upholding justice serving society inspiring trus t - state courts · 2014. 12. 14. · 2...

1

U P H O L D I N GJ U S T I C ES E R V I N GS O C I E T YI N S P I R I N GT R U S TA N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 2

SUBORDINATE COURTS ANNUAL REPORT 20122

MISSIONTo provide an effective and accessible system of justice,

inspiring public trust and confidence.

SHARED VISIONA leading subordinate court serving society:

With• quality judgments

• excellent court services• a variety of processes for timely resolution of disputes

• our people as the most valuable asset• the innovative use of technology

CORE VALUESFairness

AccessibilityIndependence, Integrity, Impartiality

Responsiveness

1

CONTENTSPublic Outreach

Alternative Dispute Resolution Conference 2012 46

Production of Small Claims Tribunals 47 Educational Video

Tours for the Public 48

Recognising Court Volunteers 48

Internship Programmes 50

51Inspiring TrustUnited Nations Public Service Award 52

Our International Profile 53

Participation in International Conferences 59and Exchanges

Local Awards 63

Visits by Distinguished Guests 64

Notes of Appreciation 65

67Our People Welcomes and Farewells 68

Staff Event Highlights

National Day Celebrations 70

National Day Awards 70

Subordinate Courts Awards 70

Court Administrator of the Year Awards 71

Public Service Week Activities 72

Organisational Cohesion Day 73

Sports and Welfare Activities 74

Judges and Staff of the Subordinate Courts 76

02Foreword by The Honourablethe Chief Justice

04Message from the Chief District Judge

12Organisation Chart

13Our DivisionsCriminal Justice Division 14

Civil Justice Division 15

Family and Juvenile Justice Division 16

Corporate and Court Services Division 18

Strategic Planning and Training Division 24

29Upholding JusticeSignificant Cases 30

Quality Judgments – The Role of Judicial Education 34

Caseload and Statistics 35

37

Serving SocietySignificant Divisional Initiatives 38

Establishment of the Community Justice Centre 42

Improvements to Court Services

New Subordinate Courts Complex 44

“Mystery Shopper” Audit 45

More Convenient Fine and Maintenance Payments 45


FOREWORD BY THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

The Subordinate Courts play a key role in the administration of justice in Singapore. It is in these courts that ordinary Singaporeans seek the protection of the law and the assurance of justice on a daily basis. The public have justifiably come to associate our court system with the highest standards of integrity and efficiency. In turn, the Subordinate Courts have entrenched their commitment to meet these standards, and in so doing, to serve the needs of the public with a service-centric ethos and commitment that permeates every aspect of their work.

The high regard in which the Subordinate Courts are held is due, in no small measure, to the visionary stewardship and inspiration that was provided by my predecessor, The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, until his retirement in November 2012.

Under Mr Chan’s leadership, the Subordinate Courts ably discharged their role as a key custodian of justice in our nation. Some of the many achievements of the Courts during this time include the launch of the International Framework for Court Excellence at the Asia-Pacific Courts Conference in 2010 and the attainment of the pinnacle Singapore Quality Award with Special Commendation in 2011.

Significant efforts to reduce the trauma associated with family law cases and to ensure a more holistic approach to resolving such cases were also made. These included the setting up of the Child Focused Resolution Centre to resolve post-divorce parenting and care arrangements. In the area of civil justice, the Subordinate Courts have been a leading force in promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) with the incorporation of ADR protocols in a large proportion of cases. This, too, has helped ensure that justice is accessible to as many as possible in as cost-efficient a manner as possible.

3

The Annual Report for 2012 details the Subordinate Courts’ work in the year just past. Some highlights include establishing the groundwork for the Community Justice Centre, a one-stop centre to assist unrepresented litigants through legal clinics, referral services and a lay assistance scheme.

The Subordinate Courts also introduced the Single Joint Expert scheme under which parties to personal injury litigation agree on a single medical expert to contain costs. The creation of the Sentencing Information and Research Repository is also underway. This repository will capture all key criminal sentencing data from court decisions which will give court users more accurate and up-to-date information about sentencing trends, and the outcomes of cases.

The Subordinate Courts also worked with The Law Society of Singapore and other partner agencies to organise the inaugural ADR Conference in October 2012. The conference brought together local and foreign experts in different areas of ADR and included a well-attended public forum aimed at educating members of the public on non-court avenues of redress.

In 2012, the Subordinate Courts received the Public Service Premier Award for achieving outstanding standards in organisational excellence. The stellar work of the Subordinate Courts in improving access to justice was also recognised by the United Nations and the Subordinate Courts were awarded the United Nations Public Service Award in recognition of their

work in establishing the HELP (Helping to Empower Litigants-in-Person) Centre to provide assistance to unrepresented litigants.

Awards, accolades and initiatives, while important, are only milestones in the Singapore Judiciary’s larger goal of ensuring that all Singaporeans have the opportunity to seek redress before the courts without excessive expense or delay. Indeed, the goal of securing access to justice for all is an ongoing process which is perhaps never fully completed. But its pursuit remains a guiding light for each of us committed to the fair and impartial administration of justice in Singapore, and this is critical if public confidence in the administration of justice and the Rule of Law is to be maintained. I am very grateful to the Chief District Judge and his colleagues for their dedication to the cause of securing justice for all the people of Singapore, and I am fully confident that he and his team will continue to work hard in this worthwhile endeavour.

SUNDARESH MENONChief JusticeRepublic of Singapore

FOREWORD BY THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE


MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

2012 was a watershed year for the Subordinate Courts. On 6 November 2012, we bade a fond farewell to former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong. He left the bench for his well-deserved retirement at the age of 75. Singapore owes a great debt to Mr Chan for his sterling contributions to the legal community. On behalf of the Subordinate Courts, I would like to express my utmost gratitude to him for his guidance and wisdom. I cherished his trust in us to perform our best. He had also empowered the leadership team to fulfil the mission of the Subordinate Courts. The trust and empowerment enabled us to strive for the best services for our court users. With his retirement, the legal fraternity has lost one of its sharpest legal minds. Be that as it may, Mr Chan’s legacy as a leading legal luminary in Singapore will never be forgotten.

While we bid farewell to Mr Chan, we also look forward to 2013, as well as the new challenges and developments it will bring to the Subordinate Courts, under the leadership of Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon. Chief Justice Menon needs no introduction – suffice to say that he was appointed as a Judicial Commissioner in the High Court in 2006, Senior Counsel in 2008, Attorney-General in 2010 and as a Judge of Appeal in 2012. With his reputation as a dynamic, inspiring and people-focused leader, Chief Justice Menon will undoubtedly bring about many positive changes to the way we work in the Subordinate Courts. We look forward to this and on behalf of everyone in the Subordinate Courts, I give Chief Justice Menon our assurance that we will do no less than our best as we work together with him to improve our justice system, ensuring that it is accessible to even the least fortunate in Singapore.

The theme of the Annual Report 2012 is “Upholding Justice ∙ Serving Society ∙ Inspiring Trust”. This is indeed an apt theme as it is the essence of the objectives which we sought to further through the initiatives that were implemented in 2012.

Inspiring Trust – our accolades in 2012

On 25 June 2012, the Subordinate Courts received the United Nations (UN) Public Service Award at the UN Headquarters in New York. We were awarded the second

5

prize in the category of “Improving the Delivery of Public Services” for Asia and the Pacific region for the establishment of our HELP Centre. HELP stands for “Helping to Empower Litigants-in-Person”. The HELP Centre was established in February 2010 to provide assistance and resources to litigants-in-person on our processes and procedures. There is also a free legal clinic conducted with the assistance of pro bono lawyers. Its existence bears testament to our commitment to ensuring that our court processes are accessible to all and to our enduring vision to dispense justice fairly and compassionately. We are proud of the good work that has been done and is still being done by the HELP Centre, and are most appreciative of the recognition from the UN. This is especially so as competition for these awards was very intense, with more than 1,000 applications submitted from all over the world.

We are proud to also record an accolade which we received on the domestic front – the Public Service Premier Award. This was presented to the Subordinate Courts on 25 May 2012 by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean for the achievement of outstanding standards in organisational excellence between April 2011 and March 2012. Three of our staff also received the PS21 Star Service Awards for consistently demonstrating high standards of service.

We see these accolades as a reward for the hard work which all the staff in the Subordinate Courts have put in to ensure that we provide fair and timely justice that comes from the heart. We will not rest on our laurels and will continue to strive to further improve our processes.

Committee of Inquiry into the disruptions to MRT train services on 15 and 17 December 2011

On 29 December 2011, Minister for Transport Lui Tuck Yew appointed a Committee of Inquiry (COI) to inquire into the disruptions to the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) train services on 15 and 17 December 2011. These disruptions affected more than 200,000 commuters. The COI comprised Director of Prisons Mr Soh Wai Wah, Professor Lim Mong King and me. The Inquiry was held in the Subordinate Courts from 16 April to 25 May 2012.

In conducting the Inquiry, we focused on our Terms of Reference as well as on carrying out the Inquiry as expeditiously as possible. Several expert witnesses were called by parties to the Inquiry. The Inquiry would not have concluded in six weeks had we proceeded in the traditional way of calling these witnesses to the stand. That it was completed in six weeks was due in no small measure to the use of witness conferencing, which was done for the first time in such proceedings. Witness conferencing is essentially a process whereby all the expert witnesses provide evidence at the same time and in confrontation with each other. The feedback we received after the Inquiry in relation to this was very favourable and the entire process of the Inquiry was an eye-opening learning journey both for me and for everyone involved. I am honoured to have been given the opportunity to chair the COI and to do my part in improving the MRT system in Singapore.



Developments and initiatives in the Criminal Justice Division

In 2012, the Criminal Justice Division embarked on a few major initiatives. These include the setting up of the framework to facilitate the early resolution of criminal cases. The other initiatives were to further public access to information and knowledge of the criminal justice system.

Criminal Case ResolutionThe pilot phase of the Criminal Case Resolution (CCR) was launched in end 2009. In October 2011, it was formally implemented through the Registrar’s Circular No. 4 of 2011. The objective of CCR is to assist in the resolution of criminal cases at an early stage through the neutral facilitation by a senior Judge. Statistics show that CCR has helped save hearing days since its pilot phase in 2009 – 103 cases out of a total of 151 cases were successfully resolved. In 2012 alone, 75.7% of the cases referred to CCR were successfully resolved, resulting in a saving of 120 hearing days. CCR ensures that we are able to identify cases which are likely to be resolved without proceeding for a hearing. This saves time for all parties involved and also ensures that precious hearing days are not wasted.

Sentencing Information and Research RepositoryThe Sentencing Information and Research Repository (SIR) is a sentencing database that stores the results of cases prosecuted in the Subordinate Courts. Such information will be readily available to both prosecutors and defence counsel alike, as well as to enforcement agencies, academia and

members of the public. This allows parties to identify similar cases and therefore gain a better understanding of the sentence that may be imposed. Such information will aid in the early resolution of cases and will also ensure consistency in sentencing.

Publication of Case Studies on Preventable DeathsThis initiative will be implemented in collaboration with various stakeholders in the coronial justice system. Publication of these case studies based on concluded cases from the Coroner’s Court will educate the public on how certain deaths could have been prevented, and in so doing, save valuable lives.

Through initiatives such as the SIR and in the publication of the case studies, we seek to reach out to our court users and to the public at large. Rather than hoard the information and knowledge which we have, our objective is to share as much as we can so that all those involved in the justice system as well as the public can benefit from this and make better and more informed decisions.

Developments and initiatives in the Civil Justice Division

The Civil Justice Division continued to implement initiatives that aimed to ensure that their processes were accessible and cost-effective.

Presumption of Alternative Dispute ResolutionOn 28 May 2012, a “Presumption of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)” in certain cases was introduced via Practice

7

Directions Amendment No. 2 of 2012. This presumption is directed at cases of low value for which an early settlement will result in substantial cost and time savings for parties. ADR is beneficial as it allows parties to settle their disputes quickly, cheaply and in a more cooperative and less confrontational atmosphere. As ADR is a consensual process, parties may still choose to opt out. However, where appropriate, such a choice may be taken into account by the Court when it makes costs orders. ADR is an integral part of our justice system here in the Subordinate Courts and we are committed to ensuring that our processes identify suitable cases that can and should be settled without proceeding for a hearing.

Introduction of a “Single Joint Expert” for Personal Injury ClaimsAfter consultation with the Bar, the insurance industry and the medical profession, the Single Joint Expert scheme was introduced in 2012 via Practice Directions Amendment No. 4 of 2012. Under this scheme, where the estimated quantum for general damages is less than $20,000, a single medical expert is jointly appointed by agreement between parties. This ensures that costs are kept as low as possible since multiple experts need no longer be appointed.

Streamlining the Probate ProcessPractice Directions Amendment No. 1 of 2012, which served to reduce the number of procedural steps and to simplify the criteria for the provision of security for the due administration of the estate, took effect on 1 June 2012. In conjunction with the launch of this new simplified process, a toolkit containing templates, instructions and FAQs

(Frequently Asked Questions) for the use of litigants-in-person was issued. This serves to further our overarching mission of ensuring that our court processes are kept as simple as possible so that it will not be out-of-reach to litigants-in-person.

Developments and initiatives in the Family and Juvenile Justice Division

The Family and Juvenile Justice Division continued with the implementation of initiatives that benefitted court users and their families, as well as stakeholders in the family justice system.

Child Focused Resolution CentreThe Child Focused Resolution Centre (CFRC) was started in 2011 to provide mandatory counselling and mediation for divorcing parents with young children. The main objective of the CFRC is to provide early intervention for divorcing parents and in so doing, give them a conciliatory forum where they can be assisted to reach an agreement on the care arrangements for their children and where they can also obtain useful parenting information. 2012 was its first full year of operation and I am pleased to say that feedback on its processes has been very positive. A majority of couples reached consensual agreements on arrangements for their children after undergoing the mandatory counselling and mediation. Moving forward, the CFRC is looking to tap on community resources for sustained support to be provided to families undergoing divorce. It is hoped that this will go some way towards managing the trauma caused to children during and post-divorce.



Practical Experience Talks and Workshops organised with StakeholdersTogether with the Ministry of Social and Family Development and The Law Society of Singapore’s Family Law Practice Committee, the Family and Juvenile Justice Division organised a series of free talks and a workshop for family lawyers in 2012. The purpose of these talks and workshop was to inform and engage participants on various topics, including the benefits of family court mediation, factors relevant to a child’s development that would impact parenting arrangements and how to handle emotionally charged situations arising from family law work. Participants in these talks and workshop were able to use them as a platform to ask questions and share their experiences. We are committed to working with our stakeholders in organising more of such activities. Plans have already been put in place for a further series in the coming year.

Collaborative LawIn October 2012, the inaugural Alternative Dispute Resolution Conference was held. At the Conference, the idea of approaching family law matters through the use of collaborative law was introduced. Collaborative law is well-established in jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia, Canada and Hong Kong. Essentially, it is a team approach whereby lawyers, their clients and other relevant professionals work together to resolve all issues pertaining to the divorce even before the application for divorce is filed. Parties sign a collaborative contract not to go to Court during this process and if it fails, parties will have to engage new professionals to take the case to Court. This is an enlightened approach and it will undoubtedly reduce much of the acrimony

that is unfortunately a common by-product of the litigation process. As such, the Family and Juvenile Justice Division will be working with the Family Bar to actively promote collaborative law in Singapore.

Upholding Justice – our commitment to furthering court excellence and court craft

Judicial Education InitiativesThe Subordinate Courts have earned a reputation for dispensing quality judgments and for the calibre of our Judges. This is no less than what the public should expect. We recognise the need for our Judges to continually improve and upgrade themselves. Continuing judicial education is therefore a perennial focus area for us and in 2012, the following key programmes were initiated in furtherance of this:

a. Judicial Mentorship ProgrammeThis programme paired our Judges up with High Court Judges who served as their mentors. This gave our Judges the invaluable opportunity to observe and learn from them. The inaugural run of this programme took place between March and May 2012.

b. Judgment Writing WorkshopIn March 2012, Professor James Raymond, President of the International Institute for Legal Writing and Reasoning, conducted a 2.5-day workshop for 36 of our Judges on the skills involved in writing judgments. The writing of judgments is an indispensable component of our Judges’ duties and this workshop was therefore very useful to those who attended. As we see more and more litigants-in-person in our Courts, it is imperative to ensure that the judgments we

9

deliver are written concisely without the use of legalese.

c. Craft of Judging WorkshopThis workshop was conducted by the Judicial College of England and Wales from 8 to 11 May 2012. 32 of our Judges attended it. Many of them had indicated that this is an essential workshop for all Judges. The workshop focused on the learning of skills such as assessing the credibility of evidence, managing young and vulnerable witnesses, as well as dealing with ethical issues and high-conflict situations in Court.

Furthering Court Excellence through the Use of TechnologyIn 2012, we continued to look into ways in which we can effectively harness technology to enhance our court processes and procedures:

a. Integrated Electronic Litigation SystemThe existing Electronic Filing System will be replaced by Integrated Electronic Litigation System (E-Litigation) in 2013. E-Litigation will revolutionise the way in which civil/family litigation and case management is conducted. The new functionalities and related services of E-Litigation promise a streamlined civil litigation process by eliminating redundant steps in electronic filing, resulting in improved efficiency and access to justice. In 2012, various activities were conducted in preparation for the launch, including user acceptance testing, hands-on training sessions and public awareness seminars for members of the Bar.

b. Integrated Criminal Case Management SystemThe Integrated Criminal Case Management System (ICMS) is a multi-million dollar

case management system. The web-based ICMS will link all agencies in the criminal justice system, which include the Courts, prisons, prosecutors, criminal lawyers, police, and other enforcement agencies. The ICMS will allow e-filing and e-workflow, leading to a paperless system. This system will transform the landscape of the administration of criminal justice for the benefit of all court users, as it will put in place a comprehensive end-to-end system for the efficacious management of all criminal cases brought before the Subordinate Courts. Development of the ICMS is underway. We are targeting for the first phase rollout of the ICMS in June 2013.

c. Pleading Guilty by PhoneCurrently, composition and court fines for traffic, parking and other regulatory offences can be paid at any AXS machine. Payments can also be made at the payment counters in the Subordinate Courts or at the enforcement agencies. We recognise that it may not be convenient for people to take time out from their busy schedules to come to the Subordinate Courts or go to the enforcement agencies to make payment. It may also be the case that an AXS machine is not readily available. One of our constant objectives is to make our procedures as hassle-free and efficient as possible. To that end, we have put into motion plans for payments to be made via the Internet and through smartphone applications. Payments can then be made from the comfort of one’s own home or anywhere else in the world at any time of the day or night. This gives our court users even greater accessibility and convenience, and would also reduce the need to make physical trips to the Subordinate Courts. More importantly, from the users’ perspective, the fines imposed



for such cases are significantly lower. For example, for speeding, the typical fine imposed in Court when the offender pleads guilty ranges from $500 to $1,000. However, if the offender pleads guilty via phone or at the AXS machine, the fine imposed is only $300.

Serving Society – programmes and initiatives benefiting court users and the public at large

Community Justice CentreOn 20 June 2012, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (as it then was), Ministry of Law, Subordinate Courts, Tan Chin Tuan Foundation and The Law Society of Singapore entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to establish the Community Justice Centre (CJC) that seeks to provide services to assist unrepresented litigants. The Tan Chin Tuan Foundation will provide seed funding for the CJC in its initial years to offer services such as legal clinics, a lay assistance scheme and services such as the provision of information, practical support, referrals and public outreach. This was done on the initiative of the Subordinate Courts. We are proud to be a part of this collaborative effort to ensure that litigants-in-person have a one-stop centre to aid them in navigating the legal process. The establishment of the CJC will further our lasting objective of ensuring that our procedures are accessible to all.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Conference 2012This Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Conference is another initiative of the

Subordinate Courts. It was jointly organised by the Supreme Court, Subordinate Courts, The Law Society of Singapore, Singapore Mediation Centre, Singapore Academy of Law, and the Community Mediation Centre of the Ministry of Law. The Conference was held at the Supreme Court on 4 and 5 October 2012. It attracted more than 300 participants, both local and international. There was also a public forum during this Conference and an additional 300 lay people attended this forum. Everyone involved, including my colleagues in the Subordinate Courts, contributed significantly to the resounding success of this Conference. The topics and speakers were well-received and the participants also gave very positive feedback on the Conference. ADR is an integral component of our justice system and the Conference further served to reinforce the message that ADR allows people to take control of their disputes in a faster, cheaper and less emotionally sapping manner. From a macro perspective, ADR also contributes to the creation of a more harmonious society through its emphasis on the value of negotiation and compromise.

New Subordinate Courts ComplexOn 4 June 2012, the winning design for the new Subordinate Courts complex was announced. The architects of the winning design are from Serie+Multiply Consultants Pte Ltd. The jury who selected the winning design noted that it is a simple and dignified design with a brilliant fusion of the past and present. While we are excited about the new complex, we are mindful of the need to ensure that public funds are used wisely in its construction. As a result, a Value Management workshop was conducted in the Subordinate Courts on 2 and 3 August

11

2012. Members of the leadership team of the Subordinate Courts and representatives from the Urban Redevelopment Authority and the winning firm attended the workshop. The purpose of the workshop was for the participants to consider the optimal use of land and space, how to build flexibility into the new complex to meet future changes to operational needs, and to ensure the optimal use of funds for the project. This workshop was critical for us as we are fully aware of the need to be accountable and transparent in the way precious public money is used in the construction of the new complex.

“Mystery Shopper” AuditTo assess and improve the service standards of our court administrators, a “Mystery Shopper” Audit was conducted by an independent company in August 2012. Various scenarios were provided to the four independent mystery shoppers so that they could review and assess the service standard provided at 17 counters and 11 public enquiry lines during the audit period. At the end of the audit period, the mystery shoppers shared their experiences. They noted that our court administrators had strong domain knowledge and also made the effort to elicit information so that they could better address the queries. However, they also noted that some of our court administrators appeared to rush through the transaction, and also seemed to lack the personal touch. Drawing on the response from the mystery shoppers, we will conduct refresher programmes through role-play activities for our court administrators. We take the responses seriously and will do our best to keep up with this continual learning so as to ensure that we provide the highest quality of service to our court users.

Staff Welfare CommitteeAt the Subordinate Courts, we believe that a harmonious and lively working environment motivates our staff to provide sterling service to our court users. We place great emphasis on the welfare of our staff. Thus we set up the Staff Welfare Committee in 2011. In 2012, the Committee organised various activities for the staff. This ranged from sporting activities to fruits and yoghurt buffets, as well as celebrations of all the major cultural festivals throughout the year. These activities bring all our staff together for some fun and relaxation, and also allow them to get to know one another better.

National Day CarnivalOur annual National Day Carnival activities held in 2012 raised a total of $42,324 for the Children’s Cancer Foundation. This far surpassed the $29,300 which we raised the previous year. The Carnival represents our efforts in giving back to society and is also an enjoyable and meaningful way for all staff to bond and work together.

Conclusion

In 2012, the programmes and initiatives implemented and developed by the Subordinate Courts served to further our aim of upholding justice, serving society and inspiring trust. It has indeed been a productive year for us. We look forward to 2013 – a brand new year under the leadership of our new Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon. I am confident that we will move from strength to strength in the coming years.

TAN SIONG THYEChief District Judge



ORGANISATION CHART

Chief District Judge

Deputy Chief District Judge

Criminal JusticeDivision

Centralised PTC Court

Commercial Crimes Group

Community Court Group

Crimes against Property Group

Crimes against Persons Group

Specialised Courts and

Mentions Courts Group

Crime Registry

Family & Juvenile Justice

Division

Corporate & Court Services

Division

Family Mediation, Counselling & Psychological Services and Family Courts

Group

Counselling & Psychological

Services

Family Resolutions Chambers

Child Focused Resolution Centre

Family Maintenance & Violence Cases

and Juvenile Court Group

Family Maintenance Registry

Maintenance Mediation Chambers

Protection Order Services

Juvenile Court

Family Registry

Civil Justice Division

Strategic Planning & TrainingDivision

Civil Trial Courts Group

General Cluster

Commercial Cluster

Torts Cluster

Primary Dispute Resolution

Centre

Small Claims Tribunals

Civil Registry

Bailiffs

Corporate Services

CommunicationsDepartment

FinanceDepartment

Human Resource Department

Infrastructure Development Department

Court Services

Interpreters Department

Records Management

Digital Recording & Transcription

Strategic Planning

Department

Training & Knowledge

Management Department

Organisational Excellence & Performance Management Department

Information Technology Department

Compliance

13

OUR DIVISIONS


CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISIONThe Criminal Justice Division is the largest division in the Subordinate Courts. The Division comprises the Criminal Trial Courts, Mentions Courts, Specialised Courts, and a centralised Pre-Trial Conference Court. These Courts collectively deal with more than 99 per cent of all criminal cases in Singapore.

For the efficient disposal of the myriad of cases that come before the Criminal Courts, the Division is organised into seven specialised groups, each headed by a group manager. The Division is headed by a Senior District Judge.

Specialised Functions Courts*

Centralised Pre-trial Conference Court, which centrally manages and assigns cases for trial in the various Trial Courts, and ensures that judicial resources are effectively allocated.

Court 17

Trial Courts specialising in criminal cases relating to commercial crimes, corruption, immigration, special drugs and intellectual property.

Courts 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 24, 35, 39, 40

Trial Courts specialising in criminal cases relating to property offences, housebreaking, gaming and gambling offences and employment-related offences.

Courts 4, 12, 13, 16, 34, 37

Community Courts, specialising in community-related cases and cases relating to public order.

Courts 19, 20

Trial Courts specialising in criminal cases relating to crimes against persons.

Courts 5, 8, 9, 15, 18, 33, 36

Mentions Courts for criminal cases (Courts 23 & 26); and specialised courts such as the Bail Court (Court 26), Traffic Court (Court 21), Summonses & Regulatory Matters Court (Court 14) and Coroner’s Court (Court 22).

Courts 14, 21, 22 ,23, 26#

The Crime Registry, which provides administrative support to the Courts in the Division and also to Magistrate’s Complaints and criminal case mediation.

Crime Registry

* Correct as at February 2013. The Courts may be allocated to different groups from time to time.

# Court 26 also operates as Night Court (Court 26N).

15OUR DIVISIONS

CIVIL JUSTICE DIVISIONThe Civil Justice Division deals with a variety of claims for sums up to $250,000 and other matters such as probate. With the consent of the parties, the jurisdictional limit may be increased. The Division consists of the Civil Registry (which includes the Bailiffs Section), the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre, Civil Trial Courts and the Small Claims Tribunals.

Civil Registry

A civil claim begins with the filing of a writ either in the District Court or the Magistrates’ Courts. In the process of preparing the civil claim for trial, parties will file interlocutory applications for determination before the Court. The interlocutory applications are heard by a team of Deputy Registrars at the Civil Registry. A case may be concluded in the Civil Registry when a summary judgment is granted or when a claim is struck out. Cases may also be referred for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) at the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre. In the event that a case is not resolved in the Civil Registry or through ADR, it will proceed for trial.

The Civil Registry also handles applications for the enforcement of judgments. The enforcement procedures are carried out with the assistance of the court bailiffs.

In addition, the Civil Registry deals with non-contentious probate applications. These applications are necessary for the executors and administrators of the estate of deceased persons to proceed with their duties.

Primary Dispute Resolution Centre

The Primary Dispute Resolution Centre (PDRC) provides parties with ADR services such as mediation. ADR is offered by the Courts to encourage the parties to reach an early resolution of their disputes and thereby save time and costs. The ADR services are provided by Judges of the PDRC as well as qualified volunteer mediators.

In 2012, the Civil Justice Division introduced a “Presumption of ADR” for all civil disputes. All cases are referred for ADR as a matter of course unless the parties opt out of ADR for satisfactory reasons. This ensures that the parties are given every opportunity to consider alternative means of resolving their disputes before proceeding for trial.


Civil Trial Courts

A small percentage of civil claims inevitably proceed to trial when the parties are unable to resolve their disputes. These trials are heard by Civil Trial Court Judges in open court. The Judge ensures that the trial proceeds in a fair yet expeditious manner, and that justice is not only done but seen to be done. Trial procedures may, at times, be confusing to the litigant-in-person (LIP). To level the playing field, the LIP has access to the services of the HELP (Helping to Empower Litigants-in-Person) Centre which provides information on the relevant court procedures.

FAMILY AND JUVENILEJUSTICE DIVISIONThe Family and Juvenile Justice Division (FJJD) plays a unique role in the administration of justice in Singapore. Family disputes are different from other disputes because they are very personal, often emotional; yet many parties will continue to have ongoing relationships well after their cases are over. Hence, while its primary role is to deal with and adjudicate family-related disputes, the FJJD


The Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) provide a quick and cost-effective alternative to litigation in the Courts. This avenue is available to any person who claims less than $10,000 (or up to $20,000, with the consent of the parties) in prescribed categories of claims, such as contracts for sale of goods or provision of services. Parties may not be represented by lawyers at the SCT so that costs may be kept low. SCT claims may be resolved through mediation before an SCT registrar. The dispute will be adjudicated by an SCT referee in the event that there is no settlement.

also provides holistic solutions to help rebuild the lives of families undergoing legal proceedings by providing them with the necessary support.

The FJJD deals with four main categories of cases: divorce-related proceedings, family protection and provision matters, mental capacity cases and matters relating to children and young persons.

17OUR DIVISIONS

Family protection and provision matters

The family protection and provision-related applications handled by the Family Court include all applications for orders relating to:

- family violence and protection;- maintenance (not consequent upon divorce);- children under the Guardianship of Infants Act; - enforcement of maintenance;- enforcement of Syariah Court orders for maintenance; and- enforcement of the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents orders.

Mental capacity cases

The FJJD handles all proceedings under the Mental Capacity Act in its Mental Capacity Court. Orders appointing deputies to act on behalf of persons lacking mental capacity can be made.

Divorce-related proceedings

The divorce-related applications handled by the Family Court include applications:

- to commence divorce proceedings;- for nullity or judicial separation;- for division of matrimonial assets (for asset values below $1.5 million), maintenance orders and orders relating to custody, care and control of children; and - for the variation of orders relating to maintenance and children where circumstances have changed over time.

Inevitably, some matters proceed to a contested court hearing. Nonetheless, opportunities are always created for parties to work towards an amicable resolution through the use of collaborative and less adversarial processes.

In September 2011, the Child Focused Resolution Centre was set up to carry out mandatory counselling and mediation to help divorcing parents with children to focus on the needs of their children and to help them in their parental roles after the divorce.


CORPORATE AND COURT SERVICES DIVISIONThe Corporate and Court Services Division (CCSD) provides support services to the other divisions of the Subordinate Courts. Led by the Deputy Chief District Judge, the CCSD is the administrative backbone of the Subordinate Courts. It is organised into various departments which are staffed by a team of subject specialists.

Communications Department

The Communications Department comprises the Corporate Communications Section and Service Relations Section.

The Corporate Communications Section serves as a link between the Subordinate Courts and external parties, particularly the media, local and overseas delegates, and the general public. The Section undertakes various communications activities to enhance the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Subordinate Courts. This is done through communication channels like the media, website, corporate collaterals, and outreach programmes.

The Service Relations Section aims to deliver excellent court services through identification of relevant training programmes for service staff.

Matters relating to children and young persons

The Juvenile Court exercises criminal jurisdiction over juveniles in Singapore but focuses on their rehabilitation and restoration, taking into account factors and circumstances from a multi-disciplinary perspective. The Juvenile Court also handles applications for “Care and Protection” orders and “Beyond Parental Control” orders under the Children and Young Persons Act.

The Family Court also issues custody and adoption orders under the Guardianship of Infants Act and the Adoption of Children Act respectively.

Partnerships and stakeholder engagement

The FJJD maintains important partnerships with stakeholders who provide support services for parties. They include the Ministry of Social and Family Development, the Panel of Juvenile Court Advisers, governmental and non-governmental family support agencies, family service centres and volunteer mediators.

19OUR DIVISIONS

The Section supervises service-related activities, including managing feedback and compliments from court users, and providing support to the Quality Service Manager.

Key InitiativesIn 2012, the Corporate Communications Section organised dialogues with media editors and reporters. Arising from such dialogues was a more streamlined process of availing copies of fresh charges for the media’s reference in the mentions courts, which, in turn, reduced the time taken for the media to conduct their fact checks.

The Subordinate Courts recognise that the learning needs of supervisors and service staff are different. To provide a better focus for their training, the Service Relations Section introduced tiered service training for the court administrators (CAs). Instead of a generic programme, the service-related training needs are themed according to the functions and responsibilities of the CA. For example, frontline staff with less than three years’ service will develop their skills in customer service; supervisors will motivate the service staff under their charge while the heads of the various registries will drive the service initiatives.

In the next work year, the Communications Department will review the social media policy to provide guidelines for the CAs’ professional and personal use of social media tools. The revamp of the Subordinate Courts’ website and development of an automated system to track feedback received are ongoing.

Human Resource Department

The Human Resource Department (HRD) aims to position the Subordinate Courts as an employer of choice, in line with the Subordinate Courts’ vision to be a leading court, serving society with “people as the most valuable asset”. To achieve this, the HRD constantly reviews strategies and policies to attract and retain good performers, develop and maximise the potential of staff, and enhance employee motivation and engagement levels. The HRD also has in place a talent management framework to develop and groom high potential officers for leadership and managerial appointments, to ensure organisational sustainability and renewal.

Key InitiativesTo continue in its quest to position the Subordinate Courts as an employer of choice, the HRD unveiled a slew of initiatives in 2012 to increase staff engagement levels.

In the area of manpower planning, the HRD worked with the various divisions to establish an optimal organisational structure for the Subordinate Courts. A job grading exercise was conducted to establish the job grade for every post. This is important as staff structures and job grades will form the basis for manpower planning which will, in turn, facilitate decision-making in critical areas such as talent management, succession planning, and performance management. In addition, the Department conducted a review of the designations and established a clearer progression structure


for both the permanent and contract CAs to ensure consistency in designations among officers of equivalent substantive grades, and provide staff with a sense of progression as they advance in their respective schemes of service. To ensure a more rigorous manpower planning framework, it also instituted the bi-annual Personnel Management Board which is chaired by the Chief District Judge. This ensures a platform for manpower matters like succession planning, talent management, retirement or re-employment, career progression and job rotation to be appropriately and adequately addressed.

As part of staff career development, the HRD launched a Job Posting Request System for officers to request for cross-divisional posting. This initiative seeks to enhance staff retention by providing them with alternative job options within the organisation.

To increase the chances of a successful start for newly recruited CAs, the HRD initiated a mentoring programme, which matches a new CA with a more senior and experienced officer who serves as a

mentor. The mentor would provide the new CA with guidance and advice, and in the process ease the new CA’s transition into the organisation. In addition to the dialogue session held after their initial three months with the organisation, further dialogue sessions are conducted with the new CAs after they have served for one year to obtain their input and feedback on their stint at the Subordinate Courts. This works towards better assimilation of the new CAs into the organisation.

To create a conducive work environment that adequately caters to the well-being and satisfaction of the employees, the HRD has put in place programmes to foster a sense of belonging amongst staff, improve staff morale, enhance satisfaction and promote work-life balance. In October 2012, the Department introduced “Blue Sky Friday” to encourage staff to leave the office at 5.30 pm every Friday, subject to exigencies of service, to have dinner with their families or to pursue other interests. To motivate officers to take good care of their health, the Department launched the annual “No MC (Medical Certificate) Award” as a form of recognition for staff who have not taken any medical leave and hospitalisation leave for the year. These efforts contributed to the Subordinate Courts being conferred the coveted Platinum Award for the Singapore HEALTH (Helping Employees Achieve Life-Time Health) Award 2012, the highest accolade given to organisations in recognition of their efforts to develop a healthy workforce.

21OUR DIVISIONS

During the year in review, the HRD launched the inaugural “2012 Court Administrator of the Decade Award” to commend CAs for their commitment and dedication towards service excellence. The recipient of this award will be nominated for overseas study visits and attachments to further contribute to the administration of the Courts.

In the continuous efforts to raise funds for the less fortunate and inculcate the spirit of philanthropy amongst staff, in August 2012, the HRD introduced the Best SHARE (Social Help & Assistance Raised by Employees) Award for the division with the highest SHARE contribution.

Other major initiatives that the Department launched in 2012 included the review of the eligibility criteria for examination leave, sourcing for bridging courses or programmes for officers who do not have the requisite qualification for conversion to a higher scheme of service in the Management Support Scheme, and for deserving contract officers who do not meet the qualification criteria for emplacement. It also organised the inaugural 2012 Promotion Ceremony in April.

In 2013, the HRD will introduce telecommuting, an important work-life balance strategy. It allows staff to work from their preferred locations, in place of the physical commute to the office. This provides greater time flexibility for staff to manage between work and other commitments, and enhances job satisfaction.

The HRD will continue to streamline and enhance its processes and programmes to better serve its internal customers. It will also foster a closer working relationship with the divisions to meet their manpower needs and to provide timely advice on manpower matters. The Department will also look into several initiatives such as training and mentorship programmes to equip supervisors with “people manager” skills to enable them to better engage and motivate their staff, and to be effective role models. In addition, it will leverage on technology and champion the development of an electronic information management system to serve as a central repository for easy access to information and to facilitate knowledge sharing and transfer. Such a knowledge management system would improve the organisation’s productivity in the long run.

To play the role of a strategic partner to the divisions, the HRD will explore the “Account Manager” concept where an HR personnel will be dedicated to serve a division and work with it to address its manpower needs. This would ensure a timely and more customised delivery of HR services and advice.

Finance Department

The Finance Department oversees the management and optimisation of the Subordinate Courts’ financial resources. It is responsible for providing effective and efficient financial services to internal and external customers. The Finance Department also aims to enhance


efficiency in revenue collections, payment processing and management of budget, and to provide value-added financial input for policy formulation and effective court administration.

Key InitiativesIn 2012, the Finance Department implemented the Finance Management System and the Foreign Interpreters Management System. The Finance Management System automated several functions which streamlined the work processes and improved productivity and efficiency. It provided a one-stop centralised system for a wide range of finance matters, ranging from revenue collection, deposit management and payment processing. The Foreign Interpreters Management System also streamlined work processes, and automated the certification of services performed and computation of payments. This enhanced efficiency and resulted in faster payment to the foreign interpreters for their services rendered. Both court users and staff of the Subordinate Courts benefitted from the implementation of the two online systems.

In March 2012, the Finance portal was launched to share pertinent finance-related information and directives with staff. The Department also worked with other departments on economy-drive initiatives and optimised the usage of their departments’ allocated budget. This has strengthened the organisation’s resource management and fund utilisation.

Infrastructure Development Department

The Infrastructure Development Department (IDD) is responsible for the planning, upgrading, development and management of facilities and security for the courthouse. It is also responsible for the new Subordinate Courts complex. In addition, the IDD manages the procurement of office supplies and equipment, ensuring compliance with the prescribed guidelines.

Key InitiativesTo preserve the Family and Juvenile Court building, the IDD embarked on restoration works in 2012. The project is expected to complete in 2013.

Workspace maximisation is always a challenge that is presented by increased manpower and services offered to court users. During the year in review, the IDD reconfigured work areas and created additional hearing chambers in both the Small Claims Tribunals and Primary Dispute Resolution Centre, and added new workstations for the Finance Department. To provide greater comfort and improve efficiency in the workplace, old furniture (e.g. chairs) and office equipment (e.g. photocopiers) which were fully depreciated, were replaced in 2012.

In compliance with the Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Act, the IDD implemented a robust risk management programme and the “Fire and Workplace

23OUR DIVISIONS

Safety Compliance Framework” to enhance safe work practices. The WSH Committee also engaged consultants to prepare the organisation for the external WSH audit in December 2012.

The Subordinate Courts aim to build a sustainable environment through reducing energy consumption and promoting eco-friendly practices. To this end, an Eco-Office Committee was formed in 2012 to increase staff’s awareness of eco-friendly practices and to encourage staff to play their part. The Committee has placed recycling bins at strategic locations and changed fluorescent light bulbs to more energy-saving LED (light-emitting diode) ones.

The IDD also plans to embark on more reconfiguration projects to meet the spatial demands of staff and court users, including increasing the number of meeting rooms. To guide stakeholders and tenants on the procedures for setting up a new office in the Subordinate Courts, the Department will develop a fitting-out manual. Rental rates for the use of the Subordinate Courts’ facilities by external agencies will also be formalised.

Interpreters Department

The Interpreters Department comprises the Chinese Interpreters, Malay Interpreters and Indian Interpreters Sections. The Interpreters provide accurate and prompt interpretation and translation services. They also provide mediation services for maintenance disputes in the Family Court, and assist in processing bail applications at the Crime Registry. In addition, the Department assists in the translation of all in-house collaterals.

Apart from providing interpretation services, the Indian Interpreters Section manages the Foreign Interpreters Management Unit (FIMU). This Unit engages foreign interpreters to assist foreign accused persons and court users with little or no proficiency in English. It ensures that foreign interpreters are deployed promptly when needed, and they are guided by high standards and professionalism.

Key InitiativesThe Interpreters Department’s language expertise is leveraged on from time to time to enhance the Subordinate Courts’ services to court users. In 2012, the Interpreters Department conducted a basic language course for frontline staff to equip them with the language skills to better serve court users.

In 2012, FIMU conducted a workshop as part of the foreign interpreters’ continual training. The Unit also prepared a handbook for the foreign interpreters. This handbook will be launched in 2013.


STRATEGIC PLANNING AND TRAINING DIVISIONExcellence in organisational performance does not come about by accident. At the Subordinate Courts, organisational excellence has been a result of careful planning and forecasting. The Strategic Planning and Training Division (SPTD) was established in 2008 to assist the Subordinate Courts’ leadership team in charting strategic directions to map an explicit path between the present and the Subordinate Courts’ vision of the future, and to work towards thought leadership in the area of administration of justice.

Working closely with the justice divisions and the Corporate and Court Services Division, the SPTD supports the building of a high performance culture within the Subordinate Courts to facilitate innovation and to ensure that Judges and staff are well-equipped to respond to the challenges and opportunities arising out of changes in their environment.

Records Management Unit

The Records Management Unit (RMU) provides effective safekeeping, retrieval and preservation of court records.

Key InitiativesSince 2010, the RMU has been converting hardcopy court records into microfilms to reduce storage space requirements. To-date, it has microfilmed all the old records of the Civil Justice Division and the Family and Juvenile Justice Division amounting to 37 million pages. In 2012, the RMU embarked on the microfilming of the Criminal Justice Division’s case files. This is expected to be completed in 2013.

Complementing the microfilming efforts, a bar-coding system that aims to provide staff with expedient access to files, while enabling the categorisation of the records by their case types, was completed in 2012.

Digital Recording and Transcription Unit

The Digital Recording and Transcription Unit administers the Digital Audio Recording and Transcription system (DART), an audio recording system that records court proceedings. This allows cases to be handled more effectively and efficiently. In 2012, all the courtrooms for criminal and family cases were equipped with DART.

25OUR DIVISIONS

There are four departments in the SPTD to address the different facets of strategic planning and help the Subordinate Courts remain responsive and forward-looking.

Strategic Planning Department

Planning Unit

The Planning Unit develops strategies and makes recommendations for meeting both short-term and long-term challenges. It alerts the leadership team to relevant developments, assesses their impact, proposes suitable responses or strategies, and supports the leadership team in decision-making.

Key InitiativesHaving put in place a systematic and robust process to drive planning initiatives (e.g. annual corporate retreat and workplan), the Planning Unit, in consultation with the divisions, drafted an inaugural three-year strategic plan (2013-2015) for the Subordinate Courts. The strategic plan will articulate the Subordinate Courts’ strategic roadmap, which highlights seven strategic thrusts and how they are linked through a balanced scorecard approach towards the fulfilment of the Courts’ mission and vision.

In 2012, the Planning Unit also introduced scenario building methods in its strategic planning toolkit. Through scenario planning, the Unit endeavours to bring about a paradigm shift in the way the Subordinate

Courts manage issues and explore opportunities ahead. The Unit also tested the resilience and versatility of the strategy map against national scenarios by working closely with the Strategic Policy Office of the Public Service Division.

Research and Knowledge Development Unit

The main role of the Research and Knowledge Development Unit is to drive research-based programmes and initiatives at the Subordinate Courts. The Unit has been proactively strengthening its capabilities in horizon scanning and benchmarking against the international legal landscape and judicial developments. Since its establishment, the function of this Unit has expanded from that of “foundation building” to “capacity building” so as to better cater to the organisation’s needs.

Key InitiativesThe Research and Knowledge Development Unit developed a series of judicial training videos covering basic court craft skills, and management of litigants-in-person and counsel. These videos are used as part of the Courts’ induction programme for new Judges and as a refresher for current Judges. Three videos were launched in July 2012, namely, “What Makes a Good Judge? Part 1: Understanding the Judicial Role and Having Good Judicial Temperament”, “What Makes a Good Judge? Part 2: Appreciating the Craft of Judging”, and “Taking a Plea of Guilt”.


Together with the Statistics and Analysis Section and the Civil Justice Division, the Unit will collaborate with Nanyang Technological University’s Nanyang Business School to conduct a research on court users’ needs and expectations of mediation services provided by the Singapore Judiciary. The results from this study will help the Courts better design appropriate mediation programmes for court users.

Training & Knowledge Management Department

Training Section

The Training Section charts and oversees the training roadmap of the Judges (under the direction of the Judicial Education Board) and CAs to ensure that their individual potential is maximised through a holistic learning and development framework.

Key InitiativesIn 2012, the Training Section focused on developing the Subordinate Courts’ in-house training capabilities. It developed and implemented a number of in-house customised training programmes to hone the core skills and develop the qualities of Judges and CAs. Judges who had attended overseas training, particularly in core judicial skills such as the craft of judging and judgment writing, assisted renowned overseas expert trainers in developing, contextualising and conducting similar in-house workshops for the other Judges.

Knowledge Management Section

Established in 2011, the Knowledge Management Section encourages a culture of knowledge capturing and sharing, and ensures that judicial knowledge and experiences are properly documented, continuously enriched and easily accessed.

Key InitiativesThe Knowledge Management Section conducted a knowledge audit to identify, measure and assess the tacit and explicit knowledge in the Subordinate Courts before embarking on the redevelopment of the Courts’ intranet, an information repository for staff, to provide a more user-centric information architecture and support knowledge sharing and collaboration within the Courts.

The Library

The Library at the Subordinate Courts is one of the few specialist libraries which offers resources and services to meet the needs of the legal community, academic institutions and the public. In 2012, the Library conducted a review to evaluate, select and organise its collection of legal information resources to continue to support the needs of its target users.

27OUR DIVISIONS

Organisational Excellence & Performance Management Department

Organisational Excellence Unit

The Organisational Excellence Unit (OEU) was set up to institutionalise and co-ordinate initiatives for the development of organisational excellence and attainment of higher benchmarks. The OEU is instrumental in facilitating the Subordinate Courts’ drive towards sustained organisational excellence through the adoption of international standards, including the International Framework for Court Excellence, and the development of programmes to strengthen the Subordinate Courts’ internal systems and processes.

Key InitiativesIn 2012, the Subordinate Courts were accorded the Public Service Premier Award, the highest national award for public service delivery, and the prestigious United Nations Public Service Award. The OEU conducted sharing sessions for the Defence Science and Technology Agency, MayBank, and the Singapore Land Authority. It also organised learning journeys for staff to help them keep abreast of the latest best practices of other agencies.

Statistics and Analysis Section

In 2012, the Statistics and Analysis Section (SAS) was renamed from the Centre for Research and Statistics to better define its core roles in developing, maintaining and managing statistical information in the Subordinate Courts. The SAS tracks, monitors and reports on the performance of the Subordinate Courts through the analysis of operational data, results of key performance indicators, and surveys. Such statistical information is intended to enhance the ability of the Subordinate Courts to refine court processes and case management, as well as to improve resource management.

Key InitiativesIn 2012, the SAS developed a new survey to elicit feedback from stakeholders and strategic partners. The survey aimed to find out the stakeholders’ satisfaction level and determine possible ways to increase the active engagement of stakeholders and strategic partners. Such data gathering provided important information for planning and decision-making in the Subordinate Courts.


Information Technology Department

The Information Technology Department (ITD) ensures that the efficiency and effectiveness of the Subordinate Courts’ functions and operations are enhanced through the strategic use of information technology (IT). The ITD works on harnessing IT to contribute to the fulfilment of the Subordinate Courts’ core values and their aspiration of providing a world class model of service delivery to meet court users’ needs in a professional, user-friendly, and cost-effective manner.

Key InitiativesIn 2012, the ITD developed the Subordinate Courts’ fifth ICT (Information Communication and Technology) Master Plan which will help transform the way the Subordinate Courts work over the next three years. The plan provided a holistic approach to the future development and implementation of new information systems and technologies, ensuring the delivery of high quality service to all court users, and enabling the Courts to implement government policies in relation to the Information Society.

29OUR DIVISIONS

UPHOLDING JUSTICE


SIGNIFICANT CASESby members of the public. Darren Ng was slashed and stabbed with knives, choppers and a screwdriver. He sustained severe injuries and died 5 hours later in hospital. 12 youths were charged for their involvement in the brutal attack. Out of the 12 youths, 5 were charged more seriously for culpable homicide and sentenced in the High Court. The other 7 youths were dealt with in the Subordinate Courts and faced charges for rioting under either section 147 or section 148 of the Penal Code after investigations revealed that each of them played a lesser role.

This case generated much public alarm over youth violence. The Courts have consistently treated offences of rioting linked to secret societies more severely, particularly where the violence is committed in a public place. The following sentences were meted out:

i) Chong Rui Hong - 4 years’ imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane (1 charge)

ii) Tang Jia Min - 6 years and 3 months’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane (2 charges)

iii) Ho Wei Quan - 5 years’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane (1 charge)

iv) Ng Wei Lun - 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane (1 charge)

v) Jason Chew Wei Beng - 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane (3 charges)

Criminal Cases

Commercial sex with minorsIn a series of cases which shone the spotlight on the regulation of the sex trade, the Courts strongly upheld Parliament’s aim to protect persons under the age of 18 from being exploited and to curb the demand for such services.

In 2012, a total of 51 men were charged under section 376B(1) of the Penal Code for paying for the sexual services of an underaged female. The girl involved was then below 18 years old. Her services were advertised on a website.

Lee Lip Hong, a former principal of a school, was the first to plead guilty. He was sentenced to 9 weeks’ imprisonment. Howard Shaw, former Executive Director of the Singapore Environment Council, was the second person to plead guilty, and was sentenced to 12 weeks’ imprisonment. The Court noted that both men had been reckless and had not made any effort to check or further verify the girl’s age to avoid commission of an absolute liability offence.

Downtown East slashingThe Courts played an important role in safeguarding the interests of the public against violent behaviour.

On 30 October 2010, a 19-year-old polytechnic student, Darren Ng, was killed in a secret society gang fight in Downtown East, an entertainment centre frequented

31UPHOLDING JUSTICE

vi) Puay De Feng - 5 years’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane (2 charges)

vii) Lewis Lee - 4 years and 10 months’ imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane (2 charges)

PP v Nightingale Nursing Home Pte LtdIn the first prosecution of its kind brought by the Ministry of Manpower, a nursing home was convicted in September 2012 under section 5(1) of the Private Hospital and Medical Clinics Act for breaching licensing conditions by failing to provide the approved standards of nursing care to an elderly patient. The charge arose out of video footage taken by the patient’s son between November and December 2010 which showed the patient being flung on the bed and slapped by the staff. The footage was also televised.

The Court noted that there were no injuries and it appeared to be a one-off incident. However, the Court pointed out that it was inexcusable and unacceptable to mistreat an elderly patient, who deserves the full protection of the law.

Separately, the Nightingale Nursing Home was also convicted on 10 charges of illegal deployment under section 5(3) of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act as they had deployed 10 foreign nursing aides in jobs different from that which was stated in their work permits. In respect of the 11 proceeded charges, the nursing home was sentenced to a total fine of $26,000. On the more serious charge under section 5(1) of the Private Hospital and Medical Clinics Act, the nursing home was fined $15,000

to send a strong message that the law has zero tolerance if elderly patients in their care are treated inappropriately. The welfare and dignity of these patients must be upheld.

Criminal Case Disclosure Conference - Profitable PlotsIn a prosecution brought by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD), three directors of the land banking firm Profitable Plots were each charged in March 2012 with 86 counts of cheating investors of US$2.4 million on investments related to an industrial lubricant called Boron. The charges arose out of more than 320 complaints filed with the CAD by investors who had invested their savings on the promise of high returns.

Subsequently, the Prosecution proceeded on 18 of the charges. During the Criminal Case Disclosure Conference in the Subordinate Courts, the Defence applied for the production of documents which were seized during an August 2010 raid by the CAD as they were needed for the preparation of the Defence’s case. After hearing the Defence and Prosecution’s respective arguments for and against the production of the documents, the Court did not allow the Defence’s application on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction to order the production of the documents. The Defence then filed a criminal motion to the High Court to apply for the production of the seized documents. On 25 October 2012, the High Court allowed access to the seized documents, thereby determining that the parties’ rights to access their own documents seized from them by the investigating authorities can exist alongside the Criminal Case Disclosure regime.


Civil Cases

Liao He Pte Ltd v JFC Builders Pte LtdIn this case, the District Court had to consider for the first time whether it had jurisdiction to set aside an adjudication determination made by an adjudicator pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (“SOP Act”).

Liao He Pte Ltd (“Liao He”) submitted a progress payment claim against JFC Builders Pte Ltd (”JFC”) for adjudication under the SOP Act. Liao He obtained a favourable adjudication, and thereafter applied via originating summons for leave to enforce the adjudication. Leave to enforce was granted. JFC subsequently applied to set aside the adjudication, relying on section 27(5) of the SOP Act read together with Order 95 of the Rules of Court, which allow a party to apply to the “Court” for such an order.

At the hearing, Liao He raised the preliminary objection that only the High Court had the jurisdiction to hear JFC’s application since the setting aside of the adjudication was tantamount to judicial review. JFC, on the other hand, contended that the aforementioned legislation did not define the word “Court”, and in particular, did not specify that only the High Court had such powers.

The District Court agreed with Liao He and held that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. JFC’s appeal to the High Court was dismissed.

Cheang Peng Yew & another v Lim Chong LinThe Plaintiffs and the Defendant lived on the same floor of a block of HDB flats, sharing a common corridor and separated by another unit. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant had been neighbours for 20 years. All the parties did not have legal representation in the proceedings.

The Plaintiffs complained that the Defendant had been performing religious rituals in his flat, involving the burning of huge amounts of incense paper and joss sticks, loud chanting, and the participation of many devotees. The Plaintiffs claimed to have suffered respiratory ailments brought about by the excessive smoke, and had to keep their windows and doors closed to keep out the smoke.

The Court found that the Defendant had indeed conducted religious rituals involving many devotees in his flat, with each session lasting several hours. The levels of smoke, noise and human traffic justified a private nuisance claim. In coming to this conclusion, the Court noted the physical proximity of the parties’ properties. The Court awarded the Plaintiffs nominal damages of $500 for loss of enjoyment of their flat as there was insufficient proof of the extent of damage suffered by the Plaintiffs, including proof that the Plaintiffs’ health was affected by the smoke. The Court also issued a prohibitory injunction restricting the Defendant’s religious activities to certain times and days, and limiting the number of joss sticks that could be lit on each occasion.

33UPHOLDING JUSTICE

Family Cases

Meaning of “nullity of marriage” in sections 112 & 113 of the Women’s Charter and whether the Court has the power to order maintenance and divide assets in a void marriageThis case involved an eight-year marriage which was void due to bigamy. The Family Court decided that the parties did not acquire the status of “husband” and “wife”, and any assets acquired by them during the eight-year period were not considered matrimonial assets. Accordingly, no orders were made on maintenance and the division of assets. There were no issues regarding the parties’ child, since section 111(2) of the Women’s Charter provides for children of a void marriage. The Court also held that the phrase “nullity of marriage” in sections 112 and 113 of the Women’s Charter only covers voidable marriages. On appeal to the High Court, the Family Court’s decision was upheld.

The Court of Appeal held that “nullity of marriage” must be given its plain meaning and applies to void and voidable marriages. Further, the words “wife” or “former wife” in section 113 of the Women’s Charter did not preclude maintenance being ordered in favour of the female party to a void marriage. The Court of Appeal found that there is sufficient flexibility within the broad brush approach to treat the phrase “nullity of marriage” as covering the entire spectrum of nullity.

“Pure” inter-spousal gifts and inter-spousal “re-gifts” - Whether these are considered “gifts” for the purposes of section 112(10) of the Women’s CharterThis case involving a 36-year marriage was transferred from the Family Court to the High Court because it involved net assets exceeding $1.5 million. The issues included dividing assets involving apartment units that were built on land inherited by the husband. The husband incorporated companies to hold these units and the wife became a shareholder and director of the companies.

Justice Kan Ting Chiu found that the shares were given by the husband to the wife for the purposes of section 112(10) of the Women’s Charter and were not matrimonial assets. Further, as there was no issue regarding substantial improvement, the shares were not matrimonial assets.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal drew a distinction between “pure” inter-spousal gifts and inter-spousal “re-gifts”. The former applied where the gifts were directly acquired by the donor spouse, and the latter applied where the asset was originally acquired by the donor spouse by way of third-party gift or inheritance, and subsequently gifted to the donee spouse. The Court of Appeal then held that “pure” inter-spousal gifts were not “gifts” within the scope of section 112(10) of the Women’s Charter, and therefore are liable for division. Only “re-gifts” are “gifts” for the purposes of section 112(10) and are excluded from the pool of matrimonial assets unless the non-recipient spouse had helped to substantially improve the gift.


QUALITY JUDGMENTS – THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL EDUCATIONThe Judges of the Subordinate Courts regularly undergo judicial training and professional development to hone their core competencies and to meet the challenges of judging. The Judicial Education Board (JEB), chaired by the Honourable Judge of Appeal, Justice V K Rajah, is responsible for the strategy and planning of judicial education. The JEB is supported by the Strategic Planning and Training Division to translate the strategies and policies into appropriate training programmes to enhance the judge craft of the Subordinate Courts Judges.

Judicial Mentorship Programme

The inaugural run of the Judicial Mentorship Programme was held between March and May 2012. The mentorship programme was developed to provide an opportunity for Judges of the Subordinate Courts to observe and learn from experienced High Court Judges who set the benchmark standards for ideal judicial temperament and ethics.

Judgment Writing Workshop

In March 2012, a 2.5-day Judgment Writing Workshop was conducted by Professor James Raymond, President of the International Institute for Legal Writing and Reasoning. The workshop aimed to

develop the writing and reasoning skills of Judges. The course touched on methods for identifying, articulating, arranging and analysing legal issues. It also covered skills on writing effective beginnings and conclusions, recognising and avoiding common stylistic flaws in legal writing, and coping with other tasks ancillary to the writing process, e.g. hearing management. In addition, part of the programme was devoted to developing the subject matter and pedagogical expertise of the local judicial training faculty.

Craft of Judging Workshop

The first two runs of the inaugural Craft of Judging workshop were conducted by the Judicial College of England and Wales from 8 to 11 May 2012 to develop skills such as assessing the credibility of evidence, providing sound and well-structured reasons for decisions, managing young and vulnerable witnesses, dealing with ethical issues in and outside the Court, and dealing effectively with unexpected and high conflict situations in Court.

The Subordinate Courts recognise that investment in judicial training will improve judicial performance, which will, in turn, lead to better quality and more timely delivery of justice. Towards this end, enhancing judicial education will remain a top priority of the Subordinate Courts.

35

CASELOAD PROFILE* 2011 2012

CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION 242,384 254,959Criminal and Departmental/Statutory Board

Criminal Charges1 63,669 58,992

Departmental/Statutory Board Charges and Summonses2 118,357 128,587

Traffic Charges and Summonses 52,994 60,171

Others

Coroner’s Court Cases 3,978 4,172

Magistrates’ Complaints 3,386 3,037

CIVIL JUSTICE DIVISION 73,208 73,793

Originating Processes 40,138 42,490

Writs of Summonses (DC & MC) 35,789 37,944

Originating Summonses 485 524

Probate 3,864 4,022

Interlocutory Applications 16,942 15,074

Summonses3 10,573 10,344

Summonses for Directions (O.25/37) 5,880 4,289

Summary Judgment (O.14) 489 441

Others

Taxation 164 162

Assessment of Damages 2,594 2,633


Claims 13,370 13,434

CASELOAD AND STATISTICS

UPHOLDING JUSTICE

Notes(*) Figures for 2011 were revised in 2012.1. Includes DAC, MAC, PSS, PS & other charges2. Excludes Traffic Summonses3. Excludes O.25/37


CASELOAD PROFILE* 2011 2012

FAMILY & JUVENILE JUSTICE DIVISION 23,866 24,011Maintenance 6,446 6,605

Fresh Applications 1,772 1,734

Enforcement of Maintenance Orders 2,979 3,179

Variation/Rescission/Suspension of Maintenance Orders 1,124 1,180

Enforcement of the Maintenance of Parents Tribunal Orders 95 50

Enforcement of Syariah Court Orders 476 462

Family Violence 3,148 3,335

Fresh Applications for Personal Protection Order (PPO) 2,866 3,073

Variation/Rescission of PPO 169 153

Breach of PPO 98 109

Breach of Counselling Orders 15 0

Divorce

Divorce Writs 6,260 6,276

Ancillary Matters 1,929 1,815

Others

Adoption 447 387

Originating Summonses (Family) 453 506

Breach of Syariah Court Orders 233 253

Summonses (Family)4 3,453 3,613

Juvenile Court 1,497 1,221

Juvenile Arrest Charges 1,226 966

Beyond Parental Control5 73 68

Child Protection Orders5 58 69

Police Summonses/Summonses & Tickets, and Other Charges 140 118

Total 339,458 352,763

Notes(*) Figures for 2011 were revised in 2012.4. Includes Divorce, Originating Summons and Adoption Summonses5. Refers to number of juveniles

37UPHOLDING JUSTICE

SERVING SOCIETY


SIGNIFICANT DIVISIONAL INITIATIVES

Criminal Justice Division

Update on the Criminal Case Resolution ProgrammeCriminal Case Resolution (CCR) was first launched as a pilot initiative in 2009. It was formally implemented in the Subordinate Courts in October 2011 through the Registrar’s Circular No. 4 of 2011. CCR aims to provide a neutral forum facilitated by a senior Judge, for parties to explore the possibility of early resolution of criminal cases. This reduces wastage of valuable resources due to “cracked” trials where the accused person pleads guilty on the day of the trial, or after the trial has commenced. For cases where a trial is necessary, CCR has helped to crystallise and focus on the essential issues at trial by communicating and exchanging relevant information and documents. This ensured a more efficient usage of trial dates and better allocation of resources.

The CCR programme has shown very encouraging results; hearing dates and resources were allocated more efficiently.

The savings in hearing days were computed solely with reference to cases resolved after dates for trial had been assigned. Out of the 103 cases successfully resolved, trial dates had not been assigned for 49 cases. Therefore, the potential savings in terms of hearings days would be significantly more than 152 days.

Sentencing Information and Research Repository The Sentencing Information and Research Repository (SIR) will be a comprehensive and dynamic sentencing information and research resource that will significantly improve sentencing practice in Singapore. SIR is a sentencing database that stores the results of cases prosecuted in the Subordinate Courts. In addition, the database will capture selected sentencing factors associated with the case in question. For example, the database may record the value of the items involved in a property offence.

The availability of such information to prosecutors and defence counsel will enable both parties to have a common understanding of the likely sentence for an offence and facilitate the early resolution of more cases. As the sentencing trends and norms in specific offences can also be tracked, there will be more detailed and timely information as well as consistency in sentencing practice.

Total no. of cases that have undergone CCR as at 30 September 2012:

151

Cases not resolved:

48

Cases resolved:

103 Resulting in

savings of 152 hearing days

39SERVING SOCIETY

Publication of Case Studies on Preventable DeathsThe Criminal Justice Division is working with the various stakeholders in the coronial justice system to publish a book of case studies on preventable deaths. This publication on cases heard in the Coroner’s Court will educate the public on deaths that could have been prevented.

Civil Justice Division

Presumption of Alternative Dispute ResolutionSince 2010, the Subordinate Courts have been encouraging parties to consider Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) options at the Summons-for-Directions (SFD) stage. The parties have the option to attempt mediation or neutral evaluation in the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre, mediation within the Singapore Mediation Centre, or arbitration under The Law Society of Singapore’s Arbitration Scheme.

On 28 May 2012, the Courts took a further step towards encouraging the use of ADR by introducing the “Presumption of ADR” via Practice Directions Amendment No. 2 of 2012. All cases that proceed for SFD are automatically referred for ADR unless either party opts out. In addition, where a defence has been entered and six months have lapsed without the parties filing an SFD, the Court will call for a pre-trial conference (PTC) to discuss ADR options. Cases that undergo PTCs are also referred for ADR as a matter of course.

The “Presumption of ADR” is directed more specifically at cases of low value, where early settlement is likely to result in substantial

savings in time and costs for the parties. The cases are therefore dealt with in two tracks – the “General” and the “Recommended ADR” tracks. Cases falling under the latter track are claims less than $20,000, or claims between $20,000 and $60,000 that will take more than three days of trial. Under this track, three reasons are stipulated by the Courts as acceptable reasons for opting out of ADR. A party may choose not to use ADR for any other reason, as ADR is still a process to be entered consensually. However, if a party opts out based on reasons that are deemed to be dissatisfactory, such conduct may be taken into account by the Court when making subsequent costs orders pursuant to Order 59 rule 5(1)(c) of the Rules of Court.

Introduction of a “Single Joint Expert” for Personal Injury ClaimsOver the last few years, the Civil Justice Division has promoted the timely resolution of personal injury claims for the benefit of injured claimants. In 2011, a Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injuries was introduced to facilitate pre-writ negotiation and settlement of these claims. In 2012, the Courts, in consultation with the Bar, the insurance industry and the medical profession, introduced the Single Joint Expert scheme via Practice Directions Amendment No. 4 of 2012.

The scheme prescribes the joint appointment of a single medical expert by agreement between the claimant and the potential defendant in cases where a medical re-assessment of the claimant’s injuries is required for the purpose of legal proceedings, and where the estimated quantum for general damages is less than $20,000. Where general damages are of


a higher quantum, the parties are also encouraged to appoint a joint medical expert as a matter of good practice. This scheme, which has also been introduced in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong, helps to promote objectivity in medical reporting for court proceedings. It also facilitates the cost-effective resolution of personal injury claims by reducing the need to engage multiple medical experts. Since the introduction of this initiative, the Civil Justice Division has partnered the medical profession to jointly create a panel of medical experts who may be appointed under the scheme.

Streamlining the Probate ProcessThe Civil Justice Division partnered probate practitioners to streamline and simplify the probate process. As a result of this collaboration, the number of procedural steps has been reduced, and the criteria for the provision of security for the due administration of the estate were simplified. These changes were incorporated into Practice Directions Amendment No. 1 of 2012, which took effect on 1 June 2012. The Subordinate Courts conducted briefings for probate practitioners on the simplified process.

To complement the roll-out of the simplified process, the Civil Justice Division also produced a toolkit to assist unrepresented litigants to file their probate applications. Issued in August 2012, the toolkit contains templates of documents that are to be used by litigants, and provides detailed instructions on how to submit the required court documents and comprehensive answers to frequently-asked-questions. The toolkit, together with simplified forms, is

available at the Subordinate Courts’ website. These efforts would collectively reduce the number of errors and unnecessary delays in obtaining probate and administration grants.

Family and Juvenile Justice Division

Update on the Child Focused Resolution CentreThe Child Focused Resolution Centre (CFRC) was set up on 26 September 2011 to provide mandatory counselling and mediation for divorcing parents with young children to help them focus on their roles and responsibilities as co-parents after the divorce.

41SERVING SOCIETY

In its first year of operation in 2012, the CFRC saw over 1,000 families. Feedback has been very positive. In the majority of the disputed cases, parenting, if not full agreements on divorce, and other divorce ancillary matters were reached through the CFRC process. Many parents indicated that the mediation and consultation sessions conducted by Judge-Mediators and counsellors were very useful, and wished that these had been provided before the start of their divorce proceedings. Parents received helpful information and services, e.g. learning that collaboration is critical in co-parenting, understanding the emotional needs of their children, and how to explain divorce sensitively to them.

The CFRC will continue to explore with the community ways to provide continued support to parents and ameliorate the impact of divorce on the children.

Talks and Workshops for Family LawyersThe Family and Juvenile Justice Division (FJJD) spearheaded and organised three talks and a workshop for family lawyers. The talks focused on the benefits of mediation so that their clients gain better insights into children’s issues. The talks and workshop, held between August and November 2012, were jointly organised by the FJJD and The Law Society of Singapore’s Family Law Practice Committee. The first two sessions were a lead-up to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Conference held in October 2012.

The first talk, titled “How to Enhance Your Practice: Benefits of Family Court Mediation for Lawyers and Clients” on 24 August attracted 38 participants. They heard from

a panel of experienced lawyers who shared how mediation produced positive outcomes for their clients. The panel, which comprised Mr Rajan Chettiar, Ms Belinda Ang and Mr Raymond Yeo, answered questions from the floor with candour. Mr Chettiar and Ms Ang also shared their experiences as volunteer mediators as opposed to lawyers representing their clients in the Family Resolutions Chambers.

46 participants attended the second talk “Child Development: Are Court Orders Appropriate? / Child Focused Mediation and Counselling – One Year On” on 21 September. Conducted by a Judge and a counsellor from the Counselling and Psychological Services Department, the talk provided insights into a child’s development factors which would prove helpful to both lawyers and Judges when working out parenting arrangements. Participants also found out more about the work of the Child Focused Resolution Centre and emerging trends.

A mediation workshop took place on 9 November. To tap on the valuable expertise of its partners, the FJJD enlisted the help of volunteer mediators from the Ministry of Social and Family Development to conduct a half-day workshop. It offered help to lawyers who handle emotionally-charged situations, through understanding some underlying causes and issues. The workshop also helped lawyers better understand the dynamics of family law work, and to adopt a holistic view when handling clients and their issues.

The sessions were well received and there will be a further series of talks in the year to come.


Introduction of Collaborative Law In October 2012, at the inaugural Alternative Dispute Resolution Conference, collaborative law was introduced to a local audience. Collaborative law adopts a team approach, where lawyers, clients and other professionals, if relevant (e.g. accountants and child development specialists), all work together to resolve the ancillary and other issues before a divorce application is filed. It replaces positional-based bargaining with an interests-based negotiation model, where all participants take equal responsibility for the process and commit to it by signing

a collaboration contract. The participants also agree not to go to Court during the process. If the collaborative process fails, the professionals withdraw from the case. If the parties continue, they must find new professionals to take the case forward to Court. This approach is well established in the United States, Canada, some European countries and Australia, and was recently introduced in Hong Kong.

The FJJD will work with the family lawyers to actively promote and develop a framework for collaborative law in Singapore.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMUNITY JUSTICE CENTRE

A large number of court users who appear before the Courts are unrepresented. For many of them, navigating the labyrinth of legal rules, understanding the legal jargon,

being able to present their case and cross-examine witnesses properly and effectively, and comprehending the judicial rulings in their cases may be a challenge.

43

Over the years, a wide variety of programmes to assist litigants-in-person (LIPs) has been developed. However, in light of the large number and proportion of LIPs, coupled with the need to ensure that the justice system remains accessible to them, it was timely to establish an integrated one-stop hub that would provide various support services for LIPs in need, including referral services to existing programmes.

On 20 June 2012, the then Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (now known as Ministry of Social and Family Development), Ministry of Law, Subordinate Courts, Tan Chin Tuan Foundation, and The Law Society of Singapore entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to establish a Community Justice Centre (CJC) that seeks to assist unrepresented litigants through its services.

The CJC, which is located at the Subordinate Courts, offers the following services: (a) Legal clinics; (b) Lay Assistance Scheme; (c) Information services; (d) Practical support services; (e) Referral services; and (f) Public outreach services.

The success of the CJC will require the support of volunteers for its programmes and services. Volunteer lawyers therefore play a critical role in offering LIPs legal advice at the legal clinics, especially in the Lay Assistance Scheme where volunteers attend Court with indigent LIPs to provide them with essential practical help and emotional support.

To that end, individuals and organisations are encouraged to collaborate with the CJC

This is a compelling cause deserving of support as it is

intended to benefit the less advantaged across Singapore and resonates with the Foundation’s objective. Unrepresented, needy litigants would be offered help to navigate the court system more confidently, calmly and with adequate knowledge and facts. In particular, for those with limited means, who face language barriers, and are victims of poverty or are marginalised, timely legal referral to guide them would better help them solve their legal issues. This integrated, not-for-profit, one-stop model - offering informational referral services, legal clinics, trial preparation assistance, form filling assistance, public outreach and educational programmes - streamlines the type of help litigants receive and at an early stage before their legal problems snowball further. In addition, this is a collaborative effort by the judiciary, legal fraternity, the Ministry of Law and Ministry of Social and Family Development.

Mr Chew Kwee San, Council Member of the

Tan Chin Tuan Foundation

to serve the needs of LIPs and provide them with access to justice.

People involved in cases before the Courts are understandably anxious

and concerned; the indigent litigants-in-person need help in pursuing their matters, or in moving on with their lives. Volunteers play a crucial role in making sure that these court users not only obtain justice, but can make use of the fruits of justice in their lives.

Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye

SERVING SOCIETY


The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) applauds the CJC initiative by the

Subordinate Courts. We are pleased to note that the initiative has been developed with the support and contributions of the community. MinLaw will provide the relevant and appropriate training on the operations and services of the Legal Aid Bureau in support of CJC’s services and programmes.

Ministry of Law

An important part of the mission of The Law Society of Singapore

is to serve the community by facilitating access to justice. The Law Society actively promotes pro bono work to address the legal needs of those who cannot afford legal services. Over the years, it has initiated and implemented various pro bono schemes to offer legal assistance to the needy. The Law Society through its volunteer lawyers and the Pro Bono Services Office is pleased to be an integral partner in the establishment, administration and support of the Community Justice Centre.

Mr Lim Tanguy, Director, The Law Society of Singapore’s

Pro Bono Services Office

IMPROVEMENTS TO COURT SERVICES

New Subordinate Courts Complex

With the increase in the Subordinate Courts’ jurisdiction and caseload over the years, and the introduction of new services to better serve court users, it is projected that the existing Subordinate Courts and Family and Juvenile Court buildings will not be

able to meet future demand for courtroom and office space.

An Open Design Competition was launched in September 2011 to invite proposals for the design of the new Subordinate Courts Complex, which will comprise a new tower and the retrofitted Subordinate Courts building. In June 2012, the design of the new Complex was unveiled after a gruelling selection process by a panel of assessors that included renowned and distinguished architects.

The selected design by Serie+Multiply Consultants Pte Ltd had many winning features. The Complex, though modern in appearance, blends with the adjacent historic Chinatown district by adopting the colours and textures of the clay-pitched roofs of the area’s conserved shophouses.

45SERVING SOCIETY

The design also featured many strategies for creating an eco-friendly building such as using high-rise gardens to filter the afternoon sun, having naturally ventilated corridors and bringing daylight into the interaction areas. The multiple high-rise terrace gardens bring green relief to the built-up city and provide soothing sanctuaries for the building’s occupants and court users.

Construction work on the new Subordinate Courts Complex is expected to start in 2013.

In the new work year, the Subordinate Courts will engage key stakeholders such as the staff, The Law Society of Singapore, Singapore Police Force, Singapore Prison Service, and various specialist consultants to put together different requirements for the new Complex. A robust security plan will also be developed in consultation with the relevant agencies.

“Mystery Shopper” Audit

As an independent measure of the service standards provided to court users, the Subordinate Courts conducted the inaugural “Mystery Shopper” Audit in 2012.

Four “mystery shoppers” made their observations of the staff managing the service counters and public enquiry lines during the audit period. The findings revealed that the service staff had strong domain knowledge and could answer the queries raised. Refresher programmes for the court administrators were then conducted through role-play activities, which drew examples from the scenarios and responses from the audit. Continuous learning arising from this audit will ensure that the Subordinate Courts will continue to provide the highest quality of service to court users.

In addition, an interactive “Rate Our Service” feedback system was introduced at various service counters to allow court users to provide contemporaneous feedback after a service transaction.

More Convenient Fine and Maintenance Payments

To bring greater convenience to fine payors, the cheque payment limit was increased from $40,000 to $100,000. In addition, in some older cases, spousal or child maintenance monies were paid through the Courts to the recipients. Changes were implemented to enable these payments to be made directly to the recipients’ bank accounts. This enabled the recipients to track their maintenance allowance payments more effectively and obtain the monies more quickly. The payors are also able to make payments at their own convenience via bank transfers, thus saving them a trip to the Courts.


PUBLIC OUTREACH

Alternative Dispute Resolution Conference 2012

The Subordinate Courts, together with the Supreme Court, The Law Society of Singapore, Singapore Mediation Centre, Singapore Academy of Law, and the Community Mediation Centre of the Ministry of Law, jointly organised a conference on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) entitled “The 5Cs of ADR: Collaboration, Communication, Consensus, Co-operation, and Conclusion”. Held on 4 and 5 October 2012, this inaugural conference aimed to promote awareness of ADR processes and to provide a forum for both local and international ADR practitioners to share their practices and experiences on enabling parties to co-operate to achieve a consensual settlement that best meets the specific needs of all affected parties, without resorting to litigation.

The keynote address was delivered by then Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong. There were plenary sessions featuring presentations and panel discussions, as well as smaller concurrent sessions focusing on a variety of ADR topics. Eminent local and international speakers had lively discussions on topics such as “The Future of ADR in 2020”, “Collaborative Law – Resolving Disputes Without Trial”, “Mediation Advocacy: Getting the best results for your clients without going to trial” and “ADR and the Criminal Justice System”. In addition, a public forum-cum-exhibition “Amicable ADR and You” was held on the second day to help members of the public understand the benefits of using ADR to resolve personal, family, social and commercial conflicts. This segment featured informative presentations by Member of Parliament Ms Ellen Lee, Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, Vice President of The Law Society of Singapore Mr Lok Vi Ming, SC, and Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye.

47

Many speakers noted the increasing use of mediation and how mediation has been embraced by many jurisdictions as part of their system of dispute resolution. The opening plenary speaker, Mr Michael Leathes, Honorary Chair of the International Mediation Institute, spoke on the future of ADR and predicted that ADR could soon be viewed not as an alternative but the primary method of dispute resolution. Several members of the legal profession expressed the view that lawyers had to be increasingly involved in this mode of dispute resolution since mediation could be a better choice than litigation for certain disputes. In addition, the Chief Justice called for a culture of holistic resolution of disputes to be nurtured within the community and incorporated into individual daily lives.

The response to the event was overwhelming, with more than 600 participants for the conference and public forum. The speakers and participants included senior members of the Judiciary, experienced ADR practitioners, renowned academics, and key policy-makers from Australia, Brunei, China, Fiji, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Nigeria, New Zealand, Pakistan, Singapore, Uzbekistan, and the United States of America.

The ADR Conference marked a significant step taken by the Subordinate Courts to partner their stakeholders to bring together ADR practitioners within and beyond Singapore. The Subordinate Courts will continue to work with the community on the issues raised at the conference to further promote the use of ADR.

SERVING SOCIETY

Production of Small Claims Tribunals Educational Video

In 2012, the Chinese, Malay, and Tamil versions of the “Introduction to the Small Claims Tribunals (SCT)” educational video were produced to cater to the non-English speaking public. This was aimed at fostering a better understanding of the types of cases that the SCT can hear, and how claimants (the ones making the claim) and respondents (the ones being claimed against) can prepare themselves for the consultation and the hearing at the SCT. All language versions of the video are available for viewing on the Subordinate Courts’ website.


Tours for the Public

To promote greater understanding of the work of the Subordinate Courts, a guided tour for the public was introduced in 2012. Members of the public who are interested

RECOGNISING COURT VOLUNTEERSAn inclusive society is one in which no one, rich or poor, is left behind. The justice system must be open and accessible to all who come before the Courts to pursue their legal rights or defend themselves, and who need the service of the Courts.

The Subordinate Courts have introduced a number of programmes to promote greater access to justice, enhance support to court users, and enable the Courts to provide a more effective and efficient justice system. Many of these programmes are supported by volunteers from the Bar, professionals, university students and others who are passionate about the cause of justice.

Court volunteers complement the services provided by the Courts and play a vital role to extend help to those in need. They make a real difference to the lives of others by giving their time and effort for the well being of others. Many court users have benefitted from the assistance and support provided by them.

In recognition of the sterling contributions of the court volunteers, the Subordinate

Courts organise an annual appreciation dinner for them. At the dinner, outstanding court volunteer awards are presented to individuals who have demonstrated outstanding commitment and dedication to their volunteer work. For 2012, the outstanding volunteers were:

• Mr Shriniwas Rai (not in photo): Outstanding Volunteer – Advocate and Solicitor Category; • Mr Esmail Marican (photo below: second from left): Outstanding Volunteer – Open Category; and • Ms Lee In Hae (photo below: third from left): Outstanding Volunteer – Student Category

can sign up for the guided tour through the Subordinate Courts’ website. Conducted over one hour, a guide provides an overview of the Subordinate Courts, followed by a tour of the Subordinate Courts and Family and Juvenile Court buildings.

49SERVING SOCIETY

In addition to the outstanding court volunteer awards, 15- and 10-year Long Service Awards were presented during the Court Volunteers’ Appreciation Dinner 2012 held on 18 October at Grand Park City Hall.

In October 2012, the Subordinate Courts produced a wall mural on the ground floor of the Subordinate Courts building, as an acknowledgment of the unstinting support from court volunteers. In addition, a webpage which serves as a platform for recruiting court volunteers was set up in 2012, to provide information on the Courts’ volunteer programmes and related programmes offered by other organisations. It bears repeating the words of the Honourable Judge of Appeal, Justice V K Rajah, Guest-of-Honour of the Court Volunteers’ Appreciation Dinner 2012, who said,

…volunteer work in contributing towards community justice is

not all about giving back to society; … [volunteers] are in fact investing in creating a fairer and more compassionate Singapore. The dividend will be that those who follow after us will live and work in an even better Singapore.

It is hoped that more volunteers will come forward to join hands with the Subordinate Courts to provide greater access to justice for all.


INTERNSHIP PROGRAMMESThe Internship Committee was formed in March 2012 to steer internship matters in the Subordinate Courts. The creation of an expanded standing committee is a sign of the Subordinate Courts’ continued strong commitment towards developing and nurturing youths.

For every batch of interns, a specially tailored programme is designed to ensure that the interns are exposed to a wide variety of the work carried out by the Subordinate Courts and more importantly, to inculcate an appreciation of public service. Interns are personally mentored by Judges who work closely with them during their internship.

Since its formation, the Internship Committee has run more than ten internship programmes in collaboration with the Subordinate Courts’ partner organisations such as the Legal Service Commission, Public Service Division, Singapore Academy of Law and Temasek Polytechnic. The interns hailed from various secondary schools, junior colleges and polytechnics around Singapore, as well as local and foreign universities.

The Internship Committee has received positive feedback from the interns, many of whom reflected that their internship with the Subordinate Courts had broadened their minds and deepened their desire to serve the public. In 2013, the Internship

Committee will continue to improve the internship programmes so as to further benefit the young minds who choose to spend their time with the Courts.

As the internship programme drew

to a close, we were all sad that it

had to end because we had a wonderful

time over the past week. In my view, the

programme was very well planned and

exposed me to a range of things which I

could never have experienced if not for this

programme. In particular, I’m grateful for

the opportunity to meet with the Judges and

staff of the Subordinate Courts, and interact

with them on a personal level. I came to a

deep realisation that people who work in

the Courts are much more “real” than what

the public perceive them to be, especially

the Judges. They are some of the most

genuine, intelligent and compassionate

people I have met so far. Personally, I feel

that some of my perceptions about the

Courts, the law and the administration of

justice have totally changed after this week.

Additionally, my eyes have been opened

to many things. And for that, I am

extremely grateful. Thank you.

Berenice Goh 3rd year law student

Monash University

Senior Officer’s Law Clerk Programme

51SERVING SOCIETY

INSPIRING TRUST


UNITED NATIONS PUBLIC SERVICE AWARDIn June 2012, the Subordinate Courts HELP

(Helping to Empower Litigants-in-Person)

Centre won the 2012 United Nations Public

Service Award (UNPSA).

Established in 2003, the UNPSA is the most

esteemed international award for excellence

in public service. It rewards the creative

achievements of public service institutions

in countries worldwide and gives recognition

for their contribution to a more effective and

responsive public administration.

The HELP Centre was conferred second

place under the category of “Improving the

Delivery of Public Services” for Asia and the

Pacific Region. The award was presented

to the Subordinate Courts at the United

Nations Public Service Day Award Ceremony

and Forum held in New York.

Set up in February 2010, the HELP Centre

seeks to empower litigants-in-person with

the knowledge to navigate through the justice

system and make informed decisions, and

provide them additional avenues through

which they can seek pro bono legal advice

and assistance.

To ensure that the initiative remains true to

its original purpose of improving unhindered

access to justice, services provided by the

HELP Centre are free-of-charge. As at

September 2012, the HELP Centre has

attended to more than 9,200 enquiries.

53INSPIRING TRUST

OUR INTERNATIONAL PROFILEIn 2012, Singapore scored well in various surveys conducted by international organisations. The results of these surveys are a tribute to the high quality of justice dispensed by the Courts.

The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy’s (PERC) Asian Intelligence Report published in August 2012 rated expatriates’ perceptions of the quality of the Asian judicial systems. In 2012, Singapore was again rated as one of the top three judicial systems in Asia, together with Hong Kong and Japan.

It was reported in the 2012 PERC Asian Intelligence Report that Singapore’s judicial system impressed with its high efficiency and efficacy in resolving commercial disputes. Singapore has consistently been ranked either first or second for the last 10 years1 (see Figure 1).

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC RISK CONSULTANCY COMPARATIVE COUNTRY RISK & ASIAN INTELLIGENCE REPORT

Figure 1 PERC – Quality of the Judicial/ Legal System, 2002 - 20122

Year Ranking of SingaporeRating

(0 = “Best”10 = “Worst”)

2002 1 1.70

2003 1 1.38

2004 1 1.25

2005 2 1.75

2006 2 1.87

2007 2 1.88

2008 2 1.92

2009 2 1.73

2010 2 1.88

2011 2 2.05

2012 2 1.97

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.


INSTITUTE FOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT WORLD COMPETITIVENESS YEARBOOK

In May 2012, the Institute for Management Development (IMD) analysed and ranked 59 countries on their ability to create and maintain the competitiveness of enterprises. One component of the assessment is whether the legal and regulatory framework encourages the competitiveness of enterprises. In this aspect, Singapore’s ranking has been consistently high. In 2012, Singapore’s legal framework was once again rated

very positively and clinched the second position3 , after Hong Kong (see Figure 2).

Another component of the assessment is whether justice has been fairly administered. In this aspect, Singapore was ranked tenth, the highest ranked among the Asian countries, ahead of Hong Kong, which took 14th place (see Figure 3).

Figure 2 IMD – Ranking of Singapore’s Legal and Regulatory Framework, 2002 – 20124

The legal and regulatory framework encourages the competitiveness of enterprises


(0 = “Worst”10 = “Best”)

No. of countries ranked

2002 1 8.50 49

2003 1 8.22 53

2004 1 8.34 60

2005 2 7.52 60

2006 2 8.11 61

2007 1 8.65 55

2008 1 8.65 55

2009 2 7.09 57

2010 1 7.67 58

2011 1 7.70 59

2012 2 8.07 59

3 Based on rankings published in the IMD World Competitiveness Report 2012.

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

55INSPIRING TRUST

Figure 3 IMD – Ranking of Singapore’s Administration of Justice, 2002 – 20125

Justice is fairly administered


(0 = “Worst”10 = “Best”)


2002 7 8.50 49

2003 6 8.49 53

2004 10 8.24 60

2005 15 7.71 60

2006 13 8.11 61

2007 11 8.12 55

2008 6 8.60 55

2009 13 7.95 57

2010 7 8.35 58

2011 12 7.96 59

2012 10 8.44 59

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

The World Economic Forum (WEF) published the 2012-2013 report in September 2012. The report ranked 144 countries in the world to present a picture of the competitiveness of the economies. 12 pillars of the economy were evaluated, one of which was the institutional framework. This is a critical component as strong institutions protect the rights of the people and provide the stability and confidence to engage in economic activities. Five sub-indicators under the institutional pillar related to the judiciary are:

• Efficiency of legal framework in settling disputes

• Efficiencyoflegalframeworkinchallenging regulations• Judicialindependence• Propertyrights• Intellectualpropertyrights

In 2012, Singapore again attained favourable scores and rankings for all five sub-indicators. In the ranking for the efficiency of intellectual property rights, property rights, and legal framework in settling disputes, Singapore was in the top three among all the countries ranked. For the fourth consecutive year, Singapore was the country with the most efficient legal framework in settling disputes.

WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT


Figure 4 WEF – Ranking of Singapore’s Judiciary, 2002 – 20126

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

IntellectualProperty Rights

Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score

2002 16 5.7 25 5.1 8 6.3 12 5.7

2003 11 5.8 27 5.2 5 6.4 12 5.9

2004 14 5.7 24 5.3 12 6.3 13 5.7

2005 8 5.8 19 5.4 6 6.4 5 6.1

2006 14 5.8 29 5.2 11 6.3 9 6.0

2007 10 6.0 19 5.6 5 6.4 5 6.2

2008 2 6.2 15 5.9 4 6.5 2 6.3

2009(i) 1 (ii) 4

(i) 6.3(ii) 5.6

19 5.8 4 6.4 1 6.2

2010(i) 1 (ii) 6

(i) 6.3(ii) 5.3

21 5.6 3 6.3 3 6.1

2011(i) 1 (ii) 8

(i) 6.3(ii) 5.3

20 5.6 3 6.4 2 6.1

2012(i) 1(ii) 6

(i) 6.2(ii) 5.5

20 5.7 3 6.4 2 6.1

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

57INSPIRING TRUST

The 2012 annual report released in September 2012 by the Fraser Institute contained an index measuring the degree to which the policies and institutions of countries are supportive of economic freedom. The report rated 144 countries on their degree of economic freedom. One of the assessment indicators was “legal structure and property rights”. The variables measured under this indicator included7:

•Judicialindependence•Impartialcourts•Protectionofpropertyrights

•Military interference in rule of law and politics •Integrityofthelegalsystem•Legalenforcementofcontracts•Regulatory restrictions on sale of real property •Reliabilityofpolice•Businesscostofcrime

Singapore has maintained a top 20 per cent banding for this indicator since 20008. In the latest report, Singapore was ranked sixth among the 144 countries rated and first among the Asian countries rated9.

FRASER INSTITUTEECONOMIC FREEDOM OF THE WORLD REPORT

The World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project reported in September 2012 the aggregate and individual governance indicators for more than 200 countries and territories between 1996 and 2011 for six dimensions of governance10:

•Voiceandaccountability•Politicalstabilityandabsenceofviolence•Governmenteffectiveness•Regulatoryquality•Ruleoflaw•Controlofcorruption

In this report, Singapore once again scored well under the Rule of Law component, which measures 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 placed in the 90th

percentile over the past 10 years under the Rule of Law indicator (see Figure 5).

WORLD BANK GOVERNANCE MATTERS:AGGREGATE AND INDIVIDUAL GOVERNANCE INDICATORS

7 The last two variables were added in 2012.

8 Based on rankings published in the Fraser Institute Economic Freedom of the World Report, 2000 (2002 edition) – 2010 (2012 edition).

9 Based on rankings published in the Fraser Institute Economic Freedom of the World Report dataset.

10 All facts and figures related to worldwide governance indicators are cited from The World Bank Governance and Individual Governance Indicators 1996-2011 Report.


Figure 5 World Bank – Governance Indicators, 2002 – 201111

Rule of Law

Year Ranking of Singapore Score(Maximum 2.5 points)


2002 20 1.44 201

2003 15 1.61 203

2004 12 1.73 210

2005 10 1.76 210

2006 17 1.63 210

2007 17 1.65 210

2008 17 1.66 209

2009 17 1.62 212

2010 16 1.69 212

2011 15 1.69 213

This index, published in January 2012, measured 184 countries (179 countries are ranked) across 10 indices of economic freedom. High scores approaching 100 represent higher levels of freedom; the higher the score on a factor, the lower the level of government interference in the economy. In 2012, Singapore was ranked second to Hong Kong in the overall ranking and scored 90 points for the “property rights” index, a score that has been maintained since 1995. The report commended

Singapore as a country with highly-efficient commercial courts and also one that has the most robust intellectual property rights regime in the Asian region.

New Zealand was the only country that earned a higher property rights grade than Singapore, at a score of 95. The continual strong protection of property rights in Singapore has not only laid the groundwork for economic freedom but also ensured its sustainability.

HERITAGE FOUNDATION AND WALL STREET JOURNALINDEX OF ECONOMIC FREEDOM REPORT

11 This is a compilation of the rankings in the Governance Indicator Report for the relevant years.

59INSPIRING TRUST

PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES AND EXCHANGES

25 - 31 Jan 2012

Senior District Judge Foo Tuat Yien District Judge Edgar Foo

6th Special Commission meeting to review the practical operation of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention and the 1996 Protection of Children Convention, Part II

Hague Conference on Private International Law

26 - 27 Jan 2012

Deputy Chief District Judge Jennifer Marie District Judge Mathew Joseph

Regional Workshop on Judicial Integrity in Southeast Asia: Integrity-based Judicial Reform

Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission of the Republic of Indonesia, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development of Germany, United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime

District Judge Crystal Ong Ms Sophia Ang

Study visits to the Family Law Courts and Registry, Family Law Legal Aid Commission, and the Department of Family and Community Services in Sydney, Australia

Subordinate Courts, Singapore

Senior District Judge Leslie Chew District Judge David Lim

11th General Assembly of the ASEAN Law Association: “Embracing the New Role of ALA after the ASEAN Charter”

ASEAN Law Association

Ms Goh Wee Siang

Knowledge Management in the Legal Profession

Ark Group Australia

District Judge Siva Shanmugam (as speaker)

Regional Forum on “Corruption and Other Financial Crimes”

Commonwealth Secretariat Pacific Judges

6 - 8 Feb 2012

District Judge Chay Yuen Fatt

Federal Crime & Sentencing Conference

National Judicial College of Australia

11 - 12 Feb 2012

15 - 18 Feb 2012

6 - 7 Mar 2012

14 - 17 Mar 2012

Name of Judge or Court Administrator

Name of Event

Organiser


District Judge Eddy Tham

Driving Government Performance: Leadership Strategies that Produce Results

Harvard Kennedy School, USA

18 - 23 Mar 2012

District Judge Kamala Ponnampalam

Advanced Workshop on Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights against Trade in Counterfeit Goods

United States Patent and Trademark Office Global Intellectual Property Academy and the ASEAN Secretariat

District Judge Dorcas Quek (as speaker) District Judge Joyce Low

14th Annual Spring Conference of the American Bar Association Section on Dispute Resolution

American Bar Association

District Judge Shaiffudin Saruwan

Oral Decisions Programme

Judicial College of Victoria, Australia

17 - 18 May 2012

District Judge Salina Ishak

Witness Assessment Programme


22 - 24 May 2012

District Judge Tan Boon Heng (as speaker)

ASEAN Judicial Programme

United States Patent and Trademark Office Global Intellectual Property Academy and the ASEAN Secretariat

District Judge Kathryn Low

Programme on Negotiation: Mediating Disputes

Harvard Law School, USA

District Judge Mathew Joseph District Judge May Mesenas

ASEAN Legal and Judicial Cooperation Workshop: Strengthening Members’ Participation in Information Network

ASEAN Secretariat and the Ministry of Justice of Cambodia

18 - 20 Apr 2012

18 - 21 Apr 2012

3 - 4 May 2012

4 - 8 Jun 2012

12 - 13 Jun 2012

13 - 15 Jun 2012

Deputy Chief District Judge Jennifer Marie (as speaker) Ms Chan Wai Yin

5th International Conference of the International Association for Court Administration

International Association for Court Administration


Name of Event

Organiser

61INSPIRING TRUST

13 - 14 Jul 2012

Senior District Judge Foo Tuat Yien (as speaker) District Judge Kevin Ng (as speaker) District Judge Amy Tung (as speaker) Ms Wendy Yeo Mr Ronald Lim

4th LAWASIA Family Law Conference: The New Global Family – Emerging Trends and Challenges to Family Practice

The Law Association for Asia and the Pacific

14 - 16 Aug 2012

District Judge Masayu Norashikin

35th National Child Welfare, Juvenile and Family Law Conference: Families Matter — Advocacy for All Parties in the Child’s Best Interests

National Association of Counsel for Children, USA

23 - 25 Aug 2012

District Judge Regina Ow

Doing Justice for Young People - Issues and Challenges for Judicial Administration in Australia and New Zealand Conference

Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration

27 - 28 Aug 2012

Senior District Judge Foo Tuat Yien (as speaker)

The 2nd Children’s Issues Forum

University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law, The Hong Kong Family Law Association, Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, The Law Society of Hong Kong, Faculty of Law of The Chinese University of Hong Kong

29 - 31 Aug 2012

Senior District Judge Foo Tuat Yien (as speaker) District Judge Shoba Nair

International Family Justice Judicial Conference 2012

Hong Kong Judiciary and Hong Kong Department of Justice

3 - 5 Sep 2012

District Judge Gillian Tan

19th Senior Management Programme - Study trip to Malaysia and Indonesia

Institute of Policy Development / Civil Service College, Singapore

10 - 14 Sep 2012

Mr Yeo Seow Aik

6th Senior Executive Development Programme

Civil Service College, Singapore, and the Malaysia National Institute of Public Administration


Name of Event

Organiser

25 - 27 Jun 2012

Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye District Judge Thian Yee Sze

2012 United Nations Public Service Day, Awards Ceremony and Forum

United Nations


10 - 15 Sep 2012

District Judge Ronald Gwee

16th CMJA Triennial Conference: Justice for Everyone - Myth or Reality?

Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association (CMJA)

12 - 16 Sep 2012

District Judge Eugene Teo

13th International Criminal Law Congress

ICMS Pty Ltd, Australia

10 - 12 Oct 2012

District Judge Joseph Yeo

Dialogues on being a Judge


12 - 13 Oct 2012

District Judge Wong Keen Onn (as speaker)

Family Court of Australia and Federal Magistrates Court Concurrent Conference

Family Court of Australia and Federal Magistrates Court

14 - 17 Oct 2012

District Judge Wong Keen Onn

15th National Family Law Conference

Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia

28 - 29 Oct 2012

District Judge James Leong (as speaker)

Annual Meeting of Judicial Educators


28 Oct - 2 Nov 2012

District Judge Seah Chi-Ling

National Judicial Orientation Programme


5 - 7 Dec 2012

Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye (as speaker) Mr Phang Tsang Wing

World Business Capability Congress

Centre for Organisational Excellence Research, New Zealand Business Excellence Foundation, and New Zealand Organisation for Quality


Name of Event

Organiser

63INSPIRING TRUST

Public Service Premier Award

On 25 May 2012, the Subordinate Courts were conferred the Public Service Premier Award at the Excellence in Public Service Awards ceremony. The Public Service Premier Award is the highest accolade in public service in Singapore. It recognises sustained efforts in achieving and maintaining top levels of organisational excellence.

Singapore HEALTH Award 2012 – Platinum Award

The Singapore HEALTH (Helping Employees Achieve Life-Time Health) Award gives national recognition to organisations with commendable Workplace Health Promotion (WHP) programmes that help employees lead healthy and vibrant lifestyles.

LOCAL AWARDSIn 2012, the Subordinate Courts won the Platinum Award, the pinnacle Singapore HEALTH Award conferred to organisations that had achieved at least two Gold Awards consecutively and had demonstrated tangible benefits from their WHP programmes.

The WHP programmes organised by the Subordinate Courts included regular fruit buffets, mammogram screening, inter-department tournaments such as inter-division nine-pin tap bowling tournament, and weekly hip hop dance lessons.

Community Chest Awards 2012 – SHARE Bronze Award

The Subordinate Courts were accorded the SHARE Bronze Award in 2012 for their participation in the SHARE (Social Help & Assistance Raised by Employees) programme.

SHARE is a donation programme run by the Community Chest to raise and provide a stable source of funds for its beneficiaries. The SHARE Award is given by the Community Chest as a tribute to the fund-raising efforts of the award winners, their sense of corporate social responsibility, and their partnership with Community Chest to help those in need.


VISITS BY DISTINGUISHED GUESTSDATE DETAILS

6 Feb 2012 Visit of Ms Sarah Coleman, Legal Officer, Justice Section, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Division, Commonwealth Secretariat

1 Mar 2012 Visit of Judge Stein Schjolberg, Extraordinary Court of Appeal of Norway, and delegation

12 Mar 2012 Visit of the Honourable Justice E.O. Ayoola, Con., Chairman, Performance Evaluation Committee, National Judicial Council, Nigeria, and delegation

14 Mar 2012 Visit of delegation from the Dubai Financial International Centre Courts

10 Apr 2012 Visit of the Honourable Justice Yury Sidorenko, Chairman, Council of Judges of the Russian Federation, and delegation

8 May 2012 Visit of the Honourable Justice Huang Ermei, Vice President, The Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China, and delegation

8 May 2012 Visit of Mr Abdulla Rasheed, Deputy Director General, Department of Judicial Administration, Maldives, and delegation

7 Jun 2012 Visit of Judge Yerbol Ismailov, Judicial Board for Supervision of Civil and Administrative Cases, Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and delegation

17 - 18 Jul 2012 Visit of Federal Magistrate Paul Howard, Federal Magistrates Court of Australia

24 Jul 2012 Visit of Mr Nguyen Van Bon, Deputy Director-General, Judicial Support Department, Ministry of Justice, Vietnam, and delegation

25 Jul 2012 Visit of the Honourable Justice Kate Abiri, Chief Judge of the Bayelsa State Judiciary, Nigeria, and delegation

14 Aug 2012 Visit of Mr H.M.R.M. Tilakaratne, Secretary, Judicial Service Commission, Sri Lanka, and delegation from the Judiciary of Sri Lanka

16 Aug 2012 Visit of the Honourable Chief Justice of Uganda, Benjamin J Odoki, and delegation

6 Sep 2012 Visit of the Right Honourable The Lord Igor Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales

16 Oct 2012 Visit of Master Peter John Norman OAM, District Court of South Australia

23 Nov 2012 Visit of the Honourable Chief Justice of Mauritius, Yeung Kam John Yeung Sik Yuen, and delegation

26 - 28 Nov 2012 Visit of Chief District Court Judge Jan-Marie Doogue and Judge Colin Doherty, District Courts of New Zealand

27 Nov 2012 Visit of the Honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Latvia, Ivars Bickovics, and delegation

28 - 30 Nov 2012 Visit of Dr. Ridwan Mansyur, SH., MH., Head of Legal and Public Relations Bureau, Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, and delegation from the Judiciary of the Republic of Indonesia

4 Dec 2012 Visit of delegation from the General Council of Courts, Mongolia

7 Dec 2012 Visit of delegation from the Family Law Committee, Bar Council, Malaysia

65INSPIRING TRUST

I am challenged to do more for my state judiciary as I go back

after the beautiful presentation done this afternoon on the workings of the Subordinate Courts of Singapore. I wish the leadership and staff of the

Subordinate Courts well.

Kate AbiriChief Judge of the Bayelsa State Judiciary, Nigeria

25 July 2012

NOTES OF APPRECIATION

This visit can be considered as a knowledge-sharing session

between our countries. We express our sincere gratitude to the organisers of this visit for their assistance, guidance, and encouragement. I must also thank them for the excellent hospitality

arrangements.

H.M.R.M. TilakaratneSecretary, Judicial Service Commission, Sri Lanka

14 August 2012

A most impressive presentation on the work undertaken by

the Subordinate Courts to a level and standard of excellence which is

unparalleled.

Yeung Kam John Yeung Sik YuenChief Justice of Mauritius

23 November 2012

On behalf of the District Courts of New Zealand, I would like

to thank Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye, Senior District Judge Leslie Chew and Senior District Judge Foo Tuat Yien and others for the very helpful dialogue

She was very good, pleasant and professional, informed me well.

She is an asset to your organisation and society. I wish to thank her and commend her. She deserves a lot of credit. She has patience and made me feel

heard.

Vishal Dhillion10 January 2012

Appreciation for Ms Kuck Xuanling, Counsellor, Counselling and Psychological Services, Family and Juvenile Justice Division

Now I understand the role of the Family Court. It is not as

intimidating as I had originally thought. In truth, the Family Court is doing

a great job for troubled people.

Low Kwong Kim11 April 2012

Appreciation for Protection Order Services, Family and Juvenile Justice Division

we have enjoyed today. You and your colleagues have been so generous with your time. We have discussed the cutting edge issues that confront courts and those who administer them in 2012 and beyond. The day’s events have

been most inspirational.

Jan-Marie Doogue Chief District Court Judge of New Zealand

28 November 2012


I needed the PDRC’s help to arrange for a CD to be played in

Chambers 3. I had not given prior notice for setting up the video. The staff were very helpful to arrange for it

promptly.

Anil Lalwani18 April 2012

Appreciation for Ms Lau Pei Pei, Senior Assistant Executive, and Ms Koh Puay Chin, Assistant Executive, Primary Dispute Resolution Centre, Civil Justice Division

The tour was well conducted by Ms Suseela and Ms Sarah Lim.

They were very cordial and forthcoming to answer all the questions raised by the students. Their warm engaging style put the students at ease, which made

them ask a lot of questions.

A Palanaippan31 May 2012

Appreciation for Ms Suseela Devi Ramesh, Indian Interpreters Section, and Ms Sarah Lim, Executive, Corporate Communications, Corporate and Court Services Division

Patricia was so kind and assisted me very patiently by explaining the

procedures with a smiling face. I was very impressed by her service as this is

my first time here.

Vanaja Kattabomman Nisha8 June 2012

Appreciation for Ms Patricia Padmini, Registry Officer, Small Claims Tribunals, Civil Justice Division

She was so committed and responsible to ensure that my

requests were attended to even when

she was so busy. Well done. Keep it up.

Lee Teck Hai5 June 2012

Appreciation for Ms Rosyati Ahmad, Head Library Officer, Library, Strategic Planning and Training Division

Rukumani and Sandra went the extra mile to settle my problems.

They were extremely understanding, knowing that I needed to fly off

soon. Very grateful.

Anonymous27 June 2012

Appreciation for Ms Tamilmaran Rukumani, Senior Mediation Officer, and Ms Sandra Pereira, Registry Officer, Maintenance Mediation Chambers, Family and Juvenile Justice Division

I am pleased by the service of the night court officer, Ms Sentamarai.

I would like to thank her for helping

me. Thank you, keep it up.

Phua Cheng Kin31 July 2012

Appreciation for Ms Sentamarai Selvi, Assistant Executive, Crime Registry, Criminal Justice Division

When I really need help and information, he really

helped me. He did a great job.

Durga31 August 2012

Appreciation for Mr Patrick Chin, Senior Assistant Executive, Service Relations Section, Corporate and Court Services Division

67

OURPEOPLE


WELCOMES AND FAREWELLSThis year’s theme of “Upholding Justice ∙ Serving Society ∙ Inspiring Trust” relates closely to the Subordinate Courts’ mission “to provide an effective and accessible system of justice, inspiring public trust and confidence”. The aspirations of our incoming staff and experiences of our outgoing staff reflect the Courts’ continuing drive to achieve this mission.

Welcomes

Since I started work at the Subordinate Courts, I have been

deeply impressed by the dedication and passion that my colleagues demonstrated through their work ethics and conversations we had. As part of a dynamic team looking into building a modern one-stop justice facility, I see abundant opportunities ahead in serving society. I hope to be instrumental in helping the Subordinate Courts to innovatively improve the quality of service for the public. As a new staff, I am proud to be part of a team that strongly believes in upholding justice and fairness.

Mr Eric Ng Senior Executive, Infrastructure Development,

Corporate and Court Services DivisionJoined in August 2012

My first impression was formed when I came to the Subordinate

Courts for my job interview. One of the staff courteously showed me the way to the interview room. There, I felt the helpful, friendly and warm culture of the Subordinate Courts.

As an interpreter, I am committed to providing excellent interpretation services to court users. I am honoured to play a part in upholding justice and serving society.

Ms Jackie ChongLanguage Officer, Chinese Interpreters Section,

Corporate and Court Services DivisionJoined in June 2012

With no legal background, the learning curve has been steep. I

am thankful to have colleagues who are willing to guide me and spare their time to impart their knowledge to me. Their warm welcome and support make me feel like part of the big family. This has inspired and motivated me to work towards the common goal of providing excellent services to the court users.

Ms Grace LeongAssistant Director, Family Registry,

Family and Juvenile Justice DivisionJoined in August 2012

69OUR PEOPLE

Farewells

My career at the Subordinate Courts started in 1986 when I was

posted from the Supreme Court. Since then, the Subordinate Courts had been like a second home to me. I was blessed to have colleagues who were supportive and cooperative. In addition, the Judges, supervisors and fellow colleagues were very nurturing in helping me improve my work. They were also my morale boosters during my years of service at the Subordinate Courts. Having had 26 years of wonderful experience here, I will certainly miss the people whom I had worked and shared my life with. These memories will be with me and treasured always.

Mr Nor Bin Subir Former Court Administrator,

Family and Juvenile Justice DivisionRetired in May 2012

My experience at the Subordinate Courts has truly been an enriching

one. During my 19 years with the Subordinate Courts, I was given numerous opportunities to work towards achieving the Subordinate Courts’ mission of providing an effective and accessible system of justice, particularly in the areas of responsibilities of the then Administrations Department, which is now known as the Corporate and Court Services Division.

My time in the Subordinate Courts allowed me to witness countless improvements in their work processes. Over the past 19 years, the Courts had transformed into a world

class court which I am proud to be part of. I hold many fond memories here and will treasure all of them. I believe the people of the Subordinate Courts will continue to give of their best and steer the Courts towards inspiring even greater public trust and confidence.

Mr Lee Chun Yip Former Senior Director,

Corporate and Court Services DivisionRetired in July 2012

When I first stepped into the Subordinate Courts in 2005, I

knew little of the scope and variety of work here. Though I had spent a number of years in the Supreme Court Registry, the content of the work was quite different, and my move to the Subordinate Courts made for a refreshing change.

I owe a great debt to all my mentors, colleagues and friends whom I had come to know well over the past seven years in the Subordinate Courts. They had given me tremendous support and encouragement. Their dedication to duty taught me the essence of the role of a Judge. It was here where I learnt the importance of hearing every case with an open mind, and of considering each case fully and fairly, whatever the amount at stake. And above all, it was here where I fully appreciated that as servants of the law, we must approach our judicial role with humility.

Ms Thian Yee SzeFormer District Judge and Senior Director,

Strategic Planning and Training Division Posted to Ministry of Law on 16 Jul 2012


STAFF EVENT HIGHLIGHTSNational Day Celebrations

The Subordinate Courts held the annual National Day Observance ceremony (NDOC) on 7 August 2012.

Leading up to the ceremony, the Special Events Sub-committee of the Staff Welfare Committee organised fund-raising carnivals in support of the Children’s Cancer Foundation (CCF), the adopted charity of the Subordinate Courts. The three weeks of activities raised a total of $42,324 for the CCF.

The NDOC saw a unity of strength as a choir made up of Judges and court administrators gave a resounding rendition of the national anthem and recital of the national pledge. The spirit of patriotism was truly palpable as they belted out National Day songs to the accompaniment of a very enthusiastic and supportive audience.

During the NDOC, the recipients of the National Day Awards were recognised. Staff who had served for ten years were presented the Subordinate Courts Long Service Awards in recognition of their dedication.

National Day Awards

Public Administration Medal (Silver)

District Judge James Leong

Commendation Medal

Mrs Renuka Thanabalan

Efficiency Medal

Mr Mohamed Hatta bin Abdul RazakMs E Mangalagowri

Long Service Medal (25 years of service)

District Judge James Leong District Judge John Ng District Judge Soh Tze BianMs Norjahan d/o AmooMs Jayaram Vanaja Mrs Santha Devi SivanathanMs Rashidah bte Sirrat

Subordinate Courts Awards

Long Service Award

District Judge Shaiffudin SaruwanDistrict Judge Shoba Golpalakishnan NairMs Nur Izzah bte AmirMr Tay Hee ChiewMs Loh Mee LingMs Fauziah bte HasanbasriMs Zainab bte Abdul KarimMs Aminah bte Abdul KaderMs Liew Yi Jun Kristy

71OUR PEOPLE

Court Administrator of the Year Awards

The Court Administrator of the Year Award recognises staff members who have shown great commitment and made outstanding contributions to the Subordinate Courts. The recipients of this annual award will play an important role as mentors to new officers and in enhancing and encouraging good practices among court administrators. The recipients of the 2012 Court Administrator of the Year Award were:

• Mr Raymond Loh Kee Yong Executive, Bail Centre, Criminal Justice Division

• Mr Bernard Soh Eng Han Senior Infrastructure Development Officer, Infrastructure Development Department, Corporate and Court Services Division

In 2012, the Court Administrator of the Decade Award was introduced. The deserving winner was nominated from among the recipients of the Court Administrator of the Year Award for the past ten years. The recipient of this inaugural award was Ms Sally Teng-Soh Siew Foong, an executive with the Criminal Justice Division. Here is why the panel of judges gave her their votes:

Sally is very dedicated to her work, staying back late almost every day

to make sure that Court 17 (where she was assigned to) can function effectively. She is also a good mentor to staff, willing to teach and impart knowledge while remaining humble. She is a good example for all to follow.

• Ms Zarinah bte Muhamad Senior Registry Officer, Family Registry Family and Juvenile Justice Division


Public Service Week Activities

The Public Service Week (PSW) was held from 21 to 27 May 2012. Into its fifth year, the annual event reminds public officers to take pride in their roles and to serve with dedication and commitment.

The Subordinate Courts organised a series of activities leading up to the Subordinate Courts Service Excellence Day cum PSW2012 Observance Ceremony on 24 May. Over the course of the week, staff who had provided good service to court users shared what kept them going under the “Let’s hear from our Unsung (Service) Heroes” series. During the 24 May lunchtime talk for staff on “Interactions with Special Needs Users - Understanding their Needs”, guest speakers from the Society for the Physically Disabled shared the knowledge and skills required to engage

special needs users. The talk served as a reminder to court administrators to be mindful of their words and actions when assisting court users with special needs.

During the Observance Ceremony, the Subordinate Courts renewed their service commitment through the recital of the Public Service pledge and received the PSW2012 message from Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, Minister-in-charge of Civil Service. Two videos on “Service Do’s and Don’ts” to remind staff of the appropriate telephone and counter interactions were also screened. These videos were produced in-house, drawing on staff as talents. The highlight of the event was a skit on how to be a service professional, even when faced with a challenging court user. Performed by the talented interpreters, the enactment of scenarios commonly faced by staff left the audience in stitches.

73

Organisational Cohesion Day

The Subordinate Courts 2012 Organisational Cohesion Day was held on 15 September. The future Subordinate Courts Complex featured prominently in the theme for the event. Dubbed “Living the Dream”, the event put together staff from different departments to take on roles as:

• Architects, who would undertake the challenge of building a scale model of the new Subordinate Courts tower; • Engineers, who would brave various obstacles and challenges to deliver materials to the Architects;

OUR PEOPLE

Mr Sim Jingyao, Ms Shariza bte Mohamed Shariff and Ms Yong Khai Ling were given special mention during the Observance Ceremony for clinching the coveted “PS21 Star Service Award”. The award recognises and rewards public officers who have consistently demonstrated high standards of service excellence. They received their awards during the Excellence in Public Service Awards Ceremony held at the Istana on 25 May. Deputy Chief District Judge Jennifer Marie also presented the “Service Staff of the Quarter” Awards to Ms Nagaletchumi d/o T Jevaraza and Mr Patrick Chin in recognition of their excellent services to court users.


Sports and Welfare Activities

Chief District Judge’s CupThis year saw the inauguration of the Chief District Judge’s (CDJ) Cup. This competition seeks to encourage greater participation in sports and at the same time foster camaraderie and friendship amongst staff.

A total of five games were played throughout the year, and points were awarded to the champions and runners-up of each game. Scores were also awarded to the division with the highest number of supporters for each game.

The Inter-Division Futsal Tournament kick-started the CDJ’s Cup on 20 April 2012. This was followed by a 5-km cross-country run in May, badminton in July, carrom in October, and finally, bowling in November.

After months of intense competition, the Civil Justice Division emerged the winner of the inaugural CDJ Cup. The Corporate and Court Services Division received the Registrar’s Shield for being the division with the highest number of supporters for the games.

• InteriorDesigners,whowouldfitoutthe interior with courtrooms, chambers and fixtures; • Artists, who would paint an enormous backdrop of the existing Subordinate Courts and Family and Juvenile Court buildings; and, • ChocolateChefs,whoweretaskedwith the creation of gourmet-class chocolates on an industrial scale, to satisfy the cravings and appetites of their toiling colleagues.

The activities culminated in a 3-metre tall replica of the future Subordinate Courts Complex being set up, flanked by two huge composite canvases of the current court buildings. To the ecstatic crowd viewing this amazing tableau, this was a clear testament of the power of teamwork, that with coordinated and determined efforts, no dream is impossible to achieve.

75

Other Sports ActivitiesBesides the CDJ’s Cup, the Sports Committee also encouraged staff to lead a healthy lifestyle by organising nature walks like the Tree Top Walk at MacRitchie Reservoir, fitness classes like yoga, zumba and pilates. Talks such as “How to have a good posture to prevent back problems” were also organised.

Health-related EventsTo create “A Healthier Workplace, A Happier Workforce”, a series of events and activities was organised to promote health awareness and to enhance the quality of life of staff. These events and activities included a yoghurt buffet, a fruits and salad buffet, a laughing yoga workshop, talks on women’s health, dental health and mental health, as well as a health and beauty bazaar. In addition, to encourage healthy eating and snacking, all staff received monthly healthy treats packs.

OUR PEOPLE


JUDGES AND STAFF OF THE SUBORDINATE COURTS

Chief District Judge, Deputy Chief District Judge and Senior District Judges

1. Senior District Judge, Civil Justice Division, Leslie Chew 2. Senior District Judge, Family and Juvenile Justice Division, Foo Tuat Yien3. Chief District Judge, Tan Siong Thye 4. Deputy Chief District Judge and Registrar, Jennifer Marie5. Senior District Judge, Criminal Justice Division, See Kee Oon

12

3 45

77

CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION

Judges of the Criminal Courts1. District Judge Ng Peng Hong 2. District Judge Chay Yuen Fatt3. District Judge Kessler Soh

Judges of the Criminal Courts


4. District Judge Victor Yeo5. District Judge Shaiffudin Saruwan 6. District Judge John Ng

1 2

34

5

6

1. District Judge Eddy Tham 2. District Judge Mathew Joseph3. District Judge Ronald Gwee

4. District Judge Brenda Tan5. District Judge Kamala Ponnampalam

12

3 4 5




1. District Judge Hamidah Ibrahim 2. District Judge Siva Shanmugam3. District Judge Jasbendar Kaur

4. District Judge Eugene Teo5. District Judge Lim Keng Yeow

1 2

34

5

1. District Judge Toh Yung Cheong 2. District Judge Soh Tze Bian3. District Judge Salina Ishak 4. District Judge Wong Choon Ning

5. District Judge Lim Tse Haw6. District Judge Chay Yuen Fatt7. District Judge Marvin Bay

1 2

3 4 5

6 7

79JUDGES AND STAFF OF THE SUBORDINATE COURTS

Judges of the Crime Registry

Crime Registry Officers

1. District Judge Siva Shanmugam 2. District Judge May Mesenas3. District Judge Shawn Ho

4. District Judge Janet Wang5. District Judge Tan Yin Tze6. District Judge V. Jesudevan

1 2

34 5

6

1. Geoffrey Lim 2. Nisa d/o Raja Sekaran3. Pandiyan V 4. Unikrishnan Jayanthy5. Nor Azliana bte Khairuden

6. Evelyn Yeoh7. Hairi bin Mohamed Noor8. Doris Lee 9. Thanalakshmi d/o Subramaniam10. Louis Kang

1 2 3

4 56

7 8 9 10


Crime Registry Officers

1. Yee Yan Qi 2. Kasmah Wati bte M Wari3. Elaine Lim 4. Zainah bte Sabtu

5. Habedah bte Ahmad6. Jamilah bte Jaslan7. Rokiah bte Harun8. Siti Ainsha bte Salim

12

4 5

36

78

Crime Registry Officers1. Kamissah bte Mahmud 2. Vivian Koh3. Leow Xian Zhao 4. Denise Yeo5. Puvana Ramasamy

6. Belinda Chng7. Louis Kang8. Shanti Ramakrishnan9. S Senthamarai Selvi10. Shawn Teo

1 2

34 5 6

7 8 9 10

81

Criminal Court Officers

Criminal Court Officers

1. Zubeda Khanam 2. Supaletchumi d/o Suppiah3. Raymond Loh 4. Asmahan bte Amir5. Nazeini Parveen bte Rahman

6. Erliana bte Idrus7. Sekrah bte Idris8. Valliammah d/o Alagapan9. Lance Lim10. Caliph Md Sufiyan bin Moezar 11. Cai Songde

12

34

56

78

9 10 11

12

3 4

5

6 7

1. Sally Teng 2. Hetty Elvirna bte Samuri3. Wong Wai Yee 4. Sharon Tan

5. Sharifah Farhanah bte Syed Halid Almakbuly6. Eric Tan7. Muhammad Hafiz bin Jumahat



CiVIL JUSTICE DIVISION

Judges of the Civil Courts1. District Judge Tan May Tee 2. District Judge Seah Chi-Ling

3. District Judge Loo Ngan Chor 4. District Judge David Lim 1

2

3

4

Judges of the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre

1. District Judge Kathryn Low 2. District Judge Ong Chin Rhu3. District Judge Laura Lau 4. District Judge Carolyn Woo

5. District Judge Lorraine Ho6. District Judge Dorcas Quek7. District Judge Kenneth Choo

12

3

4

5 67


Civil Registry Officers

1. Tham Yeong Shin 2. Noraini bte Hj Omar3. Anne Saramma Mathew 4. Uma Mageswari d/o Singaram5. Roziana bte Selamat6. S Nachamai d/o Subramanian

7. Faridah bte Abu Bakar8. Yasmin bte Abdullah9. Karen Lin10. Sayeeswari d/o Bala Thendayuthapani11. Rozita bte Mahmud

12

3

4 5 67 8

910 11

Judges of the Civil Registry

1. District Judge Miranda Yeo 2. District Judge Karolyn Gin3. District Judge Lynette Yap 4. District Judge David Lim5. Magistrate Olivia Low6. Magistrate Josephine Kang

7. District Judge Ow-Yong Tuck Leong8. District Judge Constance Tay9. District Judge Joseph Yeo10. Magistrate Peter Lo11. District Judge Lorraine Ho12. District Judge Paul Quan

12 3

45 6

7

89

10 1112


Civil Registry Officers

1. Nurhidayah bte Tumani 2. Pearly Lock3. Wahidah bte Somo 4. Lucy Goh5. Hatimah bte Nawi6. Mohammed Rezal bin Mohd Yasar

7. Amnah bte Ali8. Norjahan Amoo9. Azizah bte Ibrahim10. Nuzuliyah bte Taib11. Michael Chua

1 2 3 45

67 8 9 10 11

Primary Dispute Resolution Centre and Civil Court Officers1. Koh Puay Chin 2. Sayidhatunnisa bte Syed Eussof3. Nur Atiqah bte Jainal

4. Ho Yong Kang5. Zarina Banu d/o Mahumooth 1 2 3 4 5


Small Claims Tribunals1. Lee Kay Swee 2. Anne Durray3. Joseph John 4. James Chuah5. Mirjahan Begum bte Mohd Tahir

6. Sharmin d/o Mohd Shaffi7. Carmen Seah8. Ginnette Choy9. Nurshahirah bte Khalid

1 2 3 4

5 67 8 9

Bailiffs Section

1 2

3

45

67

81. Johari bin Satiman 2. Mohamed Hatta bin Abdul Razak3. Chua Hong Siang 4. Sapuan bin Sanadi

5. Cheng Ruo Xuan6. Muhammad Akram bin Amat Tugiman7. Kalavathy Nadarajah8. Siti Ellyna bte Ali


Bailiffs Section1. Ismail bin Mat 2. Eswaran s/o Balasubrahaniam3. Kamaruzaman bin Kassim 4. Fauziah bte Hasanbasri

5. Lamri bin Shahnan6. Omar bin Bachik7. Bakhit bin Mohamed Ridwan8. Shawaluddin bin Zainal Abidin

12

34

5 6 7 8

FAMILY AND JUVENILE JUSTICE DIVISION

Judges of the Family and Juvenile Courts

1. District Judge Tan Peck Cheng 2. District Judge Jocelyn Ong3. District Judge Angelina Hing 4. District Judge Amy Tung

5. District Judge Masayu Norashikin6. District Judge Kevin Ng7. Magistrate Michelle Elias Solomon8. District Judge Sowaran Singh

12

3 45

67

8


Judges of the Family and Juvenile Courts1. District Judge Muhammad Hidhir Abdul Majid 2. District Judge Chia Wee Kiat 3. District Judge Colin Tan 4. District Judge Crystal Ong 5. District Judge Lee Li Choon

6. District Judge Regina Ow7. District Judge Tan Shin Yi8. District Judge Carol Yeo9. District Judge Wong Sheng Kwai

Family Registry and Family Court Officers1. Yeo Seow Aik 2. Winston Cheng3. Vanaja Jayaram 4. Cheng Min

5. Shafi’ah bte Ahmad6. Fadhli Nur Hassan bin Mohd Yassin7. Muhammad Habeebullah bin Mohamed Abdullah8. Nur Nadiah bte Md Nasir

12

3

45

6

7 89

1 2

3 4 5

6 7 8


Family Registry and Family Court Officers

1. Mahani Bte Adam 2. Daniel Chiah3. Mohd Fazil bin A Razak 4. Carrie Ang

5. Siti Nabilah bte Mohammed6. Nurhanim bte Mohamad Hanip7. Kristy Liew Yi Jun

Maintenance Mediation Chambers1. Lee-See Fong Pheng 2. Faridah Atan3. Jasmine Ng

4. Tamilmaran Rukumani5. Sanisah bte Mahad 6. Sandra Julie Pereira

1

23 4 5

6 7

12

3

4 56


Counselling and Psychological Services

1. Cynthia Teo 2. Sophia Ang3. Audrey Lum 4. Jaslyn Ng5. Jessie Koh

6. Suzanah bte Che’ome7. Jean Quek8. Raymond Chong9. Chiam Toon Han

Counselling and Psychological Services1. Nur Izzah bte Amir 2. Ronald Lim3. Sarinah bte Mohamed4. Karen Fu5. Nagaletchumi d/o T Jevaraza

6. Ho Yew Wai7. Kuck Xuanling8. Koh Li Lian9. Saiful Hisham Sidek

12 3

4 5 6

7

8 9

12

3

45 6

7 8 9


CORPORATE AND COURT SERVICES DIVISION

1 2

34

5 6 7 8

12 3

45 6

1. District Judge Lim Wee Ming 2. District Judge and Senior Deputy Registrar Tan Boon Heng3. Lim Lay Kim4. Lim Hwei Chen

5. Samsiah M Mizah 6. Renuka Thanabalan7. Lim May Leng8. Daniel Ang

1. Phoo Meng Teck 2. Tay Kai Boon3. Chew Chuee Seng

4. Shariza bte Mohamed Shariff5. Rosalind Yap 6. Choo Oi Peng

Chief District Judge and Deputy Chief District Judge’s Secretariats


12 3

45 6 7

Communications Department

1. Michelle Chiang 2. Elyana Mohd Ishak3. Patrick Chin4. Sarah Lim

5. Cynthia Tan 6. Shirley Ho7. Rahimah bte Mazelan

1 2 3

4 56 7 8 9

Finance Department

1. Balasubramaniam s/o Tharmalinggam 2. Phua Thong Leng3. Mark Tay4. Aston Chow5. Akwinder Kaur

6. Padma Vengadasalam7. Leong Pui Kwan8. Prasannah d/o Kumarasamy9. Iskandar bin Abbas


Human Resource Department 21

3 4

5 6

7

8

910

1112

1. Tung Ai Jui 2. Chan Kok Hoong3. Dalbir Kaur4. Mikaela Oh 5. R Thamayanthi6. Joyce Yao

7. Yeow-Mak Yuek Ling8. Siti Nadiah bte Rashid9. Alicia Ang10. Hasizah bte Nawe11. Xu Pei Jie12. Stella Ho

Infrastructure Development Department1 2

3 45 6 7

8

9

1. Adrian Lai 2. Nezam Zakaria3. Nur Azilah bte Ngasiran4. Yik Jia Xiong 5. Tay Zhonghao

6. Suhaily bte Ismail7. David Seah8. Haris bin Abdul Rahman9. Bernard Soh


Chinese Interpreters Section1 2 3 4

56

7 89

10

1112

1314

1516

1. Peter Ong 2. Low Meng Huat3. Loh Mee Ling4. Rick Chia 5. Kelvin Koo6. Jason Phoon7. Phebe Ang8. Tay Kuan Kuan

9. Tan Siew Kheng10. Jackie Chong11. Sophia Lin12. Neo Bee Lian13. Chang May Fung14. Leslie Tan15. Sharon Chua16. Jean Lee

Indian and Malay Interpreters Sections1 2 3

4

56

7 8 910

1112 13

14 15 1617 18

1. Nadarajoo Sivanandan 2. Kamal bin Shaharom3. Suhana bte Salleh4. Rashidah bte Sirrat 5. Rohaida bte Satari6. Tumirah Abdullah Osman7. Mary Doris Raj8. Nur Afiqah bte Abdul Rahman9. Nurfadhilla bte Mohamed Kamarulzaman

10. Suseela Devi Ramesh11. Santha Devi Sivanathan12. Hawa bte Harun13. Muhammad Haikal bin Mohamed Harun14. Prasakthi Allagoo15. Muhammad Rijal bin Khailani16. Mohamed Faizal bin Mohamed Yusuf17. Zaini bin Sojah18. Muhammad Irfan Wahid


STRATEGIC PLANNING AND TRAINING DIVISION

1

23

4

Strategic Planning, and Organisational Excellence & Performance Management Departments

2 1 3

4 5

6

78 9

10

11

12

1. District Judge James Leong 2. District Judge Joyce Low

3. District Judge Jasbendar Kaur4. District Judge Joseph Yeo

1. Chan Wai Yin 2. Ng Kar Meng3. Ng Siew Siew4. Joseph Wee5. Ong Meng Choo6. Shen Qinghui

7. Dang Ngoc Han Nguyen8. Phang Tsang Wing9. Harpreet Kaur10. Ye Pei Shi11. Sabeena Beevi12. Huang Caiwei


Training & Knowledge Management Department

12 3

4

5

67

11

8

9 101. Michael Low 2. Jasmine Foo3. Jennie Phua4. Joyce Ho5. Rosyati Ahmad6. Norasyikin Ahmad Ismail

7. Rubiah Jaharah8. Humaira bte Mohd Ali9. Guay Ee Chin10. Rozilah bte Rohani11. Sabrina bte Mohamed Hassan

Information Technology Department1. Teh Ah Seok 2. You Chiou Har3. Chan Khar Nai4. Zhang Wen Jia 5. Sim Jingyao6. Jeremy Sia7. Cheng Kim Yew8. Shirley Chia

9. Ronshone Chua10. Wong Hong Chew11. Ryan Quek12. Ronnie Tan13. Kelvin Low14. Mark Lim15. Lai Yan Fong16. Stanley Lau

12 3

4

56

7 118 9

10

12 13 14

15

16


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe Editorial Committee

District Judge Lim Keng YeowDistrict Judge Dorcas QuekMs Lim Lay KimMs Michelle Chiang

In Consultation withChief District Judge Tan Siong Thye,Deputy Chief District Judge Jennifer Marie andthe Senior District Judges

With Warmest Appreciation toAll who have contributed to this publication


SUBORDINATE COURTS

No 1 Havelock Square Singapore 059724Tel 1800-JUSTICE (1800-5878423)

www.subcourts.gov.sg

upholding justice serving society inspiring trus t - state courts · 2014. 12. 14. · 2...

Documents