By MP for Aljunied GRC, Pritam Singh
[Delivered in Parliament on 4 Nov 2014]
Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker, I have one clarification on the Bill.
With regard to the newly enacted clause 4(5), it states that no Judge has an absolute right to any gratuity upon retirement. This ostensibly means that the Government can determine which judge should or should not receive a gratuity. I understand Section 8 of the Pensions Act also extends the similar powers to the Government. However, Section 8 of the Pensions Act also states in the event an officer is guilty of negligence, irregularity or misconduct, it shall be lawful for the Pension Authority to withhold the pension, gratuity or other allowance for which the officer would have become eligible. The drafting of Section 8 suggests that it is under the latter conditions that a pension could be discontinued. The newly enacted clause 4 of the Bill provides no such clarity.
Under the new regime, it would be foreseeable that a one-time gratuity would be paid upon retirement. This is unlike under the Pension Act where payments can be expected to continue after retirement and the scenario of an infraction post-retirement may well result in a stoppage of pension. Such a prospect cannot be reasonably expected to be invoked after the full gratuity is paid up under the proposed Bill. Can the Minister explain under what circumstances would a judge not expect to receive a gratuity at the end of retirement under this Bill especially if he or she qualifies for one and has not been found guilty by a tribunal of his or her peers of misbehaviour, or being unable to discharge the duties of judicial office?