2nd JOINT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE MALAYSIA, BRUNEI AND SINGAPORE
SINGAPORE 3 March 2012
OPENING ADDRESS BY CHIEF JUSTICE CHAN SEK KEONG, SINGAPORE
Chief Justice Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria, Chief Justice Dato Seri Paduka Hj Kifrawi bin Dato Paduka Hj Kifli, Judges of the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal of Malaysia, Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the High Courts of Malaysia:
1. On behalf of the Singapore Judiciary, I welcome all of you to the 2nd
Joint Judicial Conference. I also wish to thank Chief Justice Dato Seri Paduka
Hj Kifrawi for committing the Bruneian Judiciary to be a member of this conference and hope to see more of them at future conferences. Chief Justice
Hj Kifrawi’s presence today has led to a 50% growth in the number of participating countries. If he brings in one more Bruneian Judge, he would increase his Judiciary’s participation by 100%.
2. Last year’s Inaugural Conference was a resounding success, as Tun
Zaki acknowledged in his remarks in connection with the Singapore Academy of Law Annual Lecture. Of course, all inaugural meetings and conferences tend to be hugely successful, but slowly over the years, enthusiasm wanes.
So now and again we need a transfusion of new blood to sustain the
Conference and ensure its long term success. 2
3. This year, the Singapore Judiciary, as the host, has selected two topical subjects for discussion. The first is judicial review and the second is the court’s role in the arbitral process. Both promise to generate some lively discussion among the participants, in particular the first, as I shall explain now, but without anticipating what the Singapore Judge writing the paper and leading the discussion has to say.
4. Judicial review, as we all claim, is the cornerstone of the Rule of Law, as without judicial review the law would be what the executive says it is. Last year, our Court of Appeal held that the exercise of the clemency power of the
President is subject to judicial review on constitutional grounds, in line with the
Indian position, but contrary to the position in the United Kingdom and
Malaysia where the clemency power is exercised by each of the royal Rulers and State Governors.
5. Compared to Singapore, the Malaysian Judiciary has a much more active and greater caseload of judicial review litigation. Two high profile cases come to mind – firstly, that concerning the Lynas rare earths processing plant in Pahang (which has not yet been heard) and very recently the banning of a gay rights festival to be held in Kuala Lumpur which the High Court upheld last
Thursday. So, I am sure that how our respective courts deal with judicial review applications will be of some interest to us. I understand that because
Brunei is a constitutional monarchy, the window for judicial review is very small, but even then there was a case reported in the Straits Times some 3 months ago when a judicial review application was made to the Bruneian High
Court.
6. As for arbitration, Malaysia has enacted new legislation to encourage international arbitration in Malaysia, and has also revamped the Malaysian
International Arbitration Centre and its processes to ensure that it retains a substantial amount of international arbitration in Kuala Lumpur. Singapore’s paper on this subject should provide some background on how not to drive away international arbitration from our shores.
7. Even though we share a common heritage in the common law, a very substantial part of our legislation on the same or similar subject matter is different due to differences in political values, economic objectives and societal goals. But these differences should not deter us from coming together every two years to discuss judicial and legal matters of common interest.
There are enough such matters to sustain this Conference for years to come.
Court administration is a subject that we can revisit every few years to see what progress we have made.
8. But, really, the importance of this conference lies as much in the Judges of the three countries being able to exchange views on judicial matters as it does in enabling the Judges to meet and get to know one another, and through such interaction, acquire a better appreciation of how each of us deals with cases under different social, economic and political circumstances. 4
9. On that note, on behalf of the Singapore Judiciary once again, I would like to thank you for coming down and participating in this conference. Each and every one of you is a crucial component contributing to the success of the conference, and accordingly we are very grateful for your presence here. At the very least, I hope all of you find Singapore food (which some Malaysians have claimed to be actually Malaysian food) as delicious as we found the
Malaysian delicacies to be last year. Thank you.