PM Lee Hsien Loong at the Legal Service Dinner 2014

Building A First-Class Legal Service

Chief Justice
Mr Sundaresh Menon

Minister for Law
Mr K Shanmugam

Attorney-General
Mr Steven Chong

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen

Thank you for inviting me to this Legal Service Dinner. The Legal Service does not hold a dinner every year, unlike the Administrative Service. The last time they held one was four years ago in 2010. Since then the Service and the world have seen significant changes. So it is timely to have a dinner this year to thank officers for your hard work and also to talk about strengthening our legal system to serve Singapore better and building a first-class Legal Service.

Importance of a Good Legal System

We all know or should know the remarkable transformation which Singapore has made over the last half century. The usual explanations which are correct are that the Pioneer Generation made great sacrifices, we have kept ourselves open to trade and investments, we have had a united people and a good political leadership.

But there is one more important reason which bears emphasizing, particularly tonight, and that is that we upheld the rule of law and established an effective and well-functioning legal system. We have good laws to uphold individual and public interests; we kept them updated to meet Singapore’s changing needs. We have efficient courts to hear cases and dispense justice without delay. We have an incorrupt and competent judiciary, interpreting and administering laws fairly without fear or favour. We have a strong Legal Service, working with the Government to serve Singaporeans.

We have built up our legal system over the years. We inherited it from the British. It is based on English common law which remains the foundation of our system today. But English common law had been developed and refined in England – a very different society and environment from Singapore. Both the England of the Victorian age and the early 20^th century compared to colonial Singapore and Singapore in our early years of independence, and now the England of the 21^st century - an England which is part of the European Union which has adopted European norms, which is heeding the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice compared to Singapore, a modern developed country but in a different part of the world, a different strategic environment, a different social context. We have diverged and our systems have to adapt to our respective needs. So we have adapted the principles and application of English common law to our own circumstances, finding our own balance between the rights of individual and the society, interpreting our laws in ways which are consistent with our customs, our mores and our norms, particularly in our multi-racial and multi-religious society.

In doing this, we have consistently adopted a pragmatic and eclectic approach – neither wedded to pre-conceived notions or the intellectual fads of the day, nor tied down to traditional practices inherited from our former colonial masters. As Mr Lee Kuan Yew said in 1962 before we became independent: “The acid test of any legal system is not the greatness or grandeur of its ideal concepts, but whether in fact it is able to produce order and justice in the relationships between man and man and between man and the State”.

So we have made significant changes to our legal system over the years. For example in 1969, we dispensed with jury trials. In 1993, we passed the Application of English Law Act which makes clear that English common law continues to have weight and influence in Singapore only in so far as it is applicable to our circumstances. In 1994, abolishing appeals to the Privy Council and making our Court of Appeal the final Court of Appeal. Hence today we have a first class legal system that contributes significantly to Singapore’s development and that enjoys high international standing. For example, the World Economic Forum ranked us first in “Efficiency of Legal Framework – Settling Disputes” last year. The World Justice Project ranked us second in its “Rule of Law Index” for Criminal Justice also last year.

Singapore has come a long way but the principles that Mr Lee articulated more than half a century ago in 1962 remain true today. Our legal system must always promote Singapore’s interests. Our statutes and jurisprudence must reflect our needs, values, and norms. When we develop and update our laws, we must be guided by what works best for Singapore.

Of course we continue to learn from the experience of others. Our courts still look at overseas precedents especially from Commonwealth countries. Judgements and rulings in other jurisdictions continue to have value for us. Similarly, when drafting new laws, we always study the relevant legislation of other countries. We try to learn how others have dealt with similar problems because it is much wiser to see what has worked elsewhere, and how we can adapt and modify tested ideas to work for us rather than to try inventing a scheme from scratch which may or may not work the first time. But whether in jurisprudence or legislation, we must never import precedents or foreign ideas uncritically, without first asking whether they are relevant to us and whether it makes sense for us to go in the same direction.

We have to adapt our system to our needs and circumstances. We have to adjust our old laws as needs change, for example the mandatory death penalty (MDP). For drug offences, we removed the MDP under very specific circumstances while retaining the MDP in general to continue deterring drug traffickers. For murder, we recalibrated the sentencing options and kept the MDP only for the most serious offence, leaving the courts the discretion to award the death penalty or a lesser punishment for other cases of murder.

That is adjusting old laws. We also pass new ones as required. For example we have a draft bill now undergoing consultation on transboundary haze - unfortunately a current topic. This is an example of legislation where there are few foreign precedents to follow. We are a very small country; we are exceptionally vulnerable to the haze from our neighbours. And it is also especially difficult for us to bring the culprits to justice, who by actions abroad do harm to us in Singa­pore. Hence, we have drafted a bill which provides adequate powers to convict and punish those who are responsible, for example extra-territoriality, with presumptions of liability, with the possibility of civil action. But at the same time, we balance effectiveness with sufficient safeguards, so that we do not inadvertently punish innocent parties, or deter honest businesses from coming to Singapore.

To adapt our laws and legal system to our needs, we have to understand Singapore’s interests, how the whole Singa­pore system works and what is possible under the law.  All three branches of Government must do their part, individually and collectively. The Executive - making sound policies to advance our national interests. The Legislature - passing good and effective laws. The Judiciary - interpreting and applying our laws fairly within our social context and in the spirit that Parliament intended. Each branch understanding and fulfilling its role well will enable us together to produce the best outcome for Singapore.

Singapore’s Legal Service

A strong Legal Service is essential to a good legal system. Your work straddles all three branches of government. District Judges, Magistrates and Registrars interpret our laws fairly and transparently, without fear or favour. Deputy Public Prosecutors have to decide whether to prefer charges, and to prosecute cases zealously but objectively and fairly. Legal officers help agencies translate policies into legislation, advise agencies on the legal implications of different courses of action, and protect and advance Singapore’s interests internationally through treaties and arbitration. You make abstract principles of law concrete and meaningful to Singaporeans.

We have systematically built up the Legal Service over the years. At Independence in 1965, we had only 45 officers in the Legal Service – mostly involved in public prosecution and legal drafting. As Singapore developed, the size and scope of the Service grew too. The number of officers has grown more than 10 times to now almost 600 officers. And you are carrying wider and heavier responsibilities whether in international law, whether in developing new capabilities like intellectual property protection.

So we need a first-class Legal Service and that in turn calls for a first-class personnel management system to attract and retain the best people, to remunerate them fairly with reference to the market, to groom talent systematically and prepare you for leadership positions and to imbue officers with the right values and commitment to Singapore

Restructuring the Legal Service

One important and perennial question is how we should structure the Legal Service and there are two possible approaches – either Integration or Specialisation. Integration means one Legal Service and officers serve in a full range of jobs. You have many jobs to choose from and senior LSOs would have a wide breadth of experience before assuming leadership positions. The other alternative is Specialisation – having separate services by job functions and especially separating out the judicial functions from prosecution and other functions in order to better develop depth and expertise in individual officers.  

Different countries adopt one model or the other depending on the circumstances, depending on the history. For example Nepal and South Africa have an integrated model. Bangladesh, Kenya, increasingly India have gone for a specialisation model. Every country has to tailor its system to their needs

We started off with an integrated model - one Legal Service with personnel decisions vested in the Legal Service Commission (LSC), chaired by the Chief Justice with the Attorney-General also on the LSC. From time to time we have studied the question whether to split the Service into two: a Legal Service and a separate Judicial Service. But up to now we have always decided to stick to the integrated model. Because we had too few officers to support two separate services and we believed that LSOs would have better career paths in one single integrated service. But it is timely for us to review the position again in the light of changing circumstances. First because the Legal Service is much larger, so officers can specialise without conscribing their career prospects. Second, because the scope and complexity of work whether in the Government ministries, whether in the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) or in the Courts, the scope of work has in all cases grown enormously.

In the Government, in the ministries, there are more responsibilities to do – drafting new laws, seeding new capabilities, negotiating FTAs, dealing with new issues - arbitrating cross-border financial services disputes involving several jurisdictions for example. In the Attorney-General’s Chambers, we have had to develop new capabilities. Three years ago we set up an Economic Crimes and Governance Division to specialise in financial crimes and regulatory offences. AGC officers have to spend more time engaging stakeholders like the Criminal Bar and statutory boards. In the Courts too, the jobs have grown. The Subordinate Courts are the “engine room” of our judicial system and they are taking on more complex work with higher values of claims, greater sentencing powers and hearing many more cases, with each case more closely scrutinised. In total hearing 95% of all the cases in our judicial system.

So we have upgraded our Subordinate Courts to the State Courts, we have designated the Chief District Judge as the Presiding Judge of the State Courts, we have pegged him at a Judge or Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court equivalent in rank and importance. We also plan to establish the Family Justice Courts and the Singapore International Commercial Court. Hence we need more specialist and expert skills than ever before.

I have been discussing this issue with the CJ, AG and Minister for Law. We agreed that within the present framework of one Legal Service under the LSC, we should provide for greater specialisation. Therefore we will make several changes to the present system. First, the LSC will introduce two separate career tracks for LSOs up to Grade 3 – which will be the “Legal” and “Judicial” tracks. Eligible officers can elect to specialise either along the Legal or the Judicial track. They will then be posted to jobs within either the Legal Branch or the Judicial Branch to build experience and to hone specialist and expert skills. To oversee the two career tracks, we will establish two new Personnel Boards under the LSC which will be the Legal Branch Personnel Board and the Judicial Branch Personnel Board. These will replace the current Senior Personnel Board and Special Personnel Board. The Legal Branch Personnel Board and Judicial Branch Personnel Board will manage the LSOs in the respective Branches and oversee career development pathways in these tracks.

Even as we promote more specialisation, it is critical that the Legal Service operates as an integrated whole. The specialisation into the two tracks is for the middle ranks of the Legal Service. Junior officers starting out on their careers will still be posted to different departments and across Branches to develop them in different fields of legal work and to learn about their strengths and interests so that they can make an informed judgement when they decide if they want to specialise and if so, in which branch. Beyond grade 3, the senior officers Grade 2 and above will still be managed centrally by the LSC. Because at that level of seniority, there will only be a few officers and it is necessary to continue with the integrated model, to provide for better career options and flexibility in deployment to meet the needs of the Service

Conclusion

These changes are part of our continuing journey to build a first-class Legal Service. But ultimately what matters beyond even a proper and well-tuned HR system is the spirit and dedication of the LSOs to carry out your duties and uphold the rule of law without fear or favour, to defend and advance Singapore’s interests in a more complex and challenging international environment, to work together as a team, always fighting for Singapore and Singaporeans.

The Legal Service has made significant contributions to Singapore’s success. As Singapore makes our way forward, the Legal Service must keep pace with the changes in the world, in Singapore, and in what is expected of you. You have to always be learning from others, while remaining firmly anchored to our values and circumstances, and contributing to Singapore’s continued success.  I am confident that I can count on you and your commitment and efforts as we work together on this shared endeavour to build a better future for us and our children. Thank you very much.

Explore related topics

• Law