รายงาน ALA และ CACJ 2019

11.8. The Chief Justice of Malaysia suggested including a fourth objective, namely,
assisting the ASEAN Judiciaries in the better use of alternative dispute resolution
(“ADR”). He informed that the Courts in Los Angeles have developed a very good
system of ADR. The Chairperson agreed but noted that this would mean that the
visit would have to cover the East and West Coasts of the US.

11.9. Justice Agung Sumanatha enquired if it would be better to focus on the Courts
instead of the universities, to learn about the application of technology in for
example, case management. The Chairperson agreed but suggested that if there

were universities that had a specific interest in East Asian law, they may be
interested in providing the ASEAN Judiciaries with assistance and therefore it
would be useful to visit such universities.

11.10. The Acting Chief Justice of Brunei commented that the Council could trust
Singapore and the Secretariat with the itinerary. The Chief Justice of Malaysia
queried as to what the US hoped to achieve by hosting the visit. The Chairperson

responded that he did not know, which was why the CACJ had to be clear on its
own objectives and should drive the agenda for the visit.

11.11. The Chief Justice of Viet Nam agreed that the working visit should not be about
visiting the US Supreme Court, having lunch with and talking to the Supreme
Court Judges as that would have a negative impact on the image of the CACJ. He

also requested that the Chief Justices to be kept apprised of any further proposals
by the US so that the Chief Justices could provide further inputs and suggestions
on the proposed agenda. The Chief Justice of Viet Nam expressed the concern as
to how many delegates per member state would be invited for the visit. The

Chairperson clarified that the visit would comprise the Chief Justice and one other
person per member state. The Chief Justice of Viet Nam informed that all activities

involving international cooperation must be planned 1 year in advance as his office
had to report to the relevant authorities. As such, if the invitation for the visit was to

take place within the same year, it would pose some challenges for him and his
staff. He added that 7 to 10 days seemed a bit too long and suggested refining the
programme in order to narrow down the schedule.

Page 52 of 59

11.12. There being no further comments and input, the Council members agreed to the
proposed objectives that had been discussed.

11.13. The Chairperson expressed his appreciation to the other Chief Justices for their
comments. He noted that these comments demonstrated that it was correct for the
Council to pause and consider whether to accept the invitation to visit the US. He
suggested for the Secretariat to communicate the CACJ’s objectives to the State
Department and to request the State Department to propose a draft programme
which would be circulated amongst the Chief Justices for their comments. Only if
the Chief Justices agreed to the programme then they would consider the dates.
All the Council members agreed to this

NEXT CACJ MEETING

11.14. The CACJ Secretary informed that there had not been any formal indication as to
which country would offer to host the next CACJ meeting in 2019.

11.15. The Chairperson shared that the plan was still to hold the CACJ meeting on the
sidelines of the ALA Governing Council meeting and that it was very desirable to
maintain the pairing so that those who are involved in both the ALA and the CACJ
do not have to make two trips. He asked the Vice President of the Supreme Court
of the Kingdom of Thailand if it was likely that Thailand would host the next ALA
GC meeting, in which case, the CACJ meeting could be held on the sidelines. The
Vice President of the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Thailand shared that they
would be happy to host both the ALA GC and CACJ meetings and proposed to
hold the meetings in November 2019.

11.16. The Chief Justice of Viet Nam suggested that the next host would also continue to
assume the next CACJ Chairmanship. The Chairperson agreed and asked the
Council members to express their appreciation to Thailand.

12. SESSION 10 – CLOSING SESSION

SIGNING OF THE DECLARATION

Page 53 of 59

12.1. The Chairperson announced that the final task was the signing of the Declaration.

The Chairperson proposed, and the Council members agreed, that the paragraphs
in the Declaration which simply recited what happened in the past years, be
removed, in order to prevent subsequent Declarations from getting longer and
longer. The Chairperson noted that these Declarations were kept by the Secretariat
in any event and would be posted onto the AJP.

12.2. The Chief Justice of Malaysia enquired if the proposed term “the agreement that
the Working Group for Case Management and Court Technology be mandated” --
“had been mandated to study the standard of implementations of court technology
in each of the ASEAN Judiciaries.” was still necessary. The Chairperson agreed
with him and following the discussion, agreed to re-phrase it to “that the Working

Group on Case Management and Court Technology be mandated to assist any of
the ASEAN Judiciaries in the implementation of best practices in court technology
and case management”.

12.3. Upon clarification sought by the Acting Chief Justice of the Philippines, paragraph
11(i)of the draft Declaration was amended to read as “for all Heads of organisations

overseeing judicial education and training in each ASEAN Judiciary to be given the
said Strategic Plan 2018-2025 so that they can meet, propose and/or develop work

plans, and mobilise the resources and support needed to implement the Strategic
Plan”.

12.4. In respect of paragraph 16, the Chairperson proposed to include commas such
that it read “to approve the Charter of the CACJ presented by the Study Group,

subject to the views of the Philippines to be furnished by the end of August 2018,
and subject to those views, for the Secretariat to circulate the Charter for signing
with a view to it coming into force at the next CACJ Meeting”.

12.5. In respect of paragraph 17, the Chairperson proposed to include the same
commas such that it read “to approve the Rules presented by the Study Group,
subject to the views of the Philippines to be furnished by the end of August 2018,
and for the Rules to take effect as working Rules governing the operation and

Page 54 of 59

functions of the CACJ (including the CACJ Secretariat) and its activities until it is
formalised by the signing of the Charter”.

12.6. In respect of paragraph 15, the Chief Justice of Malaysia enquired on the use of
the word “endorsement” as he thought that the discussion had been on using the
word “acknowledgement”. The Chairperson clarified that the agreement was to

endorse the common procedure, subject to it being appropriate, which was why it
was phrased as “the endorsement of the common procedure and the

encouragement that all ASEAN Judiciaries use the common procedure where
appropriate in dealing with cross-border disputes involving children within ASEAN”.

He added that the Working Group would make it clear that the application of the
common procedure does not include Syariah cases.

12.7. In respect of paragraph 20, the Chairperson shared that the Chief Justice of Viet
Nam had spoken to him at the tea break and suggested for the representative of
the Indonesian Judiciary to also be present at the discussion with the ASEAN
Secretariat so as to promote the relationship. The Chairperson opined that it was a
worthwhile idea to explore and requested Indonesia to explore it further.

CLOSING REMARKS

12.8. The Chairperson commented that he was struck by the tremendous progress that
the CACJ had witnessed over the course of just 5 years. He said that it was a real
testament to the fact that Judges could be very effective in managing their
business if they put their minds to it and that the Council members should be very
pleased about the progress they had made.

12.9. He remarked that the agenda for this year had been a very full agenda and that it
looked set to expand. The number of Working Groups had also increased. The

Council should think about how to put a limit to the number of Working Groups
because, as highlighted by the Chief Justice of Viet Nam, it would reach a point
where it ceases to be efficient.

Page 55 of 59

12.10. He shared that looking at the matters that had been agreed upon at the meeting
and in particular, the launching of the AJP, he felt confident that this had been an
extremely worthwhile endeavour. He felt that the work of the CACJ in forming such
a functional, effective working meeting was really a sign that others would emulate.
He further shared that he had suggested to Singapore’s Attorney-General that the
ASEAN Attorneys- General may want to similarly host a meeting. So they had
convened an inaugural meeting and the feedback received very positive. He also
similarly suggested the same for the Presidents of the Bar Councils and several of
them had met. They too found it very effective and have started talking about
possibly establishing an ASEAN Bar Council.

12.11. He noted that as ASEAN enters the age of integration, the legal institutions are
bound to also have to face issues pertaining to integration. He professed his
delight at having had the opportunity to work with the Chief Justices in leading the
way towards integration at the judiciary and legal profession levels. He added that
in addition to functional integration, the CACJ has made a lot of progress at a
social level by getting to know one another, by building trust, by building
relationships, which is a critical element that enables the CACJ to enhance its
ability to work together.

12.12. He thanked each of the Chief Justices for their tremendous cooperation in the
weeks leading up to the meeting and their cooperation throughout the meeting.
This was what had made it possible for the CACJ to get through the very full
agenda and to come to the conclusion of the meeting. He also thanked the Vice
President of the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Thailand for kindly agreeing to
host the next CACJ meeting and he looked forward to visiting Thailand in
November next year. In conclusion, the Chairperson said that it had been a
privilege to work with all who were present and on behalf of the Singapore
delegation, shared that it had been a pleasure to host them.

12.13. The Acting Chief Justice of Brunei commented that it was under the chairmanship
of the Honourable Sundaresh Menon and his forceful, diplomatic and fluid
intervention in most of the topics that the CACJ was able to complete the agenda
Page 56 of 59

for the meeting. He added that it was a shame that the Hon. Dato Seri Paduka Haji
Kifrawi was not able to be present at the meeting.

12.14. On behalf of the Cambodian delegation, the Vice President of the Supreme Court
of Cambodia, expressed his sincere thanks to the Chairperson and his skill in
leading the meeting successfully. He also thanked the Supreme Court colleagues
for arranging the meeting.

12.15. The Chief Justice of Indonesia expressed his delight in achieving another major
milestone in the 5 years’ of collaborative effort in promoting the rule of law in the
region. He thanked and congratulated the Hon. Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi for
his successful leadership of the CACJ over the past year and wished the Hon.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon the very best for the upcoming work as Chair of
the CACJ.

12.16. The Vice President of the Supreme Court of Lao PDR concurred with the Acting
Chief Justice of Brunei, the Vice President of the Supreme Court of Cambodia and
the Chief Justice of Indonesia. He congratulated the CACJ for a successful
meeting and shared that he hoped to attend the meeting in Thailand next year.

12.17. The Chief Justice of Malaysia commented that time had flown under the skilful
management of the Chairperson and he thanked the Chairperson for the
wonderful work done. He remarked that the Working Groups have a lot to follow up
on after the meeting. He added that the meeting had allowed the Chief Justices to
network, which he hoped would continue through the emails. He suggested for if
any of the other jurisdictions were arranging for a programme, that they could also
extend an invitation to the Chief Justices to consider attending.

12.18. The Chairperson replied that he appreciated the comments made about
networking as he felt that it was important and that it was about building the
friendships.

12.19. The Chief Justice of Myanmar congratulated the Chairperson and his outstanding
team for their brilliant efforts and tremendous hospitality that led to the successful
Page 57 of 59

conclusion of the meeting. He said that with the CACJ performing its functions like
other entities in ASEAN community, there will be many important jobs to decide
and implement in the future. As many of the works could not be accomplished by a
single Judiciary, the different Judiciaries have to work, think and decide together.
By doing so, there would be a brighter future for the CACJ under the ASEAN
framework. He expressed his hope to meet the Chief Justices again at the Asia-
Pacific Judicial Conference on Environment and Climate Change Adjudication on
29-30 October 2018 in Myanmar.

12.20. On behalf of the Philippines delegation, the Acting Chief Justice of the Philippines
thanked the Chairperson and the Secretariat for the excellent preparations for the
meeting. He shared that a lot had been achieved and that they had brought the
CACJ to the next level.

12.21. The Vice President of the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Thailand shared that
the meeting could not be possible without the hard work of Singapore and the staff
of the Supreme Court who had provided warm hospitality and strong support to
make the meeting a success. He concluded by inviting the delegates to Thailand
for the next CACJ meeting and he looked forward to welcoming the Chief Justices
to Thailand.

12.22. The Chief Justice of Viet Nam said that he agreed with the comments made by his
fellow Chief Justices. He paid tribute to the Hon. Sundaresh Menon for his
Chairmanship of the meeting, to the Working Groups for their careful preparations
and to the Secretariat for the successful meeting. He thanked all the Chief Justices
and delegates for their active participation and contributions. He expressed the
view that the meeting was a tremendous success but that there was a long journey
ahead for the CACJ to successfully implement all the proposed ideas. Looking
back on the achievements over the past 5 years, he expressed confidence that the
CACJ would be able to achieve what they had discussed in order to better serve
the people of the region, to strengthen the capacity of the ASEAN Judiciaries and
to enhance the position of the CACJ within ASEAN. He also thanked the Chief

Page 58 of 59

Justices for their thoughtful presentation of tokens from their respective Courts to
Viet Nam.
12.23. The Chairperson reiterated the comments made by the Chief Justice of Viet Nam,
that the credibility and the success of the work of the CACJ would be measured
not by the words that were signed but by the progress that is actually made. He
urged everyone to continue to work for the cause, to actually carry it forward and
to achieve the various initiatives that had been talked about. He said that the
Council had every reason to be optimistic as they had come so far on the back of
the wonderful friendships, warmth and networking that the Chief Justice of
Malaysia had talked about. He expressed optimism that the Council would continue
to have these close friendships and to work together in a spirit of trust to achieve
the objectives. He thanked the Chief Justices and the judicial colleagues from
ASEAN for their presence and their contributions, and for helping to make the 6th
CACJ Meeting a successful one.
12.24. The Chairperson declared that the Singapore Declaration was adopted as
amended and the ASEAN Chief Justices and Heads of Delegation then signed the
Singapore Declaration.
12.25. The Meeting concluded at 5.16pm on the same day.

Page 59 of 59

SESSION 2

REPORT OF THE
WORKING GROUP ON ASEAN JUDICIARIES PORTAL (“AJP”)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Since the launch of the AJP on 27 July 2018, the AJP Working Group (“AJP WG”) has
delivered on its mandate to provide an accessible repository of information on ASEAN judicial
and legal systems, bringing ASEAN judiciaries to the world. The AJP has garnered increasing
global interest, which indicates that the portal meets a demand for information on ASEAN
judicial and legal systems. The AJP has proven to be a stable and reliable internet platform,
achieving 100% availability since its launch. The AJP’s target audience is primarily persons or
entities envisaging business dealings with ASEAN, and who wish to obtain information about
the legal landscape and judiciaries of the ASEAN Member States (“AMS”).

2 A members-only section of the AJP was launched concurrently, to facilitate information
sharing, communications and cooperation among the ASEAN judiciaries. The members-only
section also furthers the work of the various Working Groups under the Council of ASEAN
Chief Justices (“CACJ”), by providing a convenient communication platform for the various
Working Group members.

3 Subsequent to the launch of the AJP, the AJP WG has focused on enhancing the
relevance and comprehensiveness of information and the system enhancement of the AJP to
optimise the presentation of the information on the AJP. The AJP WG is executing system
enhancements to improve the capabilities of both the public section and the members-only
section of the AJP. Of significance is the development of a training marketplace and a case
repository on the AJP. There will be a training marketplace on both the public section and
members-only section of the AJP, to facilitate publicity of training courses relevant to members
of the ASEAN judiciaries. Most courses will be available on the public section to maximise
their reach to a wider group of audience. However, if course organisers prefer to keep the
content exclusive, they may choose to publish the courses on the members-only section only.
The case repository enables the public to keep abreast of ASEAN landmark case law. Other
system enhancements increase user-friendliness, and better communication of any pertinent
announcements in relation to the CACJ.

4 The AJP WG has also discussed and agreed on a proposed plan for the CACJ’s
consideration to collaborate with either leading law firms or academic and research institutions

1

to obtain current and quality content on the AJP while expending minimal resources. The AJP
WG has also continued to train members on the use of the members-only section.
5 The AJP WG has achieved its deliverables while operating within budget. The AJP WG
expects to have surplus funding by July 2020 even after accounting for foreseeable expenses.
In addition, the AJP WG is working with the CACJ Secretariat to explore continued funding
options, and looking to enhance the content available on the AJP.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................1

I. BACKGROUND AND LAUNCH OF AJP ......................................................4

II. ADMINISTRATION OF AJP SUBSEQUENT TO LAUNCH ......................7
A. ORGANISATIONAL SET-UP ......................................................................................7
B. ACHIEVEMENT OF KPIS .........................................................................................8
C. CONTENT POPULATION ON THE AJP.......................................................................9
D. VISITOR ACCESS STATISTICS FOR THE PUBLIC SECTION OF THE AJP.....................10
E. SURVEYS TO ASSESS IMPACT OF AJP ...................................................................11
F. INCIDENTS AND AVAILABILITY.............................................................................12
G. ACCESS TO THE MEMBERS-ONLY SECTION OF THE AJP ........................................12

III. ENHANCEMENTS ..........................................................................................13

IV. PROPOSAL TO KEEP AJP CONTENT CURRENT AND RELEVANT .18

V. FUNDING OF THE AJP .................................................................................20

VI. FUTURE PLANS FOR THE AJP...................................................................21

3

I. BACKGROUND AND LAUNCH OF AJP

6 The concept of creating the AJP was approved at the 2nd ASEAN Chief Justices’
Meeting (“ACJM”) in 2014.1 The ACJM decided, inter alia, on the following in relation to the
AJP:2

(a) that the objective of the AJP is to bring the ASEAN legal jurisdictions to the
world by providing a portal through which the world can appreciate, learn or know
more about the judiciaries and legal environment of ASEAN member states;

(b) that the AJP should target the following audience: (i) ASEAN trading partners,
investors and business community (primary audience); and (ii) judiciary, legal
profession, academics and citizens of ASEAN states (secondary audience);

(c) the AJP will contain a common baseline content for all ASEAN judiciaries,
which shall be presented using a common template to achieve a consistent “look-and-
feel”;

(d) each member state shall be responsible for creating and updating its own
information on the AJP; and

(e) a single donor or group of donors shall be found (with Singapore to lead the
search as the appointed agent of the ACJM) to fund the costs of creating the AJP.

A copy of the Report of the 2nd ACJM 2014 may be found at Annex A.

7 Further to the 2nd ACJM, Singapore, through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
approached Norway to explore sponsorship for the AJP.3 In January 2017, the CACJ was
accredited as an entity associated with ASEAN under Category 1 in Annex 2 of the ASEAN
Charter under “Parliamentarians and Judiciary”. This allowed the CACJ (through Singapore,
as Chair of the AJP WG) to work with the ASEAN Secretariat (“ASEC”) to source for funding
for the AJP project.

1 See [4.1] of the Report of the 2nd ACJM 2014.
2 See [5.1] to [5.11] of the Report of the 2nd ACJM 2014.
3 See [3.3] of the Report of the 3rd ACJM 2015.

4

8 Following discussions with the Norwegian Embassy to ASEAN, the Norwegian
Government recognised the AJP as falling within the scope of the Norwegian-ASEAN
Regional Initiatives Fund (“NARIF”) and approved the grant of up to a maximum of
NOK 3.3 million, which was increased to NOK 3.6 million. The first tranche of funds from
Norway, amounting to NOK 600,000 (S$98,405.20), was received on 29 March 2017 pursuant
to the execution of the following two key documents:

(a) First, the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) in relation to the AJP
between the CACJ as represented by the Chief Justice of Vietnam (then the CACJ
Chair), the Supreme Court of Singapore, and the Singapore Academy of Law (“SAL”).
This sets out the working parameters of the partnership between the CACJ, the Supreme
Court of Singapore, and the SAL. In particular, the main roles of the parties are as
follows:

(i) the CACJ is the system owner of the AJP and sets the general strategic
direction and policy for the AJP project;

(ii) the Supreme Court of Singapore is tasked by the CACJ to develop and
implement the AJP project, which it will do by exercising full control over the
implementation of the AJP project and provide direction to the SAL as agreed
to by the CACJ; and

(iii) the SAL is appointed by the CACJ as its agent for the purpose of and
with full authority for operating and maintaining the AJP, including the receipt
and disbursement of the NARIF grant, the procurement of the vendor’s services,
and the taking of instructions from the Supreme Court of Singapore for the
implementation of the AJP project.

A copy of the MOU in relation to the AJP may be found at Annex B.

(b) Second, the Grant Agreement regarding AJP between the Norwegian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the SAL (“Grant Agreement”). This sets out the details
of the disbursement and administration of the NARIF grant for the implementation of
the AJP project. It also stipulates the expected results and indicators of goal
achievement of the AJP project, which are elaborated upon at paragraph 10 below.

A copy of the Grant Agreement may be found at Annex C.
5

9 A third key document, namely, the MOU in relation to the AJP, is to be executed by all
10 ASEAN judiciaries. This sets out the roles, responsibilities and obligations of the ASEAN
judiciaries in relation to the development and provision of content for the AJP. The deadline
for the execution of the same by all ASEAN judiciaries, as represented by their respective Chief
Justices, is the 7th CACJ Meeting in November 2019.4 The CACJ is working towards meeting
this deadline.

10 The objective of the AJP, as decided at the 2nd ACJM5 and reiterated in the Grant
Agreement6, is to bring the ASEAN legal jurisdictions to the world, by providing a portal
through which the world can appreciate, learn or know more about the judiciaries and legal
environments of the AMS. The Grant Agreement stipulates that the objective of the AJP project
is to create a stable and reliable platform on the internet, through which current and relevant
information on ASEAN judicial and legal systems can be accessed.7 The success of the project
is to be measured by the following key performance indicators (“KPIs”):8

(a) Provision of a portal for all ASEAN judiciaries to have an online presence with
baseline website content in English. In this regard, it was agreed at the 2nd ACJM that
the common baseline content for all ASEAN judiciaries would include the information
set out in Annex D.9

(b) Adherence to the Project Milestone Dates in the Grant Agreement.

(c) Positive site-visit statistics such as busy website traffic by target visitor profiles.

(d) Positive feedback/results from visitor surveys/questionnaires and regular focus
group reviews on impact of portal on facilitating trade and investment in ASEAN.

(e) Low incidence of portal downtime and quick time-around taken to restore portal
in the event of downtime; effective defence against security threats and breaches.

4 Declaration 5 of the 6th CACJ Meeting held in Singapore on 27 July 2018.
5 See [5.1] of the Report of the 2nd ACJM 2014.
6 See [B.1] of Annex B (Results Framework) of the Grant Agreement.
7 Cl 2.1 of the Grant Agreement.
8 See generally Annex B (Results Framework) of the Grant Agreement, in particular, [A], [B.3] and [B.5].
9 See [5.6] of the Report of the 2nd ACJM 2014.

6

The AJP WG has achieved the majority of the KPIs set out above, and is on track to achieving
the KPIs listed in paragraphs 10(a) and 10(d) above. Details on the attainment of the KPIs are
discussed at paragraph 16 below.

11 The AJP was officially launched at the 6th CACJ Meeting in Singapore on 27 July 2018.
While the Grant Agreement had only envisaged the development of a public portal, additional
capabilities had been built in the AJP. As a result, the AJP had both a public section10 and a
members-only section11 by the time it was launched. The main page of the public section
contains various information in relation to the CACJ, including the background of the CACJ
and AJP, the CACJ mission statement, announcements and photographs of various activities
organised by the CACJ, soft copies of the CACJ declarations, and contact details. The public
section also has dedicated country pages for each of the 10 AMS, which provides the respective
baseline content as referred to in paragraph 10(a) above.

12 The members-only section is open to nominated representatives from all ASEAN
judiciaries, namely, the CACJ Liaison Officers (“LOs”), the respective AJP country
administrators appointed by each AMS, and the members of the CACJ Working Groups. It
contains a repository of key CACJ information and documents (Minutes, Declarations,
Charters, Regulations, etc) and provides a channel for internal discussions. It has the added
objective of facilitating the work of the various CACJ Working Groups and general discussions
between ASEAN judiciaries.

II. ADMINISTRATION OF AJP SUBSEQUENT TO LAUNCH

A. Organisational set-up

13 The AJP WG consists of representatives from all ASEAN judiciaries (see list at
Annex E) and is chaired by Singapore. The Singapore representative and Chairman of the AJP
WG is Justice Lee Seiu Kin. The AJP WG is responsible for steering and providing strategic
direction in relation to the AJP project. In addition, the AJP WG oversees the progress and
ensures that the project goals are achieved.

10 https://cacj-ajp.org
11 https://ip.cacj-ajp.org

7

14 The AJP Singapore Working Committee12 (“WC”) executes and operationalises the
proposals of the AJP WG. In doing so, the WC:

(a) is the site administrator of the AJP;

(b) communicates with the SAL in relation to training, maintenance and system
change requirements;

(c) liaises with the CACJ Secretariat where announcements are required for
publishing on the AJP; and

(d) supports all AJP WG members by coordinating the uploading of content.

15 The SAL assists the AJP WG in its capacity as the project manager of the AJP. The
SAL is primarily involved in liaising with (a) the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in
raising disbursements requests and reporting progress; and (b) the AJP vendor, AsiaPac
Distribution Pte Ltd, in respect of any technical aspect of website operation.

B. Achievement of KPIs

16 As mentioned at paragraph 10 above, the AJP WG has achieved the majority of the
KPIs in relation to the AJP project, as stipulated in the Grant Agreement. Details of how the
AJP WG has done so are set out in the table below, with references to the appropriate
paragraphs in this report:

S/N KPI How KPI has been achieved Ref in report

1. Provision of a portal for all The AJP has a dedicated country page Paragraphs 17

ASEAN judiciaries to have for each of the 10 AMS, on which the to 20

an online presence with respective baseline content is to be

baseline website content in uploaded.

English The AJP WG is working towards

having baseline content for all 10

AMS uploaded.

2. Adherence to the Project All of the Project Milestone Dates in N.A.

Milestone Dates in the the Grant Agreement leading up to the

Grant Agreement

12 Headed by Justice Lee Seiu Kin and supported by District Judge Chee Min Ping and Magistrate Lau Qiuyu.

8

launch of the AJP on 27 July 2018

were met.13

3. Positive site-visit statistics The AJP has seen a steady stream of Paragraphs 21

such as busy website traffic visitors from a variety of countries to 23

by target visitor profiles globally, and the number of site visits

have been on a general upward trend.

4. Positive feedback/results This KPI is a work-in-progress. While Paragraphs 25

from visitor there have been positive feedback to 27

surveys/questionnaires and from the survey conducted amongst

regular focus group CACJ representatives, surveys and

reviews on impact of portal consultation have yet to be conducted

on facilitating trade and with a wider audience. The AJP WG

investment in ASEAN. will explore ways to generate

publicity of the AJP as a means to

boost viewership of the AJP, thereby

increasing its impact on trade and

investment in ASEAN.

5. Low incidence of portal Both sections of the AJP (ie, public Paragraph 28

downtime and quick time- and members-only) have achieved

around take to restore 100% availability from the time of its

portal in the event of launch to the time of this report.

downtime; effective

defence against security

threats and breach.

C. Content population on the AJP

17 At the 2nd ACJM, it was agreed that the common baseline content which should be
made available by the various AMS judiciaries largely related to information about the judicial
and legal systems of each AMS, and the specific information required are set out in Annex D.
It was agreed at the 2nd ACJM that each AMS shall be responsible for creating and updating its
own information on the AJP. If any funding is required for this purpose, AMS may seek
assistance on sourcing for potential sponsors from other AMS.14

13 The Grant Agreement (at [A] of Annex B) had provided for the first year maintenance period to commence by
1 July 2018. However, there was no need for maintenance to commence so early. This was because the
commissioning of the system had coincided with the launch of the AJP on 27 July 2018. This was followed by a
three-month performance guarantee period, and a further three-month warranty period. The first year maintenance
period therefore only commenced on 27 January 2019. Accordingly, the second year maintenance period will
commence on 27 January 2020, and the third year maintenance period will commence on 27 January 2021.

14 See [5.10] of the Report of the 2nd ACJM 2014.

9

18 Prior to the launch of the AJP, the CACJ Secretariat circulated to all AMS a template
for country page contents. This template allowed the CACJ Secretariat to collate the required
baseline content in a manner that had a consistent “look and feel”, as was agreed at the 2nd
AJCM. A copy of the template may be found at Annex F.

19 The AJP WG has made progress in its efforts to populate all of the country pages on
the AJP. Presently, the country pages of all 10 AMS contain photographs representative of their
countries, and an introductory write-up on their country’s judicial and legal systems. The AJP
WG is working towards having the complete baseline content for all 10 AMS uploaded, and
will continue to liaise with the three AMS to achieve this.

20 In addition, and further to the discussions at the 6th CACJ Meeting, the AJP WG has
completed the following: (a) uploaded all past Declarations on both the public and
members-only sections of the AJP15; and (b) created the relevant tabs in the AJP members-only
section for the new CACJ Working Group on ASEAN+ meetings16, so that the members may
make use of the functionalities available therein.

D. Visitor access statistics for the public section of the AJP

21 The public section of the AJP17 has seen positive site-visit statistics every month. A line
graph showing a breakdown of AJP page visits each month from July 2018 to September 2019
may be found at Annex G1. When the AJP was launched in July 2018, viewership of the AJP
was at its peak. This may have been due to publicity at the time generating interest in the site.
Following the month of the AJP’s launch, site visit numbers, while reduced, have since been
on a general upward trend.

22 In addition, the AJP sees visitors from a varied group of countries, both from within
and beyond ASEAN, including visitors from the United States, India, Australia, Japan and

15 See [12.1] of the Minutes of the 6th CACJ Meeting.
16 Formed further to Declaration 19 of the 6th CACJ Meeting, which states: “THE AGREEMENT to form a new
Working Group, to be named the ‘Working Group on ASEAN+ meetings’…”
17 The SAL has informed that visitor access statistics cannot be easily retrieved for the members-only section of
the AJP. This is because the members-only section is hosted on a custom-built platform. The public section, on
the other hand, is hosted on a Content Management System, which allows for web analytics to be applied more
easily.

10

China. A pie chart showing a breakdown of the top 10 countries that have visited the AJP from
July 2018 to September 2019 may also be found at Annex G2.

23 The visitor access statistics are encouraging as they reflect global interest in the AJP
and the information available on the AJP. It also suggests that there is a demand for information
on the judicial and legal systems of the AMS, which is met by the AJP.

24 Cognisant of the statistical trend in viewership highlighted in paragraphs 21 and 22
above, the AJP WG has identified as a strategic challenge, the need to retain continued interest
in the AJP. To that end, the AJP WG’s strategy is to facilitate the obtaining of quality and
current content, that in turn will stimulate greater viewership. The AJP WG has therefore
implemented and will be proposing various content enhancements as detailed in paragraphs 30
to 38 below. The AJP WG will continue to develop the AJP and introduce useful content to its
target audience, with the aim of increasing the viewership of the AJP.

E. Surveys to assess impact of AJP

25 At the meeting of the AJP WG in Singapore on 25 September 2019, a survey was
conducted amongst participants to obtain feedback on the impact of the AJP on facilitating
trade and investment in ASEAN. The results were promising, as all of the surveyed respondents
agreed that the AJP is a convenient one-stop portal which provides useful information in the
English language on the legal and judicial systems within ASEAN, and that the AJP is a useful
starting point to learn more about doing business in ASEAN. The AJP has plans to engage a
wider demographic of respondents, particularly those from the target audience of the AJP.

26 The AJP WG has considered various ways through which this may be done, including:
(a) disseminating surveys at the ASEAN Law Association meetings; (b) hosting the survey on
the AJP for visitors; and (c) extending the survey to chambers associations. These measures
will extend the range of survey respondents. Since the obtaining of feedback from a significant
segment from the target audience is dependent on awareness of the AJP, the AJP WG plans to
focus on promoting awareness of the AJP to the target audience. This could be done through
the following ways: (a) providing a link to the AJP on the Supreme Court websites of the
ASEAN judiciaries; (b) providing a link to the AJP on ASEAN websites, law firm websites, or
websites which provide legal updates and knowledge; and (c) setting up a Wikipedia page for
the AJP.

11

27 While there has been preliminary positive results in respect of this KPI, its attainment
is still a work-in-progress. The AJP WG will look into the various methods explained at
paragraph 26 above, and will provide the CACJ with an update on its efforts at the opportune
time.

F. Incidents and availability

28 From the launch of the AJP on 27 July 2018 to the time this report was prepared, both
sections of the AJP (ie, public and members-only) have achieved 100% availability, with no
incidents reported. One of the KPIs for the AJP is for there to be a low incidence of portal
downtime so that a stable and reliable platform may be delivered.18 The AJP has exceeded that
goal as there has to-date been no incidence of portal downtime (save for scheduled maintenance
periods).

G. Access to the members-only section of the AJP

29 At the 6th CACJ Meeting, the CACJ was informed that the usernames and passwords
to the members-only section would be rolled out in due course.19 User accounts to the
members-only section of the AJP have been issued to the various CACJ LOs, CACJ Working
Group members and CACJ AJP country administrators (the “AJP Members”). Further user
accounts will be issued as and when such requests are received from the CACJ representatives
to do so.20 A step-by-step guide and the user manual have been sent to the AJP Members to
assist them with navigating the log-in process, through two-factor authentication. Some of the
AJP Members have attended an AJP training session on 25 July 2018, at which they were given
a comprehensive briefing of the AJP website, in particular on the use of the members-only
section. A second AJP training session was recently conducted on 25 September 2019 in
Singapore, at the sidelines of the AJP Working Group meeting.

18 [B.3] of Annex B to the Grant Agreement. See also paragraphs 10 and 16 above.
19 See [4.4] of the Minutes of the 6th CACJ Meeting.
20 With the assistance of the WC and SAL (see paragraphs 14 and 15 above). The WC and SAL have also provided
support to all members who require assistance with the access of the AJP members-only portal, and will continue
to do so.

12

III. Enhancements

30 A key focus of the AJP WG is the continual improvement and enhancement of the AJP
to increase its utility and user-friendliness for its intended audience.21 In this regard, two new
initiatives involving the AJP were discussed and agreed to by the CACJ at the 6th CACJ
Meeting:

(a) First, for all training courses to be consolidated and made available to all
ASEAN judiciaries by posting these courses on the AJP.22 It was suggested that an
online training marketplace could be developed on the AJP to enable AMS judiciaries
to post information on the availability of training courses and sponsor details.23 The
strategic objectives of the training market place are twofold. First, the online training
market place facilitates training and continuing education of judges by providing a
mobile platform from which course conveners or organisers can reach their target
audience in AMS judiciaries. Secondly, the online training marketplace communicates
and showcases to the public, ongoing efforts in AMS judiciaries to keep abreast with
developments and provide training to judges.

(b) Second, the CACJ approved the initiative tabled by Singapore to develop an
online repository of landmark ASEAN cases on the AJP either by uploading the English
version of these cases together with a brief summary or by providing the web-links to
these cases.24 The purpose of the online repository is to provide information and general
awareness about the developments on specific areas of law in the respective ASEAN
jurisdictions.25 The cases featured on the online case repository also inform the target
audience about the application of ASEAN laws in cases before the AMS judiciaries.

31 Thus, the AJP WG planned for various system enhancements to the public section of
the AJP, which will give the AJP added capabilities to host the online training marketplace and

21 See paragraph 6 above for the purpose and target audience of the AJP, as decided at the 2nd ACJM 2014.
22 As recorded in Declaration 11(ii) of the 6th CACJ Meeting.
23 See [9.16] of the Minutes of the 6th CACJ Meeting.
24 As recorded in Declaration 21 of the 6th CACJ Meeting.
25 See [10.2] of the Minutes of the 6th CACJ Meeting.

13

case repository. In addition, the AJP WG planned for design improvements so that key
announcements and information may be presented in a more visually attractive manner on the
AJP. The AJP WG decided upon the system enhancements with the available budget in mind,
to ensure that there will be a healthy balance of funds after setting aside funds for the cost of
enhancements.26 In the interests of maximising efficiency, the system enhancements were
developed in order of priority, and are presently at varying stages of development and
implementation. Details of these system enhancements are set out in the table below:

S/N Description of System Enhancement (Public Status of Development /

Section) Implementation

1. Creation of a training marketplace  The first round of

 Training courses which are open to ASEAN development has been

judiciaries or any segment of the general public will completed and User

be published here. Acceptance Testing

 The courses will be published in a bulletin, with (“UAT”) is completed.

sorting parameters, so that courses may be  Sample screenshots of

identified and filtered easily. may be found at

 Interested participants will be able to respond Annex H.

directly to the event organisers by way of the listed

contact email.

2. Creation of an online repository of landmark ASEAN  This is currently

cases undergoing

 Users will have the option of categorising the cases development, and UAT

either by (a) subject area, or (b) country. is ongoing.

 The cases will be published in a bulletin, with key

information highlighted.

 The case repository will allow for the uploading of

the full judgment, as well as a summary of the

judgment. Extracts from the summary will also

appear on the main page of the case repository to

allow for quick and easy reference.

3. Various enhancements to the Announcements page to  This is currently

make it more visually attractive undergoing

 The page will be improved to allow the uploading development, and UAT

of more eye-catching content such as images. is expected to

Currently, the page only allows for text. commence by early to

 Capacity to push electronic direct mail to users will mid-November 2019.

be catered for.

 The uploaded announcements will expire at a set

time, so that the page will not be cluttered.

26 See paragraph 39 below.

14

 The headers on the page will have the ability to
expand and collapse, to allow for a neater
presentation.

32 The training marketplace on the public section will publish courses that are relevant to
members of the ASEAN judiciaries online, and will display information about such courses in
an attractive and comprehensive manner to disseminate information on training activities for
ASEAN judiciaries to the public at large. Given the two strategic objectives of the training
marketplace identified at paragraph 30(a) above, the AJP WG’s consensus is that all courses
relevant to ASEAN judiciaries, whether as a whole or individually, should be published on the
public section of the AJP as far as possible. Courses directed to a wider audience than but
inclusive of the judiciary (eg, legal community of an AMS) can also be publicised on the online
training marketplace. Course organisers who wish to have training courses marketed on the
AJP’s training marketplace may reach out to the AJP WG and/or CACJ Secretariat for
publication of courses online. Course organisers who wish to publicise their training courses
on the AJP training marketplace should clearly indicate the targeted participants, which can be
reflected on the online training marketplace on the AJP. Interested participants can contact the
organisers directly to determine if they are eligible and to make any further enquiries.

33 The AJP WG has designed the training marketplace with the users’ needs in mind,
which helpfully highlights key information that users will be most interested in. Apart from
providing key details about the course content (including the target audience), the website will
indicate clearly the course fees, things that are provided for by the organiser (eg, meals,
accommodation or travel expenses), and details of the contact person.

34 It bears highlighting that both the public and members-only sections of the AJP will
each have a training marketplace.27 The features of both training marketplaces will be largely
similar, save that the training marketplace on the members-only section may contain courses
that course providers wish to keep exclusive to AJP Members who have access to the
members-only section. This is in addition to courses that are open to the general public or
ASEAN legal community, which will be available on the training marketplace of both portals.

27 See paragraph 38 below.

15

Where the courses are exclusive to AJP Members, this will be indicated clearly on the
members-only section.

35 With regard to the online case repository, each ASEAN judiciary will be able to upload
the English version of these cases together with a brief summary or by providing the web links
to these cases on a dedicated page on the AJP. The AJP WG believes that the case summaries
will be particularly useful to the lay user, who is using the AJP as a resource to understand
more about the laws applicable in each AMS. To this end, the AJP WG has prepared a case
summary template, a copy of which may be found at Annex I.

36 To focus the collection of cases in the online case repository to those that would assist
users in understanding the key legal issues that impact on trade and investment in the ASEAN
region, the online case repository focuses on the four priority areas identified by the CACJ.
These are: (a) intellectual property rights enforcement; (b) bankruptcy and insolvency;
(c) convergence and harmonisation of ASEAN commercial law; and (d) environmental law.
The CACJ may consider other proposals to include other topics/areas of focus.28 The landmark
cases and case summaries will be uploaded onto the AJP as and when they are forwarded to
the CACJ Secretariat. The AJP WG envisages the online case repository to be a “living” portal,
ie, that the featured cases will be constantly updated by each ASEAN judiciary further to
developments in the law. However, the challenge moving forward is to ensure that such content
is of a high quality, up to date, and maintained with minimal budget. The AJP WG has put
together a proposal to address this challenge, and details of this proposal are elaborated upon
at paragraphs 41 to 46 below.

37 These new features described at paragraphs 31 to 36 above increase the utility of the
AJP as a go-to portal for people interested in the judicial and legal features of the AMS. Users
will benefit from: (a) the individual country write-ups that are currently on the AJP; (b) being
kept apprised of available training courses; (c) being able to obtain a quick understanding of
landmark case law, and (d) being alerted to any pertinent announcements in relation to the
CACJ.

28 See [10.3] of the Minutes of the 6th CACJ Meeting.

16

38 Further, system enhancements have also been planned for the members-only section
of the AJP. As mentioned at paragraph 34 above, the members-only section will also host a
training marketplace, but this will contain additional courses that are exclusive to the AJP
Members. The AJP WG has also decided to proceed with various enhancements to the
members-only section that aim to increase the utility of the AJP for AJP Members, and allow
for easier use and navigation. This was again done after consideration of the available budget.29
The AJP WG believes that this will encourage greater use of the AJP members-only section,
which will in turn facilitate more discourse through the portal. As with the AJP public section,
the system enhancements have proceeded in various stages of priority. Details of these system
enhancements are set out in the table below:

S/N Description of System Enhancement Status of Development /

(Members-Only Section) Implementation

1. Creation of a training marketplace (can be viewed by  This is currently

AJP Members only) undergoing

 The layout for the training marketplace on the development, and UAT

members-only portal will be similar to that on the is expected to

public portal. commence by end

 Intended for posting courses that are exclusive to October 2019.

AJP Members (in addition to all other content on the

public portal).

2. Various enhancements to the document repository  This is currently

feature undergoing

 Provision of folders and sub-folders so that AJP development, and UAT

Members may locate the relevant documents more is expected to

easily. commence by early to

 Option to download an entire folder and/or sub- mid-November 2019.

folder of documents as a zip file. This will allow

AJP Members to download all relevant CACJ

documents conveniently.

 The photographs and videos in the Gallery (which

are currently uploaded as single files) will be

reformatted to be presented by way of an album, to

facilitate easier browsing of the uploaded content.

3. Other miscellaneous enhancements  This is currently

 Enhancement of the “Calendar of Events” to undergoing

provide for the sending of electronic direct mail development, and UAT

and/or links. is expected to

commence by early to

mid-November 2019.

29 See paragraph 39 below.

17

 The Secretariat section will include a “Liaison
Officers” tab to display the directory of all CACJ
LOs. This will facilitate communication amongst
LOs.

 The Working Groups sections will include a
“Members” tab to display a directory of the
members in each Working Group. This will
facilitate communication amongst the Working
Group members.

39 With regard to cost and funding, the system enhancements outlined to be done at
paragraphs 31 and 38 above were last quoted by the vendor to cost a total of S$52,698.00. This
is well within the remaining budget of the NARIF grant, and is likely to leave a positive balance
at the expiry of the Grant Agreement in July 2020, even after accounting for operating costs,
maintenance and audit. Full details of the utilisation of the NARIF grant are captured at
paragraphs 47 to 48 below.

40 Notwithstanding the above, and depending on the progress of the development and user
feedback received, the AJP WG does not exclude the possibility of any future changes and/or
enhancements to the AJP website requirements, and in such event, additional costs may be
incurred.

IV. PROPOSAL TO KEEP AJP CONTENT CURRENT AND RELEVANT

41 For the AJP to be useful for its intended purpose of facilitating trade and investment, it
is crucial that quality and current content be provided. The quality and currency of the content
on the AJP will also impact upon the viewership of the AJP. The enhancements detailed at
paragraphs 30 to 38 aim to provide the platform through which the quality content may be
uploaded. However, there remains the strategic challenge of ensuring that such content is of a
high quality, up to date, and maintained with minimal budget.

42 To address this challenge, the AJP WG formed a proposal to be tabled at the upcoming
7th CACJ meeting on 22 November 2019 for obtaining quality and current content on the AJP,
specifically the case repository. A detailed concept note may be found at Annex J. In brief, the
AJP WG has put together various options through which each ASEAN judiciary may obtain
high quality content relating to case law developments within the jurisdiction at minimal cost.

18

The consensus amongst the AJP WG is that each ASEAN judiciary should be free to adopt the
option that best fits its context.

43 The first option is to tap on law firms in ASEAN jurisdictions who already regularly
prepare client briefs and/or updates on the latest legal developments. These include updates on
latest legislation, subsidiary legislation, amendments to laws, as well as case law and
commentaries. Such updates are made available by various law firms in the English language
online.30 For such a collaboration between the ASEAN judiciaries and the law firms to be
effective and practicable, two important considerations must be addressed:

(a) First, the need for ASEAN judiciaries as a whole, in collaborating with law
firms, to avoid the impression of partiality towards one or more law firms or individuals.

(b) Second, the interests of law firms must be considered. Law firms may be
inclined to collaborate if law firms can develop awareness of their practices through the
AJP.

44 To mitigate any concerns with the impression of partiality, the AJP WG’s consensus is
that the first option could be implemented by an AMS judiciary first identifying a panel of law
firms of a minimum size, in consultation with the bar and/or solicitors’ association in the
jurisdiction. One law firm from the panel may be assigned to contribute content on each subject
area, and this assignment will be subject to yearly rotation. The content (particularly, legal
updates or case summaries) will be provided by the selected panel law firms on a regular basis
to the CACJ LOs of the respective jurisdictions, who will then forward it to the CACJ
Secretariat for uploading onto the AJP.31 At all times, each ASEAN judiciary shall retain full
control over the contents to be uploaded on the AJP.

45 CACJ LOs are to inform the CACJ Secretariat about the attribution to be given to the
contributor of the write-ups (eg, name, law firm, practice area).32 The AJP will contain a clear

30 Eg, Rajah and Tann Asia LLP’s legal updates site accessible at https://www.rajahtannasia.com/eoasis/legal-
updates
31 With assistance from the WC (see paragraph 14 above).
32 The CACJ Secretariat will then convey the same to the WC, so that such attribution information may be reflected
on the AJP.

19

disclaimer that all information and opinions expressed originated from the contributor, and do
not form the view of any of the ASEAN judiciaries and/or the CACJ. The AJP WG is of the
view, that the attribution of content to their authors and law firms on an ASEAN platform like
the AJP will incentivise contributions on a regular basis from law firms keen to showcase their
work.

46 ASEAN judiciaries that may prefer not to collaborate with the local bar may prefer to
elect from a panel list of foreign or international law firms with a presence in their jurisdictions
instead. Otherwise, the AJP WG has devised various alternative modes for obtaining quality
and current content for consideration by the various AMS. These include tapping on the
resources of: (a) legal and judicial research institutions that are affiliated with the state (eg,
training or research institutes managed by the judiciary, state universities, etc); (b) academics
and researchers; and (c) the ASEAN Law Association National Committee. The AJP WG also
considered viable the utilisation of existing resources available to each AMS to populate their
country content. For instance, comparative law study writings contributed by legal scholars
sponsored by the judiciary for studies as part of their scholarship terms may be shared on the
AJP.

V. FUNDING OF THE AJP

47 The AJP is funded by Norway by way of a NARIF grant capped at NOK 3.6 million
(approximately US$420,000 or S$580,000) for the development and maintenance of the AJP
from March 2017 to July 2020. This is to be disbursed in multiple tranches upon request by the
SAL based on project needs.33 As at the time of this report, a total of NOK 2.1 million
(S$345,966.41) has been disbursed by Norway – this represents 58% of the total available
funding. Of the disbursed amount, S$276,199.90 has been utilised for various purposes, the
bulk of which was for payment to the AJP vendor for the development of the AJP. This leaves
a balance of NOK 1.5 million to be applied to the remaining hosting, support and maintenance
fees, the enhancements to be made to the AJP (see paragraph 39 above), audit fees, and any
other miscellaneous expenses. Details of how the NARIF grant has been utilised are contained
in an AJP Funding Utilisation Report prepared by the SAL, which may be found at Annex K.
The SAL has also been submitting the financial statements for yearly audits in accordance with

33 The tentative disbursement schedule may be found at [5.6] of the Grant Agreement.

20

Clause 7 of the Grant Agreement. Copies of the audited reports on the use of the NARIF grant
have been included at Annex L.

48 The AJP WG has, through SAL, successfully kept the operation costs of the AJP within
the estimated budget amounts. The expenditure has been well managed and there is a healthy
amount of balance sum that may be applied to any unforeseen expenses from now till the end
of the grant period in July 2020.

VI. FUTURE PLANS FOR THE AJP

49 The AJP WG recognises that continued training on the use of the AJP members-only
section is necessary for AJP Members, especially in light of the new enhancements to the AJP.
The AJP WG will be looking to organise further training sessions for AJP Members.34

50 The AJP WG is currently working with the CACJ Secretariat35 to explore various
options for continued funding of the AJP beyond July 2020. To this end, the CACJ Secretariat
has been engaging Norway and ASEC on an informal basis to consider the possibility of
Norway providing a second tranche of funding for the next three years beyond July 2020. A
Concept Note has been sent to representatives from the Norwegian Embassy to ASEAN, and
we are currently awaiting their response. In the event Norway may appear disinclined to
provide a second tranche of funding, the AJP WG plans to seek Norway’s concurrence for any
leftover funds from the first tranche to be utilised beyond the grant period, which expires in
July 2020. This will serve as an interim solution, while the CACJ Secretariat seeks ASEC’s
assistance to introduce the CACJ to other potential donors who may continue to fund the AJP.

51 The AJP WG is also actively considering the ways through which the AJP may be
monetised, so that a certain degree of self-funding would be possible.

52 Further, with additional funding beyond July 2020, the AJP WG foresees that various
upgrades may be made to both sections of the AJP. These include (a) the population of key

34 With the assistance of the WC, SAL and the AJP vendor (see paragraphs 14 and 15 above).
35 Further to Declaration 4 of the 6th CACJ Meeting, which states: “THE AGREEMENT to give the mandate to
the CACJ Secretariat to explore funding options with the ASEAN Secretariat and donor countries for the
continued maintenance of the AJP when the current funding is exhausted in 2020.”

21



LIST OF ANNEXES TO
THE REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON ASEAN JUDICIARIES PORTAL

Annex No. Description
Annex A Report of the 2nd ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting 2014
Annex B Memorandum of Understanding in relation to the ASEAN Judiciaries Portal
between the CACJ (as represented by the Chief Justice of Vietnam), the
Annex C Supreme Court of Singapore, and the Singapore Academy of Law
Annex D Grant Agreement regarding ASEAN Judiciaries Portal between the
Annex E Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the SAL
Annex F Common baseline content for all ASEAN judiciaries to be contained on the
Annex G ASEAN Judiciaries Portal
CACJ representatives for the Working Group on ASEAN Judiciaries Portal
Annex H ASEAN Judiciaries Portal Contents Template
Annex I G1: Page visits to the ASEAN Judiciaries Portal per month from July 2018
Annex J to September 2019
Annex K G2: Top 10 countries that have visited the ASEAN Judiciaries Portal from
Annex L July 2018 to September 2019
Sample screenshots of the Training Marketplace (Public) extracted from the
testing environment
ASEAN Judiciaries Portal case summary template
Concept note for obtaining quality and current content on the ASEAN
Judiciaries Portal
ASEAN Judiciaries Portal Funding Utilisation Report for the period 1
March 2017 to 15 October 2019
L1: Independent auditor’s report on the special purpose financial statements
relating to ASEAN Judiciaries Portal project dated 28 February 2018
L2: Independent auditor’s report on the special purpose financial statements
relating to ASEAN Judiciaries Portal project dated 28 February 2019

DRAFT REPORT 19th
SEPTEMBER

201413th-14th MAY

KUALA LUMPUR

SEOUL, KOREA

PREPARED BY:

Rapporteur Committee, Malaysia
For the 2nd ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting,

19 September 2014
Research Unit

Office of the Chief Justice
Malaysia

Palace of Justice, Putrajaya

TAMING SARI 03 BALLROOM

THE ROYALE CHULAN
5 JALAN CONLAY

50450 KUALA LUMPUR

CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

List of Attendees 2

1) The 2nd ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting 2014 - Welcoming 3
remarks from the Chairman

2) Addresses by the Chief Justices of ASEAN Member States 3

i) Brunei 3
ii) Cambodia 4
iii) Indonesia 5
iv) Myanmar 5
v) Philippines 6
vi) Singapore 6
vii) Thailand 6
viii) Vietnam 7

3) Approval of Minutes of the 1st ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting 8

REPORTS FROM ASSIGNED COUNTRIES 9
15
4) ASEAN Judiciaries Portal (AJP) by Singapore 16

5) Decision 16
18
6) Promoting Judicial Education And Training By Collaborating To 20
Develop Ideas To Enhance Training Opportunities For The 21
Judges And Judicial Officers Within ASEAN – Indonesia And The
Philippines Taking The Lead On This Issue 22
26
i) Indonesia 28
ii) Philippines
1
7) Decision

8) Malaysia’s Working Paper on Harnessing Judicial Cooperation in
ASEAN by collaborating and sharing best practices in facilitating
the service of civil processes within ASEAN to promote
economic growth and development of the ASEAN region.

9) Decision

10) Other Issues

11) Conclusion

2ND ASEAN CHIEF JUSTICES’ MEETING

19TH SEPTEMBER 2014
VENUE: TAMING SARI 3 BALLROOM, THE ROYALE CHULAN, KUALA

LUMPUR

LIST OF ATTENDEES

Country Chief Justice/ Representative

Brunei The Right Hon Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi
Darussalam bin Dato Paduka Haji Kifli
Chief Justice of Brunei Darussalam

Cambodia His Excellency Dith Munty
President of the Supreme Court of Cambodia

Indonesia The Hon Dr. H. Muhammad Hatta Ali
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
Indonesia

Malaysia The Right Hon Tun Arifin bin Zakaria
Myanmar Chief Justice of Malaysia

The Philippines H.E Htun Htun Oo
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
Singapore Union of Myanmar
Thailand
Vietnam The Hon Maria Lourdes Aranal Sereno
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
Philippines

The Hon the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon
Chief Justice of Singapore

The Hon Mr Direk Ingkaninanda
President of the Supreme Court of Thailand

The Hon Chief Justice Truong Hoa Binh
Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court of
Vietnam

2

2nd ASEAN CHIEF JUSTICES’ MEETING 2014
19 SEPTEMBER 2014

KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA

1) THE 2ND ASEAN CHIEF JUSTICES’ MEETING 2014 - WELCOMING
REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRMAN

The Chief Justice of Brunei Darussalam, the President of the Supreme Court of
Cambodia, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Indonesia, the Chief Justice of
Malaysia, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Union of Myanmar, the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, the Chief Justice of Singapore, the
President of the Supreme Court of Thailand, the Chief Justice of Supreme People's
Court of Vietnam and their accompanied Justices, gathered to inaugurate the 2nd
ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting on 19 September 2014 at the Royale Chulan Hotel,
Kuala Lumpur.

The Right Hon Tun Arifin bin Zakaria, Chief Justice of Malaysia as the Chairman,
made the opening remarks, welcoming ASEAN Chief Justices to the 2nd ASEAN
Chief Justices’ Meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The Chairman informed the
meeting that the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court of Laos PDR could not
attend the Meeting in Kuala Lumpur as he had prior arrangements, but had promised
that he would attend future such meetings. The Chairman also thanked the Chief
Justice of Singapore for initiating the ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting for the purpose
of discussing matters of common interest to ASEAN Chief Justices in conjunction
with the ASEAN Law Association (ALA) Governing Council Meeting.

2) ADDRESSES BY CHIEF JUSTICES OF ASEAN MEMBER STATES

The Chief Justice of Brunei:

2.1 The Right Hon Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi bin Dato Paduka Haji Kifli, Chief
Justice of Brunei Darussalam thanked the Chief Justice of Singapore for
initiating the first ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting in Singapore and looked
3

forward to interesting reports from Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia and the
paper from Malaysia.

The President of the Supreme Court of Cambodia:

2.2 His Excellency Dith Munty, President of the Supreme Court of Cambodia made
his address to the Chief Justice of Malaysia and the ASEAN Chief Justices. On
behalf of the Kingdom of Cambodia, His Excellency expressed his gratitude to
the Chief Justice of Malaysia for inviting Cambodia to the ASEAN Chief
Justices’ Meeting in Malaysia. His Excellency also thanked the Chief Justice of
Malaysia for the hospitality and kind treatment accorded to Cambodia’s
delegation. His Excellency noted that Singapore had organised this meeting in
conjunction with the ALA Governing Council Meeting and provided an excellent
model which could be emulated by other Member States.

2.3 His Excellency referred to the three (3) papers made available for the purposes
for this discussion and expressed his thanks to the Chief Justice of Singapore
for taking the lead in the discussion. His Excellency also thanked Indonesia and
Philippines for taking the lead in the paper on judicial training. His Excellency
also thanked Malaysia on exploring ways to harness judicial cooperation, in
ASEAN, by collaborating and sharing best practices in facilitating the service of
civil processes within ASEAN. His Excellency stated that he had perused
through all the preparatory papers and made the following comments:

a) His Excellency agreed to the establishment of the ASEAN Judicial Portal but
expressed the need to find a solution to reduce expenditure.

b) On the training of judges, Cambodia supported the proposals prepared by
Indonesia and the Philippines on training for judges as well as future fora on
environmental transboundary issues.

c) Relating to the service of documents in civil proceedings, Cambodia also
agreed that such service would facilitate civil proceedings. His Excellency was
of the view that there were many areas of cooperation within ASEAN. To this
4

end, the Cambodian delegation was open to hearing and participating in
further discussions in this area.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Indonesia:

2.4 The Hon Chief Justice Dr H. Muhammad Hatta Ali stated firstly that he would
like to congratulate the Host Country in organizing the ASEAN Chief Justices’
Meeting. The Chief Justice made reference to the ASEAN Chief Justices’
Meeting last year in Singapore, where the ASEAN Chief Justices had
concluded an understanding, and expressed his belief that the present Meeting
would cement the agreement. The Chief Justice stated that he wished to see
some concrete justification on the papers, namely the judicial portal, the judicial
training and civil processes. On a personal note, the Chief Justice thanked the
Chairman in taking the lead on the discussion.

2.5 The Chief Justice also expressed his pride at the achievement of the ASEAN
Chief Justices through this ASEAN collaboration particularly in relation to the
three papers. The Chief Justice believed that by working together, many
matters would be resolved, for the greater economic development of ASEAN. In
conclusion, the Chief Justice expressed his sincere appreciation to Malaysia for
the warm welcome extended to the ASEAN Chief Justices. He wished
everyone all the best for the future.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Union of Myanmar:

2.6 His Excellency Htun Htun Oo expressed his pride over the achievements of
ASEAN. The Chief Justice expressed his belief that the ASEAN judicial portal,
the facilitation of the service of civil processes and the training of judges are
measures which will improve the economic development of ASEAN. The
Chief Justice thanked Malaysia for hosting the meeting as well as the warm
hospitality extended to all.

5

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines:

2.7 The Hon Maria Lourdes Aranal Sereno thanked the Malaysian Judiciary for its
hospitality. The Chief Justice expressed her gratitude for the continuity in
uniting ASEAN Chief Justices, not only to help each other but also the region.
The Chief Justice stated that the Philippines would be pleased to host the next
ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting next year. The Chief Justice announced that
the famous Boracay Island will be the venue for the 3rd ASEAN Chief Justices’
Meeting. The Philippines is supportive of the judicial portal and is also grateful
for the civil processes paper and the preparatory steps to be taken before the
overall process is instituted. The Chief Justice also thanked the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of Indonesia for the paper on the training of judges.

The Chief Justice of Singapore:

2.8 The Hon the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon thanked the Chief Justice of
Malaysia and his team for the warm welcome and hospitality extended in
organising the 2nd ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting. The Chief Justice was
happy and encouraged by the warm response from ASEAN members of the
legal fraternity who attended the 2nd ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting and the
36th ALA Governing Council Meeting. He was also grateful that the number of
Chief Justices has surpassed last year’s meeting. The Chief Justice was
convinced that meetings between the Chief Justices of ASEAN is were
important to identify common challenges within ASEAN and to find solutions.
The Chief Justice expressed the view that the reports must have been
thoroughly prepared by all assigned countries. The Chief Justice looked
forward to an excellent meeting.

The President of the Supreme Court of Thailand:

2.9 The Hon Mr. Direk Ingkaninanda stated that he is grateful to the Chief Justice
of Malaysia and the Malaysian Judiciary for organising this ASEAN Chief
6

Justices’ Meeting. He stated that economic activities where different rules
applied comprise a challenge to the judicial and legal systems of each Member
State. However, he was of the view that each Member State has made an effort
to approach and resolve the situation. The President of the Supreme Court
stated that as long the ASEAN Chief Justices have combined the action plans
and seek to formulate a regional penal code, commonality can be achieved.
He stated that Thailand will continue to provide support in implementing the
admirable efforts proposed by the Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia and
Malaysia.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam:

2.10 The Hon Truong Hoa Binh thanked the Chief Justice of Malaysia and other
Chief Justices, as well as the Judiciary of Malaysia for organising this event and
its hospitality. The Chief Justice strongly believed that the ASEAN Chief
Justices’ Meeting is a close union. He expressed the view that through this
meeting the ASEAN Chief Justices would have the chance to discuss many
common issues. He strongly believed that this would promote and strengthen
the economic relations among ASEAN countries. The Chief Justice believed
that this Meeting would act to promote solidarity as a united organ, particularly
in relation to the judicial sector. It would enable Member States to share
experience and knowledge together. The Chief Justice said that he is of the
strong belief that this would strengthen bilateral and multilateral arrangements
for the ultimate benefit of the people.

2.11 The Chief Justice stated that the Constitution of Vietnam was enacted last year.
As such the Supreme Court of Vietnam is encumbered with many tasks and
would like to learn from the experience of other Member States. The Chief
Justice requested support from each Member State and sought to share its
experience with other Member States. In relation to the Environment Forum
held in Thailand last year, the Supreme Court of Vietnam extended an invitation
to the ASEAN Chief Justices for the 4th ASEAN Chief Justices’ Roundtable
Meeting on Environment in Hanoi, Vietnam in December this year. The
organising committee would send letters inviting all ASEAN Chief Justices to

7

attend. The Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam looked forward to hosting the
Chief Justices and their delegations in Hanoi. The Chief Justice was also
hoping to organise cultural entertainment in Hanoi. The Chief Justice concluded
by wishing success to everyone.

3) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE 1ST ASEAN CHIEF JUSTICES’
MEETING

3.1 The Chairman requested all Chief Justices’ views as to whether there are any
amendments to be made to the previous Minutes of Meeting of 23 August
2013.

3.2 On 23 August 2013, at the 1st ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting in Singapore, the
ASEAN Chief Justices agreed on the objectives of the Meeting as follows:
“(i)To promote close relations and mutual understanding amongst the ASEAN
judiciaries;
(ii)To provide a regular forum for the ASEAN Chief Justices to discuss and
exchange views on common issues facing the ASEAN judiciaries; and
(iii) To facilitate judicial cooperation and collaboration among ASEAN judiciaries
with a view to accelerate the economic growth and development of the
ASEAN region.”

3.3 At the 1st ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting, the discussion was on three areas

which are as follows:

“(i) To enhance the Rule of Law to promote greater economic co-operation in

ASEAN by developing an internet portal to improve the flow of information on

ASEAN Judiciaries – Singapore will take the lead on this issue;

(ii) Promote judicial education and training by collaborating to develop ideas to

enhance training opportunities for the Judges and judicial officers within

ASEAN – Indonesia and the Philippines will take the lead on this issue;

(iii) Harness judicial co-operation in ASEAN by collaborating and sharing best

practices in:

(a) The use of court technology;

(b) Case management techniques; and

8

(c) Facilitating the service of civil processes within ASEAN to promote
economic growth and development of the ASEAN region. - Malaysia will
take the lead on this issue.”

3.4 The Chief Justice of Singapore suggested that the Minutes be agreed upon and
this was seconded by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
The Chairman endorsed the Minutes of the 1st ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting
at the 2nd ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting.

REPORTS FROM ASSIGNED COUNTRIES

4) ASEAN JUDICIARIES PORTAL (AJP) BY SINGAPORE

SINGAPORE:

4.1 The Chief Justice of Singapore advised informed the meeting that Singapore
had distributed papers on the conceptualisation of the ASEAN Judicial Portal
(“AJP”) to all 9 (nine) ASEAN countries. The Chief Justice of Singapore firstly
acknowledged the work done by his working committee (as in Annexure A of
the Discussion Paper circulated at the 2nd ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting)
before passing the presentation over to Justice Lee Seiu Kin, who tabled his
presentation. Justice Lee Seiu Kin addressed the framework for the AJP,
namely, the AJP’s objective(s), target audience, contents, language and the
final item, being the issues on funding.

4.2 The AJP is an initiative by the ASEAN Chief Justices to disseminate information
about ASEAN legal and judicial systems and in so doing, would create an
international presence for the ASEAN judiciaries. This would enhance the
international standing of ASEAN Member States as well as their judiciaries, and
facilitate foreign investments and international commerce. It will enhance the
accessibility of information on is about accessibility of information, the laws and
legal processes and legal information of the various member states, as well as

9

to cover common issues, for instance, the environmental and human rights
issues.

DISCUSSION:

(a) Proposed Objective of the AJP

4.3 There was general consensus amongst the ASEAN Chief Justices that the
broad objective of the AJP should be to bring ASEAN legal jurisdictions to the
world by providing a portal through which the world can appreciate, learn or
know more about the judiciaries and legal environment of ASEAN member
States. AJP seeks to enhance the flow of investment and commerce into
ASEAN countries through the familiarisation, appreciation and accessibility of
information.

Additional comments provided by the ASEAN Judiciaries are as follows:

4.4 Malaysia: AJP should serve as a one-stop centre to provide information about
the laws, legal and judicial systems and access to justice for the judiciary, legal
profession, academics, citizens and business communities of the ASEAN
Member States. Malaysia suggested that the broad objective at the initial stage
should be to foster greater relationship and cooperation among ASEAN
judiciaries, as well as to enhance mutual knowledge and appreciation of each
ASEAN Member State’s legal system and legal environment.

(b) Proposed Target Audience

4.5 It was the view of the Meeting that for funding purposes, it would be
strategically advantageous to position the portal as benefitting and reaching out
to the wider international community rather than ASEAN alone. Malaysia
opined that the target audience should include the judiciaryjudiciaries, the legal
profession, academics, the business community and citizens of the ASEAN
Member States.

10

(c) Proposed Design and Content of the AJP

4.6 On the Additional Material, Singapore recommended a focus on one or two
main areas at this the initial stage and proposed that materials could be added
on at a later stage.

(d) Language
4.7 Generally all Member States agreed that the AJP should be in the English

language at the initial stage, since English is the language of business.

(e) Funding the Cost
4.8 Singapore had proposed that whilst developing and maintaining the AJP has to

be cost effective, the AJP must also be a secure website from an authoritative
source. Singapore presented some preliminary cost estimates to provide some
basis for discussion.1 Singapore also noted that different countries have
different costs. Singapore advised that the Turnkey cost is estimated at S$
200,000 and maintenance at S$15,000 per annum. This sum was based on
figures given by Singapore vendors. Singapore is trying to source a lesser
figure and also suggested looking at funding options.

4.9 Singapore had explored the issue of funding for website creation and
maintenance. in some member states and was of the view that self-funding was
a good option. 4.10 On the funding model, Singapore laid out 8 funding
options2 and proposed two options for which sought the Meeting’s decision:

(1) Option 1:Self-Funding.

1 A preliminary costing was done based on quotes for system implementation with configuration by
vendors in Singapore. On a turnkey basis, it is estimated that it will cost S$180,000- S$200,000 for
implementation and S$10,000-S$15,000 per annum for maintenance. A hosted solution will cost
S$130,000-S$150,000 for implementation, S$2,000 per month for hosting and S$8,000-S$12,000 per
annum for maintenance. A 20% uplift should be added to cater for customisation. The estimates are
based on Joomla CMS and MySQL database with the assumption that the AJP will be similar to the
Singapore Law portal in terms of security level, content, scope and features. They do not take into
consideration disaster recovery, high availability, operations (call centre support) and content
management system customisation.
2 Annex B at page 6-7.

11

On this model, the costs of creating the AJP will be shared equally among
Member States on an equal basis.

(2) Option 2: Funding from Donor(s) for creation of the AJP.
On this model, the costs of creating the AJP will not be divided up among
Member States but instead, one or more donors or donors will fund the
costs of creating the AJP. To facilitate the search for donors, one Member
State should be appointed to act as agent on behalf of all Member States.

PHILIPPINES:

4.101 The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines expressed the view
that it was high time to introduce the AJP. S$200,000 is not a huge amount.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Philippines expressed her concern
that there might be some overlap in resources which were already available
through Lexis Nexis.

SINGAPORE:

4.112 The Chief Justice of Singapore stated that the objective of AJP should be a
website for the judiciary judiciaries of ASEAN where all Member States should
be able to participate. The Chief Justice stated that Singapore was happy to
take the lead on this project, and to find the options to make it viablebring it to
fruition. He suggested that The law firms would might be interested in to
providing provide the necessary funds as it the AJP would promotes business
integration. The Chief Justice sought agreement in principle as to whether this
initiative would be a viable model. The Chief Justice suggested that there was
general consensus on the first four topics (i.e. issues), namely the objectives,
target audience, the content and approach, are good ideas and that the primary
language to be used should be English. The Chief Justice added that perhaps
Members as such, it appeared that the Member States could agree on these
issuescan agree to adopt the first four topics. On funding, Tthe Chief Justice
was of the view that the challenge was not in obtaining the funding, but rather,
in collating all the necessary materials. He urged Member States to think about
12

consider how this the content creation and collation process matter could be
expedited, so the consensus on the first four topics could be achieved.

INDONESIA:

4.123 The Chief Justice of Indonesia stated that having listened to the proposal by
Singapore, Indonesia takes the view that the proposal had been presented
comprehensively. Indonesia advised that it is timely to have the portal. The
Chief Justice stated that the Indonesian Court has a portal that is accessible all
over the world, with landmark decisions. It was getting a big response and even
Indonesian people appreciated this. The Chief Justice voiced his view that the
difficulty is the financing part, unless Singapore can get the donor or sponsor.
The Chief Justice added that if cost sharing was possible, it should be done.

MYANMAR:

4.134 The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Union of Myanmar agreed to
the proposal to have donors and to provide information on trade, commerce
and law firms. The Chief Justice also talked about creating and updating the
AJP with an English translation for the purpose of getting information. Myanmar
advised that it initiated its portal website in 2013.

VIETNAM:

4.145 The Chief Justice of Vietnam stated that in relation to the target audience for
the portal, there would be two groups of audience, one for the judges, and the
legal sector would be the second group. The Chief Justice suggested that the
judiciary should have the website in English. The Chief Justice suggested that
at a later stage, other languages could be used. The Chief Justice also made
following suggestions:

i. How to manage and administer the website in the future.
ii. The Chief Justice also sought clarification as to the function of Member

Countries; what should be the contribution and the mechanism to ensure it
can be used by other Member Countries;

13

The Chief Justice stated that after the portal has been developed, there will be a
need to make comparisons with other Supreme Courts. The Chief Justice also
suggested that regarding the funding, the Chief Justice is in favour of the second
option, namely to source international donors.

SINGAPORE:

4.156 The Chief Justice of Singapore spoke about funding for translation,
emphasising the need to explore possibilities. It was suggested that Justice Lee
would assist judiciaries to source for sponsors or look for development
agencies to fund the cost of translatinge the materials.

MALAYSIA:

4.167 The Chief Justice of Malaysia pointed out that most ASEAN countries have
their own judicial websites which can be used as a base line. The most important
aspect is the use of the English language, as it will facilitate investors.

SINGAPORE:

4.17 The Chief Justice of Singapore agreed but stated that Singapore was more
concerned with substantive contentmatters like legislation and translation.

MALAYSIA:

4.18 The Chief Justice of Malaysia commented that not many ASEAN countries
are bilingual. The best possible approach is by determining what is best for each
country.

PHILIPPINES:

4.198 The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Philippines suggested a
comparative note list of possible sponsors be brought into the next meeting.

14

SINGAPORE:

4.2019 The Chief Justice of Singapore sought consensus that a single donor

or group of donors be found to fund the costs of creating the AJP and that to

facilitate the search for donors, the ACJM agreed to appoint Singapore as its agent

to lead the search for possible donors and to report to the ACJM for a decision.

Singapore would prepare the paper provide an update on the search for donors at
for the next Meeting.

ASEAN CHIEF JUSTICES:

4.210 All Member States agreed to Singapore’s request.

5) DECISION

5.1 Generally Member States agreed to have an ASEAN Judiciaries Portal;

5.2 The Chairman agreed with the Chief Justice of Singapore’s suggestion to get
the consensus of the Member States for the first four topics which are
objective(s), target audience, content and language for the ASEAN Judiciaries
Portal.

5.3 In relation to language, the Chief Justice of Vietnam agreed to Singapore’s
proposal to start the portal in English.

5.4 In relation to funding, Singapore laid out two options for the website creation for
the ASEAN Chief Justices Meeting’s decision:

(1) Option 1:Self-Funding.
On this model, the costs of creating the AJP will be shared equally among
Member States on an equal basis.

15

(2) Option 2: Funding from Donor(s) for creation of the AJP.
On this latter model, the costs of creating the AJP will not be divided up among
Member States but instead, one or more donors or donors will fund the costs of
creating the AJP.

(The draft proposals below were distributed at the meeting)

5.1 That the objective of the AJP is to bring the ASEAN legal jurisdictions to the
world by providing a portal through which the world can appreciate, learn or know
more about the judiciaries and legal environment of ASEAN member states.

5.2 That to this end, the AJP should:

(a) Seek to reach out to the wider international community;

(b) Include a focus on trade and investment within ASEAN; and

(c) As a concurrent or secondary focus, seek to foster greater cooperation
and closer relationships among ASEAN judiciaries, as well as enhance
mutual knowledge and appreciation of each ASEAN member state’s legal
system and environment (for example by covering common interests and
issues such as environment and human rights).

5.3 That the AJP should target the following audience:

(a) ASEAN trading partners, investors and business community (primary
audience); and

(b) Judiciary, legal profession, academics and citizens of ASEAN states
(secondary audience).

5.4 That as a starting point:

(a) The AJP will ensure that all ASEAN judiciaries have a presence on the
Internet;

(b) ASEAN judiciaries' websites without an English option will have English
translations; and

16

(c) The AJP will contain a common baseline content for all ASEAN
judiciaries.

5.5 That ASEAN judiciaries which do not have their own websites with English
translations shall identify themselves to the Working Committee and inform the
Working Committee whether they intend to set up or are setting up their websites
and if so, what is the status of their progress in this regard. If assistance is required,
they are to state their needs and requirements and the other ASEAN judiciaries shall
consider whether they are in a position to offer any form of assistance.

5.6 That the common baseline content at paragraph 5.4(c) shall consist of:

(a) Information about the judicial system (ie constitution, jurisdiction, court
structure etc);

(b) Information about the head of the Judiciary and the most senior members
of the apex court (eg deputies, or top 5, based on the judiciaries’
preference);

(c) Information about the legal system;

(d) Information about the sources of laws, court procedures and court
processes, with links to official versions of the country’s legislation and
case authorities or key authorities, all of which are to have authorised
English translations;

(e) Information about the legal profession;

(f) Information on other bodies dealing with trade and commerce and
exercising regulatory or administrative supervision; and

(g) Section of hyperlinks to and email addresses of relevant organs of state,
legal professional bodies, directory of law firms, etc.

5.7 That the common baseline content shall be presented using a common
template to achieve a consistent ‘look-and-feel’.

5.8 That for future editions of the AJP, the following can be considered for
inclusion:

17