Official website links end with .gov.sg
A Singapore Government Agency Website
Secure websites use HTTPS
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon: Speech at the Singapore Judicial College 10th Anniversary Celebration
Singapore Judicial College 10th Anniversary Celebration
Keynote Address
“Our Learning Judges: A Continuing Judicial Education Journey”
Monday, 26 May 2025
The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon*
Supreme Court of Singapore
Fellow Judges and colleagues
Distinguished guests
Ladies and gentlemen
I. Introduction
1. Good evening. Let me first add my words of welcome to those of Professor Skead and Justice Kwek. I am so very pleased to have this occasion for us to come together to mark the 10th anniversary of the Singapore Judicial College, to celebrate all that the College has achieved thus far and also to envision the bright future that lies ahead of it.
2. Continuing judicial education will be an increasingly important part of all our lives. This is so not just because it will feature with ever greater prominence in the individual professional lives of each of our Judges and judicial officers (whom I will refer to collectively as “judges”), but also because judicial education is a critical driver of the development of our Judiciary as an institution. I will develop these points in three broad parts:
(a) First, I will outline the evolution of judicial education in the common law world.
(b) Next, I will elaborate on the importance of judicial education in meeting the challenges of judicial work in a dynamic world.
(c) Finally, I will touch on the future of judicial education.
II. The evolution of judicial education
3. Let me begin with the evolution of judicial education. The concept of formal training for judges is more deep-rooted in civil law jurisdictions, where judicial education is typically mandatory for aspiring judges. In contrast, in common law jurisdictions, it was traditionally thought that great judges were appointed, and not formally trained as such.(1) It was assumed that judges were appointed from amongst the best and most respected advocates, and that these appointees came fully formed and ready to function as judges by virtue of their record of practice at the Bar. But that premise has now largely been rejected; and, especially in the last several decades,(2) common law jurisdictions have come to embrace the importance of judicial education to the continued quality and legitimacy of their judiciaries. Formal judicial education in the common law world can be traced to the establishment of the National Judicial College in the US in 1964. Other common law jurisdictions, such as Canada,(3) Australia(4) and New Zealand(5), subsequently followed suit with the establishment of their own dedicated judicial training institutes.(6)
4. In Singapore, the first major milestone in our judicial education journey was the establishment of the College in 2015. Before that, the training of judges was decentralised and managed by individual courts, each of which took the responsibility for developing and organising judicial education programmes suited to its own needs.(7) This changed with the establishment of the College, which brought about the institutionalisation of formalised and structured judicial education in Singapore.(8) In the decade since then, the College has gone from strength to strength, and has made significant strides towards its goal of becoming a world-class institute for higher judicial education and research.(9) And the College’s work has taken on even greater importance following the establishment of a dedicated Singapore Judicial Service in 2022. This has both enabled and required renewed attention to be devoted to the specialised training needed to equip our judges to meet the specific challenges of judicial work.(10)
III. The importance of judicial education
5. What, then, are those challenges? This brings me to the second part of my address, on the importance of judicial education.
6. Some of the challenges of judicial work are inherent in the judicial role. Judges have the tremendous responsibility of administering the law and dispensing justice in each case. In doing so, we must not only ensure the fairness and integrity of the judicial process, but also strive to arrive at the correct substantive outcomes. Every judgment serves not only to explain to the parties why they have won or lost a case, but also to develop the corpus of the law and to assure the public that justice has been served.(11) The weight of this responsibility means that judicial power must be exercised with great diligence and humility, and that our judges must actively seek to achieve and maintain the highest standards of competence, character and conduct.(12)
7. At the same time, we face other challenges that arise from the external environment in which we operate today. Let me highlight two such challenges.
8. The first is the declining trust in public institutions, which the world has witnessed for several years now.(13) Indeed, the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer highlights that we are facing a “crisis of grievance”, arising at least in part from the belief that business and government serve a select few and that the system favours the rich.(14) We should not imagine that the courts are somehow immune to these corrosive realities; instead, it is imperative that we continue working to maintain public trust in the courts and in the judicial process. The courts have long been considered the guardians of equality and fairness and the arbiters of truth in society. But if the courts come to be perceived as incapable of discerning or upholding the truth, and unwilling or unable to address major gaps in the administration of justice, public trust in the courts will be severely compromised.(15)
9. The second key challenge is the growing complexity of the disputes that will come before the courts. This complexity has various sources:
(a) First, the ease with which various forms of data can be electronically generated, stored and shared has given rise to considerable evidential complexity.
(b) The material that judges must grapple with today is often also technically complex, as scientific advances in areas like psychiatry, and technological advances in areas like artificial intelligence (or “AI”) and computer algorithms, give rise to more nuanced and complex issues that challenge our understanding and application of existing legal principles.(16)
(c) Beyond evidential and technical complexity, a third layer of complexity arises from the transnational nature of many disputes today, which may require judges to navigate the laws, legal traditions and regulatory frameworks of foreign jurisdictions.
(d) And this is all apart from the complexities involved in managing the evolving profiles, attitudes and expectations of litigants. Laypersons increasingly have access to legal information, but may not understand how that information applies to their cases, or be able to assess the reliability of the tools they use to obtain it – including generative AI tools.(17) And many self-represented persons today are also more demanding and less accepting of authority,(18) which can make managing court proceedings a significantly more difficult and delicate task.
10. These challenges require judges to strive to deepen and expand a range of adjudicative competencies in order to discharge their core responsibilities with the high standards of quality and efficiency that the public quite lightly expects of the Judiciary.(19) In terms of their knowledge, judges must maintain their strong fundamentals in the law, and must be adept at dealing with both existing and emerging legal issues. But they must also go beyond the law, in the sense of being equipped to navigate a range of allied and adjacent fields that may intersect with the law – such as technology, statistics, forensics, and psychology. And now more than ever, with the increasing capabilities and sophistication of generative AI, knowledge alone is unlikely to suffice. Instead, it will need to be cultivated in tandem with sound analytical skills, so that judges can make the best use of what they do know; quickly pick up and understand what they do not already know; and apply this knowledge and understanding to the new and increasingly complex situations that will arise in their cases. Judges must also actively hone their judgecraft and bench skills to ensure that they manage their courtrooms fairly and effectively. More generally, judges should keep abreast of new technologies, tools and techniques that might enable them to do their work better or more efficiently.
11. The ever-evolving nature of these fields, and the fact that judicial expertise necessarily has to be continually refined with experience, mean that each judge must view deepening and expanding his or her adjudicative competencies as a continuing and lifelong endeavour, for which he or she has a personal responsibility. This is why we have invested significantly in continuing judicial education and training through the College, and why we have emphasised the importance – indeed, the necessity – of developing our judges as “Learning Judges”, with a mindset of lifelong and self-directed learning.
12. But the importance of judicial education goes beyond equipping judges to perform their adjudicative role – it must also empower judges to discharge their increasingly important systemic responsibilities. Our adjudicative work is ultimately only part – albeit a very important part – of our broader judicial mission, which is the fair and efficient administration of justice. To this end, judges will also need to actively consider how our justice system can be designed and operated in ways that enable it to better deliver justice to the communities we serve.(20) This requires that judges not only take ownership over developing their adjudicative competencies, but also embrace their roles as leaders and system reformers and see these roles as indispensable parts of their professional identity that complement their adjudicative function.(21) Judicial education must therefore also empower judges with the competencies and perspectives that they will need to take on these roles,(22) and to do so in a way that strengthens – and does not detract from – their adjudicative work.
13. These are exacting demands, and the task of meeting them may seem extremely daunting. But it is imperative that we live up to these expectations. Each and every one of our judges is the human face of the justice system to the people who come before our courts. As such, he or she is a custodian of public trust in our judiciary, and that public trust underpins the legitimacy of our courts as a whole in the eyes of the communities we serve.(23)
14. This is why a judicial education institution like the College must be at the heart of the Judiciary.(24) By supporting our judges in their learning journeys throughout their careers, and by driving our broader institutional mission,(25) judicial education plays an indispensable role in equipping all of us to meet and overcome the challenges of judicial work in a dynamic world.
IV. The future of judicial education
15. As much as judicial education must be a continuing endeavour for our Learning Judges, it has equally been and will continue to be a continuing journey for the College. Just as our judges are expected to continue learning, and ‘learning to learn’, the College continues learning how to teach.
16. In the last few years, we undertook a comprehensive review of the College’s programmes and resources, which led to a significant expansion of its capabilities and informed the development of a refreshed approach to the delivery of judicial education and training.(26) For instance, the College has revised the Judicial Competency Framework, which articulates the 14 judicial competencies that our judges are expected to have as they move through different phases of their careers. This framework not only shapes the College’s curriculum, but also empowers judges to identify the gaps in their own competencies and work on addressing them.(27) The College has also been reconstituted to comprise the Institute of Judicial Excellence (or “IJE”) and the Institute of Judicial Studies (or “IJS”). All of you will have already encountered the IJE, which is the education arm of the College that develops and delivers training programmes. And with the IJS, which is the College’s research arm that was established last March, the College has sharpened its focus on producing high-quality scholarship issues relevant to judicial education and the justice system.(28)
17. Looking ahead, the College is working to further improve the delivery of judicial education on at least three fronts: its programmes, its pedagogies and its partnerships. Let me elaborate a little on each of these aspects.
(a) First, the College continues to update and refine its programmes on core adjudicative skillsets, such as Judgment Writing and Courtroom Communications; as well as those covering specific areas of interest, such as cryptocurrency and digital forensics. Beyond these, the College has also developed programmes covering judicial perspectives, judicial philosophy and justice system reform, to support our judges in discharging their systemic role.(29)
(b) Second, the College has been actively exploring the use of innovative pedagogies to create more engaging and effective learning experiences. Examples include the use of recorded role-plays in courtroom clinics and design-thinking workshops. The College has also started using AI tools to generate fictional extracts illustrating common weaknesses and strengths in judicial writing, and to generate photorealistic images to be used in discussions of bias in decision-making. The College is now exploring more complex uses of AI, such as the development of AI avatars that can participate in interactive role-plays and serve as ‘sparring partners’ – and one day, perhaps even personalised trainers – for our judges.(30)
(c) Third, the College has continued to develop regional and international partnerships to build its presence in, and engagement with, the wider international community of judicial learning. To highlight just one example of this, last September, the College co-organised the inaugural Masterclass for Commercial Law Judges in Asia with the Supreme Court of Indonesia’s Judicial Training Centre. This was a historic gathering of about 70 commercial judges from 16 jurisdictions, coming together to take part in a multi-day deep-dive into five core areas of commercial law.
18. In these ways, the development of the College itself has reflected the spirit of continual learning, adaptation and growth that it seeks to cultivate in all our judges. In the years to come, the College will no doubt continue exploring how to perform its own unique role even more effectively, while also continuing to learn how we can all learn better.
V. Conclusion
19. Let me close with some final remarks. The College has come a long way from its origins as a modest training unit when it was first established in 2015,(31) and there is much to celebrate as we mark this significant milestone. But any celebration of our judicial education journey would be incomplete without you, our Learning Judges. This is not only because judicial education must be a collaborative enterprise between the College and our judges if it is to continue achieving its aims, but also because part of the College’s ultimate mission is to nurture a vibrant community of engaged and proactive judicial learners drawn together by a culture of lifelong and self-directed learning. As we embark on the next chapter of our judicial education journey, I encourage all of you to continue to support the College in discharging its vital mission.
20. Thank you very much.
*I am deeply grateful to my colleagues, Assistant Registrars Wee Yen Jean, Bryan Ching and Ong Kye Jing, for all their assistance in the research for and preparation of this address.
(1) See Sundaresh Menon CJ, opening remarks at the Judicial Education Townhalls 2024 (“Judicial Education Townhalls Remarks”) at para 6; and Kwek Mean Luck, Natalie Skead, Justin Yeo and Yeo Mui Lin, “Judicial Education in Singapore: The Past, Present and Future” (2025) Singapore Academy of Law Journal (published on e-First on 6 May 2025) (“Judicial Education in Singapore”) at para 5.
(2) See, for example, J Clifford Wallace, “Judicial Education and Training in Asia and the Pacific” (2000) 21(4) Michigan Journal of International Law 849 at p 849.
(3) With the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice and the National Judicial Institute.
(4) With the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, the Judicial Commission of New South Wales, and subsequently the National Judicial College of Australia.
(5) With the Institute of Judicial Studies (Te Kura Kaiwhakawā).
(6) See Judicial Education in Singapore at paras 11-19 and 22-23; and James Allsop, “Continuing Judicial Education: The Australian Experience” (2012) 10(4) Judicial Review 439 (“Allsop”).
(7) See Sundaresh Menon CJ, Response at the Opening of the Legal Year 2015 (5 January 2015) at para 48.
(8) See Judicial Education in Singapore at para 1.
(9) See Sundaresh Menon CJ, Response at the Opening of the Legal Year 2025 (13 January 2025) at para 37(c).
(10) See Sundaresh Menon CJ, Response at the Opening of the Legal Year 2022 (10 January 2022) at paras 28–29; and Sundaresh Menon CJ, opening remarks at the inaugural Singapore Judicial College – National Judicial College of Australia – New Zealand Institute of Judicial Studies Judicial Education Roundtable (18 September 2023) (“Judicial Education Roundtable Remarks”) at para 15. See also Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (3 November 2021) (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai, Second Minister for Law) on the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill.
(11) See DJP and others v DJO [2025] SGCA(I) 2 at [51] and [54].
(12) See Sundaresh Menon CJ, “Judicial Excellence in a Challenging World: The Centrality of Trust”, keynote address at the International Association for Court Administration Conference 2024 (12 November 2024) (“Judicial Excellence in a Challenging World”) at paras 12–15.
(13) See Sundaresh Menon CJ, “The Role of the Courts in Our Society – Safeguarding Society”, opening address at the first of the Singapore Courts’ Conversations with the Community (21 September 2023) (“Role of the Courts”) at para 35; and Judicial Excellence in a Challenging World at para 2. See also the Edelman Trust Barometers for 2025, 2024, 2023 and 2022.
(14) See the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer, Global Report, “Trust and the Crisis of Grievance” at p 17; and the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer, “Top 10 Findings”: https://edl.mn/3DYtQSg. It was found that over 60% globally had a moderate or higher sense of grievance.
(15) See Natalie Skead and Justin Yeo, “Judicial Education in a Brave New World: The Singapore Perspective”, The Law Teacher (published online on 21 May 2025) (“Judicial Education in a Brave New World”) at p 7.
(16) See Sundaresh Menon CJ, “The Complexification of Disputes in the Digital Age”, Goff Lecture 2021 (9 November 2021) at paras 8–22.
(17) See Judicial Education in a Brave New World at pp 4-5.
(18) See the Judicial Education Townhalls Remarks at para 17.
(19) See Judicial Excellence in a Challenging World at para 13; and Judicial Education in a Brave New World at p 6.
(20) See Role of the Courts at para 29.
(21) See the Judicial Education Townhalls Remarks at paras 7(c) and 8.
(22) This idea has been embraced in other jurisdictions as well. See, for example, Livingstone Armytage, “Educating Judges – Where to From Here?” 2015 (1) Journal of Dispute Resolution 167 at p 168 (arguing that “a purely technocratic vision of judicial education is impoverished”; that the continuing education of judges should “address the justice needs of citizens whom the courts are constitutionally mandated to serve”; and that judicial educators have “a challenging but inescapable professional responsibility to look beyond mere competence of judges in order to actively promote the quality of justice – that is, to guide and support the learning of judges towards improving justice both procedurally and substantively (however that is to be defined)”); and Allsop (noting that the purpose of continuing judicial education “extends beyond the need to improve professional competence and performance”, and is ultimately “to improve the quality of justice within the paradigm of reconciling the ‘divergent and to some extent inconsistent requirements of public accountability, judicial independence and efficiency in the administration of justice’”).
(23) See Judicial Excellence in a Challenging World at paras 6 and 12.
(24) See the Judicial Education Roundtable Remarks at para 14; and the Judicial Education Townhalls Remarks at para 4.
(25) See the Judicial Education Roundtable Remarks at para 21.
(26) See the Judicial Education Townhalls Remarks at para 4.
(27) See the Judicial Education Townhalls Remarks at para 22; and Judicial Education in Singapore at para 46.
(28) See Judicial Education in Singapore at para 44.
(29) See the Judicial Education Townhalls Remarks at para 20.
(30) See the Judicial Education Townhalls Remarks at para 21; Judicial Education in a Brave New World at pp 14-20 (elaborating on the different instructional approaches and the College’s use of AI in its programmes); and Judicial Education in Singapore at paras 47, 60 and 64.
(31) See the Judicial Education Townhalls Remarks at para 23.
Topics:
Speech
2025/05/27
Share this page:
