01
CONTENTS
02
43
Foreword by The Honourable
Awards and Accolades
the Chief Justice
Singapore Quality Award with
Special Commendation
44
Our International Profile
48
Participation in International
Conferences and Exchanges
55
Internship and Attachment Programmes
59
Caseload and Statistics
60
Visits by Distinguished Guests in 2011
62
Notes of Appreciation
64
04
Message from the Chief District Judge
12
67
Organisation Chart
Quality Judgments &
Excellent Court Services
13
Our Divisions
Criminal Justice Division
14
Civil Justice Division
19
Family and Juvenile Justice Division
24
Corporate and Court Services Division
30
Strategic Planning and Training Division
38
Quality Judgments
68
Child Focused Resolution Centre
70
Family Night Court
70
HELP Centre
71
New and Improved Facilities for Court Users
72
Court Volunteers
73
Public Perception of the Subordinate Courts
74
75
Our People
Welcomes and Farewells
76
Staff Event Highlights
National Day Celebrations
National Day Awards
Subordinate Courts Awards
Public Service Week Activities
Corporate Social Responsibility Activities
Cohesion Activities
Other Social Events
Judges and Staff of the Subordinate Courts
78
80
80
81
81
82
82
84
02
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Foreword by The Honourable the Chief Justice
FOREWORD BY
THE HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
been laudable initiatives by the Subordinate
Annual Report 2011
03
Courts – such as the regular publication
of the Subordinate Courts newsletter and
establishing Communities of Practice with
stakeholders – to engage and reach out to
the community.
I also congratulate the Subordinate Courts
The Subordinate Courts have, over the
counselling and mediation services for
last decade, surmounted organisational
divorcing couples with young children
and operational challenges. The number
represents a major step in the provision
and variety of cases tried or heard by
of holistic family justice. A Family Night
the Subordinate Courts’ Criminal, Civil,
Court has been introduced to deal with
and Family and Juvenile Justice Divisions
mentions of maintenance summonses at a
reflect the changing landscape of our
time that is convenient for the parties. The
society. To ensure that the administration
Criminal Case Resolution programme is
of justice is in tune with social needs, the
another innovation that has been successful
Subordinate Courts have gone beyond
in facilitating open dialogue between the
merely adjudicating cases; they have been
Prosecution and the Defence. Further, the
proactive in discerning potential docket
Subordinate Courts have set up specialised
or other problems in these cases in order
community sentencing courts to deal with
to address them in a timely manner. They
the new community sentencing regime
have also been working closely with the
introduced by the Criminal Procedure
community to develop and refine many of
Code 2010.
their programmes. In short, the Subordinate
Courts are determined to remain a first-class
With respect to civil justice, the Subordinate
judicial institution, one that is shaped by
Courts introduced a pre-action protocol
the community and serving the community
for personal injury claims to streamline
by partnering with it.
the management and encourage early
settlement of such claims. New processes
I am pleased to read in this Annual Report
such as neutral evaluation are also being
about how the Subordinate Courts have
explored in order to give the parties more
taken on this role with much passion
choices in selecting the most appropriate
over the past year. The setting up of the
Alternative Dispute Resolution method for
Child Focused Resolution Centre to offer
their civil disputes. In addition, there have
for being awarded the Singapore Quality
Award with Special Commendation, which
is the highest honour given by SPRING
Singapore. This award attests to the
unstinting drive by the Subordinate Courts
to serve with excellence. The Subordinate
Courts have now embarked on a new
journey, as they plan for the design and
building of a new Subordinate Courts
Complex to meet their expanding functions.
I am confident that the Subordinate Courts,
amidst these developments, will continue
the journey to attain “greater heights” and
“new horizons”, as aptly encapsulated in
the theme of this year’s Annual Report.
I wish the Subordinate Courts a fulfilling
journey in the year ahead.
CHAN SEK KEONG
Chief Justice
Republic of Singapore
04
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Message from the Chief District Judge
MESSAGE FROM THE
CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
Improvement to
court processes
Annual Report 2011
05
In 2011, the Justice Divisions introduced
various initiatives and programmes aimed
at achieving a more optimal management
2011 was another year of achievements,
changes and new beginnings for the
Subordinate Courts. On 1 October 2011,
Ms Hoo Sheau Peng, the former Registrar
Court and Service
Excellence – Singapore
Quality Award with
Special Commendation
of the Subordinate Courts, left us to take up
the appointment of Deputy Chief Counsel
The Subordinate Courts have embraced
of the Civil Division of the Attorney-
service-centricity as an integral part of our
General’s Chambers. We thank Ms Hoo
mission to dispense quality justice to our
Sheau Peng for her invaluable contributions
court users. In recent years, we have made
and dedication during her tenure with the
concerted efforts to effect a paradigm shift
Subordinate Courts. At the same time,
when dispensing justice to our court users.
we welcomed to the Subordinate Courts
We have made a seismic shift from a court-
Ms Jennifer Marie, who took over as
centric to a service-centric ethos. We serve
Registrar, and also assumed the concurrent
our court users and society with wisdom
appointment of Deputy Chief District Judge.
and from our heart and with compassion.
The quest for service excellence is a
We continued to focus on court and
continuous process. Since acquiring the
service excellence. We relentlessly sought
Singapore Quality Award (SQA) in 2006,
ways to improve our court processes to
we have not rested on our laurels. We have
further enhance the quality of justice we
made transformational changes and scaled
administer. Indeed, the theme of this year’s
greater heights of court excellence. Last
Annual Report “Greater Heights, New
year, we were honoured to be conferred the
Horizons” encapsulates two of the key
prestigious Singapore Quality Award with
goals and aspirations that have shaped
Special Commendation (SQA SC) by
much of the Subordinate Courts’ initiatives
SPRING Singapore. We satisfied a team
and developments.
of seven assessors, including a German
assessor, that our court excellence journey
has made quantum leaps over the past five
years and that we have also exhibited global
leadership amongst international judiciaries.
and resolution of cases in the Subordinate
Courts. We work in unison towards
entrenching the new service-centric ethos.
Enhancements to
the Criminal Justice
Processes
Criminal Case Resolution
Criminal Case Resolution (CCR) was first
piloted in 2009 to introduce a court-driven
mediation framework for criminal cases
so as to reduce the high percentage of
“cracked trials” (i.e. trial dates were wasted
or unused when accused persons decided
Regulatory Offences Case to plead guilty on the first day of trial or the
Management System
Prosecutor withdrew the charge, etc.). CCR
An important initiative implemented by
has since proven to be highly effective in
the Criminal Justice Division was the
minimising the wastage of court resources
implementation of the Regulatory Offences
occasioned by “cracked trials”. Since the
Case Management System (ROMS), a fully
CCR programme was piloted in 2009, 108
computerised and paperless management
CCR cases have been heard up to end
system for regulatory offences. R O M S
December 2011. 68 of these cases were
replaced the Tickets & Summons System
successfully resolved without the need for
(TICKS), which was in operation for over
trial. This has resulted in savings of some 129
19 years. ROMS interfaces with other
judge-days. CCR has now been formally
court information technology systems, such
institutionalised
as the Subordinate Courts Case Recording
within
the
Subordinate
Courts’ criminal case resolution framework.
and Information Management System II
and the Finance Management System.
06
SUBORDINATE COURTS
07
Message from the Chief District Judge
Annual Report 2011
This creates a one-stop information portal
General’s Chambers, Central Narcotics
claims to be first heard by the Financial
night so that litigants do not have to
that has greatly increased our efficiency
Bureau,
Authority,
Industry Dispute Resolution Centre (FIDReC)
take leave of absence from their work.
in
Ministry of Home Affairs, and Singapore
without the need for lawyers. Last year, the
The Family Night Court was therefore
Police Force.
claim value for the FIDReC-NIMA Scheme
established in November 2011 to hear
was increased from $1,000 to $3,000.
maintenance-related applications. The
managing
regulatory
offences.
I
would like to express my gratitude to
Health
Sciences
the various enforcement agencies for the
successful implementation of ROMS.
Their
cooperation
and
coordination
Enhancements to the
Civil Justice Processes
were critical in ensuring a smooth
Family Night Court now convenes every
New ADR processes
Tuesday night.
We also extended the scope of ADR
transition from T I C K S to R OMS. These
The Subordinate Courts have been an active
processes
of
The Family and Juvenile Justice Division
enforcement agencies are the Accounting
proponent of Alternative Dispute Resolution
damages proceedings. The “Guidelines
has also adapted its operations to address
and
as a means of resolving disputes. I would
for the Assessment of General Damages
a number of new legislation which took
like to list some of these initiatives.
in Personal Injury Cases”, a book jointly
effect in 2011.
Corporate
Agri-Food
&
Regulatory
Veterinary
Authority,
Authority
of
Singapore, Building and Construction
to
cover
assessment
published by the Civil Justice Division and
Authority, Central Provident Fund Board,
Pre -action protocol for
the Singapore Academy of Law setting out
Child Focused Resolution Centre
Housing and Development Board, Inland
Personal Injury cases
the common monetary awards given for
(CFRC)
Revenue Authority of Singapore, Land
In May 2011, as part of the Subordinate
different types of personal injuries, has also
A major initiative undertaken by the Family
Transport Authority, Media Development
Courts’ continuous efforts to promote
greatly assisted parties in their settlement
and Juvenile Justice Division involved the
Authority, National Environment Agency,
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as
efforts. This is because parties are aware
establishment of the new Child Focused
Public Utilities Board, Singapore Civil
a means of dispute resolution, the Civil
that the Courts rely on the guidelines in
Resolution Centre (CFRC) in September
Defence Force, Traffic Police, and Urban
Justice Division issued a pre-action protocol
this book when making their awards. This
2011. The CFRC was established in
Redevelopment Authority.
for Personal Injury (PI) cases. This was to
brings about transparency and certainty,
response to amendments to the Women’s
streamline the management of PI cases.
and has contributed to the steep settlement
Charter.
Establishment of the Drugs Courts
The protocol provided for the automatic
rates for personal injuries cases. Separately,
mediation for divorcing couples with
We are always keen to harness the
referral of PI claims for ADR before the
we also commenced a pilot programme
children. This is aimed at resolving post-
synergies and benefits associated with
Primary Dispute Resolution Centre within a
to introduce Neutral Evaluation as a
divorce parenting and care arrangements.
differentiated case management. Over
designated time after the commencement
further ADR option. We also explored the
As there is a lack of space at the Family
the years, we have, therefore, established
of the action. We hope to achieve a more
feasibility of taking expert evidence using a
and Juvenile Court building, this new
various specialist courts such as the
timely resolution of such cases.
witness conferencing approach.
centre is housed at Level 4 of Central
It
provides
counselling
and
Mall, located at 1 Magazine Road. This
Community Courts, Traffic Court, and
Enhancement to the
Family Justice Processes
Coroner’s Court, to handle specific types
Increasing the jurisdiction of
of cases. In 2011, we added the Drugs
the FIDReC-NIMA Scheme
Courts to our list of specialist courts.
The jurisdictional limits of the FIDReC-
The establishment of the specialist Drugs
NIMA Scheme were further extended in
Family Night Court
Courts has enhanced our management of
2011. The FIDReC-NIMA Scheme was
In
drug cases. It has also helped us develop
first introduced in May 2008. It aims to
stakeholders, there was a request for
greater synergies with our stakeholders
create a cost efficient framework for the
us to help working litigants involved in
who are involved in the prosecution
resolution of low-value non-injury motor
hearings before the Family Courts by
of drug offences, such as the Attorney-
accident (NIMA) claims by requiring such
scheduling some court proceedings at
location is selected for the convenience
of court users as it is near the Family and
Juvenile Court building.
our
regular
dialogues
with
our
08
SUBORDINATE COURTS
09
Message from the Chief District Judge
Annual Report 2011
Improvements to
Physical Infrastructure
Quality Bench
Implementation of amendments
e-Calendar
to the Women’s Charter and the
The e-Calendar System was successfully
International Child Abduction
implemented in the Criminal Justice Division.
Act 2010
It replaces the paper calendar system that
Improvements to amenities
Courts dispense is intricately tied to the
Following the amendments to the Women’s
was previously used to manage court
We continually strive to improve our
quality of their bench. Training of Judges
Charter, the Family Courts have begun
diaries. The e-Calendar System provides
physical infrastructure for the benefit and
therefore remains high on our list of
to hear applications for financial relief
a real-time update of court availability
comfort of court users. Public lifts were
organisational priorities.
brought by applicants involved in foreign
and schedules. It thereby greatly facilitates
upgraded, and the Atrium at the mezzanine
annulment, divorce and judicial separation
the fixing of trial and hearing dates. The
level at the Subordinate Courts building
The induction programmes for new District
proceedings where the requisite nexus with
e-Calendar System is currently used in Court
was furbished and transformed into a
Judges
Singapore is established. A wider range
17, and will be rolled out progressively to
comfortable meeting or rest area for court
revamped to make them more structured
of reliefs in relation to the enforcement
the Family and Juvenile Justice Division.
users and staff. There are lounge tables
and meaningful. They now have to sit for
and chairs, vending machines and even
and pass online tests to ensure that they
of maintenance orders can now also be
The quality of justice the Subordinate
and
Magistrates
have
been
sought before the Family Courts. These
DART Project
free Wifi. Lawyers have given glowing
are competent and have acquired all
include orders requiring the defaulting
We launched the Digital Audio Recording
compliments for the new Atrium.
knowledge necessary for the job.
parties to furnish security, to attend financial
and Transcription (DART) pilot project in
counselling, to perform community service,
2010 to facilitate the recording of court
We also established a private waiting
Knowledge Management (KM ) at the
and orders requiring the Central Provident
proceedings and optimise the use of
area in the Protection Order Services
Subordinate Courts was also embraced
Fund Board to release defaulting parties’
scarce judicial resources. This project was
office at the Family and Juvenile Court
with the establishment of the K M Unit. In
employment
details,
rolled out to the other Courts in 2011.
building so that victims of family violence
line with the KM journey, the Jurist Resource
among others. With the coming into effect of
DART facilities are now available in all the
have greater privacy and are placed in a
and Information System 2 was introduced.
the International Child Abduction Act 2010
three Justice Divisions.
therapeutic setting.
Knowledge capital is important to the
and
contribution
(ICAA) in March 2011, child abduction
Subordinate Courts. We also have better
cases and child custody and access cases
Foreign Interpreter
New Subordinate Courts Complex
research and navigational features to
which fall within the ambit of the ICAA
Management System
The plans to build a new Subordinate
access legal knowledge. These efforts go
are now also heard by the Family Courts.
In 2011, we developed the Foreign
Courts Complex are progressing well. An
a long way in cementing our position as a
Interpreter Management System (FIMS)
open design competition was launched in
learning organisation.
to improve the management of part-time
September 2011, and the final design is
foreign interpreters in court proceedings.
expected to be decided in June 2012.
Leveraging on
Technology
FIMS tracks the deployment of such foreign
Leveraging on Information Technology to
interpreters from the time requests are made
serve our court users better remains one of
to the assignment of the interpreters to the
our perennial quests.
relevant Courts. This has resulted in greater
efficiency and savings.
10
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Message from the Chief District Judge
Annual Report 2011
Community Engagement
more holistic understanding of the Courts’
Excellence. During that trip, a meeting
functions and operations.
was arranged for a few parliamentarians
of the host country to discuss with me on
Engagement with our stakeholders at a
meaningful level is critical to the effective
Corporate Social Outreach
the transformation of their judiciary. In the
functioning of the Courts.
As a way of giving back to society, we
course of this meeting, they were also
organised fund-raising activities during
very interested to know how Singapore
Engagement with the Law
the National Day period, and raised
maintained an incorruptible judiciary.
Society of Singapore
a total of $29,300 for the Children’s
We
regularly
engage
and
elicit
Cancer Foundation.
Thus, 2011 has been another fruitful year
for the Subordinate Courts. It was made
feedback from members of the bar on
new initiatives and other relevant issues.
On 2 December 2011, the Civil Justice
possible by the collective hard work
The Civil Justice Division, in collaboration
Division organised “Love, Hope and Dreams”,
and dedication of all our Judges, court
with the Singapore Academy of Law’s
another corporate social responsibility
administrators and support staff. As we
Professional Affairs Committee and the
programme. It was attended by some 30
reflect on our achievements last year, we
Forum of Senior Counsel, also held a
children of Beyond Social Services, a
must not lose sight of the fact that there are
series of lectures on best practices in civil
local charity. The children were given an
yet many challenges and possibilities that
procedure at the Subordinate Courts. The
educational tour of the Subordinate Courts
lie ahead. Looking ahead into the new
lectures were very well attended.
and treated to performances by staff. A
year, we must remain vigilant and sensitive
$5,000 cheque donated by court staff
to the changing needs of society. We have
was also presented to the charity.
to constantly reinvent ourselves to meet
Engagement with Court Volunteers
We continue to engage volunteers,
including Justices of the Peace, mediators
society’s expectations of us as dispensers
Conclusion
of quality justice. With the unswerving
commitment and support of our staff, I
and law students from local universities,
in a wide range of court functions such as
The pinnacle of all our achievements in
am confident that the Subordinate Courts
mediation, counselling and manning of our
2011 was attaining the SQA SC. Many
will continue to scale greater heights and
HELP Centre. We are extremely grateful to
SQA organisations had unsuccessfully tried
conquer new horizons in the years to come.
our court volunteers for their contributions
to attain the SQA SC. There are presently
and services. We hosted the annual Court
only five organisations in Singapore,
Volunteers’ Appreciation Dinner at the
including the Subordinate Courts, which
Hilton Hotel on 18 November 2011, with
have been awarded the SQA SC. This is
the Honourable Judge of Appeal, Justice
indeed a great effort and we are humbled
Andrew Phang as our guest of honour.
by this award.
Internships
I am also heartened to narrate an anecdote
We have also taken steps to formalise
about my happy yet humbling experience
our internship programmes. We ensure
arising out of my trip to a foreign country
that law students serving internships at the
while tasked to deliver a keynote address
Courts would acquire a meaningful and
in an international conference on Court
TAN SIONG THYE
Chief District Judge
11
12
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Annual Report 2011
ORGANISATION CHART
Chief District Judge
Tan Siong Thye
Deputy Chief District Judge
Jennifer Marie
Senior District Judge
Senior District Judge
Registrar
Senior District Judge
Senior Director
See Kee Oon
Foo Tuat Yien
Jennifer Marie
Leslie Chew
Thian Yee Sze
Criminal Justice
Division
Family and
Juvenile Justice
Division
Corporate
and Court
Services Division
Civil Justice
Division
Strategic
Planning and
Training Division
• Centralised PTC
Court
• Commercial Crimes
Group
• Community Court
Group
• Crimes Against
Property Group
• Crimes Against
Persons Group
• Specialised and
Mentions Courts
Group
• Crime Registry
• Family Trial Courts
• Mental Capacity
Court
• Juvenile Court
• Protection Order
Services
• Family Resolutions
Chambers
• Maintenance
Mediation
Chambers
• Counselling and
Psychological
Services
• Child Focused
Resolution Centre
• Family Registry
Corporate
Services
• General Group
• Communications
• Torts Group
- Corporate
Communications
- Service Relations
Unit
• Commercial Group
• Primary Dispute
Resolution Centre
• Finance
• Small Claims
Tribunals
• Human Resource
Management
• Civil Registry
• Infrastructure
Development
Court Services
• Interpreters
• Records
Management
• Digital Recording
- Bailiffs
• Strategic Planning
- Planning Unit
- Research &
Knowledge
Development Unit
• Information
Technology
Department
• Organisational
Excellence and
Performance
Management
- Centre for Research
and Statistics
- Organisational
Excellence Unit
• Training
• Knowledge
Management and
Library Resources
OUR
DIVISIONS
14
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our Divisions
Annual Report 2011
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
DIVISION
Criminal Justice Division
Specialised functions
Courts*
Trial Courts specialising in criminal cases relating to crimes
against persons.
Courts 5, 8,
15, 18, 25#,
33, 36
Mentions Courts for criminal cases (Courts 23 and 26); and
The Criminal Justice Division is the largest division in the Subordinate
Specialised Courts such as the Bail Court (Court 26), Traffic Court
Courts 14, 21,
Courts. The Division comprises Criminal Trial Courts, Mentions Courts,
(Court 21), Summonses & Regulatory Matters Court (Court 14) and
22, 23, 26#
Specialised Courts, and a centralised Pre-Trial Conference Court.
Coroner’s Court (Court 22).
These Courts collectively deal with more than 99 per cent of all
criminal cases in Singapore. For the efficient disposal of the myriad of
The Crime Registry, which provides administrative support to the
cases that come before the Criminal Courts, the Division is organised
Courts in the Division and also attends to Magistrate’s Complaints and
into seven specialised groups, each headed by a group manager. The
criminal case mediation.
Crime Registry
Division is headed by a Senior District Judge.
* Correct as at Jan 2012. The Courts may be allocated to different groups from time to time.
#
Courts 25 and 26 also operate as Night Courts (Courts 25N and 26N) from 6pm every working day.
Significant Initiatives
Specialised functions
Courts*
Foreign Interpreter Management System
Centralised Pre -Trial Conference (PTC) Court, which centrally manages
and assigns cases for trial in the various Trial Courts, and ensures that
Court 17
judicial resources are efficiently allocated.
Trial Courts specialising in criminal cases relating to commercial crimes,
corruption, immigration, special drugs and intellectual property.
Community Courts, specialising in community-related cases and cases
relating to public order.
Courts 2, 3, 6,
7, 9, 10, 11,
24, 35, 39
Courts 19 & 20
Trial Courts specialising in criminal cases relating to property offences,
Courts 4, 12,
housebreaking, gaming and gambling offences, and employment-
13, 16, 34,
related offences.
37, 38
In 2010, the Criminal Justice Division
Courts to certify the service rendered. This
collaborated with the Corporate and
ensures accountability and speeds up the
Court
to
replace
remuneration of the Foreign Interpreters. In
of
Foreign
addition, FI MS has a built-in intelligence
Interpreters’ services with the Foreign
feature to recommend the assignment of the
Interpreter Management System (FI MS).
same Foreign Interpreter to the same case
Commissioned on 30 November 2011,
previously heard in Court. This facilitates
FIMS provides a single platform of services
continuity, and enhances the quality of
using e-forms. The Courts can submit their
interpretation. With the implementation of
requests for Foreign Interpreters through
FIMS, the Courts have achieved higher
FIMS. They can track the status of their
productivity and efficiency, resulting in
requests and know which Foreign Interpreter
savings of both time and court resources
has been assigned to them. The system
in the administration and management of
also routes service details to the respective
the Foreign Interpreter services.
the
Services
manual
Division
administration
15
16
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our Divisions
Regulatory Offences Case Management System
Significant Cases
Annual Report 2011
In July 2011, the Criminal Justice Division
Prosecutors. This reduces discrepancies,
launched
enhances
a
new
system
called
the
sentencing
accuracy
and
Criminal Justice Division
PP v A: Criminal Procedure
PP v Peter Usit Musa & Ors:
Regulatory Offences Case Management
provides up-to-date information on the status
Code (CPC) 2010 – More Tools to
Kallang Slashers
System (ROMS) to replace the Tickets
of the case. The system also has a built-in
Address Offending Behaviour
At the other end of the spectrum of
& Summons System (TI CKs), which had
intelligent feature to highlight all pending
With the coming into operation of the
criminality, the Courts continued to carry
managed regulatory offence cases for the
cases against a defendant. This allows the
new Criminal Procedure Code 2010,
out their important role in safeguarding the
last 19 years. The paperless system takes
Courts to optimise court scheduling and
the Criminal Justice Division now has
interests of the public. An example of this
care of a substantial proportion of the case
deal with all the pending cases against the
more tools at its disposal to address the
involved the treatment of a gang of seven
load of the Division.
defendant at the same court session. This in
diverse causes of criminality. One example
foreign workers from Sarawak who went on
turn improves efficiency and increases the
where these tools were deployed involved
a brutal robbery spree in the Kallang area
case disposition rate.
the case of A (male, age 19) who was
in 2010, with some armed with parangs.
a bright student at a polytechnic and
Five victims were randomly targeted, and
With interfaces between other systems
such as the Subordinate Courts Case
Recording and Information Management
With ROMS, defendants take responsibility
who was caught for a serious offence
one later died from the injuries inflicted
System II (SCRI MS II) and the Finance
for their cases through the ROMS kiosks
of
under
on him. The gang was later rounded up
Management
ROMS
located outside the courtrooms. Through
section 457 of the Penal Code. Through
after a manhunt by the police. Three gang
serves as a one - stop information portal. In
the system, they may indicate their next
assessments conducted by the Community
members now await trial for murder in the
addition, the system removes the need for
intended course of action, e.g. to plead
Court Secretariat, it was established by an
High Court. The other four gang members
prosecuting agencies to file their cases in
guilty, pay fine, etc.
Institute of Mental Health (IMH) psychiatrist
were all dealt with in the Subordinate
that A had a sexual fetish involving female
Courts after investigations revealed that
ROMS has helped the Subordinate Courts
undergarments, and this was the primary
each of them played a lesser role. Three
and their stakeholders to achieve higher
reason he trespassed into homes to steal
gang members (Peter Usit Musa, Sylvester
ROMS also enables the sharing of essential
productivity and efficiency at the whole -
female lingerie. Further assessments with his
Beragok and Landa Sulai) were each
information, such as case status and
of - government level in the management of
parents were conducted, and an in-depth
sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and
sentencing details, between the Judges and
regulatory offences.
report from the IMH psychiatrist confirmed
12 strokes of the cane for gang-robbery
that the treatment prognosis for A’s fetishism
under Section 395 of the Penal Code, for
was positive. The Court placed A under a
their part in kicking and hitting one of the
Mandatory Treatment Order (MTO) for 24
robbery victims. A fourth gang member
months in a bid to address the root cause
(Shahman Milak) was sentenced to two
of his offending behaviour. This case is an
years’ imprisonment and six strokes of the
example of a young accused person who
cane for attempted robbery under Section
benefitted from the changes made in the
393 of the Penal Code.
System
(FMS),
the Subordinate Courts as they can do so
online from their office premises.
Housebreaking
by
Night
law. Without the benefit of the Community
Court Conferences, A’s parents would have
remained hesitant rather than proactive
in their role involving the son’s need for
treatment; and without the MTO, A’s hope
for a bright future could have been dashed.
17
18
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Annual Report 2011
Our Divisions
Criminal Justice Division / Civil Justice Division
CIVIL
JUSTICE
DIVISION
Courts. In addition, all non-contentious
PP v Tan Cheng Yew:
Coroner’s Inquiry -
Justice Finally Served
Franklin Heng: Death after
The law was also similarly brought to bear
Liposuction Operation
on sophisticated white collar criminals who
In 2011, there were landmarks set by the other
caused massive losses. Former lawyer,
specialist courts in the Criminal Justice Division.
Tan Cheng Yew, fled the country in 2003
One of these involved the Coroner’s Inquiry
after misappropriating client’s funds. After
into the death of 44- year- old Franklin Heng,
spending six years on the run, he was finally
then Chief Executive Officer of YTL Pacific
caught in June 2009 when he travelled to
Star, who underwent a liposuction operation
The Civil Justice Division handles
the litigation process at the Civil Registry or
Germany on business while working as
performed by general practitioner Dr Jim
a variety of disputes involving
the Civil Trial Courts. The PDRC facilitates
a legal counsel in the USA under a fake
Wong of the Reves Clinic. Mr Heng failed to
claims of up to the sum of
the resolution of cases at an early stage
passport and an assumed name. Although
fully revive after the operation and was rushed
$250,000 and other matters such
through
Tan resisted the extradition proceedings
by ambulance to Tan Tock Seng Hospital
as probate. It comprises the
Mediator. This process has many benefits
vigorously, he was finally extradited back
where he was pronounced dead. An
Civil Registry, which includes
for litigants, such as savings in time and
to Singapore in October 2009 to face
autopsy on the deceased later found multiple
the Bailiffs Section, the Primary
costs and avoiding stress caused by going
charges. Tan faced six charges of Criminal
punctures in his stomach and intestines.
Dispute Resolution Centre,
through cross-examination in a hearing.
Breach of Trust and of Cheating under
Over 15 days, the Court received evidence
Civil Trial Courts and Small
Sections 409 and 420 respectively of the
from 17 witnesses, six of whom were experts
Claims Tribunals.
Penal Code. He claimed trial to all of them.
in their respective medical fields. At the
If alternative dispute resolution efforts are
At the trial, the Prosecution opted to proceed
conclusion of the Inquiry, the Coroner found
unsuccessful, or if litigants are unable to
on two charges under each provision, and
that Dr Jim Wong had inadvertently caused
Civil Registry
resolve their dispute, the case may proceed
on April 2011, Tan was found guilty by
the injuries to the deceased. The cause of
The Civil Registry is where all civil cases
for trial before a Judge in an open court.
the Court after an extensive review of the
death was determined to be asphyxia due
filed in the District Court and Magistrates’
The public are generally permitted to attend
evidence. The amount involved in the four
to airway obstruction when the deceased
Courts begin and usually end. It begins
all open court hearings. The Judge ensures
charges proceeded with totalled more than
became deeply sedated with the anaesthetic
when a litigant files a court document to
that the trial is fair, and that justice is not
$4.8 million. During the court proceedings,
drug, Propofol. This was also the drug that
start a civil action, and ends after the
only done, but is also seen to be done.
it transpired that Tan fled in 2003 to
was linked to the death of pop star Michael
litigant successfully enforces the judgment
Australia after racking up $6 million in
Jackson. This case was significant for not only
with the assistance of the court bailiffs. At
Small Claims Tribunals
gambling debts. No restitution was made.
being the first death which occurred after a
each step of the legal process, there is
The Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) is another
After considering all the factors, the Court
liposuction operation, but also for being one
a team of dedicated court administrators
alternative to litigation in the District and
imposed custodial terms of between three
of the latest series of inquiries now conducted
who attend to the court user and process
Magistrates’ Courts. It is available to any
and five years on the charges and ordered
under the new Coroners Act 2010. Under the
the legal applications. The Judges in
person who claims less than $10,000 (or
two terms to run consecutively, making a
new Act, the Coroner no longer needs to come
the Civil Registry adjudicate these legal
$20,000 if litigants agree in writing), in a
total sentence of nine years’ imprisonment.
to any conclusion on criminal responsibility,
applications, such as originating summonses,
prescribed category of claims, such as a
but will focus on ascertaining the facts and
interlocutory summonses, summary judgment
claim in contract for the sale of goods or
circumstances behind a death instead of
applications and assessments of damages.
provision of services. The claim may be
apportioning blame.
A case may be resolved at the Civil Registry
resolved through mediation before an SCT
or it may proceed for trial in the Civil Trial
registrar. A hearing before an SCT referee
probate applications are dealt with at the
Civil Registry.
Primary Dispute Resolution Centre
The Primary Dispute Resolution Centre
(PDRC) offers litigants an alternative to
resolve the matter instead of going through
mediation
before
a
Judge-
Civil Trial Courts
19
20
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our Divisions
will be fixed if there is no settlement. At SCT,
Pre-action protocol for personal
to choose whether or not to accept the
litigants cannot be represented and this
injury claims
determination or award. As parties are not
helps to keep the costs low for litigants.
A pre - action protocol for personal injury
permitted to have legal representation for
claims was implemented with effect from 1
these low value NI M A cases, legal costs in
May 2011 to streamline the management
resolving such disputes are avoided.
Annual Report 2011
Significant Initiatives
Civil Justice Division
and promote early settlement of such claims.
Amendments to the Subordinate
The protocol also provides for personal
Pilot Programme for Neutral
Courts Act
injury cases to be automatically referred to
Evaluation (NE) as an Alternative
A significant event for the Civil Justice
court dispute resolution early into the action,
Dispute Resolution (ADR) Option
Division in 2011 was the amendments to
Working with Stakeholders to
i.e. within eight weeks after a memorandum
PD RC
the Subordinate Courts Act which came
Support Best Practices
of appearance is entered by the defendant.
programme to introduce NE as a further
into effect on 2 January 2011. Prior to the
Between February and April 2011, the
This provides the parties with an opportunity
ADR option on 17 October 2011. NE
amendments, apart from the amount or value
Civil Justice Division, in conjunction with
to resolve the matter early in the proceedings
involves the parties and their lawyers making
of a claim (which remains a relevant criterion
the Professional Development and Practice
with the assistance of the PD RC, reducing
succinct presentations of their case at a
post-amendment), another important criterion
Chapter of the Singapore Academy of
potential expenditure on legal costs. It also
hearing to be presided by a Judge as the
to determine whether a claim was to be
Law’s Professional Affairs Committee and
sets out costs guidelines for cases where the
Evaluator. As the NE process is evaluative
mounted in the High Court or the Subordinate
the Forum of Senior Counsel, conducted a
sum settled or awarded is less than $20,000
in nature, the parties and their lawyers are
Courts was the nature of the claim. The
series of five lectures on best practices in
to help parties to agree on the issue of costs
expected to apprise the Evaluator of all key
Subordinate Courts were responsible only
civil procedure at the Subordinate Courts.
as part of their overall settlement.
evidence available to them at that juncture.
for certain expressly defined categories of
The purpose of the lectures was to share
claims such as contracts, torts or property.
best practices when preparing for a civil
Management of Low-Value Non-
presented at the NE hearing, the Evaluator
The amendments generally permit claims
litigation case. Mr Thio Shen Yi, SC, Mr
Injury Motor Accident (NIMA)
will deliver an evaluation of the relative
within the monetary limits to be commenced
Andre Maniam, SC, Mr Ang Cheng Hock,
cases by the Financial Industry
merits of the parties’ claims and/or defences
in the Subordinate Courts so long as they are
SC, Mr George Lim, SC, and Mr Francis
Dispute Resolution Centre Ltd
at the conclusion of the hearing.
not expressly reserved for the High Court by
Xavier, SC, took turns to conduct lectures
(FIDReC)
the amendments or specific statutes, such as
and each lecture was followed by a panel
By the Subordinate Courts ePractice Direction
This process is expected to be particularly
matters involving judicial review. This has
discussion chaired by Senior District Judge
No. 4 of 2011, the claim value threshold in
useful in cases where parties desire an
resulted in a more efficient court process
Leslie Chew. The response to the lectures was
respect of the FIDReC pre-action protocol for
evaluation of the merits of their case to
and savings for litigants as they can now go
overwhelming. There were 538 attendees.
low value NI M A claims introduced on 17
form a basis for settlement negotiations.
to the Subordinate Courts, where costs are
The feedback was also positive and the
March 2008 was extended to claims below
To evaluate the relative strengths of each
lower than in the High Court, if the value of
series of lectures has been very successful in
$3,000. The FID ReC- NI M A pre-action
side’s
their claim is within the Subordinate Courts’
reaching out to civil litigation practitioners in
protocol aims to facilitate early settlement
encouraged to agree on the use of a single
monetary limits.
the Subordinate Courts.
of such disputes by FID ReC before any
joint expert. If there is no such agreement,
civil action is filed in Court. FID ReC will
parties may elect to bring their own experts
manage these claims through mediation and
to the NE hearing where the Evaluator will
if necessary, adjudication. The determination
hear their evidence simultaneously instead
or award of the adjudicator is binding on
of sequentially as in a trial. This process,
the motor insurer while the claimant is free
called witness conferencing, is expected
commenced a 6 - month pilot
Based on the arguments and evidence
technical
evidence,
parties
are
21
22
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our Divisions
Annual Report 2011
Civil Justice Division
to reduce the time and costs expended by
and its insurers (collectively referred to as
Deputy Registrar. The parties agreed on the
painting. He was credited to be the first
the parties.
the “Defendants”) for a liquidated sum as
quantum of the medical expenses incurred
Chinese master to fuse traditional Chinese
medical expenses (“partial disability claim”)
and future medical expenses to be incurred
form with Western techniques. Xu Bei Hong
New directions and forms have been
pursuant to provisions in WICA and the Civil
by the Plaintiff but could not agree if they are
paintings are highly coveted, with some
implemented for assessment of damages
Law Act. At the hearing in the Civil Registry,
recoverable by the Plaintiff and if they are
pieces worth millions of dollars. In February
court dispute resolution (AD CD R) and
the main issue was whether the Plaintiff could
to stand as part of or ought to be deducted
2007, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant
pre-assessment of damages conferences
maintain a common law action against the
from the agreed damages to avoid double
$100,000 for what was thought to be a Xu
in regard to disputes where interlocutory
Defendants for a partial disability claim
recovery. The basic rule is that damages
Bei Hong painting. A few weeks later, the
judgments have been entered for damages
notwithstanding having already obtained
in negligence are purely compensatory in
Plaintiff discovered that the painting was
to be assessed. Procedures have also been
orders under WICA. The Defendants argued
nature and in assessing damages for loss
not an original painting, and he sued the
put in place for litigants to apply for a fast-
that all the Plaintiff’s rights had merged with
sustained by the injured party, any gain
Defendant for a refund of monies paid. This
track AD CD R session to be convened after
the WICA Order, that the Plaintiff’s action
which is received by him, which he would
case took an interesting twist when halfway
interlocutory judgment has been entered.
amounted to an abuse of process and
not have but for the injury, prima facie will
through the Defendant’s cross examination,
These measures help to efficiently resolve the
that the Plaintiff cannot proceed separately
be taken into account. However, it is also
the Defendant admitted that the painting
quanta of damages where liability has first
under WICA and common law. The Plaintiff
well established that the basic rule admits
was actually a cheap machine-generated
been established.
disagreed and argued that the writ action
two categories of exceptions, commonly
print. Subsequently, the Defendant fell ill
merely sought to quantify the partial disability
referred to as the ‘insurance exception’ and
and the Court adjourned the trial for the
claim referred to in the WICA Order. The
the ‘benevolence exception’ (which was
Defendant to recuperate. When the trial
Deputy Registrar accepted the Defendants’
not applicable in this case). The principle
resumed, the Defendant failed to appear
Ge Zhao Hui v Ho Tong Seng
submission and noted that the WICA Order
of the ‘insurance exception’ is premised on
for cross examination, and also did not
Engineering Construction Pte Ltd
expressly provided for a mechanism for the
whether the injured party had taken out
inform his lawyer of his whereabouts. The
& SHC Capital Limited
partial disability claim to be quantified. It
and paid the premiums under the insurance
Court then granted default judgment for the
The Plaintiff was employed by a construction
was also held that the Plaintiff’s interpretation
policy which generates the payments to
Plaintiff. Several months later, the Defendant
company (“Employers”) as a construction
of WICA went against Parliament’s intention.
him. In this case, the ‘insurance exception’
engaged new lawyers to apply to set aside
worker. During the Plaintiff’s period of
The Plaintiff’s appeal against this decision
applied as the Plaintiff had paid the
the default judgment. For such applications,
employment, he was injured when deployed
was dismissed.
premiums. The District Judge upheld the
it is incumbent on the applicant to furnish
Deputy Registrar’s decision that both the
good reasons for being absent at trial. In
SIGNIFICANT CASES
to the Employers’ sub - contractor (“Sub Contractor”). He then made a claim for
Koh Chin Hwee v Ang Dixon
medical expenses incurred and future
this regard, the Defendant informed the
permanent incapacity compensation by
The Registrar’s Appeal arose out of the
medical expenses to be incurred by the
Court that the reason for his absence was
relying on the Work Injury Compensation
usual type of torts claims heard regularly
Plaintiff were recoverable at law by the
because the president of a foreign country
Act (“WICA”). The Commissioner of Labour
in the Subordinate Courts. The Plaintiff was
Plaintiff as part of the agreed damages.
had invited him to an overseas meeting and
assessed the Plaintiff’s claim and made
injured in a motor accident in February
separate orders against both the Employers
2007 and claimed for damages against
Lawrence Wong Chun Lam and
for the foreign government. The Defendant’s
and the Sub-Contractor (“WICA Order”).
the Defendant. The matter was mediated
another v Tong Lian Joo @ Tong
lawyer, however, was unable to provide
The order against the Sub - Contractor was by
successfully
Djoe and another
any details of this alleged covert mission.
consent and was duly satisfied. Subsequently,
Resolution Centre, and the parties entered
This trial involved a painting allegedly
After careful consideration, the Court found
because the Employers were unable to meet
an Interlocutory Judgment (interim judgment
drawn by the famous Chinese painter Xu Bei
the Defendant’s explanation lacking, and
the Plaintiff’s demands, the Plaintiff started
on liability) by consent in April 2009,
Hong. Xu Bei Hong (1895 –1953) is widely
dismissed the application.
a writ action against the Sub-Contractor
with the damages to be assessed by the
recognised as the father of modern Chinese
at
the
Primary
Dispute
had tasked him to go on a secret mission
23
24
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our Divisions
FAMILY AND JUVENILE
JUSTICE DIVISION
• Applications for subsequent variation
Annual Report 2011
of
Family and Juvenile Justice Division
maintenance
concerning
the
orders
and
children
Matters relating to children and
orders
young persons
where
The Juvenile Court, one of the courts
circumstances change over the years.
within F J J D, handles all criminal charges
against juveniles in Singapore. Although
While some matters may have to be
it exercises criminal jurisdiction in hearing
The Family and Juvenile Justice
children for years to come. To effectively
determined through a contested court
these matters, it operates differently from
Division (FJJD) deals with four
handle the issues presented for consideration,
hearing, every effort is made to provide
other criminal courts. The concern for
broad categories of cases:
the Family Court is keenly aware of the need
the opportunity for parties to work towards
rehabilitation and restoration assumes
divorce-related proceedings,
to be sensitive to the underlying issues and
achieving consensus on what the way
greater emphasis relative to deterrence,
family protection and provision
the needs of the parties in the future.
forward should be. The emphasis is on the
incapacitation and even sentencing parity.
use of collaborative and less-adversarial
There is a greater need for holism and a
matters, mental capacity cases
and matters relating to children
The Court’s role as an impartial adjudicator
processes, such as the CHILD (Children’s
sense of family-orientation, which takes
and young persons (their
of family disputes encompasses the role of
Best Interest, Less Adversarial) Programme,
into account factors and circumstances
offences, their adoption, care,
protecting family obligations to ensure that
that do not intensify animosity but instead
from a multi-disciplinary perspective.
and guardianship).
rights are upheld and responsibilities are
strengthen the parties’ ability to cooperate
fulfilled. To preserve the psychological and
in co-parenting their children unimpaired by
physical well-being of all family members, the
acrimonious litigation.
F J J D’s primary role is to deal with and
use of counselling and mediation by a team
adjudicate family-related legal disputes,
of highly experienced in-house counsellors
Family protection and provision
providing finality and closure to what can
and mediators is and always remains a high
matters
be acrimonious legal contests.
priority, especially in the case of children
F J J D hears all applications for orders
and victims of abuse.
relating to family violence and protection,
A critical role of F J J D has been to go beyond
orders
relating
to
maintenance
(not
the legal issues to explore and provide
Divorce-related proceedings
consequent upon divorce), orders relating
holistic solutions to the parties, using means
The divorce-related applications handled by
to children under the Guardianship of
The Juvenile Court also handles applications
that, as far as possible, do not intensify the
F J J D include:
Infants Act, as well as orders for enforcement
for ‘Care and Protection’ orders and ‘Beyond
of maintenance. Orders made by the
Parental Control’ orders under the Children
Syariah Court for maintenance and by the
and Young Persons Act. Possible orders in
Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents
these cases include placement under a fit
can also be enforced at the Family Court.
person or residence in a juvenile institution.
Mental capacity cases
The Family Court handles applications
F J J D handles all proceedings under the
under the Guardianship of Infants Act
Mental Capacity Act in its Mental Capacity
and the Adoption of Children Act. Orders
Court. Orders can be made appointing
can be made concerning the custody of
deputies to act on behalf of persons lacking
children and their adoption.
conflict, and focus on the way ahead rather
than on the past.
This approach is anchored in the recognition
that family disputes stand apart from other
kinds of disputes. Most family disputes that
reach the Courts are likely to have a long
and difficult past underlying the legal issues.
Furthermore, unlike other disputes, many
parties will have to continue to interact in
the future, in that they need to co-parent their
• Applications
to
commence
divorce
proceedings;
• Applications
for
nullity
or
judicial
separation;
• Applications for consequential division
of matrimonial assets (where the value
of the assets falls below $1.5 million),
and for maintenance orders and orders
concerning the custody and care of
children; and
mental capacity.
25
26
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our Divisions
Annual Report 2011
Family and Juvenile Justice Division
Partnerships and
State after a Contracting State has declared
jobs or does not disclose his current
order the transfer of divided matrimonial
stakeholder engagement
its acceptance of Singapore’s accession.
employer. The Women’s Charter has also
assets into a child’s Child Development
been amended to allow complainants to
Account (“CDA”) as financial provision for
accepted
lodge a report with the credit bureau, with
the child. Such monies would be treated
Singapore’s accession (as at 24 October
consequent effects on the creditworthiness
as the parents’ contributions to the CDA
provide support services for parties who
2011).
of the defaulter.
and would attract the Government’s co-
appear in the Courts. They include the
Germany, New Zealand, People’s Republic
Ministry
of China (on behalf of the Hong Kong and
In relation to divorce, the amendments to
Youth and Sports, the Panel of Juvenile
Macau
Special Administrative Regions),
the Women’s Charter now allow the Court
Court Advisers, governmental and non-
Greece, Czech Republic, Argentina, Latvia,
to provide financial relief to an applicant
governmental family support agencies,
Serbia, Sweden, Israel, Belgium, Estonia,
who is legally separated or divorced, or
family
Slovakia, France and Spain.
whose marriage was annulled, in foreign
Setting aside of an ancillary
jurisdictions. The applicant must obtain
matters order
Implementation of amendments
the leave of court before making such
A
to the Women’s Charter
an application. Further, the Court has the
evidence of her infidelity and informed her
When dealing with persons who default on
jurisdiction to hear such an application
that he would divorce her. His solicitors
maintenance payments, the Family Court
only if one of the parties to the marriage
then produced a draft deed of settlement in
The International Child Abduction
has the power to, amongst others, order the
was domiciled in Singapore on the date
respect of ancillary matters, a copy of which
Act 2010
defaulter to serve a term of imprisonment
when the application for leave was made
the husband gave to the wife eight days
The International Child Abduction Act (ICAA)
and/or to make their maintenance payments
or on the date the divorce, annulment or
after the confrontation. She subsequently
was enacted on 16 September 2010 and
via an attachment of earnings order. With
judicial separation took effect in the foreign
signed the deed about a month after she
came into force on 1 March 2011. The
the amendments to the Women’s Charter in
jurisdiction; or one of the parties to the
was confronted.
purpose of the ICAA is to give effect to the
January 2011, the Court now has, with effect
marriage was habitually resident for a
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects
from June 2011, a wider range of powers
continuous period of one year in Singapore
The salient features of the deed provided
of
(“the
in the enforcement of maintenance orders,
immediately preceding the date when the
that the husband would have sole custody
Convention”), to which Singapore acceded
including the power to order the defaulter
application for leave was made or the date
of the children, that the matrimonial home
on 28 December 2010. The objectives of
to furnish security by way of a Banker’s
the divorce, annulment or judicial separation
would be transferred to him without any
the Convention are twofold: firstly, to secure
Guarantee, to attend financial counselling
took effect in the foreign jurisdiction. If the
refund of her CPF contributions and that
the prompt return of children under 16 years
and to perform community service. Further,
Court is satisfied that it is the appropriate
she waived her right to maintenance.
who were wrongfully removed to or kept
when an attachment of earnings order is
forum, the Court can order financial relief
The divorce was uncontested and interim
in any Contracting State and secondly, to
contemplated, the Court can order the
such as the division of matrimonial assets
judgment was granted.
ensure that the rights of custody and access
Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board to
and maintenance of the wife and children.
in Contracting States are respected. With
provide the complainant with the defaulter’s
effect from 1 March 2011, proceedings
employment and contributions details for the
Where the division of matrimonial assets
were held in respect of the ancillary matters.
under the ICAA are dealt with by the Family
last 12 months. This facilitates the issuance
is concerned, consequential amendments
The wife did not attend any of them and was
Court. The Convention will only come into
of a new attachment of earnings order in
have been made to the Child Development
similarly absent on the day of the hearing
force between Singapore and a Contracting
situations where the defaulter has changed
Co -Savings Act to enable the Court to
for the ancillary matters.
Critical to the work of the division are
the
partnerships
relationships
of
and
with
complementary
stakeholders,
Community
service
centres
who
Development,
and
volunteer
17
Contracting
They
States
are:
have
Uruguay,
Bahamas,
mediators, who assist in the mediation of
maintenance and divorce cases.
SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES
International
Child
Abduction
matching contribution.
SIGNIFICANT CASES
husband
confronted
his
wife
with
Thereafter, four ancillary pre -trial conferences
27
28
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our Divisions
Annual Report 2011
Family and Juvenile Justice Division
The Court made an ancillary order on
Whether a counsel, who
of this when the wife took out applications
the integrity of the legal profession. The
terms similar to that of the deed. About five
previously acted in a matter for
for
for
husband’s appeal was allowed and the
months later, the wife filed an application
a company, where one party in
information relating to the company to
wife’s counsel was restrained from further
to set aside the ancillary order. The Family
a divorce had been managing
support her case for the division of assets
acting for the wife in the ancillary divorce
Court Judge allowed the application and set
director and a substantial
and maintenance. The wife’s counsel, with
proceedings. The wife’s appeal to the High
aside the ancillary order on the grounds that
shareholder, may be conflicted
information from the previous retainers
Court was subsequently withdrawn.
if the matter was litigated, the wife had a
from acting for the other party in
with the company, would know or be in
real prospect of success. On the husband’s
the divorce in ancillary divorce
a position to know what information to ask
appeal to the High Court, the Judge was of
proceedings relating to the
for and if the information provided by the
the view that the ancillary order should be
division of matrimonial assets
husband was false or lacking in any way.
a default judgment. The Judge allowed the
The husband and wife were at the ancillary
The District Judge held that firstly, the
appeal and reinstated the ancillary order.
matters stage of divorce proceedings when
husband was a former client of the wife’s
the husband applied for an injunction for the
counsel within the meaning of section 2(1)
The Court of Appeal allowed the wife’s
wife’s counsel to be restrained from further
of the Legal Profession Act or a person who
appeal and set aside the ancillary order.
acting for the wife. The Deputy Registrar
was involved in or associated with a former
The Court of Appeal was of the view that the
dismissed the application and the husband
client of the wife’s counsel and secondly, that
ancillary order was not a consent judgment
appealed to a District Judge. The issue was
the subject matter of two previous retainers
as the actual consent of both parties was
whether the wife’s counsel was in breach of
and the ancillary divorce proceedings were
not signified to the Court, since the wife
rule 31 of the Legal Profession (Professional
related matters. Although the husband’s
was wholly absent from the ancillary matters
Conduct) Rules (“PCR”), which prohibits a
company had been the client of the wife’s
hearing, when the order was made.
counsel, who has acted for a client in a
counsel in the previous matters, the husband,
matter, from thereafter acting against the
as its managing director, was the person
The Court of Appeal further held that there
client (or against persons who were involved
who had power to retain and employ the
was no provision for the concept of a default
in or associated with the client in that matter)
wife’s counsel to act for the company.
judgment in the context of matrimonial
in the same or any related matter.
discovery
and
interrogatories
construed as a consent judgment instead of
This point was also acknowledged by
proceedings as Rule 3(2) of the Matrimonial
excluded
The wife’s counsel had previously acted
the wife who said she believed that the
the operation of Order 13 of the Rules of
for the husband’s company in three matters
husband was the sole beneficial owner of
Court. Where an ancillary order is made
from 1997 to 2002. The husband was
the said company. The subject matter of the
in the absence of a party, that party could
a founder and then managing director of
two previous retainers involving the assets
apply under Order 35 Rule 2 of the Rules of
the company. The basis of the husband’s
and financial position of the company were
Court for the judgment to be set aside. On
application for the injunction was that the
matters related to the division of the parties’
the facts of the case, the Court of Appeal
wife’s counsel would have come to know of
matrimonial assets. In addition, there was
was of the view that the wife would have
his assets, his relationship to and the set-up
a larger public interest beyond the need to
a real prospect of success if the case was
of the company during the time when the
protect against the disclosure of confidential
adjudicated, and therefore set aside the
counsel had acted for the company. The
information; to preserve the solicitor-client
ancillary order.
husband had only realised the significance
relationship of trust and confidence and
Proceedings
Rules
expressly
29
30
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our Divisions
CORPORATE AND COURT
SERVICES DIVISION
SRU aims to deliver excellent court services
In the Subordinate Courts’ continuous
through identification of relevant training
quest towards service excellence, SRU
programmes for service staff, and set service
launched the inaugural Service Excellence
standards for all staff. The Unit supervises
Conference on 20 May 2011. As a lead-
service-related activities, including managing
up to the conference, a series of activities
complaints and compliments from court
revolving around service-centricity was
users, and provides support to the Quality
conducted.
Service Manager.
centric they were through the “What is
Annual Report 2011
The Corporate and Court Services Division (CCSD) provides essential
services to the other divisions of the Subordinate Courts. Led by the
Deputy Chief District Judge, CCSD is organised into various sections
and staffed by a team of subject specialists. It is the administrative
backbone of the Subordinate Courts.
Communications Section
The Communications Section comprises the Corporate Communications
Unit which serves as a link between the Subordinate Courts and
external parties, and the Service Relations Unit (SRU) which develops
and implements initiatives to promote a service - centric culture.
The Corporate Communications Unit undertakes communication activities which help to
enhance the public’s understanding and appreciation of the Subordinate Courts’ role in
the judicial system. This is done through communication channels like the media, website,
corporate collaterals and outreach programmes.
Corporate and Court Services Division
Staff
tested
how
service-
your Service Quotient” quiz, developed
In 2011, the Corporate Communications
from the service improvements identified
Unit produced the refreshed educational
since the Subordinate Courts embarked
brochures for the Family and Juvenile Justice
on their service excellence journey. As a
Division. The contents were updated to
demonstration of the senior management’s
ensure that they were easily understood by
commitment towards service excellence, the
the layperson.
Chief District Judge (CDJ) served court users
at various service desks, e.g. the Information
As part of the revamp of the Subordinate
Counter, Small Claims Tribunals (SCT),
Courts website, the Corporate Communications
Protection Order Services, and the HELP
Unit completed a user requirement study. In
Centre. He was greeted with smiles from
addition to benchmarking against both local
those who knew who he is. Sharing how he
and overseas agencies which provide a good
felt about his service encounters, CDJ said
web experience, the Unit also conducted
he served two court users who initially did
focus group dialogues with staff members
not look too happy to be at SCT. As he
who serve the public. This ensures that the
processed their applications, they eventually
revamped website addresses the common
warmed up to him. He added that being
issues faced by court users and better serves
courteous helped to defuse the otherwise
their needs. The end product will be one that
tense service encounters.
is user-friendly and developed to offer court
users better access to the services provided
by the Subordinate Courts.
The key activity in 2012 will be to review the
web architecture of the Subordinate Courts
website. As part of its greater outreach efforts
in 2012, the Unit will also conduct tours for
stakeholders to promote greater understanding
of the work of the Subordinate Courts.
31
32
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our Divisions
Annual Report 2011
The Service Excellence Conference also
The Finance Section also set up a call
provided the perfect platform to give
centre to provide prompt responses to both
out the inaugural “Service Staff of the
internal and external phone enquiries, in
Quarter” Award, aimed at rewarding
line with the Subordinate Courts’ emphasis
staff who provided excellent services to
on service excellence.
court users. The quarterly award, together
engagement strategies. The
Section also spearheads
manpower planning policies to
identify and groom potential
leaders for organisational renewal
and leadership succession.
Corporate and Court Services Division
a
preliminary
review
of
the
existing
nomenclature. It will introduce a revised set
of nomenclature which will more accurately
reflect one’s job scope and position in the
Subordinate Courts hierarchy.
with other annual and monthly awards, is
Together with the Family and Juvenile
In the area of performance management,
part of the larger Recognition & Reward
Justice
besides reviewing the ranking and promotion
Framework, which aims to recognise and
introduced a payment system to enable
In 2011, the HRM Section reviewed and
processes to establish a fair and robust
reward staff who go the extra mile when
parties granted maintenance to obtain
enhanced its recruitment process and
performance management framework that
serving court users.
their monthly maintenance payments more
retention strategies. It expanded its pool
rewards and recognises deserving staff,
promptly. In addition, the Section had an
of job applicants by tapping on diverse
the HRM Section successfully aligned four
The key initiative for SRU in 2012 will be
internal re-organisation in August 2011,
recruitment platforms and streamlined its
promotion months (in April, May, July and
the development of an automated system
which has enhanced the on-the-job training,
orientation programme for new staff. A
September) to one in April.
to track the compliments and feedback
job expansion and career development of
quarterly dialogue session with newly -
received. The system will also serve as an
its officers.
recruited staff was initiated to obtain their
Staff
feedback and better address their concerns.
accorded significant emphasis to ensure
Division,
the
Finance
Section
information repository to facilitate searches
well - being
and
satisfaction
are
of past feedback to better address court
Moving forward, to enhance the Subordinate
users’ queries.
Courts’ financial management processes,
The HR M Section has also worked with
initiatives introduced by the HRM Section
the Finance Section is developing a new
the various Divisions to ensure an equitable
in 2011 include securing subsidised mobile
Finance Section
financial management system which will
allocation of new headcount among them.
phone-line subscription rates for staff. The
be implemented in 2012. This system will
New middle - management positions were
Section also oversees the Health and
The Finance Section ensures the
management and optimisation
of the financial resources of
the Subordinate Courts. It is
also responsible for providing
accurate finance services
promptly, in compliance with
prescribed guidelines.
enhance efficiency in revenue collections
created, which enhanced the operation and
Welfare Committee which regularly rolls
and payments. In addition, a portal will be
management of the Divisions. Staff morale
out programmes aimed at improving the
set up in the Subordinate Courts’ intranet
has also increased as a result.
physical well-being of staff.
In 2011, the Finance Section implemented
the decentralisation of budget management
to the various sections. This has further
enhanced flexibility in the budget usage
and expenditure planning of the sections.
a
to share finance-related information and
directives with staff.
The HR M Section placed considerable
emphasis on manpower planning during the
Human Resource
Management Section
year in review. To build a sustainable and
The Human Resource
Management (HRM) Section
aims to position the Subordinate
Courts as an employer of choice
through its recruitment, retention
and staff development, career
progression and employee
requirements of all Divisions, both current
effective workforce, the Section embarked
on a comprehensive review of the manpower
and over the long term. Concurrently the Job
Grading Exercise where every post within
the organisation is evaluated and graded
has resulted in an optimal organisational
structure for the Subordinate Courts. In line
with this, the HRM Section has completed
conducive
work
environment.
The
33
34
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our Divisions
Annual Report 2011
Corporate and Court Services Division
Moving forward, the HRM Section will
the Community Court Secretariat Office at
continue to streamline and enhance its
level 3 of the Subordinate Courts building,
processes and programmes to better serve
in addition to relocating the Community
its internal customers. To further improve staff
Courts to level 3. Three new mediation
retention and engagement, the Section will
chambers were created at the Small Claims
work on a mentoring framework for new
Tribunals to meet the increasing demand
staff. It will also partner the Civil Service
for mediation services. Both public lifts
College to develop a customised course on
in the Subordinate Courts building were
interview techniques. Targeted at non- HR
upgraded with a faster speed and improved
supervisors, this course would equip them
ventilation. The entrance of the Subordinate
with the requisite interview techniques and
Courts building has been adorned with
A turnstile system was also installed at the
shortlisted by a panel of jurors for Stage 2
skills, and enable the Subordinate Courts to
refreshing landscape to create a calming
entrance of the Subordinate Courts building
of the competition. There will be a public
find the right person for the right job.
and therapeutic environment for court users.
to enhance the security of the courthouse.
display of the submissions of the finalists as
The ID Section also created a waiting area
The first table -top security exercise on how to
well as the preliminary designs submitted by
The H R M Section also aims to develop an
at the Protection Order Services within the
deal with bomb threats and chemical attacks
all entrants at Stage 1 in March 2012 to
HR portal to serve as a one - stop centre for
Family and Juvenile Court building to offer
at the Subordinate Courts was conducted
accord them the due credit and recognition.
HR- related information for staff.
applicants greater privacy.
with the Singapore Police Force, Singapore
Among the panel of nine jurors are eminent
Prison Service and Singapore Civil Defence
and respected architects, including Mr
Force during the year in review.
Moshie Safdie who designed the celebrated
Infrastructure Development
Section
In July 2011, the ID Section launched
Marina Bay Sands Singapore. The winner is
Refresh@Atrium, a newly furbished facility
expected to be announced by June 2012.
at the Subordinate Courts building to
In July 2011, the Workplace Safety and
The Infrastructure Development
provide a place for people to rest and hold
Health Committee was formed to ensure
(ID) Section is responsible
discussions. Court users can snack on food
a safe workplace and healthy environment
In 2012, the ID Section will restore the
for the planning, upgrading,
from the vending machines. There is also free
for staff and court users. Risk management
façade of the Family and Juvenile Court
development, management and
Wifi access for those who need to connect
champions and risk assessment teams were
building. The public toilets at levels 3 and 5
maintenance of the facilities
to the Internet.
appointed to conduct safety audits at various
of the Subordinate Courts building, and staff
offices and common areas.
toilets will also be upgraded. The security
and security of the Subordinate
Courts. The Section also
These new and improved amenities were
manages the procurement of
introduced to provide a warmer and
To meet the increasing demand for space,
comprehensive coverage of the surveillance
office equipment and supplies to
friendlier atmosphere for court users.
a new Subordinate Courts Complex will
cameras in the two court buildings. In
be built. The new complex comprises a
addition, a smart digital closed - circuit
Security within the Subordinate Courts has
new building and the existing Subordinate
television (CCT V) intelligence system will
also been enhanced with the installation
Courts building which will be retrofitted and
be adopted. This state-of-the-art surveillance
In 2011, the ID Section completed several
of secured bars in the docks in the court
renovated. An Open Design Competition
system will complement the traditional CCTV
key projects. It managed the setting up
rooms. This allows the removal of handcuffs
for the new Subordinate Courts Complex
system, allowing real time alerts of unusual
of the Child Focused Resolution Centre,
on accused persons during hearings so that
was launched on 15 September 2011. 19
activities such as trespass, and enhance the
a new initiative of the Family and Juvenile
they can take notes during the hearings. At
designs were received under Stage 1 of
overall security at the Subordinate Courts.
Justice Division. It also saw to the set up of
the same time, security is not compromised.
the competition, of which two have been
ensure smooth court operations.
infrastructure will be enhanced to ensure a
35
36
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our Divisions
Annual Report 2011
Interpreters’ Section
Records Management Unit
Digital Recording Unit
The Interpreters’ Section
The Records Management
The Digital Audio Recording
comprises Chinese Interpreters,
Unit (RMU) provides effective
and Transcription (DART) pilot
Malay Interpreters and Indian
safekeeping, retrieval and
project, which aims to replace
Interpreters. The interpreters
preservation of court records.
the manual recording of court
provide accurate and
proceedings by Judges, was
prompt interpretation and
implemented in 2010.
translation services.
In 2010, RMU earmarked 37 million pages
of court records for microfilming. During the
year in review, all records of the Civil Justice
With DART, Judges will be able to
Their work extends to the recording of
Division, which totalled about 16 million
dedicate themselves to perform their core
complaints at the Crime Registry and the
pages, were microfilmed. The microfilming
work more effectively and efficiently.
Protection Order Services, and accompanying
of records from the Family and Juvenile
Currently, 15 Criminal Courts are equipped
the Duty Judge and Prosecuting Officer to
Justice Division is expected to complete in
with DART facilities. This will be extended
the hospital to read out charges to accused
December 2012.
to more Criminal Courts and the Civil and
Family Courts in 2012.
persons who are unwell and cannot be
brought to Court. The interpreters also perform
Concurrently, R MU successfully completed
mediation at the Family Court. In addition,
a files relocation exercise, freeing up the
interpreters are appointed as Commissioners
much needed space to accommodate the
for Oaths to administer oaths or affirmations
cases that are processed in the Subordinate
in respect of affidavits for submission to the
Courts daily. R MU will work with the
Subordinate Courts.
relevant divisions to create an inventory via
a newly implemented bar-coding system to
In line with the service - centric culture, the
account for the different case types. With an
interpreters will conduct basic language
electronic system in place, it will be easier
courses for front - line staff in 2012 to enable
to retrieve case files.
them to serve court users more effectively.
Moving forward, R MU will microfilm
the
records from the Criminal Justice Division
Foreign Interpreters’ Management Unit
to better account for the various case
(FI M U), which oversees the engagement
types and to free up more space within
of ad - hoc foreign interpreters. FI MU will
the Subordinate Courts.
The
Indian
produce
a
Interpreters
manage
comprehensive
handbook
to guide foreign interpreters to provide
quality interpretation services and uphold
the standards of the profession.
Corporate and Court Services Division
37
38
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our Divisions
STRATEGIC PLANNING
AND TRAINING DIVISION
the identified strategic challenges, the
the best and most appropriate platforms
Planning Unit, in consultation with all the
such as multi-agency forums, strategic
Divisions and with the endorsement of
partnerships and technology. It highlights
management members, drew up the first-
seven strategic thrusts which the Subordinate
ever Subordinate Courts Strategy Map
Courts will focus on in the pursuit of their
(see Figure 1). The Strategy Map is built on
mission and vision. The strategic thrusts are
the philosophy of better serving the society
also organised according to the Balanced
through the establishment of a strong
Scorecard framework to strengthen their link
resource foundation and by leveraging on
to the key performance areas.
Annual Report 2011
Established in October 2008, the Strategic Planning and Training
Division (SPTD) is responsible for identifying and analysing the driving
forces of change relevant to the work of the Subordinate Courts,
recommending strategies to manage challenges in an increasingly
complex operating environment, as well as catalysing strategic
initiatives which further Subordinate Courts’ mission, vision and
Strategic Planning and Training Division
Figure 1
Subordinate Courts Strategy Map
strategic thrusts.
VISION
In 2011, SPTD was reorganised to better
exploring more collaborative opportunities
reflect the synergies among the respective
within and outside the public sector.
departments and units within the Division.
A leading subordinate court serving society
Serving
Society
MISSION
To provide an effective and accessible system of justice,
inspiring public trust and confidence
Strategic Planning
SPTD
has
also
institutionalising
made
in
STRATEGIC THRUSTS (3-5 YEARS)
planning,
The Strategic Planning arm of the Division,
ideation and change management in
which includes the Planning Unit and the
the Subordinate Courts. By proactively
Research and Knowledge Development
engaging
stakeholders
Unit, contributes towards building a future-
and establishing strategic collaboration
ready judicial institution by identifying and
with key partners, the Division is able
proposing processes and mechanisms that
to anticipate, welcome and execute
the Subordinate Courts should put in place
change more efficiently and effectively.
to improve the administration of justice.
our
forward
headway
internal
COMMUNITY
INTERNAL
PROCESS
Deliver quality
judgments
Collaborate more actively
with key stakeholders and
strategic partners
Put in place a variety of processes
for timely resolution of disputes
Provide excellent
court services
Leveraging
on the best
platforms
Encourage the innovative
use of technology
As momentous ideas rarely emerge from
individual “eureka” moments, but are
Planning Unit
built out of a collection of existing ideas
The Planning Unit drives planning initiatives
– big or small – reassembled into useful
such as the annual Corporate Retreat
new configurations, the Division aims
which kicks off each year’s planning cycle
to promote the spirit of innovation and
and the annual workplan development,
change-readiness by strengthening the
ensuring that forward planning needs are
engagement with stakeholders as well as
regularly addressed. In 2011, to address
LEARNING
& GROWTH
Develop & maximise
the potential of our people
Manage & leverage on the effective
creation and sharing of knowledge
FINANCIAL – Accountability & Transparency
Establishing
a strong
resource
foundation
39
40
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our Divisions
Annual Report 2011
Strategic Planning and Training Division
Research and Knowledge
developments, socio-economic issues and
with the requisite skills to stay ahead of the
Centre for Research and Statistics
Development Unit
economic changes and pressures.
curve and provide added value to court users
The Centre for Research and Statistics
and the general public at large. Towards
(CReST) tracks, monitors and reports on
2011 was a significant and fruitful
year for the Research and Knowledge
The Unit also drives the “Ideas Crucible”, an
this end, the Training and Development
the performance of the Subordinate Courts
Development Unit. With the reorganisation
ideation think-tank which takes the form of
Unit has developed and implemented the
through the analysis of operational data,
of SPTD, the Unit was delinked from the
regular meetings with senior management
Learning and Development Road Map for
results of key performance indicators, and
Research & Resource Centre and parked
through which members of the SPTD
all Judges and court administrators to build
conduct of community and user surveys.
under the umbrella of the Strategic Planning
brainstorm and propose innovative ideas
competencies, maximise the potential of each
Recommendations based on such statistical
Department to more accurately reflect its
and ways to enhance the administration
officer, and to nurture a culture of learning,
information are made to senior management
portfolios and functions. The young and
of justice. Some of these ideas which have
sharing and continuous improvement within
in relation to areas requiring attention
lean Unit was instrumental in supporting
emanated from the “Ideas Crucible” include
the Subordinate Courts.
or improvement. CReST also conducts
decision-making by S P T D and senior
video-conferencing
management in respect of the organisation’s
the use of tablet PCs to optimise court
strategies,
and
interpretation resources, the e-Calendar
initiatives. In addition, it provided research
and initiatives relating to community justice.
policies,
programmes
capabilities
through
support on various organisational initiatives
quantitative research studies that highlight
Organisational
Excellence &
Performance
Management
some of the recent trends in the profile of
cases and court users of the Subordinate
Courts. This is intended to enhance the ability
of the Subordinate Courts to refine court
and project development through qualitative
processes and case management, and to
research and analysis, and comprehensive
Organisational Excellence Unit
improve resource management. In addition,
environmental scanning of the international
The Organisational Excellence Unit (OEU)
CReST undertakes environmental scans
legal landscape so that the Subordinate
was set up to develop and institutionalise
of the rankings of Singapore’s legal and
Courts can benchmark against the best
initiatives in organisational development
judicial system as inputs to the Subordinate
and continue to strive for excellence.
and
Courts’ benchmarking efforts. In 2011,
One of the Unit’s key achievements has
excellence
at
the
Subordinate
Courts. Its main focuses are to strengthen
CReST
organisational resilience and build a
Subordinate Courts’ Justice Scorecard after
completed the review of the
been a strengthened judicial research
In addition, through targeted research, the
strong foundation of systems and processes,
extensive consultations with stakeholders
capability through the circulation of the
Research and Knowledge Development Unit
as
from all the Divisions.
“Horizon Window”, an internal newsletter
has been an element of support to building
improvement in the Subordinate Courts
consolidating identified international driving
up intellectual capital through development of
through benchmarking, after-action review
trends and forces through environmental
judicial resources. These initiatives include the
and internal process review. OEU also
scans, cross-jurisdictional studies, surveys
development of a series of Bench Books for
helps to assess the organisational health
and
The
key areas of judicial practice for each Justice
for the Subordinate Courts on a periodic
The Information Technology Department
Horizon Window is a resource for Judges
Division and the development of judicial
basis, and to engage internal stakeholders
(ITD)
and court administrators and aims to equip
training videos.
with regards to organisational excellence
deployment
initiatives. In 2011, OEU played a pivotal
Communication
role in the Subordinate Courts’ pursuit
platforms at the Subordinate Courts. Its
and attainment of the coveted Singapore
work forms an important component of
international
comparisons.
the Subordinate Courts with insights into
the driving trends and broad-ranging issues
Training & Development
which impact the legal and judicial world,
well
as
to
champion
continuous
Information
Technology Department
manages
the
and
use
and
development,
of
Information
Technology
(ICT)
coupled with editorial commentaries on
Building a progressive and forward looking
Quality Award with Special Commendation
strategic planning because the innovative
any particular areas such as technological
judicial institution involves empowering staff
(SQA SC).
and effective use of suitable and up - to -
41
42
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Annual Report 2011
efficiency and effectiveness of the Courts.
Knowledge Management
& Library Resources
ITD systematically recommends improvements
Knowledge Management Unit
to be made to existing I CT platforms
The Knowledge Management (KM) Unit was
and offers appropriate ICT solutions for
set up in 2011 to gather, organise, share
the business and operational needs of all
and update the knowledge and expertise of
the Divisions. In 2011, among the many
the Judges and court administrators, so as
IT
developed
to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness
and implemented was the Regulatory
of every officer in his day-to-day work.
Offences
System
Since its establishment, the KM Unit has
(R O M S ) – a transformational integrated
implemented the KM Strategy Roadmap,
case management and e - hearing system
including the launch of five Communities
which brings the management of cases
of Practice (CoP) aimed to facilitate
within the Subordinate Courts and all 16
sharing, retaining and transferring of
participating agencies to a higher level
essential knowledge in the provision of
of excellence. R O M S was featured in the
court
recent 2011 Government Chief Information
management of registries and cases, as
Officer Achievement Video and won
well as alternative dispute resolutions. Apart
the
Authority
from the CoP programme, the KM Unit
of Singapore Achievement Award. I T D
has also begun to audit information in key
also rolled out the e - Calendar System
databases and created portals to manage
for the Criminal Justice Division to better
and retain key knowledge.
date ICT platforms helps to enhance the
projects
and
Case
Infocomm
initiatives
Management
Development
services,
interpretation
services,
manage scarce trial resources. I T D
also commenced development of the
The Library
Integrated Criminal Case Filing and
The Library at the Subordinate Courts is
Management System, and the planning
one of the few specialist libraries which
of
and
serves small-scale law firms and legal
Research Repository and the new Family
professionals in Singapore. In 2011, the
Application Management System.
Library extended its services to the general
the
Sentencing
Information
public, with the aim to provide ready and
affordable legal resources and information
services to an increasing number of
litigants-in-person.
Awards and
Accolades
44
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Awards and Accolades
Singapore Quality
Award with Special
Commendation
an award which represents the pinnacle
processes
of business excellence in Singapore. With
workflows. As a result, the Subordinate
the emphasis on the theme, “Towards
Courts have become more productive
Greater Organisational Excellence”, the
and efficient. For example, because of the
Subordinate Courts embarked on their
application of Kaizen, the time taken for
quest for the SQ A SC.
processing bail applications has been cut
Annual Report 2011
Introduction
The Singapore Quality Award with Special Commendation (SQA SC)
was conferred on the Subordinate Courts in 2011. Introduced in 2006,
the SQA SC is the highest accolade for organisational excellence
in Singapore. The award is conferred on existing Singapore
Quality Award (SQA) winners that have demonstrated quantum
improvement in management practices and key results and who
are also recognised as global leaders in their industry, as well as
set the benchmark of excellence towards that end. The SQA SC has
been conferred on only three organisations in Singapore prior to the
Subordinate Courts, namely the Singapore Police Force, Housing &
Development Board and Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd.
Reasons for Embarking on the Organisational Excellence
Journey and SQA SC
embark on a journey towards organisational
award
excellence. By introducing initiatives and
marks yet another major milestone in the
programmes over the years, the backlog and
organisational excellence journey of the
inefficiencies were eliminated, and which
Subordinate Courts which began in the
eventually culminated in the Subordinate
1990s. As the Subordinate Courts handle
Courts being conferred the SQ A in 2006.
The conferment of SQ A
SC
more than 95 per cent of court cases in
Singapore, with more than 300,000 cases
Five years after winning the SQA, instead
annually, it is important that the Subordinate
of applying for re-certification for the same
Courts deliver justice in a fair and timely
award, the management of the Subordinate
manner. The mounting backlog of cases
Courts decided that the organisation
and inefficiencies in its processes in the early
should “stretch” itself by taking on the
1990s pushed the Subordinate Courts to
challenge of applying for the SQA SC,
Singapore Quality Award with Special Commendation
and
eliminate
unnecessary
from one day to 15 minutes.
Quantum Improvement
Since Winning the SQA
in 2006
The Subordinate Courts have not sat on their
laurels after attaining the SQA. They have
continued to introduce policies, strategies,
initiatives and improvements which have
enhanced their ability to deliver quality and
timely justice. As an example, to enhance
accessibility to court users, the Subordinate
Courts set up the HELP Centre to offer
basic information on court processes and
procedures to litigants, especially those
who are not represented by legal counsel.
On the global front, the Courts have
This has enabled self-represented litigants to
enjoyed and continue to enjoy high ratings
make informed decisions about their cases.
in surveys conducted by many external
The Subordinate Courts also established
organisations, such as the Fraser Institute,
a Service Relations Unit to improve the
the Institute for Management Development,
standard of court services. By emphasising
the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy
the need to provide the best possible
Ltd and the World Economic Forum. The
service to court users, record high ratings
World Bank has also, in a publication in
of satisfaction were achieved in the Court
2007, hailed the Subordinate Courts as a
Users Survey and the Public Perception
role model for successful judicial reform
Survey conducted in 2010.
and modernisation. This recognition has
spurred the Subordinate Courts to play a
In respect of management practices, lean
more prominent role in the international
management
arena.
was
another
significant
In
2008,
the
Subordinate
improvement made in the Subordinate
Courts, in collaboration with overseas
Courts after 2006. In 2008, Kaizen
partners, including the Australasian Institute
methodology was introduced to streamline
of Judicial Administration and National
45
46
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Awards and Accolades
Annual Report 2011
Center for State Courts, set up a consortium
to familiarise staff with the SQA SC
that developed the International Framework
processes and messages. A true sense of
for Court Excellence (I F C E ). The first of its
esprit de corps was shown throughout
kind in the world, the I F C E is designed
the journey.
Singapore Quality Award with Special Commendation
to help courts deliver high quality services
by providing measures and benchmarks
against which their own performance can
be measured.
Total Organisational
Commitment in the Journey
Towards SQA SC
The application for the SQA SC required
monumental effort and total commitment
on the part of every single member of the
Capping the Journey of
Organisational Excellence
Subordinate Courts, from the management
to all the counter service officers at the
The Subordinate Courts were conferred
registries. A comprehensive application
with the SQA SC in October 2011.
report that covered leadership, planning,
This is a testament to and recognition
information and knowledge management,
of all the hard work put in by various
human resources practices, processes and
generations of leaders, as well as every
provision of services by the Subordinate
member of the Subordinate Courts. At the
Courts had to be prepared. In addition,
Business Excellence Award ceremony, the
trend results were furnished. A seven-
Chief District Judge thanked the staff of the
The attainment of the SQA SC does not mark
greater heights of organisational excellence
member
comprising
Subordinate Courts for their continual efforts
the end of the organisational excellence
also means that new horizons open up. In
experienced business excellence assessors,
to provide the best services to court users.
journey in the Subordinate Courts. The
the case of the Subordinate Courts, this
including
assessor,
He also expressed appreciation to all local
Subordinate Courts will continue the path of
has encouraged us to reach out to assist
conducted a rigorous site visit to the
and foreign stakeholders for their unstinting
organisational excellence, and continually
other judiciaries which are embarking on
Subordinate Courts over three days to
support throughout the Subordinate Courts’
improve the way they deliver justice to the
the same road towards organisational
assess and validate what was set out
organisational excellence journey.
people of Singapore.
excellence. The journey never ends.
assessment
an
team
international
in the report. Staff members were also
selected at random for interviews with
the assessment team. To prepare for the
S Q A S C , task forces comprising staff
members from different divisions and units
were formed. Road shows, skits, quizzes,
as well as exhibitions, were organised
The Journey Never Ends Greater Heights,
New Horizons
Moving forward, there will be more
challenges for the Subordinate Courts, as a
growing caseload which is also becoming
increasingly complex is expected. Achieving
47
48
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Awards and Accolades
Annual Report 2011
Our International
Profile
Our International Profile
Rating (0 = “Best”,
2000
1
2.57
2001
1
3.28
2002
1
1.70
Figure 2
2003
1
1.38
IMD: Ranking of Singapore’s
Legal and Regulatory Framework,
10 = ”Worst”)
The Singapore Judiciary has
It was reported in the 2011 PERC Asian
proven itself to be in the top
Intelligence Report that Singapore’s judicial
2004
1
1.25
league of judiciaries. In 2011,
system impressed expatriates with her high
2005
2
1.75
Singapore scored well in various
rate of efficiency and she has consistently
2006
2
1.87
2007
2
1.88
2008
2
1.92
surveys conducted by several
been ranked either first or second since 1996
international organisations.
(see Figure 1)1.
The results of these surveys are
ranking has been consistently high since
Ranking of
Singapore
Year
1997. In 2011, Singapore’s legal framework
was once again rated very positively and
secured the first position (see Figure 2)3.
1997 - 20114
Ranking of
Singapore
(0 = “Worst”,
10 = ” Best”)
No. of
countries
ranked
1997
1
8.46
46
Year
Rating
a tribute to the high quality
Singapore’s robust protection of intellectual
2009
2
1.73
1998
1
8.20
46
of justice dispensed by the
property rights by her legal system also
Singapore Courts.
garnered strong confidence from the
2010
2
1.88
1999
1
8.64
47
2011
2
2.05
2000
1
8.82
47
2001
6
8.03
49
INSTITUTE FOR MANAGEMENT
DEVELOPMENT WORLD
COMPETITIVENESS
YEARBOOK
2002
1
8.50
49
2003
1
8.22
53
2004
1
8.34
60
2005
2
7.52
60
In May 2011, the Institute For Management
2006
2
8.11
61
PERC – Quality of the Judicial/
Development (IMD) analysed and ranked
Legal System, 1996 - 2011
59 countries on their ability to create and
2007
1
8.65
55
2008
1
8.65
55
One assessment component measured
2009
2
7.09
57
whether each country’s legal and regulatory
2010
1
7.67
58
framework encourages the competitiveness
2011
1
7.70
59
expatriates. In the same report, the countries
were also surveyed for perceived threats to
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC
RISK CONSULTANCY
COMPARATIVE COUNTRY
RISK & ASIAN INTELLIGENCE
REPORT
intellectual property rights and Singapore
was considered as the country that gives
the best protection, overtaking Hong Kong,
Australia and the United States.
Figure 1
The
Political
and
Economic
Risk
Consultancy’s (PERC) Asian Intelligence
2
Report published in October 2011 rated
Ranking of
Singapore
Rating (0 = “Best”,
again rated one of the top three judicial
1996
2
2.76
systems in Asia, together with Hong Kong
1997
2
2.72
and Japan, in terms of independence and
1998
1
2.33
1999
1
3.18
expatriates’ perceptions on the quality of
Year
Asian judicial systems. Singapore was
efficiency of the judicial system.
1
2
10 = ”Worst”)
Based on rankings published in the PERC Asian Intelligence Reports and/or the Comparative Country Risk Report for the
relevant years.
Compiled from the rankings by PERC in the Asian Intelligence Reports and/or the Comparative Country Risk Report for the
relevant years.
maintain the competitiveness of enterprises.
of enterprises. On this aspect, Singapore’s
3
4
Based on rankings published in the IMD World Competitiveness Report 2011.
Compiled from the rankings published in the IMD World Competitiveness Report for the relevant years.
49
50
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Awards and Accolades
Annual Report 2011
Another assessment component measured
whether justice has been fairly administered.
On this aspect, Singapore was ranked
WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM
GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS
REPORT
Figure 4
WEF – Ranking of Singapore’s Judiciary, 2002 – 20116
Institution Pillar - Ranking of Singapore
12th, placing her the second highestranked country among Asian countries,
The World Economic Forum (WEF) published
after Hong Kong, which took the 11th
the 2011 – 2012 Global Competitiveness
place (see Figure 3).
Report in September 2011. The report
Figure 3
ranked 142 countries in the world to
IMD – Ranking of Singapore’s
Administration of Justice,
1995 – 20115
Year
Ranking of
Singapore
Rating
10 = ” Best ”)
No. of
countries
ranked
(0 = “Worst”,
51
Our International Profile
Year
Efficiency of
Legal Framework –
(i) Settling Disputes
(Scored on a scale of 1 = ”Worst” to 7 = ”Best”)
Judicial
Independence
Property
Rights
Intellectual
Property
(ii) Challenging Regulations
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
Rank
Score
2002
16
5.7
25
5.1
8
6.3
12
5.7
of the economy were evaluated, one of
2003
11
5.8
27
5.2
5
6.4
12
5.9
which was the institutional framework. This
2004
14
5.7
24
5.3
12
6.3
13
5.7
is a critical component as strong institutions
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
economic activities. Five sub-indicators
2007
10
6.0
19
5.6
5
6.4
5
6.2
present a comprehensive picture of the
competitiveness of the economies. 12 pillars
protect the rights of the people and provide
the stability and confidence to engage in
1995
9
7.91
48
1996
4
8.31
46
under the institutional pillar related to the
2008
2
6.2
15
5.9
4
6.5
2
6.3
1997
14
7.64
46
judiciary were:
2009
5.8
4
6.4
1
6.2
4
7.92
46
• Efficiency of legal framework for private
(i) 6.3
(ii) 5.6
19
1998
(i) 1
(ii) 4
1999
7
8.54
47
2010
5.6
3
6.3
3
6.1
5
8.59
47
• Efficiency of legal framework for private
(i) 6.3
(ii) 5.3
21
2000
(i) 1
(ii) 6
2001
14
7.73
49
businesses in challenging the legality of
2011
(i) 1
(ii) 8
(i) 6.3
(ii) 5.3
20
5.6
3
6.4
2
6.1
2002
7
8.50
49
2003
6
8.49
53
• Judicial independence
2004
10
8.24
60
• Property rights
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
and legal framework in settling disputes,
2011
12
7.96
59
Singapore took the top three positions.
businesses in settling disputes
government actions and/or regulations
• Intellectual property rights
FRASER INSTITUTE
ECONOMIC FREEDOM OF THE
WORLD REPORT
In 2011, Singapore again attained
The 2011 annual report of the Fraser Institute
indicator was “legal structure and security
released in September 2011 contained
of property rights”. The variables measured
an index measuring the degree to which
under this indicator included 7:
favourable scores and rankings for all five
sub-indicators. In terms of protection of
intellectual property rights, property rights
(see Figure 4).
the policies and institutions of countries
are supportive of economic freedom. The
report rated 141 countries on their degree
of economic freedom. One assessment
6
5
Compiled from the rankings published in the I M D World Competitiveness Report for the relevant years.
7
• Judicial independence
• Impartial courts
• Protection of property rights
Compiled from the rankings published in the WEF Global Competitiveness Report for the relevant years.
The last three variables were added in 2007.
52
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Awards and Accolades
Annual Report 2011
• Military interference in rule of law and
the political process
in terms of the number of procedures
involved, time and cost. Singapore was
the third highest rated Asian economy
• Integrity of the legal system
after Korea and Hong Kong, and ranked
12 globally, one position up in ranking
• Legal enforcement of contracts
th
• Regulatory restrictions on sale of real
property
compared to last year (see Figure 5).
Singapore was ranked the economy with
Singapore has maintained her position
in the top 20 per cent banding for this
indicator since 20008. In the latest report,
Singapore was ranked eighth among the
141 countries rated and first among the
Asian countries rated9.
the least number of procedures involved in
a lawsuit and the duration to process a
case in Singapore was also the shortest
among all the rated economies.
Figure 5
World Bank Doing Business
WORLD BANK STUDY:
DOING BUSINESS REPORT
The World Bank released its Doing
Business Report 2012 in October 2011.
In this study, 183 economies were ranked
on their ease of doing business, based on
various assessment variables, including
contract enforcement. The ease of doing
business index was an indication of whether
the regulatory environment was conducive
to the operation of business. Singapore
topped the ranking, followed by Hong Kong,
Report - Enforcing Contracts (Top
15 Countries)10, 2011 and 2012
Ranking
2011
2012
1
Luxembourg
Luxembourg
2
Iceland
Korea, Rep.
3
Norway
Iceland
4
Korea, Rep.
Norway
5
Hong Kong
SAR, China
Hong Kong
SAR, China
6
France
France
7
United States
United States
8
Germany
Germany
9
Austria
Austria
New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
The
contract
enforcement
variable
measured the efficiency of the judicial
system in resolving a commercial dispute,
Ranking
9
10
Based on rankings published in the Fraser Institute Economic Freedom of the World Report, 2000 (2002 edition) – 2009
(2011 edition).
Based on rankings published in the Fraser Institute Economic Freedom of the World Report dataset.
Compiled from the rankings published in the World Bank Doing Business Report for the relevant years.
2012
• Regulatory quality
• Rule of law
10
New Zealand
New Zealand
11
Belarus
Finland
12
Finland
Singapore
13
Singapore
Russian
Federation
14
Latvia
Belarus
15
Moldova
Lithuania
• Control of corruption
In this latest report, Singapore once
again scored well under the Rule of Law12
component – Singapore has been placed
in the 90th percentile since 2003 under the
Rule of Law indicator (see Figure 6).
Figure 6
WORLD BANK GOVERNANCE
MATTERS: AGGREGATE AND
INDIVIDUAL GOVERNANCE
INDICATORS
The Worldwide Governance Indicators
World Bank – Governance
Indicators 2003 – 201013
Rule of Law
Year
Score
Ranking of
Singapore
(Max 2.5
points)
No. of
countries
ranked
(WGI) project is a project by the World
2003
15
1.55
202
Bank. The latest report released in
2004
13
1.68
209
September 2011 reported the aggregate
2005
10
1.70
209
2006
17
1.65
211
1996 and 2010 for six dimensions of
2007
17
1.66
211
governance11:
2008
16
1.65
210
• Voice and accountability
2009
17
1.61
213
2010
15
1.69
212
and individual governance indicators for
213 countries and territories between
• Political stability and absence of violence
• Government effectiveness
11
12
8
2011
Our International Profile
13
All facts and figures related to worldwide governance indicators are cited from The World Bank Governance and Individual
Governance Indicators 1996-2010 Report.
Rule of Law measured the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality
of contract enforcement, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence.
This is a compilation of the rankings in the Governance Indicator Report for the relevant years.
53
54
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Awards and Accolades Our International Profile / Participation in International Conferences and Exchanges
Annual Report 2011
HERITAGE FOUNDATION
AND WALL STREET JOURNAL
INDEX OF ECONOMIC
FREEDOM REPORT
This index published in January 2011
measures 183 countries (179 countries
are ranked) across 10 indices of economic
freedom. High scores approaching 100
represent higher levels of freedom; the higher
• Order and Security
• Fundamental Rights
• Open Government
• Effective Regulatory Enforcement
• Access to Civil Justice
• Effective Criminal Justice
PARTICIPATION IN
INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCES
AND EXCHANGES
• Informal Justice
the score on a factor, the lower the level of
government interference in the economy.
In the ranking of 66 countries, Singapore
In 2011, Singapore was ranked second
was rated well for both “Effective Criminal
to Hong Kong in the overall ranking and
Justice” (ranked number 5) and “Access to
scored a high of 90 points for the “property
Civil Justice” (ranked number 14). The top
rights” index. The report commented that
spot was taken by Norway for both factors.
Singapore’s court system is efficient and
provides high protection for private property.
New Zealand was the only country that
earned a higher property rights grade than
Date
3 – 4 Feb
2011
Name of Judge/
Court Administrator
Name of Event
Organiser
District Judge
Roy Neighbour
Serious Sexual Offences Seminar
Judicial Studies Board,
United Kingdom
District Judge
Joyce Low
24 – 25 Feb
District Judge
2011
Kevin Ng
(as speakers)
The 2nd Asian Mediation Association
Asian Mediation
Conference – Rediscovering Mediation
Association
in the 21st Century
Singapore, at a score of 95.
District Judge
26 – 27 Feb
Tan Boon Heng
2011
(as speaker)
Presentation to the Ministry of Justice,
United Arab Emirates
Ministry of Justice,
United Arab Emirates
With one of the strongest intellectual
7 – 9 Mar
2011
Civil Law Seminar
Judicial Studies Board,
United Kingdom
Attachment to the Royal Courts of Justice
Subordinate Courts,
Singapore
Chief District Judge
Tan Siong Thye
13 – 16 Mar (as speaker)
2011
District Judge
Loo Ngan Chor
Court Excellence Conference
International
Association for Court
Administration
21 Mar
2011
Visit to the Massachusetts Administrative
Office of the Trial Court
Subordinate Courts,
Singapore
property rights regimes among Asian
countries, there is no expropriation and
contracts are secure.
THE WORLD JUSTICE PROJECT
RULE OF LAW INDEX
The Rule of Law index developed by the
World Justice Project assessed countries’
compliance to the rule of law. In the report
released in 2011, 66 countries were ranked
according to nine broad dimensions:
• Limited Government Power
• Absence of Corruption
District Judge
10 – 11 Mar Ong Chin Rhu
2011
Society for
Workshop on Foundations of Leadership Organizational
Initiating and Sustaining Profound Change
Learning, Boston, US
22 – 24 Mar
2011
District Judge
Thian Yee Sze
25 Mar
2011
Study visit to the Federal Judicial Centre
and Administrative Office of US Courts
Subordinate Courts,
Singapore
28 Mar
2011
Study visit to the New York State Court
System & Centre for Court Innovation
Subordinate Courts,
Singapore
55
56
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Awards and Accolades
Annual Report 2011
Date
3 – 4 May
2011
5 – 7 May
2011
Name of Judge/
Court Administrator
Ms Audrey Lum
Mr Samuel Chua
Name of Event
Organiser
Child Protection in Australia and New
Australasian Institute of
Zealand - Issues and Challenges for
Judicial Administration
Judicial Administration Conference
CMJA Conference – Judicial
Independence: Diversity,
Pluralism and Challenges in the
Commonwealth
Commonwealth
Magistrates’ and
Judges’ Association
(CMJA)
25 – 28 Jul
2011
District Judge
Toh Yung Cheong
Judicial Writing
The National Judicial
College, USA
25 – 29 Jul
2011
District Judge
Laura Lau
Civil Mediation
The National Judicial
College, USA
3 – 5 Aug
2011
Senior District Judge
Foo Tuat Yien
(as speaker)
Family Court Conference 2011
Ministry of Justice,
New Zealand
Workshop on Judgment Writing
Judicial College of
Victoria, Australia
Judicial College,
United Kingdom
26 – 27 May District Judge
2011
Janet Wang
Workshop on Sentencing
Judicial College of
Victoria, Australia
1 – 4 Jun
2011
District Judge
Nicole Loh
AFCC 48 Annual Conference –
Research, Policy and Practice in
Family Courts: What's gender got to
do with it ?
Association of Family
& Conciliation Courts
(AFCC)
1 – 10 Jun
2011
Senior District Judge
Foo Tuat Yien
Sixth Meeting of the Special
Commission to review the practical
operation of the 1980 Hague Child
Abduction Convention and the 1996
Protection of Children Convention
10 – 14 Jun
2011
Chief District Judge
Tan Siong Thye (as
opening address speaker) 12th Australian Family Lawyers’
Conference
District Judge
th
Kevin Ng
(as speaker)
The Permanent Bureau
for Hague Conference
on Private International
Law
Watts McCray Lawyers
on behalf of the
Australian Family Law
Committee
Centre for Negotiation
Envisioning, Designing and
& Dispute Resolution,
Implementing Court ADR: A Practical University of California,
& Theoretical Program
Hastings College of
the Law, USA
Chief District Judge
Tan Siong Thye (as
keynote address speaker) Court Excellence Conference
District Judge
Lim Wee Ming
25 Jul –
District Judge
6 Sep 2011 Joyce Low
Organiser
District Judge
Brenda Tan
Commonwealth
Secretariat and the
Supreme Court of
Sri Lanka
21 – 22 Jun
2011
Name of Event
18 – 21 Jul
2011
Commonwealth Secretariat South
Asian Judges Regional Forum on
Economic and Financial Crime
District Judge
Dorcas Quek
Name of Judge/
Court Administrator
Study visits to Brisbane Family
Subordinate Courts,
Relationship Centres & Brisbane Law
Singapore
Registry
Chief District Judge
13 – 15 May
Tan Siong Thye
2011
(as speaker)
20 – 24 Jun
2011
Date
Participation in International Conferences and Exchanges
18th Senior Management
Programme 2011
USAID Ukraine
Rule of Law Project
International Consortium
for Court Excellence
Institute of Policy
Development
District Judge
24 – 26 Aug Jocelyn Ong
2011
District Judge
Tan May Tee
5 – 7 Sep
2011
District Judge
Lim Tse Haw
Crown Court Sentencing Seminar
7 – 9 Sep
2011
District Judge
Kessler Soh
(as speaker)
AIJA Criminal Justice in Australia and Australasian Institute of
New Zealand - Issues and Challenges Judicial Administration
for Judicial Administration Conference (AIJA)
District Judge
18 – 22 Sep Carrie Chan
2011
District Judge
Best Practices in Handling Cases
with Self-Represented Litigants
The National Judicial
College, USA
Lynette Yap
30 Sep –
21 Oct
2011
District Judge
Lynette Yap
13th Governance and Leadership
Programme
Institute of Policy
Development
4 – 6 Oct
2011
Ms Catherine Lam
Court Technology Conference 2011
National Center for
State Courts
AIJA Australasian Court
Administrators’ Conference
Australasian Institute of
Judicial Administration
(AIJA)
5th Annual East Coast Professional
Skills Program in Dispute Resolution
Straus Institute for
Dispute Resolution,
Pepperdine University
School of Law, USA
6 – 7 Oct
2011
Chief District Judge
Tan Siong Thye
(as speaker)
Deputy Chief District Judge
Jennifer Marie
13 – 15 Oct District Judge
2011
Kevin Ng
57
58
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Awards and Accolades
Annual Report 2011
Date
Name of Judge/
Court Administrator
23 – 28 Oct District Judge
2011
Amy Tung
31 Oct –
3 Nov 2011
District Judge
Thian Yee Sze
(as speaker)
District Judge
Jasbendar Kaur
District Judge
Hamidah Ibrahim
Name of Event
Organiser
Creating Collaborative Solutions:
Innovation in Governance
(Executive Programme)
Harvard Kennedy
School
5th International Conference on the
Training of the Judiciary
The International
Organization for
Judicial Training
Judicial College of
Victoria, Australia
Asia-Pacific Coroners Society 2011
Conference
Asia-Pacific Coroners
Society
13 – 18 Nov District Judge
2011
Jasvender Kaur
Leadership Decision Making:
Optimising organisational
performance
Harvard Kennedy
School of Government
District Judge
15 – 16 Dec
Lim Keng Yeow
2011
(as speaker)
Strengthening the Intersectoral
Collaboration Against Child Abuse
and Neglect in Vietnam
National Assembly of
Vietnam & Children’s
Rights International
15 – 16 Dec Senior District Judge
2011
See Kee Oon
Study visit to San Francisco courts on
the judicial role in plea bargaining
San Francisco US
Attorney’s Office and
Subordinate Courts
Singapore
7 – 10 Nov
2011
District Judge
Paul Quan
District Judge
Imran Hamid
INTERNSHIP AND
ATTACHMENT
PROGRAMMES
Date
Court Craft – 360-degree Feedback
and Communication in the
Courtroom Workshop
4 Nov 2011
Participation in International Conferences and Exchanges /
Internship and Attachment Programmes
Title of Programme
Attachment Programme for Miss Tan Rowena Nieves
9 May – 10 Jun 2011
Adena, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Balangiga, Supreme Court of the Philippines
Judicial Internship Programme with participants from
8 Aug – 12 Aug 2011
the University of Cambridge, University of London
and University of Oxford
Senior Officers’ Law Clerk Programme with
15 Aug – 9 Sep 2011
participants from King’s College London and
University College London
22 Aug – 2 Sep 2011
29 Aug – 23 Sep 2011
Public Service Commission Scholars Programme with
participant from the University of Cambridge
Senior Officers’ Law Clerk Programme with
participant from University College London
National University of Singapore International
19 Sep – 21 Sep 2011
Business Law Programme with participants from
China and Indonesia
Senior Officers’ Law Clerk Programme with
19 Dec 2011 – 10 Feb 2012
participants from Women’s College, University of
Sydney and Australian National University
59
60
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Awards and Accolades
Annual Report 2011
CASELOAD AND
STATISTICS
Caseload Profile
Caseload Profile
FAMILY & JUVENILE JUSTICE DIVISION
Departmental/Statutory Board Mentions Courts
Traffic Court
2010
2011(p)
277,221
234,138
65,668
55,413
154,625
118,347
48,836
53,014
Specialist Courts
20,407
Fresh Applications
1,828
1,772
Enforcement of Maintenance Orders
3,279
2,982
Variation/Rescission/Suspension of Maintenance Orders
1,176
1,124
82
92
455
476
3,058
2,871
Variation/Rescission of PPO
133
158
Breach of PPO
119
98
27
15
Divorce Writs
6,572
6,260
Ancillary Matters
1,795
1,929
3,935
3,978
Magistrates’ Complaints
4,157
3,386
79,848
73,205
39,136
35,786
593
485
3,800
3,864
Originating Processes
Writs of Summonses (DC & MC)
Adoption
331
447
Originating Summonses
Originating Summonses (Family)
312
453
Probate
Breach of Syariah Court Orders
280
233
1,710
1,226
Summonses for Directions (O.25/37)
Beyond Parental Control
66
73
Summary Judgment (O.14)
Child Protection Orders
37
58
125
140
378,454
327,750
Family Violence
Fresh Applications for Personal Protection Order (PPO)
Divorce
Others
Juvenile Court
Interlocutory Applications
Summonses3
Enforcement of Syariah Court Orders
Breach of Counselling Orders
Coroner’s Court
CIVIL JUSTICE DIVISION
2011(p)
Maintenance
Criminal Mentions1
Criminal Mentions Courts2
2010
21,385
Enforcement of the Maintenance of Parents Tribunal Orders
CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION
Caseload and Statistics
10,998
10,573
6,145
5,880
514
489
153
164
2,222
2,594
Juvenile Arrest1
Police Summonses/Summonses & Tickets/Others
Others
Taxation
Assessment of Damages
Small Claims Tribunals
No. of Claims Filed
16,287
13,370
TOTAL
Notes
(p)
Preliminary Figures as at Jan 2012
1.
Refers to charges/summonses
2.
Includes DAC, MAC, PSS, PS & other charges
3.
Excludes O.25/37
61
62
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Annual Report 2011
VISITS BY
DISTINGUISHED
GUESTS IN 2011
Date
24 Jan 2011
18 Mar 2011
24 Mar 2011
14 Apr 2011
29 Apr 2011
3 May 2011
26 May 2011
2 Jun 2011
10 Jun 2011
23 Jun 2011
Name of Visit
Awards and Accolades
Date
29 Jun 2011
21 Jul 2011
3 Aug 2011
Visit of Mr Rafie Omar, Chief Executive Officer, AmanahRaya Legacy
Services Sdn Bhd, Malaysia, and delegation
12 Aug 2011
Visit of Mr Ibrahim Ahmed Manik, Chief Judicial Administrator,
Department of Judicial Administration, Maldives, and delegation
15 Aug 2011
Visit of Ms Chu Lam Lam, Director, Law Reform and International
Law Bureau of Macau, and delegation
24 Aug 2011
Visit of Mr David Ware, Chief Executive Officer, Supreme Court of
Victoria, Australia
2 Sep 2011
Visit of the Right Honourable Tun Dato' Seri Zaki Bin Tun Azmi,
Chief Justice of Malaysia, and delegation from the Malaysian Bar
2 Nov 2011
Visit of Attorney General Datin Paduka Hajah Hayati Binti POKSDSP
Haji Mohd Salleh, Negara Brunei Darussalem, and delegation
9 Nov 2011
Visit of the Honourable Justice Lisebo Chaka–Makhooane, High
Court of Lesotho, and delegation
2 Dec 2011
Visit of Mr Pretam Singh s/o Darshan Singh, Chairman, Tribunal for
Consumer Claims, Malaysia, and delegation
6 Dec 2011
Visit of the Honourable Dr Claudio Ximenes, Chief Justice and
President of the Court of Appeal, Timor-Leste, and delegation
Visit of Y.A.A. Datuk Hj Mahammad Bin Ibrahim, Chief Syarie
Judge, Syariah Court of Malacca, Malaysia, and delegation
14 Dec 2011
Visits by Distinguished Guests in 2011
Name of Visit
Visit of the Honourable Justice Bat-Erdene Batbuyan, Criminal
Chamber, Supreme Court of Mongolia, and delegation
Visit of Judge Laurence Ryan and Judge Sarah Fleming, Ministry of
Justice, New Zealand
Visit of the Honourable Justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire, Head,
Commercial Division, High Court of Uganda, and delegation
Visit of the Honourable Justice Andrew Cheung, Chief Judge, High
Court of Hong Kong, and delegation
Visit of Judge Masahiro Hiraki, Director, Information Policy Division,
Supreme Court of Japan, and delegation
Visit of Mr Thirayuth Lorlertratna, Senior Advisor, Supreme
Administrative Court of Thailand, and delegation
Visit of the Honourable Justice Kalyan Shrestha, Supreme Court of
Nepal, and delegation from the National Judicial Academy, Nepal
Visit of Mr Qu Ming, Deputy Chief District Judge, Xigang District
People's Court, Dalian, People's Republic of China, and delegation
Visit of Mr Li Peilong, First Deputy Chief Prosecutor, Shanghai People's
Procuratorate, People's Republic of China, and delegation
Visit of the Honorable Haji Abdul Walid bin Abu Hassan, Syariah
Court of the Federal Territories of Malaysia, and delegation
Visit of Mr Sergey A. Kryukov, Head, IT Department, Supreme
Court of the Russian Federation, and delegation
Visit of Uz. Hassan Saeed, Chief Judge, Family Court of Maldives,
and delegation
63
64
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Awards and Accolades
NOTES OF
APPRECIATION
Appreciation for Mr Joseph John, Assistant
Appreciation for Ms Elaine Lim Xiao Fen,
Registrar, Small Claims Tribunals (SCT), Civil
Registry Officer, Crime Registry, Criminal
Justice Division
Justice Division
“I was in Singapore for only a few days
“In both my dealings with her, once at the
to be able to access the Court’s online
Crime Registry and once over the phone,
material, to meet you at the Court early one
Ms Lim had been very patient and polite
Saturday morning, and to be able to extract
in listening and answering to my queries.
an acceptable settlement of the dispute.
It was a pleasant surprise indeed. Her
Your patient and professional assistance, the
dedication and attentiveness to customer
Court’s clear and thorough online materials,
service is commendable. With capable
and the Court’s thoughtful procedures
staff like Ms Lim, I am confident that the
prevented the situation from marring my visit
Subordinate Courts will achieve their
to the beautiful city of Singapore.”
objective of becoming a world class
Annual Report 2011
“It was a pleasure to be in the Subordinate Courts of Singapore. The presentations were full
of information. We gained a good knowledge in judicial administration and best practices
and innovation implemented in the Subordinate Courts of Singapore.
Thank you very much for the opportunity!”
Ibrahim Ahmed Manik
Chief Judicial Administrator, Department of Judicial Administration, Maldives
18 March 2011
Notes of Appreciation
organisation very soon.”
James E Sullivan
12 April 2011
Dean Yeo
19 August 2011
“I am honoured to be in the Subordinate Courts of Singapore and very happy for learning
the experience of the Subordinate Courts of Singapore. It is very useful for the process we are
conducting to build a judicial system in Timor-Leste.
Thank you very much, Chief District Judge Tan and the Subordinate Courts of Singapore.”
Dr Claudio Ximenes
Chief Justice and President of the Court of Appeal, Timor-Leste
10 June 2011
Appreciation for Mr Johari Satiman, Bailiff,
Bailiffs Section, Civil Justice Division
Appreciation for the Family Resolutions
Chambers (FRC), Family and Juvenile
“Mr Johari gave me a very good run down
Justice Division
of how the Bailiffs Section works. Having
heard his explanation, I was able to properly
“I feel that the work and services rendered
plan my schedule around facilitating a
in the FRC are commendable. Kudos to the
seizure. I am thankful to Mr Johari for his
FRC for their ever willingness to help and
vast knowledge and patience in explaining
their very friendly and warm service.”
the procedures to me.”
“The Family Court of Singapore is well organised for the citizens of Singapore.
The people of this beautiful nation must be proud. Wishing you success in your work.”
Uz. Hassan Saeed
Chief Judge, Family Court of Maldives
14 December 2011
Rajan Chettiar
Claire Lim
22 June 2011
15 September 2011
65
66
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Annual Report 2011
Appreciation for Mr Shamsul Bahari Bin
Appreciation for Ms Caryn Zou, Information
Yusoff, Registry Officer, Family Registry,
Counter Officer, Service Relations Unit,
Family and Juvenile Justice Division
Corporate and Court Services Division
“I write to compliment on your staff Mr
“She is patient, polite and does her work
Shamsul of the Family Court. He was
diligently. Always with a smile to welcome
really helpful and clear in explaining the
her customers. Thank you very much.”
procedures to all my enquiries. He was
a very careful listener and eased my
Jing Dao Rong
worries…”
30 September 2011
T. Chandran
30 September 2011
Appreciation for Mr Albert Lim, Mr Abdul
Rashid bin Sued, and Ms Masnah Bte
Sebeni, Small Claims Tribunals, Civil Justice
Division
“The
above
three
staff
were
very
professional and helpful. They don’t rush.
They are polished diamonds that make the
Courts work… Keep up the good work.”
Tan Yew Seng
3 October 2011
Quality
Judgments &
Excellent
Court Services
68
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Quality Judgments & Excellent Court Services
Quality
Judgments
Some key judicial education programmes
Annual Report 2011
-
a workshop on effective Bench
communication/public speaking skills
initiated in 2011 included:
as effective oral Bench communication
is key to the effective delivery of justice;
• Introduction of the Court Craft Excellence
and
Programme to improve Bench skills
through
The Role of
Judicial Education
69
In the Subordinate Courts, judicial training
is well institutionalised and structured under
the auspices of the Judicial Education Board
The key to delivering quality judgments is
( JEB), the highest body responsible for the
to develop a Bench made up of first-rate
strategy and planning of judicial education
Judges who are skilled and equipped with
for Judges. Chaired by the Honourable Judge
the right attributes to meet the challenges
of Appeal, Justice V K Rajah, the JEB has
of judging in the 21st century. Maintaining
developed a dynamic and comprehensive
a quality Bench is a result of structured and
judicial education framework for the training
rigorous continuous judicial training and
and development of judicial officers.
professional development over time.
The JEB is supported by
the Strategic Planning
and Training Division
(SPTD) to translate its
strategies and policies
confidential
feedback
from
and
senior
• Development of Bench books which
-
a workshop on managing judicial
stress and transition to the Bench.
• Strengthening
of
judicial
research
provide practical step - by - step guides
capability through the circulation of
for Judges on relevant legal principles
the “Horizon Window”, an internal
and judicial practices;
newsletter
consolidating
identified
international driving trends and forces
• Production of judicial training videos
through
environmental
jurisdictional
Induction Programme;
international comparisons;
• Development
workshops
of
to
hone
practice - oriented
judicial
skills,
including:
studies,
scans,
on judge craft as part of the Judicial
surveys
crossand
• Conduct of in- house ‘recap’ seminars
over lunch (called “lunch refreshers”) to
ensure the currency and relevancy of
each Judge’s knowledge in the areas of
-
an in- house workshop on court
substantive law matters, court procedures
craft with emphasis on dealing
and processes, and practices; and
with emotional litigants-in-person to
development of training
enhance Judges’ core competencies
programmes to meet
these learning needs
and strengthen the core
of Judges.
sessions
members of the Bench and the Bar;
through the design and
competencies required
observation
• Establishment
of
the
Community
such as Bench skills and case
of Judicial Practice (Co P) to allow
management skills;
interaction and sharing of experiences,
knowledge, resources and strategies
-
a judgment writing workshop to
among the Judges when they focus to
help Judges write their grounds of
discuss and/or innovate to address
decision with appropriate concision
certain recurring issues and problems.
and expedition despite their heavy
workload;
70
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Quality Judgments & Excellent Court Services
Excellent
Court Services
HELP Centre
Annual Report 2011
Singapore Management University are also
available to assist LIPs with basic form-filling
Since 26 February 2010, the Subordinate
and other assistance.
Courts have run the HELP1 Centre to level
CFRC is managed by the Family and
Juvenile Justice Division. It started operations
in September 2011. In the first phase of
implementation,
71
divorcing
parents
with
at least one child below eight years old
will undergo mandatory counselling and
mediation at CFRC. The counselling and
mediation sessions, which are provided
the playing field for litigants-in-person (LIPs).
If the LIP needs legal advice, the HELP
The aim is to make justice accessible to
Centre will refer him to a legal clinic held
court users, including those who cannot
either at the Subordinate Courts or one of
afford lawyers.
many community centres around Singapore.
These clinics are facilitated by lawyers from
Situated at the Subordinate Courts building,
the Law Society of Singapore, Association
and the Family and Juvenile Court building,
of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore, and the
the HELP Centre has full time staff to handle
Singapore Association of Women Lawyers.
the day-to-day enquiries. It partners volunteer
lawyers, students and various welfare
The work of the HELP Centre has not
agencies to provide legal and social aid.
gone unnoticed by the LIPs. Apart from
In many cases, assistance is provided free
the compliments received, the HELP Centre
extended to families with older children.
of charge.
team is encouraged that the collective
Family Night Court
The type of assistance administered is very
for divorcing parents with children to attend
From 1 November 2011, weekly night court
conducted by the Subordinate Courts, the
counselling and mediation. This initiative,
sessions at the Family Court were introduced
which followed amendments made to the
to further enhance accessibility to court users.
Women’s Charter in January 2011, aims to
The Family Night Court sits every Tuesday
help divorcing parents work with each other
to deal with mentions of maintenance
to adjust to their new parental roles and
summonses, where an application is made for
arrive at practical holistic solutions for the
maintenance or where an application is made
best interests and welfare of their children.
for the variation, cancellation or suspension of
Child Focused
Resolution Centre
free - of- charge, are conducted by a dedicated
team of experienced Judges, counsellors and
staff. This programme will be progressively
Committed to providing an effective and
accessible system of justice for family law
matters, the Subordinate Courts set up the
Child Focused Resolution Centre (CFRC)
a maintenance order. With the introduction of
efforts of staff and volunteers are meeting
the practical needs of many court users.
much litigant-centred. In a recent survey
top three needs from LIPs are: the need to
“The service here is really excellent.
know (e.g. information, advice); the need for
All the staff are very warm and
empathy (e.g. someone to understand their
helpful. Thanks a lot for setting up
problems), and the need for convenience
such a HELP Centre.”
(e.g. facilities, court schedules).
VK J A (a foreigner)
Based on these findings, the HELP Centre
“Thank you for the help and
continues to refine its programmes to meet
assistance provided. The options
users’ expectations. Apart from providing
suggested are also very helpful to
Probably one of the first in the world, the
this initiative, parties need not take time off work
objective of CFRC is to help parents create
to attend Court in the day for such matters.
informational brochures, books, pamphlets
those of us who are not familiar with
and videos, our experienced court staff
legal procedures.”
on the best interests and future of their
At the mention, the presiding Judge will give
are available to offer a listening ear and
KSM (Singaporean)
children and which allows the children to
parties directions for the subsequent conduct
have meaningful relationships with both
of the case. If an agreement is reached
parents. CFRC also provides parents
between parties at the mediation session
with useful information that helps them to
conducted before the mention, the Judge
consider the unique needs of their children.
will record a consent order.
a suitable parenting agreement that focuses
patiently explain court procedures and
practices to LIPs. Law students from the
“The HELP Centre is very good and
National University of Singapore and
efficient in assisting layman like me.”
PMH (Singaporean)
Helping to Empower Litigants-in-Person. Litigants-in-person
are court users without any lawyers representing them.
1
72
SUBORDINATE COURTS
73
Quality Judgments & Excellent Court Services
Annual Report 2011
Court Volunteers – Forging
Bonds, Serving Together
by the Pro Bono Services Office of the Law
Society of Singapore. For civil cases, there
are volunteer lawyers who provide free
The Subordinate Courts strive to serve their
legal advice at the HELP Centre.
community by providing litigants with an
effective and accessible system of justice,
Law students from the National University
inspiring public trust and confidence.
of Singapore and Singapore Management
Many legal problems that court users face
University have also helped litigants to
belie other social and emotional issues.
navigate through court processes and
They may enter the Courts with feelings
provided a listening ear.
of anger, loss, frustration, and seek justice
New and Improved Facilities
for Court Users
An intern at the Subordinate Courts
commented: “It provides a platform for
people to engage and interact with one
In an effort to provide an accessible system
another.” Other court staff said that the
of justice, not just in the services, but also in
refreshed atrium provides a “central place
terms of a warmer and friendlier atmosphere,
for people to commune” and has made the
new and improved facilities were introduced
Courts “a warmer place”.
by the Subordinate Courts in 2011.
Upgraded public lifts
Refresh@Atrium
Refresh@Atrium, a newly furbished facility at
the Subordinate Courts building, provides
a place for people to relax, meet and
to be served, to be reconciled with others
The
Subordinate
Courts
have
also
or even themselves, in the hope of having
collaborated with community agencies
their lives restored.
through Project SHINE, a scheme that
provides assistance to families suffering from
The court volunteers play a vital role in
repeated failures by their spouses or ex -
serving together with the Subordinate
spouses to provide maintenance. There are
Courts, making a real difference in the
also volunteers who provide help to juveniles
lives of others through the giving of their
through various support programmes.
resources. They provide many services
complementary to adjudication. Many
Justices of the Peace and volunteers
serve as mediators in criminal, civil and
comprising academics and lawyers have
family disputes, contributing to bring peace
assisted as Referees of the Small Claims
between individuals and promote harmony
Tribunals. They play a vital role in helping to
in our society.
adjudicate certain small claims cases and
rendering justice to the parties before them.
connect with one another.
Lawyers have also offered pro bono legal
The two public lifts in the Subordinate Courts
building were given a face-lift to better serve
court users. Improvements made included
faster speed, air-conditioning for better
ventilation, and buttons that come with
Braille to guide the visually handicapped.
Feedback from court users and staff on the
upgraded lifts has been favourable.
advice in the Subordinate Courts for needy
On 18 November 2011, the Subordinate
litigants who do not have the assistance
Courts held their annual Court Volunteers’
of counsel. The Law Society of Singapore
Appreciation Dinner at the Hilton Hotel. The
and the Association of Criminal Lawyers
Guest of Honour, the Honourable Judge of
of Singapore have been working with the
Appeal, Justice Andrew Phang, presented
Courts to run legal clinics for criminal matters.
the following outstanding volunteers with
Members of the Law Society of Singapore,
awards:
the Legal Aid Bureau and the Singapore
Association of Woman Lawyers have
supported a legal clinic for family disputes
for many years, a role recently taken over
-
Ms Foo Siew Fong and Mr Harold Seet:
Outstanding Volunteers – Advocate and
Solicitor Category
74
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Annual Report 2011
-
Mr Gavin Ng: Outstanding Volunteer –
Student Category
-
Ms Linda Heng: Outstanding Volunteer –
Open Category
Public Perception of the
Subordinate Courts
Public trust and confidence are key values
in the administration of justice. Feedback
from the community is vital as they provide
relevant performance benchmarks for the
[insert photos]
Subordinate Courts’ strategic planning and
policy development initiatives. It is therefore
critical to take the pulse of the public’s
perception of the administration of justice
through independent local public surveys.
In 2010, a public perception survey of the
Not in picture: Ms Linda Heng
confidence of the public in the administration
of justice was conducted by an independent
In 2011, in appreciation of the court
volunteers’ dedication, the Subordinate
Courts introduced the Long Service Awards
for volunteers. Chief District Judge Tan Siong
Thye presented the 10 - and 15- year Long
Service Awards to volunteers at the dinner.
research agency. The results of the survey
released in 2011 showed that:
• 99 per cent of the respondents felt that
they had trust and confidence in the fair
administration of justice in Singapore. This
is an increase of 2 per cent compared to
a previous survey conducted in 2007;
• 99 per cent of the respondents agreed
that the Courts administered justice fairly
to all, regardless of whether actions
were initiated by or against individuals,
companies or the government, an increase
of 1 per cent over the 2007 score;
• 100 per cent of those surveyed agreed
that the Courts administered justice fairly
to all, regardless of language, religion,
race or social class, a 1 per cent increase
over the results in the 2007 survey.
Our People
76
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our People
Welcomes and
Farewells
“My experience at the Subordinate Courts
“I have been attached to the Subordinate
has truly enriched me. Over the years, I
Courts for the past 30 years before my
rotated through the three Justice Divisions,
retirement. I have fond memories and I
dealing with a broad spectrum of cases that
have enjoyed the attachment, especially
impacted individuals, families and society.
with the strong support of my bosses,
I also served as Registrar, focusing on the
colleagues and staff. Since my retirement,
administration of the Subordinate Courts.
I have embarked on doing more exercises
The work has been very varied, challenging
and travelling. With the re-employment
and meaningful.
scheme for retirees, I am back to working
Annual Report 2011
“A leading subordinate court
“I
serving society with people as
transformation initiatives across different
the most valuable asset.”
industries like the civil service, consultancy and
Only with a valued and
education. I appreciate that it’s about getting
motivated team can this vision
the right people together and developing
be realised. Incoming and
strategies which advance an organisation
out - going staff members attest
towards a common goal. It is also about
to this ethos. They share their
cultivating partnerships and working in
thoughts on working at the
collaboration with brave hearts and like minds
Subordinate Courts.
to create a positive, lasting change.
have
been
involved
in
business
“Since joining the Subordinate Courts, I
“Shortly after I joined, I had to gather
have observed that my fellow colleagues’
information to address a court user’s queries.
passion shines through in every aspect
The Judges and court administrators I
of their work. With their enthusiasm and
met provided me with useful background
commitment, I am able to function at the
information so that I could quickly grasp the
forefront of their operation.”
issues. On another occasion, when I needed
to analyse some statistics, everyone pitched
Ms Wendy Yeo
in to help. These experiences make the
Senior Assistant Director, Family Registry,
Subordinate Courts a great place to work.”
Family and Juvenile Justice Division
Joined in February 2011
Mr Geoffrey Lim
Deputy Director, Crime Registry,
Criminal Justice Division
Joined in June 2011
Welcomes and Farewells
at the Subordinate Courts again.”
“Dynamic and responsive, the Subordinate
Courts constantly innovate and improve. As
District Judge Liew Thiam Leng
an organisation, we work as a cohesive
Former Senior District Judge - Consultant,
team, and share great camaraderie while
Criminal Justice Division
giving of our best to the public.”
Ms Hoo Sheau Peng
Former Registrar and Senior District Judge,
Corporate and Court Services Division
“I joined the Subordinate Courts in July
1969 when it was known as the Criminal
District and Magistrates’ Courts and was
located at South Bridge Road. I was very
happy working at the Subordinate Courts as
my supervisors took care of me and were
interested in my work and well-being.”
Mr Yazid Bin Katon
Former Court Administrator, Civil Registry,
Civil Justice Division
Retired/retiring staff (Front row, LEFT to RIGHT):
Senior District Judge-Consultant Liew Thiam Leng
Criminal Justice Division
Retired in September 2011
Mr Mohd Abdullah Rahim
Former Interpreter and Mediator,
Maintenance Mediation Chambers,
Family and Juvenile Justice Division
Retired in September 2011
District Judge Tan Peck Cheng
Family and Juvenile Justice Division
Retiring in February 2012
District Judge Francis Tseng
Civil Justice Division
Retired in April 2011
77
78
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our People
STAFF EVENT
HIGHLIGHTS
staff whose outstanding performance have contributed to the accessibility and expeditious
Annual Report 2011
Staff Event Highlights
delivery of justice. Ms Shariza Bte Mohamed Shariff, Ms Yong Khai Ling and Mr Sim
Jingyao, were awarded “Court Administrator of the Year 2011 Award” during the National
Day Observance Ceremony. These award recipients will play an important role as mentors
to new officers, to enhance and encourage best practices among fellow court administrators.
NATIONAL DAY CELEBRATIONS
“Shariza
is
very
professional
and
comfortable in her dealings with lawyers,
prosecutors and public service officers
Fund raising
As
part
of
their
corporate
from other agencies. She is also very
social
knowledgeable of the functions of the
responsibility programme, the Subordinate
Registrar’s Secretariat. Many colleagues
Courts organised the annual National Day
as well as those outside the Subordinate
Carnival to raise funds for their adopted
charity, the Children’s Cancer Foundation.
Held over a three - week period in August
2011, the highest sum to - date of $29,300
was raised.
Award recipient Ms Shariza
Bte Mohamed Shariff, Personal
Assistant to Senior Deputy Registrar,
Registrar’s Secretariat, Corporate
and Court Services Division
Courts choose to make enquiries with her,
knowing that she will be of good assistance
to them.”
“Khai Ling establishes good rapport with
the court users she serves in the course of
National Day Observance
carrying out her duties, both at the Civil
Ceremony (NDOC)
Registry and HELP
During the NDOC on 5 August 2011, staff
familiar with the work of the Civil Registry,
were treated to two special performances,
she is a priceless repository of institutional
in addition to the ceremonial singing of the
knowledge for the civil justice processes. She
National Anthem and recital of the National
Day and Religious Harmony pledges. Some
court administrators put up a hip hop dance
routine to the tune of Justin Bieber’s “Baby”
while Judges led all to sing-a-long to the
Centre. Extremely
willingly and readily shares her knowledge
Award recipient Ms Yong Khai Ling,
Senior Deputy Head, Civil Registry,
Civil Justice Division
and experience with her colleagues.”
“Despite the high work load, Jingyao has
always demonstrated his commitment to
familiar melodies of National Day songs.
ensure that events would proceed with no
The Chief District Judge also presented the
interruption in terms of AV requirements. He
Subordinate Courts Long Service Awards
is always accommodating to users which
to staff who had served for 10 years, in
recognition of their dedication.
earned him compliments. One external user
Court Administrator of the Year
him are that there was always a smile on
complimented: ‘What impressed me about
Awards
First
introduced
in
2002,
the
Court
Administrator of the Year Awards recognise
Award recipient Mr Sim Jingyao,
Management Support Officer,
Information Technology Department,
Strategic Planning & Training Division
his face, and he looked cheerful regardless
of the time I needed his help.”
79
80
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our People
NATIONAL DAY AWARDS
PUBLIC SERVICE WEEK
ACTIVITIES
Annual Report 2011
Staff Event Highlights
amongst the 99 award recipients in public
service who received the prestigious PS21
Star Service Award. This award is traditionally
Public Administration Medal
Public Administration Medal
(Gold) (Bar)
(Silver)
First started in 2008 as an annual event to
Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye
District Judge Thian Yee Sze
instil in public officers a sense of pride and
District Judge Mathew Joseph
belonging, the annual Public Service Week
presented during PSW to recognise public
officers for their consistent commitment to
high standards of service excellence.
(PSW) organised by the Public Service
Commendation Medal
Efficiency Medal
Division from 16 to 22 May 2011 reminds
District Judge Ow Yong Tuck Leong
Mr Pandiyan s/o Vellasami
officers to take pride in their roles and to
Mr Ang Teck Heng
Ms Seng Li Lian
serve with dedication and commitment.
CORPORATE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY ACTIVITIES
Besides
the
annual
organisation-wide
Long Service Medal (25 years of service)
The Subordinate Courts held a series of
fund-raising event held in conjunction with
District Judge Lau Chin Yui Laura
Mrs Tamilmaran Rukmani
activities such as quizzes and talks by guest
National Day, on 2 December 2011, the
District Judge Jasvender Kaur d/o Saudagar Singh
Ms Ismawati Binte Ismail
speakers revolving around service-centricity
Civil Justice Division played host to 30
District Judge David Lim Hock Choon
Mr Haris Bin Abdul Rahman
over a two-week period, leading up to the
children aged between seven and 12
launch of the inaugural Subordinate Courts
years from Beyond Social Services (BSS).
Mdm Mary Doris Thomas
Service Excellence Conference on 20 May
Subordinate Courts Awards
2011, which was held in conjunction with
BSS is a charity dedicated to supporting
the PSW Observance Ceremony.
literacy and reducing delinquency among
children and youths from under-privileged
Subordinate Courts Long Service Award
District Judge Leong Kui Yiu James
Ms Yong Khai Ling
District Judge Ng Peng Hong
Ms Seng Li Lian
District Judge Tan Peck Cheng
Ms Lim Chow Yeh Sarah
District Judge Jocelyn Ong
Ms Sayidhatunnisa Bte Syed Eussof
District Judge Chia Wee Kiat
Ms Shariza Bte Mohamed Shariff
District Judge Lee-Khoo Poh Choo
Ms Yap Pui Ling
District Judge Roy Grenville Neighbour
Ms Harpreet Kaur d/o Chancel Singh
District Judge Miranda Yeo Eng Joo
Ms Rahman Beevi d/o S M Ibrahim
Ms Anne Durray
Ms Norita Bte Nasibbuddin
Ms Elyana Mohd Ishak
Ms Nuzuliyah Bte Taib
During the observance ceremony, staff
backgrounds. During the event, themed
were reminded of their service commitment
“Love, Hope and Dreams in the Subordinate
through the Public Service pledge recital.
Courts”, the children were given an
The Chief District Judge also presented the
educational tour of the Subordinate Courts.
inaugural “Service Staff of the Quarter”
They were brought to the various sections
Awards to Mr Stephen Pillay and Mr James
within the Civil Justice Division and took
Chuah in recognition of their excellent
part in a mock trial to better understand
services to court users.
civil proceedings.
Ms Phua Thong Leng
Subordinate Courts Long Service Award (Contract staff)
Ms Junaitah Bayham Bte Md Eusoff
Ms Yasmin Bte Abdullah
Ms Napisah Beevi d/o Abdul Gani
Ms Doris Loghambal d/o Kumarasamy Perumal
Ms Salmiya Bte Sullam
Ms Sarinam Bte Johari
Ms Sandra Julie Pereira
In 2011, Ms Arfah Omar, Ms V Padma, and
Mr Mohd Hatta (above, LEFT to RIGHT) were
81
82
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our People
Annual Report 2011
Staff Event Highlights
The children were also treated to an afternoon
As Singapore prepared for the Formula-
tournament up another notch by adding
workplace safety through a combination
tea party and light-hearted entertainment.
One Grand Prix event in September, the
cosmic bowling, with the light dimmed
of informational talks and quizzes.
A band comprising both Judges and staff
Subordinate Courts had their own brand of
and bowling pins painted fluorescent to
of the Civil Justice Division enthralled the
the F1 action during their annual Cohesion
glow in the dark. In September 2011, staff
The Subordinate Courts also participated
children, and a Judge, dressed up as
Day held on 17 September. Groups of
members participated in the Yellow Ribbon
actively in events organised by the Judiciary
“Captain Justice”, presented gifts to all
participants pitted their wits and resources
Prison Run, an event held in support of the
Recreation Club. The annual Dinner and
of them. The children also put up a short
against one another to create their own F1
Yellow Ribbon Project, an initiative of the
Dance in July 2011 saw sporting staff
performance and displayed the art pieces
racing cars out of cardboards and other
Singapore Prison Service to encourage the
members dressed to the theme “Safari
that they had prepared for the visit. These
more modest materials. They then put
community to accept ex-offenders and their
Night”. At the Family Day held at the
art pieces, along with other art work
their creations to the test through a race
families, and give them a second chance in
Marina Barrage in November 2011, the
contributed by the members of the Division,
enabled only by teamwork, not technology
life. Staff were also reminded to eat healthily
participants literally reached for the sky with
were auctioned at a pre-event art sale held
or engines. The mettle of the Subordinate
through the monthly Fruit Day organised
their kites, together with their colleagues
within the Subordinate Courts. Through
Courts family was once again displayed
by the Health and Welfare Committee.
and family members.
the proceeds of the auction and generous
and proven through the series of team-
In addition, yearly health screenings and
contributions by many within the Subordinate
building activities.
health-related talks were organised.
OTHER SOCIAL EVENTS
Safety at the workplace is another
Courts, a sum of $5,000 was raised for BSS.
COHESION ACTIVITIES
To forge stronger bonds and foster closer
relationships amongst staff, regular cohesion
activities were organised throughout the year
at both the organisational and divisional
levels. The highlights of 2011 included
a day at Universal Studios Singapore
where the strong-hearted provided moral
support and encouragement to their not-soadventurous colleagues taking the deathdefying rides at the theme park.
focus of the Subordinate Courts. The
People are the Subordinate Courts’ most
Workplace Safety and Health Committee
valued asset. Staff are encouraged to
was formed in July 2011 to foster and
maintain a balanced and healthy lifestyle,
enhance
amongst other ways, through a series
Staff learnt about the importance of
of activities designed to stimulate their
interest in the fun and healthy aspects of
life. In May 2011, the Sports Committee
introduced a weekly aerobics session which
proved popular with female staff members.
The Sports Committee also brought the
excitement of the annual divisional bowling
a
safe
workplace
culture.
83
84
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our People
JUDGES AND STAFF
OF THE SUBORDINATE
COURTS
CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION
Annual Report 2011
Chief District Judge, Deputy Chief District Judge and
Senior District Judges
LEFT to RIGHT
Senior District Judge, Criminal Justice Division, See Kee Oon
Senior District Judge, Civil Justice Division, Leslie Chew
Senior District Judge, Family and Juvenile Justice Division, Foo Tuat Yien
Chief District Judge, Tan Siong Thye
Deputy Chief District Judge and Registrar, Jennifer Marie
Judges and Staff of the Subordinate Courts
85
District Judges of the
Criminal Courts
District Judges of the
Criminal Courts
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Salina Ishak, Liew Thiam Leng,
Soh Tze Bian, Wong Choon Ning
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Kessler Soh, Lim Tse Haw, Imran Hamid,
Christopher Goh, John Ng, Toh Yung Cheong
1st row (LEFT to RIGHT) Ng Peng Hong, Low Wee Ping, Eddy Tham
2nd row (LEFT to RIGHT) Mathew Joseph, Paul Quan,
Kamala Ponnampalam, Roy Neighbour
3rd row (LEFT to RIGHT) Ronald Gwee, Jasbendar Kaur,
May Mesenas, Shaiffudin Saruwan, Wong Peck
86
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our People
Annual Report 2011
Crime Registry Officers
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Puvana Ramasamy, Emily Lim Xin Yi,
Ong Yan Rui, Geoffrey Lim, Jasmine Richard Thomas, Denise Yeo
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Sandhya Gopinathan, Mok-Goh Kit
Soon, Nisa d/o Raja Sekaran, Louis Kang Eng Hao,
Mark Wang Shanying, Leow Xian Zhao, Ng Tio Yong, Doris Lee,
Vanaja Jayaram, Vivian Koh
Judges and Staff of the Subordinate Courts
Crime Registry Officers
Criminal Court Officers
Criminal Court Officers
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Belinda Chng Pei Yun,
Selvi S Senthamarai, Chan Kok Hoong, Supaletchumi d/o Suppiah,
Kamissah Mahmud, Sarah Low Pei Ni
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Rokiah Bte Harun, Siti Ainsha Bte Salim,
Noran Farhana Bte Mohammed, Kasmah Wati Bte Wari,
Yui Weng Fong, Shawn Teo, Zainah Bte Sabtu,
Habedah Bte Ahmad, Jamilah Bte Jaslan, Elaine Lim Xiaofen
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Chua Wenlin, Tan Wei Jun,
Sharifah Farhanah Binte Syed Halid Almakbuly, Mariah Bte Amri,
Muhammad Hafiz Bin Jumahat, Kum Hui Min
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Doris d/o Loghambal, Wang Lanzhen,
Shabrina Binte Shari, Lam Pei Ying, Chen Siyin, Halija Kurdi,
Sumathi d/o Sundrajoo, Wong Wai Yee, Noor Aini Bte Zumzuri,
Kasumawati Binte Rifaie, Diana Nirmaladevi d/o Jayaraman,
Sherin Banu Bte Mohamed
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Lim Chee Voon Lance, Zubeda Khanam,
Teng-Soh Siew Foong, Caliph Md Sufiyan Bin Moezar,
Nor Azliana Bte Khairuden
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Lim Peiyi, Valliammah d/o Alagapan,
Zaleha Rahim Rahman, Lee Peiling, Nazeini Parveen Binte Rahman
Shariff, Asmahan Bte Amir, Yeoh Xin Ning Evelyn,
Intan Bte Sani, Suaidah Bte Sarnan
87
88
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our People
Annual Report 2011
Community Court Secretariat and
Chief District Judge’s Secretariat
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Nurhafidzah Bte Mohamed Kamal,
Samuel Chua
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Nur Syuhada Binte Mohamed Shahril,
Tay Kai Boon, Chew Chuee Seng, Yasmin Isma Bte Hamzah
CIVIL JUSTICE DIVISION
District Judges of
the Civil Registry
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Lorraine Ho, James Leong, Ong Chin Rhu, Lim Wee Ming
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Sandra Looi, Miranda Yeo, Constance Tay, Tan Sue-Ann, Joseph Yeo,
Viveganandam Jesudevan, Ow-Yong Tuck Leong, Kenneth Choo, Kathleen Gomez, Lynette Yap, Low Lih Jeng
Judges and Staff of the Subordinate Courts
District Judges of the
Civil Courts
Judges of the Primary
Dispute Resolution Centre
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) David Lim, Tan May Tee, Francis Tseng
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Loo Ngan Chor, Joyce Low, Seah Chi-Ling
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) District Judge Laura Lau,
District Judge Joyce Low, District Judge Kathryn Low
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Magistrate Josephine Kang,
District Judge Marvin Bay
89
90
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our People
Annual Report 2011
Civil Registry Officers
Civil Registry Officers
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Amnah Ali, Tham Yeong Shin,
Glenfield de Souza, Rozita Mahmud
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Kesuma Mohd Selamat, Sarinam Johari,
Hatimah Nawi, Roziana Selamat, Azizah Ibrahim, Norjahan Amoo,
Faridah Abu Bakar, Salmiya Sullam, Ong Pek Se, B. Sayeeswari,
Uma Mageswari d/o Singaran
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Noraini Hj Omar, Yasmin Abdullah,
Lyon Oh, Anne Saramma Mathew
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Paul Toh, Nurhidayah Tumani,
Chong Liwen, Michael Chua, Wahidah Somo, Jannie Low,
Mohd Rezal
Primary Dispute Resolution
Centre and Civil Court Officers
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Krystal Tan, Koh Puay Chin, Zarina Banu,
Napisah Beevi d/o Abdul Gani
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Norzirafida Zakaria, Nur Atiqah Jainal,
Wilson Ong, Sayidhatunnisa Syed Eussof, Lau Pei Pei
Judges and Staff of the Subordinate Courts
Small Claims Tribunals
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Lee Kay Swee, Joseph John,
Anne Durray, Samuel Chow Tha-Liang, James Chuah Kok On
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Sadila Bte Ali, Ng Zi Wei Yvonne,
Rita Anthony, Michael Leong Sek Kay, Choy Xue Ting Ginnette,
Tan Hui Ying, Jaliah Bte Mohd Arif, Carmen Seah Yeu Chern
91
92
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Annual Report 2011
Bailiffs Section
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Kalavathy Nadarajah, Kamaruzaman Bin Kassim, Chua Hong Siang,
Mohamed Hatta Bin Abdul Razak, Eswaran s/o Balasubrahaniam, Ismail Bin Mat
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Omar Bin Bachik, Ruthreshwaran s/o Letchmanan, Koh Teow Peng,
Cheng Ruo Xuan, Muhammad Akram Bin Amat Tugiman, Sapuan Bin Sanadi, Bakhit Bin Mohamed Ridwan,
Siti Ellyna Bte Ali, Helen Low Peck Lan, Shawaluddin Bin Zainal Abidin, Johari Bin Satiman
FAMILY AND JUVENILE JUSTICE DIVISION
District Judges
of the Family and
Juvenile Courts
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Tan Peck Cheng, Jen Koh
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Wong Keen Onn, Edgar Foo, Wong Sheng Kwai
Our People
Judges and Staff of the Subordinate Courts
District Judges of the
Family and Juvenile Courts
District Judges of the
Family Registry
1st row (LEFT to RIGHT) Lim Keng Yeow, Jocelyn Ong
2nd row (LEFT to RIGHT) Crystal Ong, Michelle Woodworth
3rd row (LEFT to RIGHT) Masayu Norashikin, Kevin Ng, Brenda Tan
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Amy Tung, Regina Ow
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Angelina Hing, Lim Choi Ming,
Colin Tan, Nicole Loh
93
94
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our People
Annual Report 2011
Family Registry and Family and
Juvenile Court Officers
Family Registry and
Family Court Officers
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Nur Atiqa Binte Abdul Kadir,
Yeo Seow Aik, Norfarahziana Bte Abd Hamid
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Nur Nadiah Binte Md Nasir,
Nussrath Barvin Abdul Jalil, Shamsul Bahari Yusoff,
Mohd Fazil Bin A Razak, Lee Khee Por, Sandy Pang Lin Sun,
Norasimah Sujai
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Norleha Mohamed Hassan,
Mahani Adam, Wendy Yeo Su Fen, Tay Ai Ling
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Sakthi Manogran, Lee Hui Ping,
Siti Nabilah Bte Mohammed, Junaitah Bayham Bte Md Eusoff,
Zarinah Bte Muhamad, Nurhanim Bte Mohamad Hanip,
Jumahat Bin Ahmad, Mageswary d/o Subramaniam, Aminah Bte Ali,
Ang Chia Li Carrie, Azila Sueb, Hamidah Bte Yusoff
Judges and Staff of the Subordinate Courts
Maintenance Mediation
Chambers
Counselling and
Psychological Services
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Jasmine Ng Mui Lian,
Lee-See Fong Pheng, Sanisah Bte Mahad
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Faridah Bte Atan, Azhar Bin Mohd Nasir,
Tamilmaran Rukmani
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Jaslyn Ng, Nur Izzah Amir, Sophia Ang,
Sarinah Mohamed, Audrey Lum
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Jean Quek, Sujeeta Menon,
Saiful Hisham Sidek, Ho Yew Wai, Chiam Toon Han, Cynthia Teo,
Suzanah Bte Che’ome, Kuck Xuanling, Jessie Koh, Dawn Wong
95
96
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our People
Annual Report 2011
Judges and Staff of the Subordinate Courts
CORPORATE AND COURT SERVICES DIVISION
Finance Section
1st row (LEFT to RIGHT) District Judge and Senior Deputy Registrar
Tan Boon Heng, Lee Chun Yip
2nd row (LEFT to RIGHT) Samsiah M Mizah, Papinder Kaur
3rd row (LEFT to RIGHT) Renuka Thanabalan, John Lee,
Daniel Ang, Lim Lay Kim
Communications Section and
Registrar’s Secretariat
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Michelle Chiang, Elyana Mohd Ishak,
Sarah Lim
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Choo Oi Peng, Caryn Zou, Patrick Chin,
Shariza Bte Mohamed Shariff, Crystal Hoo
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Balasubramaniam s/o Tharmalinggam,
Phua Thong Leng, Mark Tay
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Padma Vengadasalam, Aston Chow,
Gary Chiang, Josephine Tan
Human Resource
Management Section
1st row (LEFT to RIGHT) Mikaela Oh, Dalbir Kaur
2nd row (LEFT to RIGHT) R Thamayanthi, Stella Ho,
Yeow-Mak Yuek Ling, Janna Goh, Siti Nadiah
3rd row (LEFT to RIGHT) Alicia Ang, Raymond Mui,
Wahidah Banu d/o Abu Bakar
97
98
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our People
Annual Report 2011
Infrastructure
Development Section
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Nezam Zakaria, Mark Khng, Adrian Lai,
Siew Chin Yiew
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Mohammad Rashikin Rajah, Lucy Goh,
Nur Azilah Bte Ngasiran, Suhaily Bte Ismail, Rosalind Yap,
Haris Bin Abdul Rahman, Alice Wong, Bhawani d/o Krishnasamy,
Bernard Soh
Chinese Interpreters
1st row (LEFT to RIGHT) Teo Chor Hoon, Yap Pui Ling,
Sharon Chua, Onh Khian Guan, Phoon Wing Oon, Low Meng Huat
2nd row (LEFT to RIGHT) Yeo Ai Fern, Chang May Fung,
Jasmine Ng, Ang Wei Yi, Ng Geok Meng
3rd row (LEFT to RIGHT) Lucia Cheng, Tay Kuan Kuan,
Chan Nga Yin, Neo Bee Lian, Yeo Keng Heng,
Wong Hee Huang, Tan Cheng Siong, Goh Chai Hoon, Wong Li Li
Judges and Staff of the Subordinate Courts
Indian Interpreters
Malay Interpreters
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Vijaya Thavamary Abraham,
Maheswary Kandesan, Tasmin Begum Shumsudin,
Santha Devi Sivanathan
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Prasakthi Allagoo, Jayanthi Jaganathan,
Anees Parvin, E Mangalagowri, Juliet Fenendees,
Suseela Devi Ramesh
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Salina Sinain, Rashidah Sirrat,
Samsiah Shariff, Sulastri Slemat, Suhana Salleh,
Nurfadhilla Md. Kamarulzaman
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Syed Syaiful Amir Syed Salleh,
Norartiyangseh Jibani, Zaini Hassan, Md Haikal Md Harun,
Tumirah Abdullah Osman, Md Faizal Md Yusuf, Rokiah Mahdi,
Md Rijal Khailani, Kamal Shaharom, Zaini Sojah, Rohaida Satari
99
100
SUBORDINATE COURTS
Our People
Annual Report 2011
Judges and Staff of the Subordinate Courts
101
STRATEGIC PLANNING AND TRAINING DIVISION
(LEFT to RIGHT) District Judge Jasbendar Kaur,
District Judge Thian Yee Sze, District Judge Joseph Yeo
Centre for Research and
Statistics, Organisational
Excellence Unit, and
Knowledge Management
1st row (LEFT to RIGHT) Goh Wee Siang, Phang Tsang Wing
2nd row (LEFT to RIGHT) Sabeena Beevi, Huang Caiwei,
Ho Sow Chue Joyce
3rd row (LEFT to RIGHT) Ong Meng Choo, Ye Pei Shi, Shen Qinghui
Planning Unit, Research and
Knowledge Development Unit,
Training, and Library Resources
Officers
Front row (LEFT to RIGHT) Siti Fatimah Abdul Satar, Ng Kar Meng,
Nooraeni Ahmad and Charisshir Ng
Back row (LEFT to RIGHT) Rosyati Ahmad, Humaira Mohd Ali,
Noor Israni Ibrahim, Dang Ngoc Han Nguyen, Phua Lian Gek,
Rozilah Rohani and Rubiah Jaharah
Information Technology
Department
1st row (LEFT to RIGHT) Ryan Quek, You Chiou Har,
Chan Khar Nai, Trevor Sim, Cheng Kim Yew, Catherine Lam
2nd row (LEFT to RIGHT) Shirley Chia, Kelvin Low,
Azreen Bin Ahmad, Felicia Quek
3rd row (LEFT to RIGHT) Stanley Lau, Ronshone Chua, Sim Jingyao,
Clarence Yuen, Jack Ho, Andrew Chee, Wong Hong Chew
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Editorial Committee
District Judge Loo Ngan Chor
District Judge Lim Keng Yeow
Ms Lim Lay Kim
Ms Michelle Chiang
In Consultation with
Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye,
Deputy Chief District Judge Jennifer Marie and
the Senior District Judges
With Warmest Appreciation to
All who have contributed to this publication
This page is intentionally left blank.