Speech By Sylvia Lim, NCMP
Mr Speaker Sir,
I would like to raise serious reservations about 1 aspect of the
Bill which is clause 8 which amends Art 111 to make changes to the
composition of the Legal Service Commission.
These reservations arise because the Legal Service also comprises
persons who are serving in the Subordinate Court judiciary as
Magistrates and District Judges. The Subordinate Courts administer
justice and all of us have a right to expect that the judicial
officers will administer justice impartially. As such, we must make
all efforts to give the public confidence that the personnel
management system of these judicial officers will enhance their
standing as independent arbiters of disputes. I have listened to
the DPMs justifications for the changes. Notwithstanding that, I
believe that clause 8 has the potential of undermining public
confidence in the courts independence.
Cl 8 Changing the composition of the LSC
Under the existing Constitution, the LSC comprises of the Chief
Justice as President, the Attorney-General, the Chairman of the
Public Service Commission, a High Court Judge nominated by the CJ
and up to 2 members of the PSC.
Under Cl 8 of the Bill, the composition of the LSC is to be changed
to include up to 2 nominees of the Prime Minister.
If the Bill is passed, the LSC still retains its role of deciding
on dismissal and disciplinary action of legal officers. For
officers above a certain threshold grade, the LSC will also make
career decisions such as promotions and transfers.
Could the Minister clarify further the rationale for having a new
category of LSC members who are the PMs nominees? If the concern
is to ensure that Legal Service manpower policies are in line with
the rest of the civil service, it seems to me that the PSC
representatives on the LSC can already perform that role.
Sir, the members of the PSC sitting on the LSC had been originally
appointed to the PSC on the recommendations of the Prime Minister.
The Attorney-General who also sits on the LSC is a member of the
government. To now have 2 members specifically nominated by the PM
potentially gives the executive branch of the government even more
influence over critical career decisions of our judicial
officers.
Sir, my concern is that this can be interpreted as a regressive
step for judicial independence.
Under the existing system, it is already clear that the Subordinate
Court judiciary does not enjoy security of tenure unlike High Court
Judges, as they can lose their judicial role at any time by being
transferred out of the Courts to other departments. Whatever the
rationale for having a category of PMs nominees on the LSC, we
should step back and ask ourselves what message is being sent. Even
if the intention is not to weaken the will of the Subordinate Court
judiciary, how would the public perceive this move? Wouldnt they
think that the judicial officers would still need to consider the
interests of the executive government in reaching their decisions?
After all, the system we are putting in place specifically allows
nominees of the PM a say in their career progression.
Cl 9 proposes a new Art 111AA to set up personnel boards to
exercise the functions of the LSC permanently i.e. once the boards
are constituted, the LSC can no longer exercise those functions.
The members of the personnel boards will be appointed based on LSC
recommendations.
Since the composition of the LSC itself is going to change to
specifically include the PMs nominees, then recommendations of the
LSC for the personnel boards would carry the same concerns about
how independent they are vis-à-vis the executive government. While
it may well be the case that the nominees are persons of integrity,
would they be perceived as truly independent actors?
Sir, this Bill touches on one of the pillars of the rule of law
that the law is to be applied to everybody equally, regardless of
status or power. While we have entrenched safeguards to protect the
independence of the High Court judiciary, we have not done the same
for the Subordinate Court judiciary. The Subordinate Courts
jurisdiction has been enlarged greatly over the years. They handle
the vast majority of criminal cases, and civil claims up to
$250,000. According to their Annual Report 2006, they dealt with
more than 350,000 cases that year. In terms of caseload, their role
in the administration of justice directly affects more lives than
the High Court.
We should avoid taking any steps which might be perceived as
weakening the independence of the Subordinate Court judiciary. I
believe the proposed change in the LSC composition carries a real
risk of undermining public confidence in the neutrality of our
courts. The proposed changes are of grave concern.
