involved in many programmes and initiatives across divisions and at the organisational level. These include the re-organisation of the corporate structure of the Subordinate Courts, the development of the new Justice Statement, the establishment of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, the centralised Pre-Trial Conference system in the criminal courts, the inaugural corporate retreat and the planning of the Subordinate Courts’ Annual Workplan. Other key achievements include the following:

eNewslettersTo ensure that District Judges, Magistrates and Court Administrators are kept abreast of trends and topical ideas in the world of leadership development, corporate and organisational management and knowledge management, two new eNewsletters were published by the Research and Resource Centre. They are the Knowledge Management News Alert and the Management Journals and Articles Alert.

eCalendaring SystemWith the growing caseload, the Subordinate Courts are always looking out to efficiently maximise the use of our resources to facilitate smoother operations. The eCalendaring system aims to provide a real-time overview of Courts’ utilisation and insight into the caseload of each Court, to assist the Subordinate Courts in resource planning. Reducing manual coordination needed for planning, the integrated electronic system helps to save time and improve staff productivity.

New Tickets and Summons System (TICkS) – Regulatory Offences Case management System (ROmS)The decade-old TICKS2000 system will make way for a new system that brings about greater access to justice for parties involved in regulatory cases. It will also streamline the current paper-intensive processes through greater process automation.



/ The new system, known as the Regulatory Offences Case Management System (ROMS), will allow litigants-in-person attending Mentions to register their attendance and obtain more information about their cases at self-service kiosks outside the Mentions Courts. /

Judges and Court Administrators will be able to capture case outcomes instantaneously with the use of touch-screen or digital pen technology, which will improve accuracy and timeliness of case resolution. Prosecuting agencies and enforcement units will enjoy instant updates on the case status through tighter system integration.

finance management SystemThrough streamlining the revenue collection and fund disbursement process, the Finance Management System aims to replace the manual paper-based processes and eliminate the use of paper forms and blue tickets with electronic forms to facilitate the collection of payments in the Subordinate Courts. This would obviate the need for staff members to perform manual reconciliation while ensuring the accuracy of collection and reduce efforts to track hardcopy receipts. Up to date information can be shared freely across the different sections to enhance collaboration and enable a consistent collection and disbursement process within the Subordinate Courts. Implemented in phases, the full system will be completed within the next two years.

Digital Audio Recording and Transcription (DART) pilotUsing the latest technology in digital recording, the Subordinate Courts embarked on a pilot programme to equip four of our Criminal Courts in December 2009 with digital recording capabilities to facilitate Court transcription as well as to make CDs with Court recordings available at the request of lawyers and prosecutors.

/ This project aims to eliminate the need for District Judges and Magistrates to write or type the record of proceedings, freeing them to concentrate on the legal arguments. /

This pilot programme will put the Subordinate Courts in tandem with other leading judiciaries such as the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia in this area.

Broadband wireless Internet for Trials in Open CourtsThe Subordinate Courts have extended our wireless Internet facilities to include courtrooms since 3 August 2009, on top of providing wireless facilities in many waiting areas around the courthouse (via wireless@SG). This brings greater convenience to prosecutors and lawyers as they are able to conduct legal research real-time during trials.


New video Conferencing SystemA new video conferencing system was commissioned in December 2009 by the Ministry of Home Affairs to replace the decade-old video conferencing systems used in the Mentions Courts in the Subordinate Courts.

/ Using advancements in audio video technology, this new system allows for high-quality video and audio streaming among the Singapore Prison Service, Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Subordinate Courts, thus eliminating unnecessary physical conveyances of Persons-In-Custody (PICs) between the Singapore Prison Service and the Subordinate Courts. /

In addition to the Mentions Courts, the video-conferencing system was also expanded to cover Pre-Trial Conferences and bail review hearings.


/ section

/ internAtionAl profile of tHe suborDinAte courts /


INTERNATIONAl RATINgS AND ACCOlADESThe Singapore Judiciary has proven itself to be in the top league of world judiciaries. In 2009, Singapore continued to achieve excellent scores in surveys conducted by several international and reputable organisations. The results of these surveys are a tribute to the high quality of justice dispensed by the Singapore Courts.

political and Economic Risk Consultancy (pERC) – Comparative Country Risk and Asian Intelligence ReportThe PERC Asian Intelligence Report rates expatriates’ perceptions on the quality of Asian judicial systems. In the September 2009 report, Singapore was again rated as one of the top three judicial systems in Asia, together with Hong Kong and Japan, in terms of quality and confidence in the judicial system. The report noted that Singapore’s judicial system impressed the expatriates with its high efficiency in dealing with commercial litigation, protecting investors and enforcing contracts. Singapore’s Judiciary has been consistently ranked as either first or second over the past ten over years since 19961. (Figure 1)

figure 1 pERC – Quality of the Judicial/ legal System, 1996 - 20092

Year Ranking of Singapore

Rating (0 = Best, 10 = Worst)

1996 2 2.761997 2 2.721998 1 2.331999 1 3.182000 1 2.572001 1 3.282002 1 1.702003 1 1.382004 1 1.252005 2 1.752006 2 1.872007 2 1.882008 2 1.922009 2 1.73

Institute for management Development (ImD) world Competitiveness yearbookIn May 2009, IMD analysed and ranked 57 countries in the world on their ability to create and maintain the competitiveness of enterprises. One assessment component was whether the legal and regulatory framework encouraged the competitiveness of enterprises. In this regard, Singapore’s legal framework was ranked second, after Hong Kong3. (Figure 2) Singapore’s ranking has been consistently high since 1997. Another assessment component was whether justice has been fairly administered. In this respect, Singapore was ranked in the 13th position, the second highest ranked for Asian countries. The top Asian region ranked was Hong Kong which took the 12th place. (Figure 3)

1 Based on rankings published in the PERC Asian Intelligence Reports and/or the Comparative Country Risk Report for the relevant years.2 Compiled from the rankings by PERC in the Asian Intelligence Reports and/or the Comparative Country Risk Report for the relevant years.3 Based on rankings published in the IMD World Competitiveness Report 2009.


4 Compiled from the rankings published in the IMD World Competitiveness Report for the relevant years.5 Compiled from the rankings published in the IMD World Competitiveness Report for the relevant years.

figure 2 ImD – Ranking of Singapore’s legal and Regulatory framework, 1997 – 20094

The legal and regulatory framework encourages the competitiveness of enterprises

Year Ranking of Singapore Rating (1 = Strongly Disagree, 10 = Strongly Agree)

No. of countries ranked

1997 1 8.46 461998 1 8.20 461999 1 8.64 472000 1 8.82 472001 6 8.03 492002 1 8.50 492003 1 8.22 532004 1 8.34 602005 2 7.52 602006 2 8.11 612007 1 8.65 552008 1 8.65 552009 2 7.09 57

figure 3 ImD – Ranking of Singapore’s Justice, 1995 – 20095

Justice is fairly administered

Year Ranking of Singapore Rating (1 = Strongly Disagree, 10 = Strongly Agree)

No. of countries ranked

1995 9 7.91 481996 4 8.31 461997 14 7.64 461998 4 7.92 461999 7 8.54 472000 5 8.59 472001 14 7.73 492002 7 8.50 492003 6 8.49 532004 10 8.24 602005 15 7.71 602006 13 8.11 612007 11 8.12 552008 6 8.60 552009 13 7.95 57

/ inTernaTional ProFile oF THe subordinaTe CourTs


world Economic forum (wEf) global Competitiveness ReportThe 2009-2010 WEF report ranked 133 countries in terms of the competitiveness of their economies. 12 pillars of the economy were evaluated, including the country’s institutional framework. Strong institutions are critical to provide stability and public confidence necessary for engaging in economic activities. 5 sub-indicators under the institutional pillar in relation to the judiciary were :

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

This year, Singapore has again attained favourable scores and rankings for all 5 sub-indicators. Singapore is the top ranking Asian economy in respect of efficiency of legal framework, intellectual property rights and property rights.

figure 4 wEf – Ranking of Singapore’s Judiciary , 2002 – 20096

Institution Pillar - Ranking of Singapore(On a scale of 1-worst to 7-best)

Year Efficiency of Legal Framework –

(i) Settling Disputes (ii) Challenging

Regulations

Judicial Independence Property Rights Intellectual Property Rights

Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score

2002 16 5.7 25 5.1 8 6.3 12 5.72003 11 5.8 27 5.2 5 6.4 12 5.92004 14 5.7 24 5.3 12 6.3 13 5.72005 8 5.8 19 5.4 6 6.4 5 6.12006 14 5.8 29 5.2 11 6.3 9 6.02007 10 6.0 19 5.6 5 6.4 5 6.22008 2 6.2 15 5.9 4 6.5 2 6.32009 (i)1,

(ii)4(i) 6.3, (ii) 5.6

19 5.8 4 6.4 1 6.2

6 Compiled from the rankings published in the WEF Global Competitiveness Report for the relevant years.


7 The last three variables were added in 2007. 8 Based on rankings published in the Fraser Institute Economic Freedom of the World Report dataset.9 Based on rankings published in the Fraser Institute Economic Freedom of the World Report, 2000 (2002 edition) – 2006 (2008 edition).10 Compiled from the rankings published in the World Bank Doing Business Report for the relevant years.

fraser Institute Economic freedom of the world ReportThe Fraser Institute’s 2009 annual report rated 141 countries using an index measuring the degree to which the policies and institutions of countries are supportive of economic freedom. One assessment indicator was “legal structure and security of property rights”. The variables measured under this indicator include:7

/ Judicial Independence/ Impartial Courts/ Protection of Property Rights/ Military Interference in Rule of Law and the Political Process / Integrity of the Legal System / Legal Enforcement of Contracts / Regulatory Restrictions on Sale of Real Property

In the latest report, Singapore was ranked in the top 10% band among the 141 countries rated and the first among the Asian countries rated, followed by Hong Kong and Japan.8 Singapore has maintained a top 20% banding for this indicator since 2000.9

world Bank Study – Doing Business ReportThe World Bank released its Doing Business Report 2010 in September 2009. In this study, 183 economies were ranked on their ease of doing business based on various assessment variables, including contract enforcement. The ease of doing business index is an indication of whether the regulatory environment is conducive to the operation of business. For the fourth consecutive year, Singapore topped the ranking, followed by New Zealand, Hong Kong, and the US. (Figure 5)

The contract enforcement variable measured the efficiency of the judicial system in resolving a commercial dispute, in terms of the number of procedures involved, time and cost. At the 13th position, Singapore was the third highest rated Asian economy after Hong Kong and Korea. (Figure 6) Singapore was also ranked the economy with the second least number of procedures involved for a lawsuit after Ireland. In addition, the duration to process a case in Singapore was the shortest among all the rated economies.

figure 5 Ease of doing business (Top 15 Countries)10 – 2009 and 2010

Ranking 2009 2010

1 Singapore Singapore2 New Zealand New Zealand

3 Hong Kong,China

Hong Kong, China

4 United States United States5 Denmark United Kingdom6 United Kingdom Denmark7 Ireland Ireland

Ranking 2009 2010

8 Canada Canada9 Australia Australia10 Norway Norway11 Iceland Georgia12 Thailand Thailand13 Japan Saudi Arabia 14 Finland Iceland15 Saudi Arabia Japan

/ internAtionAl profile of tHe suborDinAte courts


11 Compiled from the rankings published in the World Bank Doing Business Report for the relevant years.12 All facts and figures related to worldwide governance indicators are cited from The World Bank Governance and Individual Governance

Indicators 1996-2008 Report.13 This is a compilation of the rankings in the Governance Indicator Report for the relevant years.

figure 6 Enforcing Contracts (Top 15 Countries)11 – 2009 and 2010

Ranking 2009 2010

1 Luxembourg Luxembourg2 Latvia Iceland3 Iceland Hong Kong,

China4 Finland Norway5 Hong Kong,

ChinaKorea, Rep.

6 Norway France7 Korea, Rep. Germany8 France United States9 Germany Finland

10 United States (also ranked as 9)

New Zealand

11 Hungary Austria12 New Zealand Belarus13 Austria Singapore14 Belarus Hungary

15 Moldova Latvia

world Bank governance matters: Aggregate and Individual governance IndicatorsThe Worldwide Governance Indicators is a project of the World Bank, and the latest results released in June 2009 reported the aggregate and individual governance indicators for 212 countries and territories over the period 1996–2008, for six dimensions of governance12:

/ Voice and Accountability / Political Stability and Absence of Violence/ Government Effectiveness/ Regulatory Quality / Rule of Law/ Control of Corruption

Singapore once again scored well under the Rule of Law component. This component measured the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence. Singapore has been well-placed in the 90th percentile over the past six years under the Rule of Law indicator. (Figure 7)

figure 7 world Bank – governance Indicators 2002-200813

Rule of Law

Year Ranking of Singapore Score (Max 2.5 points) No. of countries ranked

2002 19 1.50 1972003 14 1.66 2022004 11 1.78 2092005 10 1.79 2092006 12 1.73 2112007 14 1.74 2112008 14 1.73 210


heritage foundation and wall Street Journal Index of Economic freedom ReportThis index, which was published in January 2009, measures 183 countries across 10 indices of economic freedom in 2008. High scores approaching 100 represent higher levels of freedom; the higher the score on a factor, the lower the level of governmental interference in the economy. In 2009, Singapore was ranked second to Hong Kong, scoring a high of 90 points for the “property rights” index. The Report commented that Singapore is highly efficient in its legal system and provides high protection for private property.

pARTICIpATION IN INTERNATIONAl CONfERENCESChief District Judge Tan Siong Thye participated in the following overseas conferences in 2009:

Date Name of Conference

27 Sep - 02 Oct 09 15th Triennial Meeting of the Commonwealth Magistrates’ & Judges’ Association on the Turks & Caicos Islands

15 – 17 Oct 09 ASEAN Law Association 10th General Assembly 2009, Hanoi“ASEAN Charter: Taking ASEAN to New Heights”The Chief District Judge presented a paper entitled: “Current Reforms in ASEAN countries - Lessons and Experiences: Singapore’s Experience”

25 – 29 Oct 09 Fourth International Conference of the Training of the Judiciary, Sydney, Australia, organised by the National Judicial College of Australia“The Journey Towards Court Excellence: Integrating Quality Management Into Judicial Training”The Chief District Judge presented a paper on: “Quality Management Education And The Subordinate Courts Of Singapore”

Judges and Court Administrators also participated in various overseas conferences and seminars that were relevant to their areas of work. Some were invited as speakers to share the best practices and experiences of the Subordinate Courts of Singapore.

Date Name of Judge/ Court Administrator

Name of Event Organiser

22 – 24 Feb 09

Judge Tan Boon Heng First Meeting of the Joint Committee for the Implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding between Vietnam and Singapore on Legal and Judicial Cooperation in Hanoi

Ministry of Law, Vietnam

26 Feb – 1 Mar 09

Judge James Leong Talk on Case Management in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah - Attended as a speaker

High Court in Sabah and Sarawak, Malaysia

2 – 6 Mar 09

Judge Liew Thiam Leng

A Study Visit to the United Kingdom on the Mental Capacity Act

Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports, Singapore



Date Name of Judge/ Court Administrator

Name of Event Organiser

12 – 14 Mar 09

Mr Daniel Ang The Use of Interpreters in Courts and Tribunals, Perth

Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration

27 – 29 Mar 09

Judge Joyce Low The Sessions Court Judges & Magistrates Conference in Kuala Lumpur - Attended as a speaker

Federal Court of Malaysia

15 – 18Apr 09

Judge Joyce Low 11th Annual Spring Conference of the American Bar Association’s Section of Dispute Resolution, New York

American Bar Association

6 – 10 Jun 09

Ms Sophia Ang Lam Woo Seminar Series 1: Family Social Work – Tradition and Transformation, Beijing - Attended as a speaker

Peking University and Hong Kong Poly University

29 – 30Jun 09

Judge Tan Boon Heng

Seminar on Coroner’s Practice inMedical Cases, Dubai- Attended as a trainer

Dubai Judicial Institute, Dubai, U.A.E.

4 – 7 Aug 09

Judge Kevin Ng International Family Justice Judicial Conference for Common Law and Commonwealth Jurisdictions, United Kingdom

Judiciary of England & Wales

24 – 26 Sep 09

Judge Victor Yeo Coroners’ Conference Westminser 2009

Coroners’ Society of England and Wales

2 - 4 Nov 09

Registrar Hoo Sheau Peng

International Association for Court Administration: Fourth International Conference, Istanbul

International Association for Court Administration

8 – 13 Nov 09

Judge Lee Poh ChooJudge Eugene Teo

National Judicial Orientation Program, Adelaide

National Judicial College of Australia

vISITS By DISTINgUIShED gUESTSIn the spirit of judicial cooperation and fostering stronger relationships with counterpart judiciaries, the Subordinate Courts of Singapore hosted visits and study trips for the following distinguished delegates from around the world.



Date Name of Visit

19 Feb 09 Visit of The Right Honourable Dato Arifin Bin Zakaria, Chief Judge of Malaya, and delegation

7 Apr 09 Visit of Mr Isaychev C.N., Deputy Chairman, Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation, and delegation from the Russian Supreme Arbitration (Commercial) Court of the Russian Federation

9 Apr 09 Visit of Ms Julie Steel, Director of Operations, Supreme & District Courts, Queensland, Australia

18 May 09 Visit of HE Dr Ahmad Saeed Bin Hazeem, Director-General, Dubai Courts, and delegation

25 Jun 09 Visit of HE Om Yentieng, Senior Minister and Chairman, Anti-Corruption Unit, Cambodia, and delegation

31 Jul 09 Visit of the Honorable Madhat Al-Mahmood, Chief Justice, Federal Supreme Court of Iraq, and delegation

19 Aug 09 Visit of Mr Rinzin Penjor, Attorney-General of Bhutan

20 Aug 09 Visit of Mr Andrew Li, Chief Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, and delegation

24 Aug 09 Visit of Mr Tong Man, Chief Magistrate of the Judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, and delegation

18 Sep 09 Visit of Judges from the Intermediate Court of Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China

20 Nov 09 Visit of Ms Shen Li, Senior Judge of Jiangsu Higher People’s Court, People’s Republic of China, and delegation

26 Nov 09 Visit of Mr Hoshin Won, District Judge, Daegu District of Korea, and delegation

INTERNShIp pROgRAmmES fOR OvERSEAS STUDENTSIn addition to hosting dignitaries from overseas judiciaries, the Subordinate Courts also organised the following internship programmes for law students from overseas universities.

Date Title of Programme

3 Jun 09 – 3 Jul 09

Student internship from the University of British Columbia with the Counselling and Psychological Services unit

6 Jul 09 – 28 Aug 09

Senior Officers’ Law Clerks Programme with participants from the University of Durham, University College London, University of Exeter, and King’s College London

11 – 14 Aug 09

Judicial Internship Programme with participants from the University of Leicester, University College London, and National University of Singapore

17 – 28 Aug 09

Public Service Commission Scholars Mid-Course Programme with participants from Oxford University and University College London

7 Sep 09 Student internship from King’s College London

/ serving society /


/ Shared Vision: A leading subordinate court, serving society. /

lAUNCh Of ThE hElp CENTREThere is a sizeable number of litigants in cases dealt with by the Subordinate Courts who are unrepresented. In about one third of criminal cases, and more than 90% of maintenance and family violence cases, parties represent themselves. In civil cases, there is also a fair share of self-represented litigants. It is expected that these numbers would grow as educational levels increase and bring about an increased self-confidence and a greater willingness to rely on oneself in dealing with legal disputes.

In this regard, the Subordinate Courts launched the Helping to Empower Litigants-in-Person (HELP) Centre on 26 February 2010 to provide litigants-in-person with basic information on Court processes, procedures and practices. There are two HELP Centres, one located in the Subordinate Courts building, to serve members of the public for criminal and civil matters, and another located in the Family and Juvenile Court building, to provide information on family matters. Besides providing informational resources and assistance with general enquiries and general information on court procedures and practices, legal clinics facilitated by volunteer lawyers are held regularly to provide legal advice to litigants-in-person.

The services at the HELP Centre are provided at no cost to all litigants-in-person.

/ The key objective of the HELP Centre is to enhance access to justice and empower a litigant-in-person to make more informed decisions about his case, appreciate the Court’s processes better and participate effectively in those processes. /

Even if the outcome is not in his favour, he is more likely to accept that justice has been done. The Subordinate Courts seek to ensure that those in need of legal services are not shut out by ignorance or poverty.

/ serving soCieTy


ImpROvEmENTS TO COURThOUSE fACIlITIESAs part of the Subordinate Courts’ continual efforts to improve our services and provide greater access to the public, several improvements were made to our courthouse facilities in 2009. In line with our customer-centric focus, a new Information Counter was set up at the main lobby of the Subordinate Courts complex to provide immediate assistance to court users, especially those visiting the courthouse for the first time.

/ Another initiative was the construction of a covered walkway linking the Subordinate Courts complex to the Family and Juvenile Court complex and the neighbouring People’s Park Centre. /

With the walkway, court users need not brave the elements to reach the courthouse during inclement weather.

In addition, colour-coding the entrances to the registries and public offices on Level 1 of the Subordinate Courts complex was introduced for easier navigability by court users.


Other improvements made include the installation of water dispensers in public waiting areas, upgrading of courtrooms, witness rooms, registries, conference rooms and washrooms. Basic amenities such as tissue paper and water were also provided for parties involved in trials. The lighting, furniture and fittings in the public waiting areas were also spruced up to make the courthouse a more conducive place of business for all.

/ serving society

The Crime Registry sports a brown entrance while the Civil Registry, Finance Section and Primary Dispute Resolution Centre are green, blue and grey respectively. The Small Claims Tribunals, Community Mediation Centre, Bailiffs Section and Interpreters’ Section are housed within the maroon lobby. In upcoming initiatives, improvements to signage and office interiors will incorporate these colour codes for consistency.

/ significAnt cAsesin 2009 /


SIgNIfICANT CASES fROm CRImINAl JUSTICE DIvISION

pp v Chhuon Ratana [2009] SgDC 188Conditional discharge inappropriate for outrage of modesty committed by a foreigner The offender pleaded guilty to one charge for outraging the modesty of a lady in a club. He had grabbed her shoulders and asked for her name. When she refused to give it, he grabbed her breasts. She then ran to tell her friends about this, after which they confronted the offender. He initially denied molesting the lady, but later said, “I did it, so what.” He then slipped his hand under the blouse of one of the friends, and squeezed that lady’s breast three times. The charge for this second offence was taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

The offender was a foreign national and a student in Singapore at the material time. The defence sought a conditional discharge, saying that he would be “punished” according to the local custom in his home country by having to serve in a monastery for at least six months. The offender’s father had written an apology to both victims, and paid a compensation of $8000 to each of them. The prosecution did not object to the request for a conditional discharge.

The District Judge took the view that a conditional discharge was inappropriate as there were insufficient factors to show that the nature or character of the offender was such that it was inexpedient to inflict punishment on him. The circumstances of the offence were such that he demonstrated belligerence when confronted about the first offence, after which he proceeded to commit a second (and worse) offence.

/ The District Judge was also not satisfied that any time served in a monastery could substitute as the punishment to be meted out under Singapore law. /

The fact that he was a foreigner and thus less likely to be granted probation also did not mean that he was entitled to be favourably considered for a conditional discharge. The offender was thus sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. There was no appeal against this sentence.

pp v wong heng Chiang [2009] SgDC 250Severe penalties for “drink driving” and dangerous driving The offender had initially claimed trial to eight charges resulting from a motor accident wherein the car he was driving collided into a bus stop, causing injuries to six commuters there. He subsequently decided to plead guilty to three charges – for drink driving, for dangerous driving, and for causing grievous hurt to one of the commuters by his rash act of colliding into her. The remaining five charges (which involved causing injuries to the remaining five commuters by his rash act) were taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

Although the accused’s breath alcohol level was within the legal limit, he accepted that he was incapable of properly controlling his vehicle as a result of being under the influence of alcohol. This resulted in excessive steering and directional control loss, causing his vehicle to crash into the bus stop.

/ signiFiCanT Cases in 2009


/ For the drink driving charge, he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. He was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for all classes of vehicles for four years from the date of his release from prison. /The expert’s investigation concluded that the offender was likely to have been travelling at twice the speed limit of the road at the material time. He knocked his car onto the kerb on the right side of the road such that the car swerved left across three lanes of the road, mounted the pavement of the bus stop, and collided into a notice board, two concrete seats and the commuters. The injuries suffered by the commuters ranged from foot, rib and scapula fractures, to degloving injuries, superficial cuts and scratches. For dangerous driving, he was sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment. A disqualification period of ten years from the date of his conviction was imposed. For causing grievous hurt by his rash act, he was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. The three-month imprisonment term was ordered to run consecutively with the twelve-month term. His total sentence was thus fifteen months’ imprisonment. No appeal was filed against the sentence.

pp v Ee Jin liang DAC 12097 – 12106 of 2009Uncompromising stance taken where national security was breachedThe accused was a full time National Serviceman attached to the Tuas Naval Base. While serving in this capacity, the accused was occasionally assigned as a driver to visiting foreign navy personnel at Changi Naval Base.

On five separate occasions over a six-month period in 2008, the accused, while carrying out his duties as a driver for the visiting foreign navy personnel, assisted the said foreign navy personnel to smuggle contraband cigarettes out of the naval base. In return for his assistance, the accused received bribes in the form of contraband cigarettes and a chest of tea.

The accused was arrested on 14 December 2008 by Customs while his vehicle was being loaded with contraband cigarettes. The amount of contraband cigarettes seized on that occasion amounted to 33,614 cartons and 718 packets of contraband cigarettes weighing a total of 8,456.28 kg. This was one of the largest seizures of contraband cigarettes on record. The amount of unpaid customs duties on the said cigarettes amounted to S$2,976,610.56.

The accused faced ten charges for corruptly accepting gratification for assisting in the transportation of contraband cigarettes, for conveying the contraband cigarettes, defrauding the Government of GST due on the contraband cigarettes and for attempting to cause evidence of the offence to disappear.

The prosecution proceeded on two charges of corruptly accepting gratification for assisting in the transportation of contraband cigarettes and one charge of conveying contraband cigarettes.


The accused, who had no antecedents, pleaded guilty to the three charges and consented to the remaining seven being taken into account for sentencing purposes.

/ In view of the gravity of the offence and the fact that the accused abused his position as a military driver to smuggle contraband out of a military facility, thereby breaching security, the accused was sentenced to a total of fifty-three months’ imprisonment and fined a total penalty amounting to S$1,428 with a default sentence of four weeks and one day. /

SIgNIfICANT CASES fROm CIvIl JUSTICE DIvISION

meena p Chandiramani v Indrani d/o N krishnasamy [2009] SgDC 106Claim on joint venture agreement rightly filed against joint venture partner rather than joint venture company This was a claim for the sum of $192,346.69 paid by the Plaintiff pursuant to an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Plaintiff would have a 45% share in a restaurant that the Defendant would be setting up. It was not disputed that this sum was paid and that the Plaintiff was not given a 45% share in the business. However, the Defendant took the position that the Plaintiff’s claim should be against the company running the business, Shodasy Trading Pte Ltd (“STPL”), rather than the Defendant.

The Defendant argued that STPL was a separate entity from its shareholder, the Defendant, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim should be against STPL and not the Defendant. It was held by the District Court that this argument missed the point altogether.

/ The Defendant’s pleaded position was that the agreement for the Plaintiff to have a 45% share in the business was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. There was no allegation that the agreement was between the Plaintiff and STPL. Accordingly, there was no basis for the argument that the claim should be against STPL and not the Defendant. /

The District Court gave judgment for the full amount of the Plaintiff’s claim. The Defendant’s appeal to the High Court was dismissed.

/ significAnt cAses IN 2009


yen heng fook v Emma Contract pte ltd and max han fuquan [2009] SgDC 132No basis to set aside consent judgment based on fraud or mistake when parties are represented by solicitors The Plaintiff and the Defendants were engaged in an earlier litigation in which the Defendants had sued the Plaintiff for the balance contract price of building works on the Plaintiff’s property. The Plaintiff counterclaimed damages for defective works and delays. Just prior to trial, the parties attended a full-day mediation at the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre before a specialist mediator which resulted in a consent judgment by which the Plaintiff would pay a reduced sum in instalments to the Defendants, the Defendants were to furnish warranties under the building contract to the Plaintiff, the counterclaim was discontinued and each party was to bear their own costs. After the Plaintiff had paid the first instalment under the Consent Judgment, he wanted to suspend further payments because the warranties in the form as required by him were not furnished. The Defendants threatened execution of the Consent Judgment which led to the Plaintiff applying to court for a stay of execution coupled with an order for the Defendants to “strictly abide and perform the Consent Judgment” by furnishing the warranties. The summons was heard by the mediator in his capacity as Deputy Registrar. He ordered the Defendants to provide the warranties within 21 days but refused to stay execution, holding that the payment obligation was not subject to the furnishing of warranties.

The Defendants were unable to comply strictly with the order to furnish the warranties. Committal proceedings followed but the District Judge found no deliberate refusal on the part of the Defendants’ director to comply with the court order although she remarked that the director could be described as “incompetent, foolish or reckless” in agreeing to furnish the warranties when he could not be sure he could secure them.

Having failed to obtain all the warranties, the Plaintiff commenced an originating summons to set aside the Consent Judgment on the grounds of fraud or false representation and common mistake. The Plaintiff contended that the Consent Judgment amounted to a “promise for a promise”. The Plaintiff had promised payment and discontinuance of his counterclaim in exchange for the Defendants’ promise to deliver the warranties. However, the Defendants’ promise to deliver the warranties turned out to be a false statement. The District Judge hearing the committal proceedings had made a finding of fact that the Defendants’ directors were “foolish or reckless” and this finding of recklessness was proof of fraud. At the mediation, the Plaintiff was mistakenly led to believe that the Defendants would deliver all the warranties. There was therefore a common mistake of a material fact, i.e. that all of the warranties under the contract would be delivered to the Plaintiff in exchange for his payment and agreement to discontinue his counterclaim.

The District Judge held that the parties had by way of the Consent Judgment entered into a compromise of the earlier suit. Mere reliance by the Plaintiff on the dicta of the judge in the committal proceedings describing the conduct of the directors as reckless was inadequate to establish fraud that would qualify as a vitiating factor to avoid the settlement reached. The District Judge dismissed the Plaintiff’s application, noting that throughout the mediation session which culminated in the recording of the Consent Judgment, the parties had been represented by counsel.


/ Courts have an interest in upholding agreements to compromise disputes, especially where a consent judgment has been entered with both parties in the adversarial process represented by able solicitors. To allow such a consent judgment to be set aside would be detrimental to the administration of justice. /

The Plaintiff’s appeal to the High Court was dismissed.

Thomas Toh Swee hwee v Dynasty Travel International pte ltd [2009] SgDC 142Cancellation clause does not allow entire deposit to be forfeited by travel agent if less than actual loss sufferedThe Plaintiff booked from the Defendants three Alaska Glacier Cruise tour packages, each costing $4,388 at the NATAS Travel Fair. He paid a deposit of $3,000 ($1,000 per tour package). Subsequently, the booking was cancelled by the Plaintiff and the Defendants forfeited the deposit of $3,000. The Plaintiff sued for the return of the deposit.

Since the booking was made at the NATAS fair, the Defendants relied on a Special Cancellation Clause in the Booking Terms and Conditions which provided for the following cancellation charge to be applicable during travel fairs or special promotions:

“On receipt of cancellation notice in writing more than 14 days prior to departure, a cancellation charge of up to 75% of the entire tour price is payable.”

The Defendants argued that the Special Cancellation Clause was a liquidated damages clause. In view of the Plaintiff’s cancellation, they were entitled to impose a charge of $9,873 being 75% of the entire tour price for three persons (75% x $4,388 x 3 persons) and they counterclaimed the sum of $9,873. At the trial, the Defendants adduced evidence that due to the cancellation, they had to pay cancellation charges of $1,950 to Citystate Travel Pte Ltd (“Citystate Travel”).

The District Court found that in view of the words “up to 75%” in the Special Cancellation Clause, the clause was not a liquidated damages clause but was a clause limiting the amount that may be claimed by the Defendants upon the Plaintiff’s cancellation to 75% of the entire tour price.

/ If the words “up to” meant that the Defendants had the absolute discretion to arbitrarily impose a cancellation charge up to 75% of the entire tour price, without any correlation whatsoever to the actual loss suffered, this would not be reasonable. /

/ significAnt cAses in 2009


If that was in fact the Defendants’ intention, clearer language should have been used to make that intention abundantly clear.

As the only loss established by the Defendants was the sum of $1,950 paid by the Defendants to Citystate Travel, the Defendants had to refund the Plaintiff the sum of $1,050, being the deposit of $3,000 paid by the Plaintiff less the cancellation charges of $1,950 paid by the Defendant to Citystate Travel. Judgment was given for the Plaintiff in the sum of $1,050 plus interest and costs.

The Defendants’ appeal to the High Court was dismissed.

The Redwood Tree pte ltd v Cpl Trading pte ltd [2009] SgDC 204Jurisdiction of District Court clarifiedThe Plaintiffs sued the Defendants for money had and received in the sum of $23,350 being monies paid as a “good faith deposit” towards securing a tenancy of various properties from the Defendants. A preliminary issue arose as to whether the District Court has the jurisdiction to hear a claim based on money had and received where there is no contract and the Plaintiffs were seeking an equitable remedy for the return of monies paid over to the Defendants.

The District Judge held that the District Court did not have jurisdiction under the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap. 321)(“the Act”) to hear and try the case and dismissed the Plaintiffs’ action for want of jurisdiction. The District Judge ruled that the jurisdiction and powers of the District Court must be interpreted strictly based on the Act. As a matter of statutory interpretation, unless jurisdiction is expressly conferred upon the District Court, it must be the case that Parliament never intended the Court to possess that particular jurisdiction.

The District Judge started his analysis by defining the concept of jurisdiction and its companion concept of power, based on a two-fold test laid down by the High Court in Lee Kim Cheong v Lee Johnson [1991] 1 SLR 313 which he modified to suit the Act in its present form. The High Court had said that the first test was whether the action fell within the “General civil jurisdiction” of the District Court in section 19(1) of the Act and referred to it as the “geographic connection”. The second test propounded by the High Court required that even if the case falls within the “General civil jurisdiction” of the District Court, it must also fall within Part IV of the Act described as the primary or additional jurisdiction of the District Court. The primary or additional jurisdiction of the District Court could be easily understood as specific provisions which deal with the particular subject matter or type of dispute, such as section 20(1) where the District Court was authorised to hear and try actions founded on contract or tort. This second test is referred to as the “subject matter jurisdiction” of the District Court. Other than the tests on “geographic connection” and “subject matter jurisdiction”, the case would be further subject to the prescribed District Court financial limit, which he referred to as “monetary jurisdiction” of the District Court, which is $250,000 in respect of actions in contract and tort.

The District Judge ruled that for any action to be within the jurisdiction of the District Court, it must meet all the three tests. In this case, the Plaintiffs satisfied the “geographic connection” test, and the financial


limit or “monetary jurisdiction”, but not the test on “subject matter jurisdiction” as the claim for money had and received was not “founded on contract” within section 20(1) of the Act.

/ An action based on money had and received was founded on a “quasi-contract” which has little or no affinity with contract; it cannot therefore be said to be “founded on contract”. /

There was no appeal filed against the District Judge’s decision.

SIgNIfICANT CASES fROm fAmIly AND JUvENIlE JUSTICE DIvISION

ChIlD Court CaseCHILD Court processes help parties resolve children’s issues and make co-parenting arrangements in potentially contentious custody case The parties were married in 2001. They have a son, aged 8. The Father was a pilot and the Mother, a flight attendant. Due to marital problems, the Mother moved out of the matrimonial home with the son in late 2008.

Shortly after doing so, the Mother filed an application asking for sole custody of the son, with care and control, with reasonable access to the Father on terms to be mutually agreed on or as ordered by the Court.

In January 2009, the Father filed for divorce based on the Mother’s unreasonable behaviour. The Mother counter-claimed for divorce based on the Father’s unreasonable behaviour.

/ With the consent of both parties, this case was channeled to the CHILD programme, an expeditious, informal and less-adversarial process of resolving custody issues which is inquisitorial in nature. Parties had the liberty to address the Judge directly and each other with a Family Counsellor in attendance. /

The case is unique in that, by virtue of the parties’ occupations, both spent much time being away on flight duties. The informality and less-adversarial nature of the process gave the parents the opportunity to jointly explore how they could carry out the co-parenting responsibilities.

Largely because of how the proceedings were conducted, there was very little or no acrimony even when the difficult issues were addressed. It also helped that both counsels were co-operative in emphasising to their respective clients the need to consider the welfare of their child as being of paramount importance.



Eventually, they were able to agree on how to cover each other when one is on flight duty. They also reached substantial agreement on maintenance for their son. Orders were made accordingly with no appeal from either party. The matter was fully disposed of within five weeks from the time the parties consented to the programme.

mediation at the family Resolutions ChambersAncillary matters set in the background of long-standing conflict involving extended family members of different races resolved harmoniously in mediation The legal issues were familial: divorce and ancillary matters such as division of matrimonial property, custody of the children and their maintenance. But in jointly conducting mediation of these issues, the Judge and a counsellor had to navigate though intense family conflicts involving parties of different races and religions.

/ By taking the time to address the differences in the language and culture of the family members, and hearing the voices of the children, the Family Resolutions Chambers (FRC) helped facilitate a resolution for the whole family. /

Prior to their divorce, the parties’ two children aged 8 and 6, were taken care of by both the elderly paternal and maternal grandmothers, who were of different races.

Since the start of the divorce proceedings, both grandmothers became alienated from each other and became embroiled in the conflict.

When the couple was referred to the FRC for mediation on their divorce and ancillary matters, there was a serious contention as to where the children should live. Both parties seemed to be reasonable parents who wanted what was best for the children and could agree on many areas such as education and discipline. However, both parties raised concerns that the other party would bias the children against the cultural and religious practices of the other.

When it became clear during mediation that both children were mostly cared for by the two grandmothers, and that the allegations came mainly from them rather than from the Mother and Father, the grandmothers were invited to participate in the process.

Both grandmothers and the parents acknowledged that the children were really of the two races at the same time. Both families were able to acknowledge that it was a privilege for both children to be a part of a rich heritage from the two cultures.



A significant turning point came when both grandmothers started speaking to each other in Hokkien, their common language, and reminded each other of the better times they have had. Gradually, both came to be assured by the other that their own cultural and religious beliefs were respected, and came to be united in expressing the same wish for their grandchildren to grow up well.

In a separate interview with the children, the older child drew a picture of his family comprising both parents. It was apparent that both children still harboured secret hopes for their parents to reconcile. When this was revealed to both parents, they were visibly moved. Although they were not able to reconcile as husband and wife, both softened their stand on care and control issues. They were also better able to focus on the children’s needs and wishes instead of their legal parental rights.

Eventually, the parties reached an agreement such that the divorce was uncontested, and all ancillary matters were resolved by consent with the children continuing contact with both parents and the grandmothers.

personal protection Order Counselling and family Conference Healing of severe rift between father and daughter in the course of a father’s PPO application A father (“Father”) applied for Personal Protection Orders (PPO) against his teenage daughter (“Daughter”) from his first marriage, seeking to protect his three children from his present marriage. The Father alleged that his current spouse received a telephone call from his ex-wife, warning them that she overheard the Daughter threaten that she and her friends planned to harm her younger half-siblings at their school. The Father was very alarmed and immediately applied for PPOs on behalf of his children.

When the application was mentioned, the Court directed for parties to undergo counselling. It transpired that the Father was still very affected and made known that he was very angry at the Daughter and wanted to disown her immediately.

A Family Conference was ordered to address the relationship between the Father and the Daughter. The Father’s ex-wife and current spouse were also invited to participate even though they were not direct parties to the PPO application, as they would be able to shed light on the allegations.

In the course of the Family Conference, all parties were given time to speak, either alone or jointly. Upon verifying the accounts of all parties and upon the ex-wife’s partial admission, it became clear that the allegations of threats were not true. However, upon learning the truth, the Father remained adamant about disowning the Daughter.

While it was clear that the Daughter was a child caught in the middle of her parents’ ongoing conflicted relationship, the Father felt so confused, helpless and emotionally worn by his relationship with his ex-wife that he was oblivious to the Daughter’s plight. All of the Father’s focus was on how to move on with his new family and distance himself from his ex-wife.

The Father was given time to confront his emotions. The Facilitator processed with him how and why


he derived his decision to disown the Daughter, the needs of the Daughter and the varied consequences of his decision on the Daughter, himself and his family, including future challenges of continuing his relationship with the Daughter.

The Daughter was then led back into the conference but was unable to face the Father.

/ The Daughter held in her hands a letter that the Facilitator had advised her to write in anticipation that the Daughter may not be able to contact the Father for some time. As the Daughter began to unfold the letter, the Father, unable to control his feelings, grabbed the Daughter’s hand and embraced her. Father and Daughter stood sobbing and held each other in silence. /

Following the conference, further arrangements were made to ensure that all parties were supported by a community-based agency to manage access arrangements and the complex network of relationships.


/ section

/ cAseloAD AnD stAtistics /


CASElOAD pROfIlE 2008 2009p

CRImINAl JUSTICE DIvISIONCriminal mentionsCriminal Mentions Courts1 66,567 68,524Departmental/Statutory Board Mentions Courts 150,350 139,732Traffic Courts 36,835 48,716

Special CourtsCoroner’s Court 3,851 3,850

Magistrate’s Complaints 4,087 4,569

261,690 265,391

CIvIl JUSTICE DIvISIONOriginating processesWrits of Summons (DC & MC) 38,596 43,342Originating Summonses 539 619Probate 3,527 3,504

Interlocutory ApplicationsSummons-in-Chambers2 9,102 10,352Summons for Directions (O.25/37) 5,407 6,529Summary Judgment (O.14) 688 636

OthersTaxation 123 153Assessment of Damages 1,357 1,860

59,339 66,995

SmAll ClAImS TRIBUNAlSNo. of Claims Filed 14,500 17,819


CASElOAD pROfIlE 2008 2009p

fAmIly JUSTICE DIvISIONmaintenanceFresh Applications 1,686 1,840Enforcement of Orders 3,266 3,585Variation/Rescission/Suspension of Orders 1,104 1,261Enforcement of the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents Orders 67 60Enforcement of Syariah Court Orders Not Applicable 178

family violenceFresh Applications for Personal Protection Order (PPO) 2,547 2,971Variation/Rescission of PPO 133 123Breach of PPO 60 115Breach of Counselling Orders 71 46

DivorceDivorce Writ 6,328 6,254Ancillary Matters 2,192 2,112

OthersAdoption 407 423Originating Summons 161 132Breach of Syariah Court Orders 730 539

18,752 19,639

JUvENIlE JUSTICE DIvISIONJuvenile Arrest3 1,438 1,860Beyond Parental Control 125 94Child Protection Orders 78 73Police Summonses/Summonses & Tickets/Others 157 126

1,798 2,153

356,079 371,997

p - Preliminary Figures

Notes:1 Includes DAC,MAC,PSS,PS & other charges2 Excludes O.25/373 Refers to charges

/ Caseload and sTaTisTiCs

/ notes of AppreciAtion /


Your warm hospitality and thoughtful arrangements have made our research visit a most productive one. I have learned a great deal from listening to the presentations of and discussing with the officials of Community Court. I am sure that our acquaintances through your kind arrangement would contribute to an even closer relation between the judiciary of Singapore and Japan.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to you for your warm hospitality and friendship given to me and Mr. Nakasuga during our stay. Please also convey our heartfelt appreciations to your colleagues, particularly to Judge Hoo Sheau Peng, Judge Roy Grenville Neighbour, Judge Soh Tze Bian, and Dr. Joseph Ozawa, for taking their precious time to meet us. We are now ready to go back to work feeling fully rejuvenated from this wonderful visit.

Once again, thank you very much and I am looking forward to having an opportunity to reciprocate your kind hospitality when you visit Japan in the near future.

With warmest regards,JUNICHIRO OTANIProfessor, UNAFEI

I am most grateful for the opportunity to visit the Subordinate Courts. The briefings I was given were most informative. The achievements of the Subordinate Courts are impressive. We look forward to learning from the experience of the Subordinate Courts in various areas and to sharing Hong Kong’s experience with the Singapore Judiciary.

ANDREW LIChief Justice of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China

On behalf of myself and the Legal and Administrative Authority in Dubai Courts, I have the pleasure to convey to you our deep thanks and appreciation for your extreme kindness paid to us and our accompanying delegation during our visit to your centre on 18/05/2009. We highly appreciate your honourable reception and generous hospitality as well as what we learn from the experience of the Singapore Dispute Settlement Centre [Primary Dispute Resolution Centre].

DR. AHMED SAEED BIN HAZEEMDirector General of Dubai Courts20 Aug 2009

/ noTes oF aPPreCiaTion


Appreciation for Ms Sarah Lim Chow Yeh, Corporate Communications Section

To: Miss Sarah, Subordinate Courts Singapore

Thank you for your very warm, kind, polite and cheerful service when I went there on 22.10.09 to hand a letter in the afternoon.

Keep up with your warm and cheerful way, to serve the public.

BERNARD TAN 13 November 2009

Appreciation for Ms Tasmin Begum, Interpreters’ Section

I am impressed by the female Indian Interpreter at the on-going case at Court 38 this morning. Her command of the language, her confidence level and swift interpretation are lauded. She is also able to adjust to the level of the witness.

NATHAN R A, PB, PBS7 October 2009

Appreciation for Ms Tan Siew Hoon and Mr Chia Yew Tuck, Interpreters’ Section

I would like to compliment Tan Siew Hoon, Mandarin Court Interpreter Subordinate Courts, who despite being given short notice, still went the extra mile to translate a short document and revert to us within a few hours. We only got the document late yesterday. Ms Tan even proactively called us early this morning to tell us that the document was ready for collection.

We are much obliged for such pleasantly surprising service by Tan Siew Hoon, and Mr Chia who took and followed up on our request at short notice.

Warm RegardsLEE WEI YUNGPartner, Colin Ng & Partners LLP30 December 2009


/ section

/ JuDges & stAff of tHe suborDinAte courts /


leFT To rigHTSenior District Judge, Criminal Justice Division, See Kee OonSenior District Judge-Consultant, Criminal Justice Division, Liew Thiam LengSenior District Judge, Family and Juvenile Justice Division, Foo Tuat YienChief District Judge Tan Siong ThyeSenior District Judge, Corporate and Court Services Division, and Registrar, Hoo Sheau PengSenior District Judge, Civil Justice Division, Leslie ChewSenior District Judge-Consultant, Family and Juvenile Justice Division, Khoo Oon Soo

ChIEf DISTRICT JUDgE & SENIOR DISTRICT JUDgES


leFT To rigHT Front Row: Erliana Idrus, Zainah Sabtu, Kamissah Mahmud, Raymond Loh, Rokiah Harun, Vivian Koh, Vanaja JayaramSecond Row: Emily Lim, Norliah Manijan, Habedah Ahmad, Jamilah Jaslan, Kasmah Wati Wari, Wendy Lim, Nabisah, R Seetha, Jasmine Thomas, G Sandhya, R PuvanaThird Row: Noran Farhana, Wong Ken Heng, Shawn Teo, Joulbert Chng, Mark Wang, Kerin Seet, Lim Xiaofen

CRImINAl JUSTICE DIvISIONDistrict Judges of the Criminal Justice Division

Crime Registry Officers

leFT To rigHTFront Row: Chia Wee Kiat, Roy Neighbour, Rahim Jalil, Low Wee Ping, Ng Peng Hong, Eddy Tham, Soh Tze BianSecond Row: Lim Tse Haw, John Ng, Shaiffudin Saruwan, Joseph Yeo, May Mesenas, Ch’ng Lye Beng, Lim Wee Ming, Kessler Soh, Jill Tan, Lee Poh Choo, Paul Quan, Ronald Gwee

/ Judges & sTaFF oF THe subordinaTe CourTs


CIvIl JUSTICE DIvISIONJudges of the Civil Justice Division

leFT To rigHT Front Row: Asmahan Amir, Pandiyan V, Dr Joseph Ozawa, S Letchumi, Zubeda Khanam, Catherine SimSecond Row: Halija Kurdi, Martina Khoo, Suaidah Sarnan, Intan Sani, Azizah Said, T Thanaletchumi, Tan Yi Yang, Nazeini Parveen, Doris Loghambal, Zhang Weiqi, Teng-Soh Siew Foong, Yik Jia Xiong, Norshidah MasromThird Row: Saira Banu, Wong Wai Yee, Yasmin Isma, Siti Aishah Ali, Chew Chuee Seng, Kitson Ku, Rossianna A Sani, Kum Hui Min, Zainab A Karim

leFT To rigHT Front Row: District Judge Ong Chin Rhu, District Judge Joyce Low, District Judge James Leong, District Judge Tan May Tee, District Judge Kathryn LowSecond Row: District Judge Dorcas Quek, District Judge Earnest Lau, District Judge Loo Ngan Chor, District Judge Sundareswara Sharma, District Judge Marvin Bay, Magistrate Sandra Looi, District Judge Constance Tay

Crime Registry Officers, Community Court Secretariat, Criminal Court Officers


Civil Registry Officers

leFT To rigHT Front Row: Sayidhatunnisa, Lashman Singh, Joseph John, Anne Durray, James Chuah, Tan Swan Liang, Norjahan AmooSecond Row: Rita Anthony, Jaliah M Arif, Sadila Ali, Tan Hui Ying, Ng Kar Wei, Zheng Jun Yuan, Norzirafida Zakaria, Ng Kah Ern, A Bharathi, Mas Helmy Ali

leFT To rigHT Front Row: V Kamalathevy, Hatimah Nawi, Noraini Hj Omar, Glen de Souza, Nornahar A Rahman, Wahidah Somo, Salmiya SullamSecond Row: Amnah Ali, Roziana Selamat, Sarinam Johari, Yasmin Abdullah, Kesuma M Selamat, Nuzuliyah Taib, Azizah Ibrahim, Ismawati Ismail, Jazid KatonThird Row: Chong Liwen, Michael Chua, Jannie Low, Serene Tan, Md Rezal

Civil Trial Court Officers, primary Dispute Resolution Centre and Small Claims Tribunals

/ JuDges & stAff of tHe suborDinAte courts


Bailiffs Section and probate Section

leFT To rigHT Front Row: Helen Low, Rozita Mahmud, Yong Khai Ling, Md Hatta A Razak, Tham Yeong Shin, Bakhit M RidwanSecond Row: Koh Teow Peng, Fauziah Hasanbasri, Siti Ellyna Ali, Faridah A Bakar, Uma Mageswari, B Sayeeswari, Koh Puay Chin, Lamri ShahnanThird Row: Omar Bachik, Johari Satiman, Kamaruzaman Kassim, L Ruthreshwaran, B Eswaran, Sapuan Sanadi, Ismail Mat

fAmIly AND JUvENIlE JUSTICE DIvISIONJudges of the family and Juvenile Justice Division

leFT To rigHT Front Row: District Judge Sowaran Singh, District Judge Doris Lai, District Judge Tan Peck Cheng, District Judge Jocelyn Ong, District Judge Emily WilfredSecond Row: District Judge Amy Tung, Magistrate Nicole Loh, District Judge Carol Yeo, District Judge Kevin Ng, District Judge Masayu Norashikin, District Judge Wong Li Tein


family Registry and family Court Officers

Counselling and psychological Services, family Resolutions Chambers, maintenance mediation Chambers

leFT To rigHT Front Row: Ho Yew Wai, Ronald Lim, Sarinah Mohamed, Goh Soo Cheng, Azhar Md NasirSecond Row: Aziziyah Md Hambali , Nurhafidzah M Kamal, Kristy Liew, Kyler Chua, Yip Lai Yee, Annie Lee, Audrey Lum, Sandra J Pereira, Yap Pui Ling

leFT To rigHTFront Row: Shamsul Yusoff, Aw Theng Theng, Rosalind Tan, Patricia Png, Agnes Goh, Noraini Hanifah, Jumahat Ahmad Second Row: Warni Puteh, Aminah Kader, Fiona Chan, Tan Rui Rong, Shahidah Sa’aban, Buvanes Devadas, Aminah Ali, Tan Mei Ling, Lee Hui Ping, Hamidah YusoffThird Row: Toh Xue Li, Lisa Chan, Mohd Fazil Bin Abdul Razak, Cassandra Lim, Sivagamy Ganesan, Tay Ai Ling



human Resource management Section, Infrastructure Development Section, Records management, Typing pool

leFT To rigHTFront Row: Desiree Pang, Jenny Ang, Senior Deputy Registrar Tan Boon Heng, John Lee, Phua Thong Leng Second Row: Shariza M Shariff, Michelle Chiang, Ng Bak Seng, Nishad Banu, Thong Siew Wah Winnie, Choo Oi Peng, V Padma, Josephine Tan, Doreen Ong Third Row: Sarah Lim, Iskandar Abbas, Francis Lim, Andrew Chew, Cheryl Howe

leFT To rigHTFront Row: Adrian Lai, Nezam Zakaria, Papinder Kaur, Lee Chun Yip, Dalbir Kaur, Victor Tay, Rebecca Thaver Katherine Second Row: Lucy Goh, Rosalind Yap, Jess Zheng, K Bhawani, G Tamilselvi, Yeow-Mak Yuek Ling, Bernadette Ng, Teo Khwa Chwee, R Thamayanthi Third Row: Jaslyn Ng, Yvonne Teo, Haris A Rahman, Bernard Soh, Shernice Tee, Ang Gay Chin

CORpORATE AND COURT SERvICES DIvISIONRegistrar’s Secretariat, Communications Section and finance Section


malay & Tamil Interpreters

leFT To rigHTFront Row: Yeo Keng Heng, Raymond Loh, Daniel Ang, Chia Yew Tuck, Ong Khian Guan, Low Meng Huat Second Row: Poh Lay Koon, Loh Mee Ling, Tay Kuan Kuan, Goh Hsiao Teen, Sharon Chua, Chen Shiyan, Yeo Ai FernThird Row: Ng Geok Meng, Ang Wei Yi, Goh Chai Hoon, Lucia Cheng, Jasmine Ng, Tan Siew Hoon

leFT To rigHTFront Row: Suhana Salleh, Samsiah M Mizah, N Sivanandan, Maheswary KSecond Row: Annhanim Mohamed, Norartiyangseh, Mary Doris, J Meera, Rohaida Satari, Ra’idah Marwan, Tumirah A Osman, Samsiah Sharif

Chinese Interpreters



STRATEgIC plANNINg AND TRAININg DIvISION

District Judge Thian Yee Sze and District Judge Joseph Yeo

Information Technology Department

leFT To rigHTFront Row: You Chiou Har, Denise Hng, Poh Kheng ThongSecond Row: Chia Wan Leng, Azreen Ahmad, Regina Ong, Andrew Chee, Jessica Loke, Cheng Kim Yew, Shirley Chia

leFT To rigHTFront Row: Suhailah Sakdom, Rosyati Ahmad, Chan Wai Yin, Sherrie Lim Second Row: Rozilah Rohani, Rubiah Jaharah, Rafeeza A Rahman, Harpreet Kaur, Shen Qinghui, Huang Caiwei

Centre for Research and Statistics, Organisational Excellence Unit, Research and Resource Centre


/ section

/ HigHligHts of stAff events /


NATIONAl DAy CElEBRATIONSAs part of our National Day celebrations, the Subordinate Courts organised an in-house National Day Carnival and e-Auction in aid of our adopted charity, the Children’s Cancer Foundation. The annual carnival not only provided an opportunity for our staff to come together to celebrate National Day, it allowed us to exercise our creativity and pool our resources together to contribute to the less fortunate.

/ The activities culminated in a record high of $16,234 being raised for the Children’s Cancer Foundation. /

The National Day celebrations concluded with the National Day Observance Ceremony on 13 August 2009 when outstanding staff members were recognised. The Subordinate Courts’ 10-year Long Service Awards were also presented and staff who had been conferred National Day State Awards were congratulated. The event ended on a high note as everyone was treated to performances put up by our staff, once again displaying the talents and unity in our people.

COURT ADmINISTRATOR Of ThE yEAR AwARDThe Court Administrator of the Year Award is the highest accolade given to our Court Administrators in recognition of their excellent performance and outstanding contributions to the Subordinate Courts.

/ The candidates for this award are evaluated based on their personal and inter-personal qualities, track record, dedication and commitment to work, and contributions to the Subordinate Courts, amongst others. /

Upon being conferred the award, the Court Administrator of the Year will play an important role as mentors to new officers and in enhancing and encouraging good practices among our Court Administrators.


/ HigHligHTs oF sTaFF evenTs

NATIONAl DAy AwARDS

public Administration medal (Bronze)District Judge Earnest Lau

Efficiency medalMs Supaletchumi Suppiah

long Service medal (25 years of service)District Judge Francis Tseng

Mdm G Tamilselvi Mr Daniel Ang

Mdm R Maheswary Ms Sanisah Bte Mahad

SUBORDINATE COURTS AwARDS

Court Administrator of the year 2009 AwardMs Nornahar Bte Abdul Rahman

Ms Rosalind Tan Chye EngMs Sarah Lim Chow Yeh

Subordinate Courts 10-year Service AwardSenior District Judge and Registrar Hoo Sheau PengDistrict Judge Ong Chin Rhu Mr Balasubramaniam s/o Tharmalinggam Ms Thaver Rebecca Katherine Ms Mariah Bte Amri Ms Noor Aini Bte Zumzuri Ms Yasmin Bte Jaffar Ms Yeo Ai Fern Ms Lucia Cheng Ms Zuleeyantee Bte Suri Mrs Renuka Thanabalan Mr Low Khee Por

Mr Bernard Soh Ms Aw Theng Theng Mr Eswaran s/o Balasubrahaniam Ms Jannie Low Ms Thong Siew Wah Winnie Ms Rosalind Tan Ms Zainawah Bibi Bte Mohmad Ms Norhayanti Bte Sufian Ms Krystal Tan Ms Kasumawati Bte RifaieMs Norhafizah Bte Mohd Said


The Court Administrator of the Year Award 2009 was presented to Ms Nornahar Bte Abdul Rahman, Ms Rosalind Tan Chye Eng and Ms Sarah Lim Chow Yeh.

STAff EvENTSTo enrich the welfare and well-being of staff, the Judiciary Recreation Club organised a slew of exciting activities such as Movie Nite, Dinner and Dance themed “Shanghai Bang”, and the Zoomanji Amazing Race at the Singapore Zoological Gardens.

The Health Committee organised several activities to promote healthy living. These activities included a foot reflexology session, a health food bazaar, health screening for all staff and mammogram screening for our female colleagues. The distribution of fruits and healthy snacks is always eagerly anticipated by staff members.

To encourage staff members to maintain an active lifestyle, the newly formed Sports Committee organised weekly jogging and brisk-walking sessions in the evenings. Such sessions not only provided a good work-out after a long day’s work, they also facilitated interaction among our staff members. A major event organised by the Sports Committee since its inception was the Inter-Division 9-Pin Tap Bowling Tournament, which saw many undiscovered talents – potential professional bowlers – among our staff members.


pUBlIC SERvICE wEEk OBSERvANCE CEREmONyThe Subordinate Courts held our Public Service Week Observance Ceremony on 14 May 2009. The observance ceremony, which was part of the annual Public Service Week, aimed to remind all officers of our role in advancing Singapore as well as to forge among ourselves a sense of pride in being part of the public service. At this occasion, we also extended our congratulations to our colleagues, Ms Aw Theng Theng, Ms Noor Aini Bte Zumzuri and Ms Rozita Bte Mahmud, on being conferred the PS21 Star Service Award. This award is presented to public officers who have consistently exhibited strong commitment to providing good service.

/ HigHligHts of stAff events

ACkNOwlEDgEmENTS

The Editorial CommitteeDistrict Judge Ronald GweeDistrict Judge Dorcas Quek

Ms Desiree PangMs Michelle Chiang

Ms Sarah Lim

In Consultation with Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye and the Senior District Judges

with warmest Appreciation to All who have contributed to the publication.

no 1 Havelock squaresingapore 059724

tel (65) 1800-Justice / 5878423

www.subcourts.gov.sg

Date post:	05-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lethien
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times