111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

THE ROLE OF POLICE, PROSECUTION AND THE JUDICIARY
IN THE CHANGING SOCIETY - THE SINGAPORE APPROACH
Judge Suriakumari Sidambaram*
I. INTRODUCTION
We live in a world of constant change.
Trade and technology interact to accelerate
the rate of change. Science and technology
of today may become history tomorrow,
while the knowledge and skills we acquire
now may fast become obsolete. As a result,the current operations in an ever-changing
environment are constantly faced with newchallenges. With the arrival of theinformation age, complex crimes such as
computer crimes, phone cloning and otherhigh-technology crimes have emerged.
White collar crimes consequently increase.
Constant training and upgrading to tie inwith the overall social and economic
advancement is the only way to adapt tochanges very quickly.
Singapore has been transformed from apoor Third World city, to a highly
industrialized economy within a short
thirty year span. Coupled with better
education and increasing influence,
Singaporeans now expect a high standardof service quality and efficiency in their
daily transactions with the public service.
They have clear expectations that public
officers will act correctly, decisively andwith confidence.
Crime prevention and rehabilitation of
criminals are two problems every society,including Singapore, has to contend with.
Although the nature of crimes and approach
to treatment of criminals may vary fromcountry to country, the urgency of preventing
crime and effectively rehabilitating
criminals are common to law enforcement* District Judge, Subordinate Courts, Singapore.

and adjudication authorities in all countries.
Singapore prevents and controls crime
through two essential means :a. a body of penal legislation whichprescribes which acts (and omissions)constitute crimes, the procedure bywhich suspected offenders may beapprehended and brought to justice,and the forms of punishment which
may be imposed on proven offenders;andb. c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m w h i c hadministers and enforces thislegislation, seeking to ensure its
compliance. This system includes the
public prosecutor, the police (and otherlaw enforcement agencies), thejudiciary and the prisons (and othercorrectional apparatus).
The aim of the Singapore criminal justicesystem is to reduce crime and encourage
respect for and compliance with thecriminal law through three basic
approaches, namely, individual prevention,
general prevention and incapacitation.
The crime rate in Singapore fell for the
ninth consecutive year in 1997. Crime
statistics for the period January December 1998 indicate a slight increasein the overall crime rate. Seizable offences,
however, decreased in the fourth quartercompared to the third quarter. It has
however been pointed out that the slightincrease should be viewed against thesteady decrease of crime rates over the lastnine consecutive years and against theintensified and effective enforcement action
by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) on all

303

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 55
fronts. Further, this slight increase could
be likely be associated with the economiccrisis and increasing retrenchment andunemployment rates in Singapore. It has
also been noted that the number of arrestsand cases solved had also risen, and that
Singapore’s crime rate still continues to beamong the lowest in the world. The major
proportion of crime in Singapore consistsof housebreaking, theft of and from motor
vehicles, snatch theft, molestation androbbery. Analysis shows that the majorityof these crimes are committed in a random
and opportunistic way.
II. ROLE OF THE POLICE
The mission of the Singapore Police
Force (SPF) is to uphold the law, maintainorder and keep the peace in Singapore byworking in partnership with thecommunity to protect life and property,
prevent crime and disorder, detect andapprehend offenders and preserve a senseof security in society.
In the turbulent years of the 1950s to
the early 1970s, the SPF played a criticalrole in the quelling of labour, racial andpolitical unrests that marked the era. The
SPF has built in this sense of history ofservice and loyalty to Singapore in each andevery individual officer. As such, in May
1996, the Hong Kong based company,
Political and Economic Risk Consultancy(PERC) Limited, rated Singapore as thesafest country in Asia. PERC attributed
Singapore’s enviable position as “one of the
few cities in the world where it is possible
for foreigners and locals alike to walk justabout anywhere, at any time of the day ornight, with little fear of being mugged bygangsters”, to “a professional and well-paid
police force”. It attributed the politicalstability, high economic growth andaffluence of Singapore in no small part toa competent and impartial police force
which has the full confidence of the304

community it serves. In the light of thistrend, efforts to contain crimes have been
stepped up.
The Singapore police are making great
and tireless efforts to adapt to the changing
society. In addition to their duties toeradicate crime in Singapore, the police
also make people realize that they are coproducers of public safety. The days when
the police were viewed as oppressors or
persecutors are gone. Police-community
relationships have been enhanced throughcommunity policing. About one-third of thearrests of major crimes are made with theassistance of members of public.
A. Community Policing
The Neighbourhood Police Posts (NPPs)
in Singapore, set up in densely populated
housing estates since 1983, have served
round-the-clock as bases for activities ofpatrol policemen and as a contact point
between the police and the public. The aimof the NPP system is two-fold: to improvepolice-community relations in Singapore,and to prevent and suppress crime throughthe co-operation and support from thecommunity. These police officers at the
NPP are on constant alert to handle any
emergency, thereby living up to thedemands and expectations of local
residents.
The NPP system has been successful andwell received by the public since its
inception in 1983. However, under the NPP
system, the complainant or victim of crime
who comes to the police has to be referredfrom one party to another. He or shesometimes may have to repeat his or her
story to 4 different groups of officers, forinstance, the officers who first respond tothe case; the officers who guard the scene;
the officers who collate the evidence, andthe investigatorial officers who conduct theinvestigation. The system therefore hassome drawbacks in that the best use is not

111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
made of the NPP officers and the strengthof their local knowledge. The police havetherefore come up with the revamped
Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC)
system where the officers will be rotatedamong a wider and more challenging rangeof duties, with increased pro-activefunctions, so that the process is integrated
into a single service delivery process. Each
NPC will have about 100 to 150 police
officers and will be in charge of 3 to 4 NPPs.
Eventually, by June 200l, 32 NPCs will be
set up island-wide. Each NPC will be
responsible for about 10,000 residents.
With this change, the new NPC will
become a one-stop total policing centre,
carrying out the full range of front-line
policing duties and providing quality onestop service for the public. Among otherthings, officers from an NPC will man the
counters at the NPPs, conduct patrols,
respond to calls of distress, investigate
crime, and make house visits.
The NPC system will also optimize thevalue contributed by police officers andplaces a lot of emphasis on proactive
community policing. NPPOs will no longer
perform mundane tasks. Instead, they will
now be totally responsible for the safety
and security of the neighbourhoods thatthey are in charge of. The NPCO isrequired to conduct an on-scene
investigation for all cases he or she attends
to. This reduces the time spent by thecomplainant at the scene, thus minimizing
the trauma the complainant has to endure.
The NPCO is competent in his/her job
through comprehensive training, and manyof the NPC work processes are ITsupported to provide the NPCOs with upto-date information so as to enable themto carry out their tasks more efficiently.
Under the NPC system, the challenge is
to work hand-in-hand with the grass-roots
leaders and other voluntary agencies, tomobilize the community to take on greater
responsibility and leadership to ensure its
own safety and security. The formation on
27 April 1997 of Neighbourhood Watch
Zones (NWZs), a volunteer citizenorganization formed by local residents forpromoting crime prevention activities in
the neighbourhood, is a big step towards
this aim. It is intended that with the NWZs
and the new NPC system, the communitypolice bond will be further strengthened.
The police and the community, including
the NWZs, therefore have strived toprovide total solutions to root problems byworking closely in the joint planning andcreation of Community Focus Plans(CFPs). The CFPs outline the joint
initiatives, programmes and projects which
will re-focus the police efforts to address
specific safety and security needs of thecommunity, and to nurture a strong bond
between the police and the community.
Grassroots liaison meetings are now
characterised by open dialogue anddiscussion as opposed to the traditional
reporting of cases. One of the steps
involved in the creation of the CFPs is
profiling the community’s characteristics,
and this is where their extensive networkin the neighbourhood can be fully utilized.
Being leaders, the NWZs can mobilize
residents to take part in activities andprogrammes recommended in the CFP.
Singapore also has a Voluntary Special
Constabulary (VSC) with part-timevolunteer police officers who hold full-timejobs in other fields. The VSC officers often
carry out patrols independently or inpartnership with their counterparts in theregular and national service components.
They execute their duties with a high levelof professionalism, discipline andenthusiasm.
B. Juvenile Delinquencv
One of the challenges facing Singapore

305

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 55
is the rise in juvenile delinquency. The
police hold frequent talks to students inschools and to juvenile delinquents in the
courts regarding crime prevention, secretsociety activities, drug prevention andproblems of juvenile delinquency. In orderto help schools counter juvenile
delinquency, the latest innovative measuretaken by the SPF is the appointment of
selected secondary school teachers as
Honorary Volunteer Special Constabulary(VSC) officers. This is a system where someof the teachers in each school are given
enhanced authority in their managementof student behaviour, especially withregard to serious disciplinary cases. This
scheme was launched on 16 July 1997.
These “Hon VSCs”, trained by the police,
wear police uniforms and exercise certain
police powers, such as powers of arrest.
The teachers, who are also the Discipline
Masters/Mistresses or National Police
Cadet Corp instructors of their respective
schools, attend a 2-week course where they
are taught elementary law and defence
tactics, the way to fill out police reports,
call for backup (via PR sets), make arrestsand organise crime prevention talks. In
addition to being advisors and liaison
officers between the school and the police,
they are also advisors on all police mattersin the schools.
The Ministry of Education conducted asurvey on the scheme after 51/2 months
which showed some very positive results.
The presence of police authority had
deterred both recalcitrant and potential
offenders from committing crimes in andaround the school compound. The students
were aware of the presence of police
authority and tended to behave better.
They were also aware that any breach of
the law could result in immediate action
from the Hon VSCs. The Hon VSCs werecompetent in dealing with difficult cases,
parents and unsavoury strangers. They
also displayed more confidence in advising306

students, parents and teachers on policematters. This has resulted in Hon VSCs
commanding greater respect and thus
being able to perform their disciplinary role
more effectively. The Hon VSCs also
received better support from the NPPs suchas in increased patrols around the school
after school hours. It is expected that by
the year 2000, this scheme will be extended
with two Hon VSCs in each of the 147
Secondary schools and 11 institutes oftechnical education in Singapore.
C. Social Services
The Singapore police have been
providing the public with many kinds ofservices which are of benefit to thecommunity in making and keeping good
relationship between the public and thepolice. The “999” call is one of the mostimportant facilities of the police social
service. It is very useful for the detectionof crime, as well as for the quick preventionof crime. The police also give the public
the opportunity to see what the police aredoing by organizing public exhibitions on
crime prevention and distributing leaflets
which give local residents very useful
information on crime preventive measuresand the services provided by the NPP.
The police are also engaged in social
service work such as handling reports onlost and found articles, dealing withgrievances and troubles of the local
residents and running the Boys Club,
where activities (including sports) areconducted for the youth. The police also
disseminate information on crimes andseek the assistance of the public to solvethese crimes through the media of the local
newspapers as well as the production of a
local television programme, Crime Watch.
The police also provide such information
via the Internet at <http://
www.spinet.gov.sg.>
The SPF also places great emphasis on

111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
victims by providing necessary
psychological support and care. It
collaborates with voluntary welfareorganizations such as the Samaritans ofSingapore (SOS), Pertapis Home,
Marymount Centre, Singapore Council of
Women’s Organizations (SCWO) and the
Association of Women for Action andResearch (AWARE).
1. Foreigners
Foreigners joining the Singapore
workforce often arrive with little or no
crime prevention knowledge, creating
opportunities for crime to take place. For
example, some foreign nationals working
in Singapore are known to have left theirfront doors, grille gates and windows open
at times when most Singaporeans would
have had them locked. The NPP therefore
decided to make its foreign worker
community more aware of the need forsensible crime prevention measures, forthem to work peacefully in Singapore.
House visits were maintained to project
police presence, convey a sense of security
to the residents, deter potential criminals
and also to enhance crime prevention
awareness among locals and foreigners.
Crime prevention talks were organized forthe foreign workers and newsletters weredisplayed at both their factory premises
and on the notice boards of their apartment
blocks.
On the other hand, although the vast
majority of foreign workers in Singapore
try to make an honest living, there are also
those who seem to think that a life of crime
is more profitable. Illegal immigration also
continues to pose a threat to the security
and social stability of Singapore. Lured byhigher wages in Singapore, and affected by
the deteriorating economic conditions in
the region, many foreigners will continue
to enter Singapore illegally, or enter legallyand subsequently overstay.

Many of the illegal workers andoverstayers have also contributed to therise in foreigner crimes. An area of concern
highlighted by the police is where foreign
criminals, who targeted affluent
Singaporeans, would commit crimes andflee the island immediately after,
frustrating police attempts to capture
them. The police have also stepped up
operations against illegal immigrants.
Careful panning and swift action by thepolice have resulted in highly successful
rates of arrests. Those found without valid
identification papers are cuffed andbrought back to the station. Those unable
to prove lawful entry and stay in Singapore
are appropriately punished andrepatriated. Harbourers and employers ofillegal immigrants and overstayers, as wellas those who facilitate or encourage theseimmigrants to enter and unlawfully remainin Singapore, are swiftly dealt with andupon their conviction, deterrent sentences
are handed down to them.
Preventive measures such as frequentpatrols of our territorial waters to intercept
illegal entry into Singapore and spot
checks, gathering intelligence,
investigating and prosecuting offenders aresome of the ways these criminals could be
prevented from operating. Stronger
international ties and collaboration withneighbouring countries are also requiredin order to track down and arrest suchcross-border criminals and to solve crimes
committed by foreign nationals.
D. Case Management
The emphasis of the SPF has shiftedfrom individual investigation to teambased investigation and case management.
Police officers can thus look forward to amore supportive working environment,
besides benefiting from the cumulativeknowledge and experience of the team. A
new specialist CID unit, the Rape
Investigation Squad, was launched in

307

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 55
September 1997. As part of the Major
Crime Division of CID, the formation of theRape Investigation Squad has resulted in
all rape investigations being centralized at
CID. This move is aimed at providing
greater convenience and better service tothe public, by having better-trained officers
more sensitive to the trauma of rape
victims and a more conducive environment
to interview rape victims. Another new
specialist CID unit launched in January
1997 was the Computer Crime Branch,
officially under the Commercial Crime
Branch of the CID. It is responsible for
initiating computer crime and major
telecommunications fraud investigations.
Officers of the branch are also trained to
conduct computer forensic examinations,in order to retrieve evidence contained incomputers, to support the prosecution of
offenders in police investigations. To-date,
the Computer Crime Branch has handledcases of hacking, unauthorized access/modification of computer materials,
computer fraud and pager/handphonecloning.
E. Dedicated Service
The Singapore police force also has
dedicated police officers who are willing to
make personal sacrifices to solve crimes in
Singapore. A recent example is the case of
murder of a Bulgarian, Iordanka
Apostolova, whose bloated body was
discovered in a canal in Tanah Merah on
12 January 1998. With the full attentionof a group of CID officers to the case,catching little sleep during the period, they
managed to solve the case within just 36
hours of discovery of the body. The casewas brought to trial and the murderers
were sentenced to death on 14 August 1998.
The accused appealed but the appeal was
dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 11
January 1999, just a year from the day thevictim was killed. On 30 January 1999,
an abettor in the murder, the wife of one of
the accused who helped to cause the308

evidence of the murder to disappear invarious ways, was swiftly brought to justiceand sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.
The Singapore Police Force has provenits mettle by providing incident-free
security for international events such as
the WTO Conference in 1996. Regionally,
the SPF has taken the lead to enhanceinter-police co-operation among theASEAN countries. Internationally, the
SPF men in blue have taken part inoverseas United Nations peacekeeping
missions, such as policing the former
killing fields of Cambodia and ensuring fairelections at Namibia. The key factors fort h e S P F ’s s u c c e s s a r e e n h a n c i n ginvestigative and crime-solving ability,community policing and the developing ofa problem-solving approach; manpowerplanning and development; discipline,
professionalism and rigorous training tomaximize the full potential of the officers.
F. Technological Improvements
With the introduction of the NPC,
selected NPPs will be closed during certain
hours of the day where the demand forpolice services are low (eg. 11 pm to 8 am).
The public will however continue to receive
essential services and police assistancethrough the use of information technology
from a “Virtual Cop”. By leveraging ontechnology, the police have developed theEmergency Communication (EC) System
and Police Kiosks to ensure that no cry forhelp will go unheard. A console called theEC is situated in a conspicuous, brightly
lit spot outside each NPP which otherpassers-by can clearly see. A touch of abutton puts the complainant in touch with
an officer in an NPC. The console allows
two-way interaction so the officer canquickly advise you on what to do while thenearest patrol officers are informed of thecomplainant’s location and problem. The
officer at the other end is even able toactivate flashing emergency lights around111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
the complainant (for instance where thecomplainant is being pursued) as well as aloud alarm to draw the attention of passersby and to deter the pursuer from further
action. The EC is easy to use, and a simple
instruction panel in all four official
languages of Singapore ensures that the
instructions will be clear to most people.
The console is designed to be vandal proof,
and installed at a height to prevent misuseby young children. The NPC officer
deactivates the EC when the NPP is open.
To prevent the significant reduction of
the service level of the NPPs when they areclosed, the police have developed the Police
Kiosk. These kiosks have videoconferencing capabilities and are linked toa manned service point. If the physicalpresence of a police officer is required, an
officer from the patrol team will bedispatched to attend to the caller. Even
when the NPPs are closed, members of the
public will still have access to police
services via the video conferencing kiosks.
These police kiosks will provide facilities
such as enquiry services for members of the
public who wish to inquire on police-related
procedures and policies. With the touchscreen capability of the kiosks, the public
will be able to obtain directory services
such as legal services and counselling
services, locality maps to show the nearest
NPP and information on operating hours.
The kiosks will also provide advice andanswer queries on police procedures andmatters. The user will also be able to holdvideo conferences with the officer at the
NPC if s/he needs further clarification or
additional information that is not provided
by the kiosk.
Besides enquiry services, the kiosks also
provide reporting services. Members of the
public can lodge police reports on crime,
routine cases and traffic accidents without,the physical presence of a police officer. The
kiosks can provide computerized lodging ofpolice reports and automatically generatereport numbers. They can capture digital
signatures, fingerprints and photographs,
and store and retrieve all captured
information. Above all, the system allows
the user to hold a video conference with an
officer at the NPC if s/he chooses to report
the incident or cases, as in a “999” call.
The police have made successful use of
new technology in their sophisticatedComputerized Investigation Management
System (CRIMES) - an electronic IP systemgoing the way of a paperless work
environment. Following the success of thepilot implementaton, the system was
implemented Force-wide on 1 July 1997.
The SPF introduced the Case Property
System (CASPROS) which aims to replace
the manual system for tracking case
exhibits and found property, which is basedon register books. CASPROS would be set
up for the various divisional headquarters
and will provide an electronic database tomonitor case exhibits and found property,
in order for all divisional headquarters toshare this information, so that a better
service can be provided to members of the
public in locating their lost items.
The Automated Vehicle Screening
System (AVSS) and the Optical Character
Recognition (OCR) System were
implemented at Singapore’s Second linkwith West Malaysia. These two systems
greatly enhance the capability of the SPF
to detect vehicles wanted for HDB/URA
summonses, road traffic offences, and othercriminal cases.
In January 1998, the SPF commissioned
the first computerized ticketing system, theSingapore On-The-Spot-Ticketing System(SPOTS) for the Traffic Police, and thereby
displaced the manual issue of summonses.
This greatly minimizes the data entry
errors in the Traffic Computer System due

309

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 55
to illegible handwriting on the summonsforms and also increases the efficiency of
the Traffic Police Department.
The SPF Intranet launched in October
1997 provides an essential boost to theinternal communications efforts of thepolice. Not only does the Intranet provide
officers with up-to-date information andknowledge, it also serves as a depositoryof crucial information and best practices,making it an invaluable leaning tool.
G. Other Improvements
In 1998, SPF procured a fleet of new
generation riot control vehicles comprisingof two new command vehicles and seven
new riot buses for the Special Operations
Command. These new vehicles are
improved versions of the current vehicles.
Painted an aggressive red, and with theirwindows protected with wire mesh, thesevehicles arriving at a riot scene
automatically will instil awe in even themost unruly mobs, and establish a
psychological edge and impress on riotersthat the police mean business. In the eventof an emergency, the command vehicle
serves as the forward command post andhighly trained officers can quickly plan riot
control strategies using the staff-aid
provided in the vehicle, which includes
detailed sector maps of Singapore. The
turret on top of the command vehicle
permits trained sharpshooters to station
themselves at an advantageous elevatedposition to neutralize any foreseeable
threats. The turret gives a better view of
the riot scene, which enhances tacticaldecision making. The turret also carries
the public address system which enables
the police troop to warn troublemakers todisperse before action is taken to dispersethem.
The Police Coast Guard of the SPF has
also been relentless in its efforts toconstantly upgrade and modernize its fleet

310

of patrol vessels to meet new challenges
and to respond to the changing
circumstances. It has acquired a fleet of
18 high speed patrol boats and 2 command
boats at a total cost of $58 million toapprehend and deter sea robbers, illegal
immigrants and smugglers. These patrol
vessels are propelled by water jets which
are well-known for their propulsion power
and low noise and less prone to damage bysubmerged objects as compared toconventional propellers. Apart from theirhigh speed capabilities, these boats alsocome equipped with the latest technology
such as the Integrated Command, Control
and Surveillance (C2S) System and the
Navigational, Communication andcomputerized Engine Monitoring Control
System. These new boats, which replace
the PX class boats that were commissioned
in the early 1980s, will enhance the Police
Coast Guard’s ability to fight crime in
Singapore waters, as well as help greatly
in search and rescue operations.
Fast Response Cars (FRCs) ensure thatthe police arrive on the scene of a crime
quickly in urgent cases, but like all cars,
their arrival can be delayed if they arecaught in heavy traffic. The SPF has comeup with an effective solution to that
contingency - Fast Response Motorcycles(FRMs) that can weave through traffic, andin emergencies, even hop onto pavements
or take short cuts through alleys and anyother available routes. On 1 December
1997, this programme was launched andit was found that the response time was
faster compared to the FRCs. The FRMs
are intended for urgent cases only anddeployed during peak periods and at
certain patrol sectors where traffic flow isheavy. They will conduct patrols andattend to urgent messages in pairs. FRM
officers patrol with standard equipment
including bullet-proof vests, breathanalyzers, fire extinguishers and first aid
boxes. They are not bogged down by bulky

111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
equipment such as road block signs andshields.

the pitfalls of and the avoidance ofcorruption.

III. CORRUPT PRACTICESINVESTIGATION BUREAU

IV. CENTRAL NARCOTICSBUREAU

It is also apt to mention here the Corrupt
Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB),
which is an independent body whichinvestigates and aims to prevent corruption
in the public and private sectors in
Singapore. Established in 1952, it derives
its powers of investigation from thePrevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241).
The bureau is headed by a director who isdirectly responsible to the Prime Minister.

In 1971, the Central Narcotics Bureau(CNB) was formed as a result of increasing
drug abuse among youths. The Misuse ofDrugs Act (1973) provides executive power
to detain a drug consumer for compulsory
treatment and rehabilitation. In 1975, an
amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act
provides the death penalty for traffickingof more than 15 grams of pure morphine.
It was, however, with the mounting ofOperation Ferret, on 1 April 1977, in which
concerted efforts were directed against
drug trafficking and consuming by the
CNB, police and customs that successagainst the drug menace was clearly seen.
Punishment meted out for drug offences
are severe in Singapore.

The CPIB is responsible for safeguarding
the integrity of the public service andencouraging corruption-free transactionsin the private sector. It is also charged withthe responsibility of checking on
malpractices by public officers andreporting such cases to the appropriate
govemment departments and public bodies
for disciplinary action. Although theprimary function of the Bureau is toinvestigate corruption under thePrevention of Corruption Act, it isempowered to investigate any otherseizable offence under any written law
which is disclosed in the course of acorruption investigation.
Besides bringing corruption offenders tobook, the Bureau carries out corruption
prevention by reviewing the work methods
and procedures of corruption - prone
departments and public bodies to identify
administrative weaknesses in the existing
systems which could facilitate corruption
and malpractice, and recommends
remedial and preventative measure to theheads of the departments concerned. Alsoin this regard, officers of the bureau
regularly conduct lectures and seminars to
educate public officers, especially those
who come into contact with the public, on

The Singapore police are empowered toinvestigate into all kinds of criminal
offences, and when they complete theirinvestigation, they are required to refer theoffences to public prosecutors who enjoy theexclusive right to prosecute offenders. On
12 April 1997, the Attorney General ofSingapore, Mr Chan Sek Keong, during the
opening of the newly renovated office of the
Senior DPP Courts, paid tribute to police
officers whose good investigative work had
led to successful prosecution. The efficiency
and effectiveness of the police in criminal
trials are reflected specifically in thenumber of convictions obtained from guilty
pleas or trials, and generally in theprevailing low crime rate.
V. ROLE OF THE PROSECUTOR
The control and direction of mostcriminal prosecutions and proceedings in
Singapore rests with the Attorney-General
as the Public Prosecutor (Section 336 of theSingapore Criminal Procedure Code). His

311

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 55
power, exercisable at his discretion, “toinstitute, conduct or discontinue roceedings
for any offence”, has been given
constitutional status by Article 35(8) of theSingapore Constitution. The Attorney
General is independent in this role, and not
subject to the control of the government.
He is assisted by Deputy Public
Prosecutors (DPPs) who conduct
prosecutions in Subordinate and High
Court trials, and Magistrate’s and Criminal
Appeals, as well as appear in the Coroner’s
Court and at Preliminary Inquiries. The
Crime Division delegates certain matters,such as criminal trials in the Magistrate
Courts, to the Police Prosecution Branch(PPB). Although not administratively partof the Crime Division, the PPB isfunctionally linked to the Crime Division.
The DPPs work includes prosecuting
criminal matters in the courts, directing
law enforcement agencies in theirinvestigations, evaluating and giving
directions on their investigation papers
from the police and other enforcement
agencies, replying to representations fromaccused persons, giving advice on criminal
justice matters to other departments andagencies, and processing applications forprivate prosecution.
In addition, the Commercial Affairs
Department (CAD) was established in 1984
under the Ministry of Finance (Revenue
Division) to combat complex commercial
fraud and white collar crimes in Singapore.
DPPs in CAD carry out the role of the
public prosecutor in respect of mattersdealt with by CAD. The work of the CAD
includes investigating and prosecutingcommercial offences under the Securities
Industry Act, the Companies Act,
particularly in relation to financial
institutions and providing advice on interagency projects, making applications forthe production, confiscation and restraint
orders under the Drug Trafficking

312(Confiscation of Benefits) Act, and otheroffences disclosed in the course ofinvestigation.
The role of the public prosecutor in crime
prevention and control must therefore beviewed within the context of this criminal
justice system, to be as follows:
A . The discretion to Prosecute or
Not
The Constitution of the Republic ofSingapore vests in the Attorney-Generalthe “powers, exercisable at his discretion,
to institute, conduct or discontinue any
proceedings for any offence’’ [Article 35(8)].
Section 336(1) of the Criminal Procedure
Code (Cap 68) states that “the AttorneyGeneral shall be the public prosecutor andshall have the control and direction of allprosecutions and proceedings under thisCode.”
B. Advising the Police
The police and other law enforcement
agencies responsible for investigating
crimes refer their cases whenevernecessary and practicable to the publicprosecutor and DPPs for their instruction
as whether to charge and, if so, underwhich provision of the law the charge
should be made. The police are also advisedon matters concerning their investigation,
to ensure that procedures set by the law
are properly followed. Where the needarises, suitable instructions and guidelines
are also issued by the DPPs to the police inregard to particular types of offences.
C.

Bail Applications
The objective of bail is to secure theaccused person’s attendance at court
proceedings, and at the same time, to set
them at liberty before the trial or appeal.
It is often a difficult question whether bailshould be allowed. The prosecution takes
a stand in each case where the accused
person applies to the court for bail, whether

111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
before trial or pending appeal, opposing
such applications or agreeing to them(subject to a suitable quantum of bail being
offered), according to the facts of theparticular case and to the legal provisions
and principles that govern bail.
D. Trials
Prosecution in court is a crucial stage ofbringing an offender to justice, for it is at
the trial that the evidence relevant to thealleged offence is presented and tested, thatthe charge must be proved and, if proved,
the sentence pronounced. Singapore
adheres to the principle that every person
is presumed innocent until proven guilty,
and the onus is on the prosecution to provethe charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
The public prosecutor and the DPP
conduct all criminal prosecutions before theHigh Court. The DPPs also conduct anumber of criminal prosecutions before theSubordinate Courts, which includes
prosecutions for offences under the Penal
Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act(Cap 241) and various commercial andfinancial crimes. A majority of Subordinate
C o u r t p r o s e c u t i o n s , h o w e v e r, a r e
undertaken by the police and government
departments. The DPP’s role here is to
direct and advise these prosecutors.
E. Sentencing
Before sentence is passed on a particularoffender, the defence mitigates on theirbehalf. The prosecution, in suitable cases,
also addresses the court on sentence. Thisoccurs when, in the prosecution’s opinion,
a deterrent sentence is necessary; often
such a deterrence is required because of
the prevalence and increasing rate of thetype of crime for which the offender has
been found guilty.
In deciding on the charge to be preferred,
the DPPs also plays a role in regard tosentencing because a more serious charge

generally results in a more severe sentence,
and a reduced charge in a lesser one. In
the case of an offender facing multiple
charges, the DPPs may also decide toproceed on only one count or a number ofcounts, applying to the court either to take
into consideration, for the purposes ofsentencing the remainder of the charges
or to withdraw them. In cases where theaccused person pleads guilty, the gravityof the offence (as reflected in thep r o s e c u t i o n ’s s t a t e m e n t o f f a c t s )constitutes a factor in the sentencing
process.
F. Appeals
The prosecution process does not always
end with the conclusion of a trial, for an
appeal to a higher court may be lodged
against the decision of the trial court. In
Singapore, the prosecution has the rightto appeal against an order of acquittal, justas the defence has the right to appeal
against a conviction. Both sides may also
appeal against the sentence imposed.
Appeals from decisions of theSubordinate Courts, or “Magistrate’s
Appeals”, are heard by the High Court
exercising its appellate jurisdiction. Under
Section 60(1) of the Supreme Court of
Judicature Act (Cap 322), where in thecourse of such an appeal any question oflaw of public interest arises, any party may
apply to the court for the question to bereserved for the decision of the Court of
Criminal Appeal. Where the publicprosecutor so applies, such an application
shall be granted. Appeals from decisionsof the High Court exercising its original
jurisdiction in criminal cases are heard in
the Court of Crimninal Appeal.
All appeals filed by the prosecution in
the High Court or the Court of Criminal
Appeal are argued by the DPPs. They also
appear to respond to appeals lodged by the
defence. To succeed in an appeal against

313

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 55
acquittal, the DPP bears the onerous
burden of persuading the appeal court that,on the basis of the evidence presented at
the trial and on principles of law, an orderof conviction should be substituted. Wheres/he appeals against the sentence, theDPPs must establish that the sentence wasmanifestly inadequate and should beenhanced.
G. lnitiatives
To keep apace with the fast-changing
world and the speedy progress of work
processes in the SPF and in the courts, theCrime Division of the Attorney-General’sChambers has also set up a number ofSpecialized Committees to respond to theneed for specialization in various aspectsof their work. Officers in these specialist
teams do in-depth research into, and serveas core personnel, in their respective areasof law. These committees also organize
visits, seminars and training sessions.
Among these are the CyberCrime
Committee, which comprises of officers
conversant with IT and serves as the inhouse specialist team on Computer andInternet Crimes; the Extradition/Mutual
Assistance Committee, which deals withinternational co-operation over crime
related matters; and a Special Task Forceon Immigration to deal with the increasing
number of illegal immigrants.
ACES or “Advisor for Case Sentencing”
was developed in 1996 with assistance fromthe Information Technology Institute. Thissystem was introduced to assist DPPs inmaking submissions on sentences and to
determine if appeals should be lodged
where the sentences are inappropriate.
The Formalized Accelerated System for
Trial-or “FAST” - was also introduced. This
scheme works by identifying cases which
can be dealt with expeditiously at theearliest possible stage, placing them on the“FAST” track. Co-operation between thepolice and DPPs in the subordinate courts

314

ensures that cases on the “FAST” track arepromptly resolved. This saves time andensures more efficient case management.
A special Mentor Scheme was also
introduced to ensure closer monitoring of
junior officers, upkeeping the continuity
and accountability for decisions taken, andto foster better rapport between junior andsenior officers. All officers at Grade 16 orwith 2 years or less legal service experience
are now paired with a senior officer who
will be responsible for ensuring theirproper training, and will guide andsupervise their work.
Likewise, the CAD has also used IT toenhance efficiency. The CAD has devised
an on-line procedural manual or Aide
Memoire. A database of relevant case law
and legal resource materials was also
created. Further, a computerized Case
Tracking System was introduced tofacilitate tracking of cases assigned to
DPPs. This enabled efficient monitoringof the progress of the cases. The CAD also
formed a committee to deal with mattersrelating to the security, storage andretrieval of critical operational informationin its Department. In July 1997, the CAD
had started an in-house, bi-monthly
publication which contain write-ups on
legal issues, investigative procedures andreports on social welfare issues.
The public prosector and the DPPs
occupy an essential position in the criminal
justice system and actively participate inevery stage of the criminal prosecution
process. Their vital role within the system
serves the overall aim of controlling andreducing crime in society, and promoting
respect for the criminal law.
VI. ROLE OF THE COURTS
The judiciary is one of the three pillarsof the State. It administers the law

111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
independently of the executive. The
judiciary is a vital part of Singapore’s legal
and judicial system. In order to meet theneeds of the changing demographic, social,political, economic and technologicaltrends, the judiciary has engaged in future
strategic planning for the 21st century.
In the administration of justice, thecourts have focused on instituting a set oftimeless values which include accessibility,
expedition and timeliness; equality,
fairness and integrity; independence andaccountability; and public trust andconfidence. These values serve as beacons
for the administration of justice inSingapore. In line with their core values,
the judiciary recognises the importance ofobtaining feedback from the public toprovide relevant performance benchmarks
for the courts’ strategic planning and policy
development initiatives.
Recent surveys conducted by variousorganizations, such as the Singapore-based
Forbes Research Pty Ltd (Forbes), theHong Kong-based Political and Economic
Risk Consultancy (PERC), and the
Switzerland-based International Institutefor Management Development (IMD), haveall confirmed a high level of confidence in
the Singapore judiciary by both local andinternational communities. The Singapore
judiciary has scored top marks for the fairadministration of justice and is perceived
to contribute significantly to the public’ss e n s e o f s e c u r i t y, a n d t o t h ecompetitiveness of the economy.
The main finding of a recent survey
conducted by Forbes Research during May
to July 1998, covering 1,519 households,
showed that the Singapore public has fullconfidence in the fair administration ofjustice in Singapore. An impressive 97%of survey respondents agreed strongly thatthe courts administer justice fairly to all.
The courts have also fared well in the public

perception of crime levels and theeffectiveness of sentencing. A high 99% of
respondents felt safe living in Singapore
and affirmed that the judiciary has
contributed much to their sense of security;
while 93% felt that sentences meted by the
courts are effective as a deterrent topotential offenders. The survey alsoaffirmed that the Singapore judiciarymeets the public’s expectations of theeffective administration of justice.
PERC is an international consulting
firm specializing in strategic businessinformation and analysis for companies
doing business in East and South East
Asia. In the August 1998 issue of its
fortnightly newsletter, “Asian intelligence”,
PERC published the findings of its recent
survey of over 400 senior businessexecutives on the perceived quality of key
institutions in certain countries. Singapore
was rated as having the best national
institutions in Asia. In the ranking of the
judiciary and the police, Singapore topped
again with a score of 2.87, improving from3.07 in 1997. PERC also commented that
“The Singapore courts are also effcient in
dispatching both civil and criminal cases,
using a legal system modeled on the British
system of justice.”
The core of Singapore’s criminal justicesystem is its judicial system. The
administration of justice is vested in:(i) The Supreme Court is a superior courtof record, It consists of the the High
Court; the Court of Appeal; and the
Court of Criminal Appeal. The
Honourable Chief Justice, the Judgesof Appeals, the Judges of the High
Court and the Judicial Commissioners,
dispense and superintend theadministration of justice in Singapore.
The Supreme Court is supported by theSupreme Court Registry headed by theRegistrar who, assisted by the Deputy,315

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 55
Senior Assistant and Assistant
Registrars, engages in the day to day
running of the Registry and perform
judicial functions such as hearings ofinterlocutory applications as well as
administrative functions. The Justices’
Law Clerk, who works directly under
the charge of the Chief Justice, assists
the judges and judicial commissioners
by carrying out research on the law,particularly for appeals before the
Court of Appeal.
In criminal cases, the High Court
generally tries cases where the offences
are punishable with death or
imprisonment for a term which exceeds
10 years. It also hears appeals fromthe Subordinate Courts Registrars,
Magistrates and District Judges, aswell as the Registrars of the Supreme
Court. Proceedings in the High Court
are normally heard and disposed of bya single judge. The Court of Appeal is
the final appellate court in Singapore
and the highest court in the land. The
Court of Appeal consists of the Chief
Justice and the Judges of Appeal. The
Court of Appeal hears appeals fromdecisions of High Court in both civil andcriminal matters.
(ii) The subordinate courts consist ofDistrict Courts, Magistrates Courts,
the Juvenile Court, the Coroner ’s
Court, the Family Court and the Small
Claims Tribunal. There are presently
27 criminal trial courts (including theTraffic Court) in the subordinate courts,
apart from two Criminal Mentions
Courts, one Centralized Sentencing
Court and a Court handling
Magistrates Complaints. The
subordinate courts are headed by the
Senior District Judge, and he isassisted by District Judges,
Magistrates, Coroners, Small Claims
Tribunals Referees, Registrars and

316

Deputy Registrars in the disposal ofcivil and criminal cases within thejurisdiction of the subordinate courts.
In 1998, 53 District Judges and 14
Magistrates served in the subordinate
courts. Some of the judicial officers
concurrently hold appointments as
Deputy Registrars, dealing with civil
and criminal matters in chambers;
Coroners and Referees of Small Claims
Tribunals.
The subordinate courts introduced
and formalized its four justice models in
its 1997/1998 workplan, namely:
1. Criminal justice - protecting the
public2. Juvenile justice - restorative
justice
3. Civil justice - effective and fairdispute resolution
4. Family justice - protecting family
obligations
These justice models serve as
reference points in the formulation of
judicial policies.
Criminal cases make up about 70% of
the cases that are dealt with in thesubordinate courts. These include cases
commenced by the public prosecutor, cases
prosecuted by the various government
agencies, and private prosecutions.
(a) In criminal cases, the District Court
has jurisdiction to hear most offences
other than those which are punishable
with life imprisonment or death. In
general, it may impose a term of
imprisonment not exceeding 7 years, afine of up to $10,000, caning of up to 12
strokes (for male offenders) or any
lawful combination of thesepunishments. It may also impose
probation. In cases of recalcitrant
offenders, it may also impose

111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
reformative or corrective training.
(b) As compared with the District Court, aMagistrate’s Court can try offences ofa less serious nature where themaximum jail sentence does not exceed
3 years, or where only a fine can be
imposed. In general, it may impose
imprisonment for a term not exceedig
2 years, a fine not exceeding $2,000,
caning of up to 6 strokes (for maleoffenders) or any lawful combination ofthese punishments. It may also impose
probation.
(c) There are currently two Criminal
Mentions Courts, which respectively
exercise the jurisdiction of a District
Court and of a Magistrate’s Court. The
Criminal Mentions Courts are involvedin the initial management of criminalcases and ensure the smooth runningof the criminal justice system. Whenaccused persons are first charged, theircases are mentioned in one of the
Criminal Mentions Courts. The
Criminal Mentions Courts deal with awide variety of applications including
applications for bail, remand andadjournments.
(d) If an accused person decides to plead
guilty, their case will be dealt withimmediately in the Criminal Mentions
Courts. More serious cases will be sent
to the Sentencing Courts. However, if
the accused person claims trial, theMentions Court will either fix a date
for trial or for pre-trial conference. A
video-conferencing facility for bailmatters and remand of prisoners has
been set up between the Mentions
Court and the remand prison.
(e) The Traffic Court manages the conductof traffic cases, except in cases where
death has been caused by a road traffic
accident. One significant technologicalinnovation is the use of an AutomatedTraffic Offence Management System(ATOMS), which was launched on 1
November 1996 to enhance theefficiency and accessibility of thesubordinate courts. This system allows
first time offenders in many minor
traffic offences to settle traffic tickets
containing an offer of a composition fine
at automated kiosks which are locatedthroughout Singapore. In cases where
the period for payment of thecomposition fine has expired, offenders
may now plead guilty to the offence atan ATOMS kiosk, instead of having toappear in court. ATOMS is unique inthat it is the first automated payment
system in the world which allows thepayment of court fines. It is unlike
other similar systems in the UnitedStates, such as the one in the Long
Beach Municipal Court which only
handles payment of composition fines
imposed by non-court agencies. The
launch of ATOMS is the actualizationof the subordinate courts’ vision of avirtual courthouse. Since its launch,
the service has been well received andutilized by members of the public.
(f) The Coroner’s Court is presided overby the State Coroner. The Coroner’s
main duty is to ascertain the cause andcircumstances under which a deceased
person came to their death, in cases
where there is reason to suspect that aperson died in a sudden or an unaturalmanner, or by violence or where thecause of death is not known. The
Coroner will also determine whether
any person was criminally involved in
the deceased person’s death.
(g) The criminal courts are supported by aCrime Registry which manages all
criminal processes in the subordinate
courts and monitors the progress ofcases until final disposition (including

317

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 55
appeals). The Crime Registry also
provides information on the status andprogress of cases, crime trends andstatistics.
(h) Mediation has been introduced in
private prosecutions, instituted by wayof Magistrates Complaints. These
cases relate mainly to neighbourhoodand relational disputes, where parties
are known to each other. Such cases
include simple assaults and threats,
nuisance and causing mischief. Manycases have been successfully concluded
through mediation.
(i) The Juvenile Court was created withthe passing of the Children and Young
Persons Ordinance in 1949. This court
deals with all types of criminal offencesby young offenders under the age of 16,
and focuses not only on punishment,
but also on the correction, counselling
and rehabilitation of the juvenile
offender. The Juvenile Court deals
with three categories of cases, namely:- juvenile offenders;- children and young persons
beyond parental control;- children and young persons inneed of protection.
The Juvenile Court’s approach is basedon a restorative model of justice. In dealing
with juveniles, the Court works closely withthe offender, their parents, peers, teachersand principals, and the various care giving
agencies. The paramount concern of theJuvenile Court is that of rehabilitation andreformation. Essentially, this means it has
to consider how best to use its powers andavailable programmes to rehabilitate orsocially reintegrate the juvenile
constructively back into society. In
choosing the appropriate “instruments ofreform’’, the Juvenile Court has to be
mindful of the individual strengths andlimitations of the offender who appear

318

before it. To this end, the Juvenile Court
has introduced innovative measures which
involve the active participation of thecommunity in the justice process, such as
Family Conferencing, Family Care
Conferencing and Bootcamp Training.
A. Family Conferencing
Family conferencing has its
underpinnings in the phenomenon of“shame” and “re-integrative shaming”. The
conference brings together the offender andtheir family, and the victim and theirfamily, the offender ’s schoolteacher or
employer, the prosecution, the probation
officer and any other significant person.
The judge is assisted by a facilitator, who,
through skilled interview techniques,facilitate the session in a manner to havethe offender realize the impact of theiroffending behaviour on those near and dearto them. The facilitator explores reasonsfor the negative behaviour and for theparent’s lack of control. The facilitator will
also formulate concrete steps, through the
input of participants, which the offender
can take to make good their offending act
to those affected by it. After the conference,
the offender and their parents appear incourt for the judge to make an order on thecase. The most common order following afamily conference is a probation order for
12 to 36 months with or without residency.
A family conference is convened forselected offenders who have supportive andconcerned parents. Furthermore, theseoffenders must not be hard coredelinquents and must be remorseful. Since
its implementation in June 1998, a total of
130 family conferences have been
conducted. Only 6 out of the 130 (5%)
offenders who underwent family
conferencing have re-offended. This showsthat the programme also helps to minimize
the likelihood of juvenile re-offending. The
Juvenile Court of Singapore has beenreferred to as the only jurisdiction in the

111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
common law world that makes reintegration of the child offender an integral
part of the juvenile justice system.
B. Family Care Conferencing
The family care conference is also
another integral component of the Juvenile
Court programmes. Its philosophy issimilar to that of the family conference,
except that it is targeted at juveniles whoare beyond parental control. These may
include instances where parents haveexhausted all means of disciplining them,like seeking professional help from a social
service agency, liaising with school
authorities, etc. The aims of the family care
conference include the need:
-

-

-

-

To strengthen family units andempower parents and thecommunity to regain control of thejuvenile;
To encourage the juvenile to takeresponsibility for the delinquent
behaviour:
To reduce the placement of such ajuvenile in institutions
accommodating offenders;
To reduce the likelihood of thejuvenile committing an offence.

C. Youth Family Care Programme
The Juvenile Court, in liaison with
TOUCH Community Services, runs the
youth family care programme where
volunteer families are matched with
dysfunctional young persons placed on
probation or statutory supervision. Thesefamilies act as positive role models for thejuvenile and their families. A volunteer
family will meet the assigned young person
to befriend and encourage them for as longas the probation of statutory supervisionorder subsists, or until the court otherwiseorders. The programme is targeted at
helping juvenile offenders and children
beyond parental control, but who are
remorseful and do not have ingraineddelinquent traits.
D. Community Service Orders
A Community Service Order (“CSO”) isan order of the court compelling theoffender to perform unpaid work for a
specified number of hours. This is
implemented as a term of the probation
order. Through such an order, the offenderis given an opportunity to make amends
for the offending behaviour by performing
services for the community or its lessfortunate members. Over and above
depriving the offender of leisure time, theCSO also aims to develop a sense of
empathy and respect in the offender
towards people and property, as well as
broaden their perspective of the world
around them.
A survey was conducted in August 1998
to obtain feedback on the CSO placement.
On the whole, the probationers found the
CSO placement a worthwhile andenriching experience, while all the parents
expressed the view that the CSO scheme
was beneficial for their child. The CSO has
also been effective as a rehabilitative
measure, as the responses showed that the
CSO experience had helped theprobationers to develop empathy andconsideration for others, while gaining
meaningful social experiences. Most
probationers felt that their CSO placement
had a positive impact on their relationshipwith their families and have helped them
personally in the development of theirpersonality and character, and that they
have acquired new skills/knowledge/traits.
All the agencies were also satisfied withthe performance of the probationers. The
CSO scheme as a condition of probation has
been effective and has provided theprobationer with a different perspective on
life. They did not encounter any major
problems when assigning work to them.
The Community Service Unit (CSU) was

319

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 55
set up on 7 December 1996 to implement
the CSO scheme in close consultation withthe subordinate courts, participating
agencies on the CSO scheme, andinvestigating probation officers. The
Juvenile Court imposed its first CSO on
17 December 1996. The first CSO for an
adult probationer was imposed by asubordinate court on 22 June 1997.
E. Peer Advisors Programme
In this programme, students fromselected secondary schools are given achance to sit in court proceedings, as well
as take part in discussions with a Juvenile
Court judge in chambers before judgement
is passed. The aims of the programme are
to give the Juvenile Court a contemporary
peer group perspective of the offending
criminal act. The peer advisors’
participation, together with the teachers,
will also benefit them through a better
understanding of the justice process andthe consequences of involvement incriminal activities.
F. Teen Development ProgrammeThis is a 16 week “After School Care”
programme which the court can
incorporate into a community-based option
for certain offenders. It aims at nonhardcore offenders who have been
experiencing problems at home and at
school. It targets youths residing in thewestern part of Singapore. This is a nonresidential programme aimed at providing
an alternative to institutional care for teenswith delinquent traits at home and at
school, and who may have committed
offences. The programme aims to provide
an environment that is safe, structured andconducive for the development of positiveand socially acceptable attitudes andbehaviours like perseverance, self-control,
respect, trust and honesty. It also serves
as a platform to counsel the juvenile andhis/her family.

320

G. Boot Camp
The subordinate courts conducted theirfirst “boot camp’’ in 1996. Unlike the bootcamps in other jurisdictions (that are court
sentences), this boot camp was deliberately
conducted as a pre-sentence evaluation
process. Apart from the strict physicalregime of the boot camp, counsellingsessions are held for the juveniles and theirparents. Programmes at the boot camp aredesigned to bring about behaviour changes
under a controlled environment, so that thesupervised behavioural changes willremain with the participants once they arereferred back to society.
An integral aspect of this programme is
the intensive post-camp follow-up
component designed to address theoffending behaviour of the participants andto prevent them from committing offencesin the future. This aftercare component
also aims to develop self-esteem,
responsibility, discipline and good work
ethics in participants, and to increase theiracademic and job related skills throughpersonalized supervision by counsellors.
H. Streetwise Programme
The Streetwise Programme commenced
in 1997. This is a government funded
project and is a developmental programme
aimed at changing the behaviour of youths
who have unwittingly drifted into gangs.
It is an intensive 6 month structured
programme which incorporates elements ofcounselling, family conferencing, peer
support, recreation and academic
activities. The programme aims to help
these youths “turn around” and gain a fresh
start in life.
I.

Pre-complaint Counselling: Early
Intervention
The Juvenile Court recognizes that thefamily unit has the primary responsibilityof disciplining the child. At the same time,
the Children and Young Persons Act allows

111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
parents to seek the Court’s intervention
where their children are beyond theircontrol. In fulfilling its restorative role ofpromoting parental responsibility, theJuvenile Court has successfully utilized
community resources to intervene infamilies with children who are beyond
parental control, as an intermediate step
before the matter is brought into thejuvenile justice system. This is to avoid
the situation of having parents lodging
complaints against their children in
moments of desperation without firstseeking the help of the extended family or
the resources within the community. This
also seeks to ameliorate the undesirable
impact on the “pre-delinquent” child, as thelatter will likely be remanded in the Boys/
Girls Home, pending the social report, after
the complaint is laid by their parents. This
is to ensure that parents have exhausted
all available avenues to help their children
before they are brought into the juvenile
justice system as a last resort.
Pre-complaint counselling is an
initiative devised by the Juvenile Court asa diversionary measure to keep borderline‘beyond parental control cases’ away fromthe court system. Essentially, the Court
utilizes community intervention at the precomplaint stage. The Court will referborderline BPC cases to the Family Service
Centres when the complaint is laid by theirparents. The Family Service Centres will
do a preliminary assessment of the case todecide if they can work with the family tohelp them with the child. In the meantime,
the case will be adjourned. If the Family
Service Centre is able to work with thefamily, the case will be closed in theJuvenile Court when the family returns on
the adjourned date. If the Family Service
Centre is unable to help the family, thematter proceeds on in the juvenile justicesystem.

J. Peer Mediation
On 14 April 1997, the Juvenile Court
introduced the Peer Mediation programme
in selected secondary schools, as part of its
preventive and restorative measures. Peer
mediation encourages the use of nonadversarial conflict resolution as aneffective alternative to violence and otherforms of anti-social behaviour, peer
mediation aims to undercut disciplinary
problems in schools before they start, by
imputing practical skills to manage andresolve conflict before it escalates into abehaviour which requires intervention by
the schools, police or the courts. In the peer
mediation programme, the students receive
special training to enable them to act as
third party mediators between two or moreof their peers in the same school who are
involved in petty quarrels and want to see
it resolved constructively. The results of
the inaugural peer mediation scheme havebeen very encouraging.
K. Typology of Youth Rioters
Besides a number of preventive
measures undertaken by various
government and voluntary organizations
to deal with this problelm, the courts havealso been getting tough with rioting cases.
To gain further insight into the profile ofjuvenile delinquents, the Research andStatistics Unit conducted a study in 1998
on the profile of youth rioters. The mean
age of a young rioter was 16.9 years.
Studies show that in Singapore’s case, thelack of positive parental guidance, senseof alienalion, powerlessness and low selfesteem because of a lack of traditional
support structures such as the family andschool, and built up feelings of frustration
and anger, and a desire to obtain support
outside the traditional institutions, lack ofcommon ground between the offenders andtheir parents, and negative peer influence,seem to be the risk factors for the youths’
violent, delinquent behaviour. While
spending time with negative peers, the321

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 55
youth picks up bad habits like smoking,alcohol consumption and drugs. Casestudies show that the family structure andsocio-economic status of the family havelittle impact on the youths’ moral values
and delinquent behaviour. The study
revealed that in general, the sentences
meted out by the courts were mainly
rehabilitative in nature. In most cases,
youth rioters were remorseful of theiroffending acts. Tougher sentences had been
meted out to hard core offenders. To-date,the breach rate of these youth riotersremains low.

summonses issued by the various
government departments such as the
Housing and Development Board, theUrban Redevelopment Authority, Central
Provident Fund Board, the Registry ofCompanies and Businesses, and the Inland
Revenue Authority of Singapore. The other(Court 23N) deals with road traffic offences
brought by the Traffic Police and regulatory
offences brought by the Land Transport
Authority.

The Juvenile Court, with its restorative
justice philosophy, has made deep inroadsin the management of juvenile offenders.
It has been, and will continue to be, thecatalyst in the development andimplementation of innovative juvenile
justice measures. It seeks to forge effective
links with community resources to address
juvenile crime and delinquent behaviour
both in the present and as we move into
the next millenium.

Section 137(2) of the CPC also provides
that in any case relating to an offence
punishable by fine only or by imprisonment
not exceeding three months, and in which
the presence of the accused has beenrequired by a summons issued by aMagistrate, such an accused desiring toplead guilty to the offence and be sentenced
in their absence may, by letter addressedto the court, plead guilty and submit to pay
any fine which may be imposed in respectof such offences. Public awareness of thisprovision would result in less caseloads andunnecessary attendance.

One of the objectives of the subordinate
courts is the enhancement of access tojustice for the public through improved
court services. A large majority of the casesthat come before the subordinate courts arefor offences like littering in public, offences
against environmental public health andminor traffic violations. For mostSingaporeans, it is in the subordinate
courts that they come into direct contact
with the various processes of the law. For
example, Night Courts were established in
April 1992 to deal with the huge volume of
regulatory and traffic offences. These
courts function for the convenience of theworking public who would otherwise haveto take time off from work in order to attend
court. These courts function from 6 pm toabout 9 pm, Mondays to Fridays. There
are two Night Courts, each with its own
profile of cases. One (Court 13N) deals with

A Multi-door Courthouse (MDC), thefirst such courthouse in the
Commonwealth and Asia-Pacific region,
was established on 2 May 1998. The MDC
is a one-stop service centre for thescreening and channelling of cases. Thus,
it seeks to increase public awareness ofdispute resolution processes, offer and coordinate a selection of high quality dispute
resolution programmes, and assist parties
in selecting the most suitable dispute
resolution process. The MDC pairs a
dispute within the jurisdiction of thesubordinate courts, with an appropriate
solution forum. It renders information to
enable members of the public to makeinformed decisions in respect of theirjustice needs in the area of civil, criminal,
family and juvenile law, etc. It aims to bea centralized intake and diagnostic centre
to screen cases to the most appropriate type322

111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
of dispute resolution process. It serves toenhance a paradigm shift from thetraditional adversarial adjudication of
disputes to management of disputes
through the use of alternative dispute
resolution mechanisms.
The MDC launched the Vulnerable
Witness Support Programme in August
1998. This programme provides support
to vulnerable witnesses who have to testify
in public prosecution of criminal cases.
“Vulnerable Witness” refers to victims ofcrimes, such victims of rape or molestation
or family violence cases, or witnesses under
the age of 16 or those having intellectual
capacity below the age of 16 years.
Amendments have also been made to theSingapore Criminal Procedure Code (Cap68) for the evidence of vulnerable
witnesses, in certain types of offences, tobe heard through video or television links.
With the assistance of the Singapore
Children’s Society, a support group is being
put into place. In each instance, a support
person will help the vulnerable witness
walk-through the court environment before
the trial, to allow him/her to understandcourt procedures so as to alleviate thestress levels of such witnesses. This will
cut down the anxieties of the vulnerable
witness. Volunteers will not discuss any
matter of the case with the witness or his/her parents or guardians. Referrals under
the programme are from two sources,
namely, the Attorney-General’s Chambers
and/or the police. Referrals to the MDC
are also made by the counsellors in the
Family Court of victims in family violence
cases.
As part of the sentencing process, Victim
Impact Statements for sexual offences havenow become a feature of the criminal justiceprocess in the courts. A victim impact
statement is a statement made by thevictim of a crime detailing how the crime
has affected the victim physically,

emotionally and financially. This has
effectively introduced into our criminal
jurisprudence a balance between the rightsof the accused and the victim. The
statements are used judiciously, and as
part of the mitigation process. The first
victim impact statement was presented incourt on 30 June 1997.
In order to assist the community inaccessing justice easily, the subordinate
courts, in collaboration with the Ministryof Law, the National Council of Social
Service, People’s Association and Singapore
Police Force, launched the “Strengthening
Community Links Project”. The primaryobjective of the project is to institutionalize
and operationalize various communitybased programmes and initiatives in orderto strengthen community links. This isdone via the integration of the respective
primary roles of the various participating
agencies, and through the provision of aco-ordinated service package to membersof the public to enhance their welfare,security and community bonds.
L. Problems Relating to Court Congestion
and Trial Delays
Aside from improving court services, aprime objective of the courts has been to
maintain a responsive justice system, as
measured by the timely and effective
disposition of cases. In his speech at theSingapore Legal Opening 1999, theHonourable the Chief Justice said “In 1998
alone, the subordinate courts dealt with,in round numbers, a total of 364,000 casesand other matters. Compared to the 1997
caseload, there is an increase by 28.1%...
Strict case disposition and judgement
timelines continued to be maintained for
all cases. The subordinate courts have nobacklog.” His Honour also added that “Thesubordinate courts went further in 1998 tooffer, what they called a “Hotwash”; anopportunity to members of the Bar, thepublic prosecutor and the other prosecuting

323

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 55
and enforcement agencies to have theircivil or criminal cases heard before the endof the year and expedited earlier than theprescribed timelines. This invitation was
initiated along with other pro-active
measures as part of the subordinate courts’desire and commitment to keep ahead of
the flow of cases and work, and tocommence 1999 afresh and on top of things.
It was also an attempt by the courts to meetthe special needs of the parties.”
Court congestion, trial delays, protracted
hearings and rigid trial procedures areailments which afflict most judicial
systems. The resulting impression is thatthe machinery of justice is mismanaged
and inefficiently run. Singapore is mindfulof such pitfalls and solutions are constantly
sought and reforms introduced to
streamline the court administration toensure continued fair and speedy trials.
In the years 1992 to 1993, the courts
focused on the problems of clearing thebacklog of cases awaiting hearing dates andon improving the waiting periods for the
disposal of cases. In 1993 and the years
following, the focus shifted from problem
solving to overhauling the organizational
structure and work systems of the courts
to guide judicial officers in theadministration of justice and the finetuning of the justice system. In March
1997, the Chief Justice of Singapore in his
Keynote Address during the Introductionof the Subordinate Courts Sixth Workplan
for 1997 and 1998 said : “... our vision
should be for the subordinate courts tobecome world-class; among the best in theworld. This vision will further strengthen
public confidence in the justice system. On
a broader front, it will enhance Singapore’s
reputation for the rule of law.”
The courts have a duty to the State andall persons involved in legal proceedings
to facilitate the timely and expeditious

324

disposition of cases. Justice delayed isjustice denied. As such, the stand taken
has been that the pace of litigation and casedisposition must be set by the courts.
Reforms have been instituted in thesubordinate courts on the premise thatjudges have a major role to play in thetimely and expeditious disposition of thecases before the courts.
Unlike in the past, where judges were
expected to play a non-interventionist role,case management is now a legitimate
judicial function. The challenge facing all
courts is to dispose of their cases efficiently
and expeditiously, without affecting thequality of justice. This is of primary
importance in the area of criminal casemanagement, where there is a constanttension between the aim of preventing an
unnecessary waste of time in the hearing
and determination of criminal cases andthe need to keep intact the basic rights ofan accused person which ensure that s/heis given a fair trial.
In April 1993, a group management ofcases (“GMC”) system for criminal cases
was introduced in the subordinate courts.
Under this system, trial courts are divided
into four groups and a senior judge isappointed group manager for a number ofjudges, with the task of managing a court
calendar for their group, to expeditiously
dispose the criminal cases allotted to thatgroup. The disposal of the assigned
number of cases within specified time
periods is the responsibility of the groupmanager and the judges in that group. At
the time of its inception, its first aim wasto clear the backlog of cases which had
accumulated. Since then, the GMC scheme
has proven to be a success in clearing thebacklog of cases and making it a thing of
the past. The disposition rate attained by
the GMC groups has been consistently
high.

111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
The introduction of Pre-trial
Conferences (PTCs) in 1993 coincided with
the implementation of the GMC scheme
and marked a paradigm shift in thephilosophy of the courts towards casemanagement. The courts now play anactive role in the management of cases, byascertaining the status of the case anddefining and clarifying the contentious
issues of the trial. At PTCs, parties are
urged to disclose the nature and extent of
their case, their lists of witnesses andphysical evidence. Where parties can agree
on facts which are not in dispute, the court
will direct for the preparation of statementsof agreed facts, so that the trial will focus
only on contentious issues. Parties areencouraged to tender conditioned
statements (these are statements prepared
under conditions that will enable thestatements to be admitted during the trial,to the same extent as oral evidence). This
cuts down on the time for hearing and saves
witnesses the inconvenience of attending
court, when their evidence will not be
disputed by the other party. Issues andareas of dispute are identified andreasonably accurate assessments, inrespect of the time required for the trial,
can then be made.
In May 1997, a Differentiated CaseManagement (DCM) Scheme has been
instituted for two categories of criminalcases in the subordinate courts, to ensure
effective, efficient and expeditious
management and disposal of such cases.
The first is for cases initiated by the CPIB,
and the second relates to immigration cases
involving foreign witnesses. A special court
has been set up to manage each of thesecategories of cases. After these cases are
mentioned in the Criminal Mentions Court(Court 26), where the accused claims trial
in such cases, they are fixed for a PTC in
their respective special court within one to
two weeks from the date of first mention
in Court 26. Where the accused elects toplead guilty, these cases would betransferred immediately to the Centralized
Sentencing Court (Court 24) for sentencing.
In both civil and criminal matters, astrict “no adjournment” policy is adopted.
Applications for the adjournment or
vacation of hearing dates are scrutinizedcarefully, and these applications would be
refused unless there are good grounds.
Strict control is exercised for even those
applications for adjournments made on
medical grounds. With effect from 15
February 1997, only medical certificates,
which state certain prescribed details suchas the diagnosis, full name and designationof the medical practitioner, and a statementthat the patient is to be excused from court
attendance and not merely from workattendance, are accepted. Lawyers andlitigants are now aware that they will haveto be prepared for the trial to proceed at
the assigned hearing dates. In addition,
efforts are taken to ensure that part-heard
cases are kept to a minimum. The Court’s
policy is that cases should be heard anddisposed of within the hearing periods
allotted for the trial. Judges are also
vigilant in ensuring that there is no misuseof the legal process through unnecessary
and prolonged questioning by counsel,
resulting in protracted trials.
Besides ensuring that waiting periods
for trial dates are favourable, the pace ofcase disposition is monitored by the courts
from the time a case is commenced in court.
In criminal cases, the progress anddisposition of a case is monitored from thetime the accused is first charged in court
through the mechanism of pre-trial
conferences leading up to the trial. As ofJanuary 1999, the following waiting
periods for trials were maintained:325

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 55
Criminal Trial Cases
District Arrest Cases
Magistrate’s Arrest Cases
Police and Private Summonses
Traffic Cases:
GeneralDrink and Drive
Coroner’s Cases:
GeneralSpecialCrime Registry
Magistrate’s Complaints
Juvenile Court
Juvenile Arrest Cases (Hearing)
Juvenile Arrest Cases(Sentence Report)
Family Conferencing
Family Care Conferencing

M. Harnessing of Technology
In his keynote address at the Technology
Renaissance Courts Conference on 24
September 1996, the Honourable Chief
Justice of Singapore, Mr Yong Pung How,
said:“As the technology revolution unfolds,
there will be implications for the judicial
system. Judges will have to deal withcountless new ways to acquire, receive andprocess data, contend with old informationthat is being expanded by the new, andadjust to changing expectations. And associety changes, so will conflict. The
judiciary must take the lead in assessing
technological and scientific advancements
to ensure that the law can address the legal
issues of tomorrow. The judiciary must be
the first to understand advancements inbiotechnology, molecular biology, robotics,
and artificial intelligence and assess the
new legal issues which these changes willbring. The rapid rate of innovation and326

2 to 4 weeks from last Pre-trial
Conference (PTC)
1 to 4 weeks from last mention of PTC
1 to 4 weeks from last mention
1 week from last PTC
2 weeks from last PTC
8 weeks from date of death
4 to 6 weeks from date of death

2 weeks from filing of Notice

2 weeks from last mention
4 to 6 weeks from order of sentence
report2 weeks from submission of sentence
report2 weeks from submission of social
reportdiffusion of technology will also mean thatjudges and court administrators will haveto conduct on-going technology
assessments of the vast opportunities
offered by technology to the administrationof justice. For example, the subordinate
courts are already using video conferencing
technology to conduct remote bail hearings
from prisons. And through a video link,
vulnerable witnesses are able to give
evidence away from the courtroom, thereby
avoiding direct confrontation with theaccused person....”The Chief Justice also said at that
conference: “Whatever changes the future
brings, we must always remember thatjustice must be assisted, not dominated, by
technology. Technology alone does not
improve the system. It is people, assisted
by technology, who make the justice system
work. We must be careful not to blindly

111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
substitute technology or become slaves oftechnology. Neither should technology be
used to avoid human contact for what is
technically feasible, may not always bedesirable. Efficiency, as an objective,
should never replace thoughtfulconsideration. Instead, improvements
generated by technology should
complement tested and proven methods ofadministering justice. Justice should never
be on the “cutting-edge” of technology, fordignity and due process are too importantto jeopardise through potential systems
failure or malfunction.”
In its efforts to enhance the efficiency ofthe courts and to improve standards ofservice to the public, the subordinate courts
have attempted to harness the rapid
advances of cutting-edge technology. The
courts have made extensive use oftechnological advances to improve court
services for lawyers and court users, andto enhance the efficiency of the courts.
Technology will enable the subordinate
courts to offer new and more convenientservices to the public. Court services could
progressively be made available without
the public having to physically come tocourt. Over time, with information
technology it would be possible for theoperation of “virtual” courts, which would
allow businesses and individuals totransact court matters from their offices
and homes. The subordinate courts havecertainly come a long way since the days
when it struggled to put a computer on thedesktop of every officer.
The courts have adapted suchtechnological advances for use in the justicesystem to further enhance the court’s
productivity, and these have had a major
impact on the justice process and work
systems. For instance, the ATOMS
launched by the subordinate courts in
November 1996, allows the payment offines for minor traffic offences through themore than 100 automated teller machines
located at convenient public locations. Thisdispenses with the need for defendants toappear personally in court to answer the
charges against them.
In the Criminal Mention Courts (inCourt 26), we have utilized video-link
technologies to connect the courtroom to
the remand prisons, so that applications
for bail can be made through a Bail VideoLink without the need for the prisoner tobe brought physically to the courtroom. A
Witness Video-Link (in Court 16) enables
vulnerable witnesses, such as childwitnesses or victims of sexual offences, togive their evidence without being
physically present in the courtroom to face
the accused. Similarly, video conferencing
has also been introduced to hear family
violence cases (in Court 46). These cases
can be heard with the witness testifying
through video-link instead of in the
courtroom. By testifying through videoconferencing, the trauma of the family
violence victims can be reduced.
Technological innovations have also beenused to improve the work systems within
the courts to assist the judicial officers. In
addition to being able to carry out legal
research from their personal computers, a
judicial officers’ database was launched inearly 1998. Judicial officers are now able
to access through their personal computersbench manuals and other papers in the
courts database. This has enhanced thedissemination and sharing of resource
materials among judicial officers.
The Technology Court was launched in
1995 in the Supreme Court. Various
technologies to facilitate the presentationof evidence and other information havebeen installed. Within this Court, there
are video conferencing facilities, anintegrated audio-visual system together
with a litigation support system. Evidence

327

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 55
is recorded digitally as computer files. This
enables transcription to be done much
faster than previously with audio tapes.
Almost all judges and judicial
commissioners have presided over hearingsin the Technology Court and it has been inconsiderable demand. Likewise, a criminal
trial court in the subordinate courts has
been converted into a Technology Court.
The subordinate courts also has 10 Digital
Recording Courts and a Technology
Chamber. In lengthy trials, the judges may
use the digital recording machines to record
the evidence of witnesses. All these courts
are linked up by a computer network which
in turn are linked to the subordinate courts
network with security protection.
In August 1998, the Chief Justice and
the Judges of Appeal spearheaded thetransition into the age of the paperlesscourt with the introduction of the electronic
hearing of all Magistrates’ Appeals andAppeals to the Court of Appeal in both civil
and criminal matters. This year, it isplanned for electronic hearing to beextended to trials in both civil and criminal
matters also. The conduct of appeals in
the electronic environment has been foundto be much faster and more efficient thanin a non-electronic environment, as
documents referred to in the appeal
hearings could be retrieved and projected
over the monitor screens instantaneously
and effortlessly for all present in the
courtroom.
The subordinate courts are currently
working on the Singapore Case Recording
Information Management System(SCRIMS), a fully computerized file
tracking and information management
system for criminal cases. The system willhouse databases containing all vital
information concerning criminal cases
dealt with in the subordinate courts. Alsoin the pipeline is the Integrated Criminal
Justice Information Management System

328(ICJS) which essentially involves thesetting up of an integrated networking
between the subordinate courts andagencies such as the Attorney-General’sChambers, Prisons Department and the
Police Criminal Records Office. The
network will enable these organizations toshare information and common operationaldata.
The Supreme Court Internet website isa t < h t t p : / / w w w. g o v. s g / j u d i c i a r y /supremect.>. All significant speeches of the
Honourable Chief Justice delivered since
31 July 1996 are now posted there. The
subordinate courts launched its Internet
website located at <http://gov.sg/judiciary/
subct.> on 1 March 1997 which accords
with the subordinate courts’ strategic plan
to maximize the use of information
technology to enhance its services to the
public. A highlight of the website using“photobubble” technology, is a virtual “walkthrough the courts”. This segment takes
the viewer on a visual 360 degrees walkthrough of the subordinate courts.
N. Family Violence
The amendments to the Women’sCharter took effect from 1 May 1997.
Pursuant to the amendments, applications
for Personal Protection Orders (PPO) at the
Family Court can be made not only for
spousal or domestic violence involving
children, but also by family members suchas parents, siblings and other family
members as deemed fit by the court. The
amendment has therefore resulted in achange in the profile of persons seeking
protection from family violence at the
Family Court. The scope of family violence
was expanded to include causing hurt
knowingly, restraining a family member
against their will, placing a person in fearof hurt and continual harassment.
Further, “family violence” now includes
non-physical acts of violence that amount111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
to abuse of the complainant. The powersof the Family Court have also been
increased such that parties can be ordered
to attend counselling. Breach of a PPO is
also a criminal offence. These changes give
greater protection to all members of thefamily.
The time taken for the issuance of a PPO
is of utmost importance to a victim of family
violence. Once an application for a PPO is
received by the Court, the Court will takecognizance of the complaint. In cases
where there is imminent danger of family
violence being committed against theapplicant, the Court will issue an expedited
protection order immediately after thelodgement of the complaint. In otherwords, the victim will have the benefit of aprotection order on the very day when an
application for protection is made. Such a
protection order is effective from the dateof service and is valid for 28 days or until
the hearing or mention date.
With regard to the application for a PPO,
the application is fixed for mention within
one week. Where parties wish to instructcounsel, the case may be fixed for further
mention. PPOs may be granted on themention date in suitable cases. Where atrial is necessary to ascertain the veracityof a complaint, the trial will be fixed within
one to two weeks. In the interim,
counselling sessions may be fixed insuitable cases. Unlike an expedited
protection order, there is no fixed duration
for a PPO which is granted on the mention
date or after trial. The PPO remains valid
until the order is rescinded or set aside.
Since 1 November 1997, the Family
Court has set up the Family Protection
Unit, which is a dedicated and specialized
unit to handle applications for protection
orders. Professional court counsellors areattached to the Unit. They conduct intake
interviews of victims of family violence,carry out risk evaluation (including
assessment of the severity of the acts ofviolence), and offer support and advice tovictims on safety measures. Victims offamily violence who require long-term
emotional support will be referred towelfare agencies or crisis shelters in thecommunity for counselling support, shelterand other assistance. They may also referparties requiring legal advice to the Family
Court Legal Clinic, which is manned byvolunteer lawyers who offer legal advice at
no charge. Since December 1998, the Uniteven houses a medical clinic operated byvolunteer doctors working on roster fromthe Association of Women Doctors(Singapore) to provide free medical
examination to applicants for PPOs. This
service enables applicants to procure
medical evidence for the hearing when
applying for PPOs. Previously, suchapplicants were referred to designatedhospitals for expeditious medical
examination, after which, the medical
examination form would be forwarded to
the Court before the next hearing.
With the setting up of the FamilyProtection Unit, the Family Court also
processes applications for PPOs within ashorter timeframe. In cases where thereis imminent danger of family violence beingcommitted against the applicant, the Court
will issue an expedited order upon
application. The expedited order is servedon the same day or by the next working
day. All applications for PPOs are also fixed
for mention in the Court within one week.
In other words, parties are brought before
the Court expeditiously so that theapplication can be dealt with at the earliest
opportunity. Thereafter, the Court willclosely monitor the progress of a case toensure that the necessary orders are madequickly. All these add up to a system
whereby protection is afforded to a victim
without undue delay.

329

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 55
VII. PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
The Singapore court system iscontinually evolving to meet the needs ofsociety. To ensure that the Supreme Court
is well prepared for the challenges ahead,departmental workplans have been set out
annually since 1992 and presented to all
staff at the Supreme Court andSubordinate Courts Workplan Seminars,
respectively. The departmental work plansset out our specific work targets, strategies
for achieving these goals, and theindicators or checklist of tasks that we will
use to benchmark our performance in thework year. The Seminar serves as acompass in our continuing journey towards
higher levels of excellence and to guide us
with greater precision and accuracy. As theworkplans are conceptualized annually,
they enable the courts to reset and map
out immediate goals and targets against
the courts’ long term strategic direction andpolicies. These workplans are not justmandatory, but fundamental to our goal ofbeing a world-class judiciary. In fact, in
his speech at the Opening of the Legal Year
1999, the Chief Justice of Singapore
remarked that “the subordinate courts
have realised their vision of becomingworld class.”values and principles for the discharge of
judicial duties. This Justice Statement
serves as a constant reminder to judicial
officers of their duties, and a written
commitment by the courts of their duties
to the public.
“Vision without action is merely adream. Action without vision just passes
the time. Vision with action can change
the world”, Joel Arthur Baker. Mere target
setting is not enough to inspire true passion
and commitment. It is big goals andchallenges, and a common purpose, thatbrings on excitement and the sense offulfillment which makes life worthwhile.
The core values determine the means ofreaching the destination and are the soulthat guide and align our actions. They are
the compass by which we navigate throughchallenges and rapid changes, and advancetowards our ultimate goal. With the corevalues as our faithful commandments, thecourts will be serving the public good withconscience. Faithful adherence to theseprinciples is therefore necessary for the
courts to become Dignus Honore, or worthyof honour, of the public trust which thenation and community have bestowed upon
the institution and its officers.

VIII. THE JUSTICE STATEMENT

IX. CODE OF ETHICS FOR
JUDICIAL OFFICERS

The vision of the Sixth Workplan
Seminar of the Subordinate Courts 1997/
1998, held on 1 March 1997, was to become
world-class in the 21st Century. Moreemphasis was placed on enhancing
Singapore’s reputation for the rule of law
and strengthening public confidence in thejustice system. To provide a framework ofvalues for the judges of the subordinate
courts bench, it is necessary that timelesscore values are established to guide thejudiciary in the administration of justice.
At the Seminar, the Justice Statement of
the Subordinate Courts was also unveiled.
It sets out the mission, objectives, core

Another management challenge is theinculcation of judicial ethics in judicial
officers. It is crucial to any justice systemthat the judicial officers are committed tohonour the spirit and letter of their judicial
oath. A Code of Ethics for Judicial Officers
has been prepared and will provide
guidance and a framework for regulating
the conduct of judicial officers, and will alsoenhance the public accountability of the
judiciary. The areas covered range frompersonal propriety to judicial duties, as well
as extra-judicial activities. The provisions
in the Code reflect the values of judicial

330

111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
oaths of office and allegiance. The Codedoes not seek to govern but to guide judicial
officers, and as such, it does not impingeon independence in judicial decision
making.
A. The Strategic Framework
To ensure that the subordinate courts
remain focused on achieving their missionof administering justice faithfully in the
evolving environment of the next
millenium, the courts established astrategic framework. In his Keynote
Address at the Introduction of the Seventh
Workplan Seminar of the Subordinate
Courts 1998/1999, the Honourable Chief
Justice, Mr Yong Pung How, set out theelements of such a framework to be as
follows:(a) T h e p u b l i c p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e
Singapore justice system must be oneof confidence in and respect forSingapore courts and the rule of law.
(b) The justice system must maintainhuman dignity, uphold the rule of law,and enhance access to justice;(c) All persons will have ready access tojustice in the subordinate courts,
which will provide a range of effective
and expeditious means of dispute
resolution, without undue cost,inconvenience or delay;(d) The subordinate courts will ensure
independent, fair and equal
application of the judicial process andadminister justice in accordance withthe law;(e) The subordinate courts will beadministered in accordance withsound court governance principles
which foster the efficient use of publicresources and enhance performance;(f) Technology will be strategically
employed to increase access,convenience and ease of use of court
services, and to assist the courts inenhancing the quality of justice;(g) The impact of socio-economic andlegal forces will be closely monitored
in order that the subordinate courts
can effectively lead and managechange amidst a rapidly changing
national and global environment;(h) The subordinate courts will beadequately staffed by the best judges
and court personnel, who will besupported by continuing educationand performance evaluations.
This framework, together with the
Subordinate Courts Justice Statement,
provides a reference or benchmark against
which future activities should be assessed.
B. The Courts CharterOn 15 February 1997, the judiciarylaunched a charter for court users (“TheCourts Charter”) in an effort to further
increase public understanding of our court
system and to enhance its accessibility.
Copies of the Charter are distributed freeto the public at the various service
counters. There is overwhelming demandfor copies of it. The Charter is alsoavailable on the Supreme Court’s website.
The Charter sets out the mission of thecourts as professionalism and excellence inthe expeditious and efficient dispensing ofjustice in accordance with the law. It alsolays out our values to be accessibility,
expedition, equality, fairness and integrity,
independence and accountability, andpublic trust and confidence. The Charter
describes the range of services and the
response or processing time for these
services. It will serve as a usefulperformance indicator of the effectivenessand efficiency of the judicial system. As
the Chief Justice of Singapore, Mr Yong
Pung How, said at the Opening of the Legal
Year 1997, “For without public trust andconfidence in the justice system, the ruleof law will not have any practical meaning.”
The Courts Charter was also includedin the Creativity 27, by the US-based “The331

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 55
Creativity Annual”, a publication which
records outstanding international creative
works. The Charter was chosen among 77
entries from the United States andcountries around the world.
X. THE JUSTICE POLICY GROUPThe Singapore judiciary recognizes thatas one of the institutions in the justicesystem, it must remain relevant to thesociety which it operates within. The
courts must be prepared to deal with thechallenges resulting from changes in theconditions and environment within which
it operates. The anticipation of futurechallenges, and the measures to be taken,
are important components in the long-term
strategic planning and direction of thecourts, and the formulation of judicial
policies. The courts have taken a pro-active
approach in this respect. Future planningfor the century ahead has commenced anda Justice Policy Group (JPG), serving as athink-tank, has been formed. The JPG willadvise on and assist in the formation of
judicial policies. It is also concerned withthe charting of strategic directions for thesubordinate courts. The JPG’s chief role is
to facilitate research and development invarious disciplines. It also sources
pertinent ideas from eminent foreign
experts in this respect. The results of thisresearch will then form a credible basis
from which informed policy decisions
emanate.
XI. ANNUAL REPORTS
The Supreme Court and the subordinate
courts jointly issue a report annually. The
annual reports set out all the developments
and achivements for the past year, together
with the milestones for future activities.
The annual reports not only enhance theefforts of the courts towards public
accountability and commitment, but also
shape and mould the perception of ourconstituents and the public.

332

XII. THE CENTRE FOR JUDICIALEDUCATION AND LEARNING(CJEL)The Centre for Judicial Education andLearning (CJEL) was established in mid1996. Programmes and lectures during theyear focused on enhancing bench skills,
professional knowledge, case management,
ethics and good practice, and social context
education. Some of these courses were also
extended to court administrators.
The criminal justice system embodies
and secures the rule of law and protects
the public. The openness of our economy
cannot prevent us from insulating against
regional crime trends. The range of crimes
is becoming increasingly broad andcomplex. The subordinate courts continue
to anticipate the changing trends of crime.
Sentences and sentencing philosophy arereviewed. Effective deterrent and severe
punishments are imposed on offenders who
commit crimes of particular concern to the
public, as well as dangerous and chronic
offenders.
The courts will adopt appropriate
measures to further enhance and extend
the quality and scope of their services tothe public. More attention and resources
will also be focused on public awarenessprogrammes to reach out to the public. The
level of public awareness of the
programmes implemented by theSingapore courts is relatively high. The
main sources of information for suchprogrammes were gathered through themedia of newspapers and the television.
The feedback obtained will also be relevant
for setting performance benchmarks for the
judiciary.
XIII. CONCLUSION
In the face of news of countries where
drugs, crime and violence seem commonplace, Singapore has been able through the

111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
efforts of the police, the prosecutors andthe courts, managed to keep its crime rates
down for nine successive years. As the
Chinese saying goes, “To develop a businessis difficult, to keep the business going iseven more difficult.” Success management
is therefore a challenge for our community.
The police, the prosecutors and the courts
can constantly survey their service quality
and public perception of and confidence intheir organizations. The officers in theseorganizations should uphold their corevalues, mission, goals, objectives and key
priorities. Management in theseorganizations should be effectively engaged
in strategic planning and, at the same time,
work with their subordinates to discoverways to provide quality service to the
public. If an organization’s structure fails
to serve its purpose, it needs to be changed.
The future depends on initiative. It
depends on people taking action, reflecting
on the consequences, and finding ways of
doing it better next time. Learning fastenough to survive is becoming an essential
requirement for success. This requires thepolice, prosecutors and the courts to be ina position to change its services andprocesses to reflect what is learned.
Creating the future, which once lay in thehands of others, has become theresponsibility of all. Therefore, thepotential of all officers, be it the police,prosecutors or judges, should be developed
and utilized, so that instead of being
passive observers of events unfolding
before them, they may be active
participants in exploring and finding betterways in the future, so that the country andits people can really benefit from theirenergies and capabilities.
The most important task is to anticipate
crisis. To wait until crisis hits is alreadyabdication. Management in the police andpublic prosecutor’s offices, as well as in the
courts, are engaged in strategic planning

to anticipate and plan ahead for any crisis.
In this respect, the subordinate courts placestrategic goals and milestones into theirannual workplans. As the Honourable
Chief Justice, Mr Yong Pung How, said at
the Asia - Pacific Courts Conference inAugust 1997: “As leaders, there are threeerrors which I think we must avoid at all
cost. They are the failure to learn fromthe past, the failure to adapt to the present,
and the failure to anticipate the future.”With fast changing techology, the natureof crime, especially in the commercial
world, will become complex andsophisticated. We must be alert to harness
such advances in technologies to help us
in achieving better performance to benefit
our society. By constantly applying andtesting such advances in our work
environment, we can explore the greatest
value of technological advancement.
Officers will therefore need to have theknowledge to deal with high-tech crime as
the new century unfolds. Moreover, thenature of crime usually involves the police,prosecutors and the courts, it may benecessary to harness the knowledge ofthese strategic partners with the aid ofmodern technology.
Combating crime is not only the
responsibility of the police, but the publicprosecutor and the courts as well. Crime
will continue to occur and evolve in moresophisticated and complex ways. Criminal
minds manoeuvre within the loopholes ofthe law and policies, using their expertiseand positions. The competency of thepolice, the prosecutors and the judges isvital to handle sophisticated crimes.
Training is fundamental to gain theexpertise and resources to be in a position
to battle complex and especially, whitecollar and computer crimes.
As Singapore becomes an even moreglobal, cosmopolitan city in the 21st333

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 55
century, drawing talents from around theworld, the social composition and structureof the country will inevitably change. To
add fuel to the engine of our economic
growth, Singapore has to compete to attract
foreign talents to its shores. The public
will therefore no longer remain
homogeneously local.
Foreign
professionals and workers alike will bringwith them their different expectations andculture. In turn, Singaporeans might
follow this new benchmark. To meet thechallenges ahead, the Singapore police,prosecutors and the courts should betrained to better relate to and communicate
with the public.
International ties with police forces allover the world are essential as crime goesinternational; a result of the growing
affluence and information age.
International ties could be in the form ofinter-forces games, liaison meetings,
training work attachments, joint
operations and criminal arrests. As a resultof such close ties, more exchange ofintelligence, networking of liaison officersof direct contact and shared databasesystems can be made possible. In the sameway, closer ties with other departments of
the home team can also be established.
The widespread unemployment andrising prices in South East Asia will havea ripple effect on the crime situation in
Singapore, with the threat of illegal
immigrants entering Singapore andcommitting crimes. Being a mere citystate, Singapore’s margin for error isextremely small and therefore there is aconstant need to improve and upgrade
services for its people, who are its mostimportant asset, in whatever they do andto continue to enhance their capability tomeet the challenges that lie ahead. The
ability of its people to change quickly isessential.

334

The Singapore Prime Minister, Mr Goh
Chok Tons, has said that “We, cannot afforda mindset that instinctively shuts off
challenges to the existing status quo. We
must always be willing to look at issues
afresh. From time to time, when aparticular strategy or policy has served its
usefulness, we must dare to break the
mould and start anew. ”
I n t o d a y ’s f a s t c h a n g i n g w o r l d ,yesterday’s successfull practices may nolonger be effective today. Our organizations
must not be complacent about their past
successes and start to rest on its laurels.
As the saying goes, “Success is a journey,
and not a destination.” The path is neverending; human competitive nature tobetter yesterday’s achievements and toreign supreme in the rat-race provides
strong impetus to continually raise thestandards of performance, and to reach forthat pot of gold at the further end of therainbow. Besides valuing the past, theleadership must keep challenging existing
assumptions and existing ways of thinking
and acting.
Scenario planning, which is not trying
to predict the future but perceiving thefuture in the present for each organization,i.e., on what to do if a certain event takes
place, may be useful to better prepare forthe future. To operate in an uncertain
world, we need to question the assumptions
about the way the world works, so as tohave a clear view of the world and how theworld may impact on the police force. The
end result for scenario planning is not topresent an accurate picture of tomorrow,
but to provide better decisions about the
future and how worldwide events affect us.
The challenges ahead for the police, theprosecution and the courts as they moveinto the 21st century, with their impressive
and successful track records so far, perhaps
resonates with the broader challenge for111TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
our government on how the three arms ofjustice can continue to attract the best andoptimize the development of our officers as
a vibrant organization. The future seems
to be pointing towards the trend of global
learning. Therefore, a much wider
perspective than the past is required andemphasis on organizational learning andservice excellence will propel us to greater
heights of success and achievement.
Organizational learning is where theorganization continually enhances its
capabilities, and through innovative
thinking on different ideas and approaches,
discover how to create results it truly
desires for its future. In reality, learningand training are the two sides of the samecoin. The purpose of training is to help
someone to learn, and to learn how to learn.
Learning is said to have taken place whena person acquires new skills, knowledge
and behaviour. Gandhi once said “we must
become the change we want to see. ”••

The Singapore Judiciary Annual
Reports 1997 & 1998.
The Singapore Police Force Annual
Report 1997/1998.

Therefore, as we prepare for the dawnof the new millenium, the three arms ofcriminal justice should be spurred by theirachievements and milestones to continue
their hard work and effort in the journey
towards an even brighter and better
tomorrow.
Sources••••Keynote Address of the Chief Justiceat the Introduction of the Subordinate
Courts Workplan for the years 1997/
1998 and 1998/1999.
The Chief Justice’s Speech at theOpening of the Legal Year 1997, 1998
and 1999.
Keynote Address of the Chief Justiceat the 1997 and 1998 AIJA/APIC
Conference.
Keynote Address of the Chief Justiceat the Technology Renaissance Courts
Conference on 24 September 1996.

335