K Shanmugam
Singapore
“Bank accounts are frozen when there is reason to suspect that the bank accounts are involved in illicit activities, including money laundering activities.”
“The Singapore Police Force does not track the requested data. Distinguishing artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content typically requires more detailed forensic examination which may not be necessary in every investigation and may also not be conclusive as to whether AI-generative tools were used.”
“The Building and Construction Authority’s Code on Accessibility provides baseline requirements for accessible and inclusive buildings. It stipulates a minimum width of 1.5 metres or 1.8 metres for primary accessible routes, depending on the building type.”
“The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licence) Rules under the Road Traffic Act set out the scope of the medical assessment required for motorists aged 65 and above who wish to retain their driving licences.”
“When a Police report has been made, the Police will investigate to determine if a criminal offence has been committed. If there is reasonable suspicion that a case is scam-related, the Police can direct online service providers to restrict Singapore users' access to the relevant online activity under the Online Criminal Harms Act.”
“Through intelligence sharing and coordinated enforcement actions, the cross-border operation disrupted a transnational drug trafficking syndicate and downstream drug trafficking activities, with the UK arresting seven persons so far and further investigations underway.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,552 lines we hold for K Shanmugam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 74 of 92.
“One just has to follow the rules. The ownership and control of the Managing Agent, in the case of AHPETC, are what distinguish that Town Council from all other Town Councils. That makes any transactions between the Town Council and FMSS or FMSI a related party transaction. And under FRS, if someone is a General Manager or Secretary of the Town Council and, at the same time, employed by the Managing Agent, that is not considered a related-party transaction, unless that person has control or joint control of the Managing Agent. In all other Town Councils, no one had such control and the auditors raised no queries. For AHPETC, its own auditors raised queries, which the Town Council refused to answer. This is not a question of negligence. This is not a question of inexperience. When employees do not own the MA, they cannot be said to have a serious personal financial interest in each such transaction. But with AHPETC, the position was different. The Managing Agent was owned by Loh, Ms How and Yeo. The payments they were verifying and approving on behalf of the Town Council were going directly into their own pockets. This is not a theoretical conflict of interest. It is a real conflict. Husband and wife were issuing invoices on behalf of their own company. They were often verifying, on behalf of the Town Council, the work done by themselves. They were also certifying, on behalf of the Town Council, the payments to their own companies. The wife was then approving, on behalf of the Town Council, the cheques for payment to their own companies, and the husband was then signing the Town Council's cheques for payments to themselves. I think Mr Chen will accept that this is unacceptable. You do not need an FRS to know that this is contrary to the law.”
“How much would be the total amount paid to FMSS in this way from May 2011 up till now? It will obviously be more than $6.6 million. If similar payments were made in other years, then it would not be much less than $20 million. We do not know the full amount because there has been no audit for the period from May 2011 to January 2015. This process is unacceptable. It is also unlawful. It is a common practice across Singapore that when a Town Council engages a Managing Agent, a major part of the Managing Agent's contract is to provide the Town Council with its key management personnel to supervise the running of the Town Council day to day. We would thus naturally expect the Town Council's key management personnel – its Secretary, Page: 90 General Manager, Deputy General Managers – to be employees of the Managing Agent. MND does not prohibit this. MND has allowed it in response to Town Councils' feedback. However, in all these 25 years, in no other Town Councils, except AHPETC, are the Secretary, the General Manager, the Deputy General Managers of the Town Council not just employees of the Managing Agent, but also complete owners of the Managing Agent. Their ownership interests and control of the Managing Agent are what distinguish AHPETC from all other Town Councils. That makes any transaction between the Town Council and FMSS and FMSI a related-party transaction that has to be disclosed under the Financial Reporting Standard (FRS). I heard with some interest Mr Chen, who has considerable experience, saying there are no standards. I think Mr Chen has overlooked FRS. FRS sets out what ought to be disclosed. The only difference is that AHPETC acted in breach of FRS. Everybody else complied with FRS. So, there are no new standards to look for. The standards are there.”
“This annex will show how payments were made to FMSS and FMSI. If you look through the annex, you will see that Loh and Ms How issued the invoices on behalf of FMSS and FMSI. Ms How and Yeo, acting on behalf of the Town Council, then certified the work for payment to their own company. Ms How then approved the payment vouchers and cheques to be issued by the Town Council for payment to her own companies, FMSS and FMSI. Loh then, on behalf of the Town Council, signed the cheques for payments to his companies. The cheques were then co-signed either by Ms Sylvia Lim or Mr Png. About $6.6 million was paid out in just one Financial Year, FY2012/2013, in this way. This was the period covered by the AGO audit. I have prepared a table in the next annex which sets out the process relating to 84 cheques totalling $6.6 million which was paid out in FY2012/2013. Again, with your permission, Mdm Speaker, may I ask for that to be distributed?”
“The total value of the contracts was about $27 million. Ms How became the General Manager and Mr Loh the Secretary of the Town Council. Another FMSS shareholder, Mr Yeo, became the Deputy General Manager of the Town Council. Page: 89 One has to ask: Ms How and Yeo were employees of the Hougang Town Council. They could have been employed by AHPETC. There was no need to set up a new company to provide services to the Town Council. So, why set up FMSS? It was a convenient vehicle to which millions of dollars went from the Town Council. And another obvious question: money that went to FMSS – where did it actually go? What happened to it? The Town Council paid money to FMSS in a number of ways. I will mention two. First, Mdm Speaker, may I ask the Clerk to distribute an annex?”
“Mdm Speaker, Aljunied GRC is one of the largest GRCs in Singapore. It has more than 150,000 residents, mainly living in 3- and 4-room HDB flats. Honest people, they work hard to raise their families, make a living and pay their S&CC fees every month. They trusted the Workers' Party with their hard-earned money. The AGO report raises serious questions about the conduct of the AHPETC Town Councillors and what they did with the money of the honest residents of Aljunied, Hougang and Punggol East. There are four major questions that arise from the facts which have come out. One, the AGO report makes clear that the AHPETC Town Councillors allowed millions of dollars to be paid to related parties in breach of their legal, fiduciary duties. The payments were unlawful. Two, these payments were done without transparency or accountability. There was no full and frank disclosure of the facts and there was no discussion of the conflicts of interests. Three, AHPETC suffered a loss because of the payments to the related parties. I will refer to AHPETC as the "Town Council". Four, what is the responsibility of each of the Town Councillors for these payments? What did each of them know? What role did each play in paying monies to the related parties? Let me deal with each of these four points. First, on the payment of the millions to related parties. The Town Council allowed millions of dollars to be paid to the related parties. On 8 May 2011, the Workers' Party won Aljunied. Seven days later, on 15 May 2011, a husband and wife, Mr Loh and Ms How, set up a company, FMSS. Loh also owned a sole proprietorship, FMSI. The Town Council gave the MA contract to FMSS in 2011. The Town Council also gave three more contracts to FMSS over the years.”
“Page: 107 Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong visited Jakarta to attend Indonesian President Joko Widodo’s inauguration on 20 October 2014 and hosted a breakfast for the latter in Singapore on 22 November 2014. In their discussions, Prime Minister Lee and President Joko committed to maintain the strong cooperation between our countries. Prime Minister Lee expressed Singapore’s willingness to work closely with President Joko’s Administration in areas where there are complementarities. I also met my foreign affairs counterpart Ms Retno Marsudi on a number of occasions recently. She visited Singapore for her introductory visit on 26 November 2014 and I visited Jakarta in December 2014 to have discussions with her and other Indonesian leaders. Similarly, many of our Ministers and officials have good ties with their counterparts in President Joko’s Administration and are committed to advancing the relationship. Indonesia is a key player internationally and regionally, especially within ASEAN. Indonesia’s support will be crucial for the success of the ASEAN Community in 2015 and beyond. As the region’s largest economy, Indonesia’s continued stability and development are vital to us all. I am confident that Indonesia will continue to play a constructive role in the region. We look forward to maintaining our close cooperation with Indonesia in ASEAN and other forums.”
“Singapore’s relations with Indonesia have always been broad-based and multifaceted. This is underpinned by mutual respect and "win-win" cooperation in various fields, such as the economy, education, environment, health and defence. Our ties at the leadership level are excellent and are buttressed by strong people-to-people links. We have also stood together in solidarity during times of crises. For instance, we just commemorated the 10th anniversary of the tsunami that devastated Aceh on 26 December 2004. The Singapore Armed Forces worked closely with the Indonesian military to help the victims and their families in the aftermath of the disaster. During the recent crash of AirAsia flight QZ 8501, Singapore supported the search and locate and subsequent recovery efforts led by Indonesia. Our agencies operated closely with their Indonesian counterparts, leveraging on the close ties forged over many years. Similarly, we have cooperated closely in international and regional forums. Singapore and Indonesia share similar views on the need for a stable region with an open and inclusive regional architecture. We have worked well together to promote Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) centrality, stability and prosperity. When there are outstanding or difficult issues, we have been able to discuss them in a frank and constructive manner in order to find a way forward. Ultimately, we understand that, as neighbours and regional partners, there is much to be gained in strengthening the relationship between our two countries. I am confident that this will continue to be the case going forward.”
“Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, during the debate on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, I explained the rationale for creating the new office of the Deputy Attorney-General (DAG). This Bill introduces a number of consequential amendments to other Acts to ensure that the DAG has the necessary powers or privileges to carry out his responsibilities. I will highlight the key amendments. The DAG assigned by the Attorney-General to have control and direction over criminal prosecutions and proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code or other written law will have all the powers of the Public Prosecutor. The DAG will be allowed to appear on behalf of the Government before the Courts, to lead evidence before an inquiry, and to appear before and address the inquiry body on any matter at the direction of the Attorney-General, similar to other legal officers. A DAG who is not already a Senior Counsel (SC) will be deemed appointed as SC on the date of his or her appointment as DAG. The DAG will rank after the Attorney-General and before the Solicitor-General in precedence. The DAG will also be a Law Revision Commissioner, an ex-officio member of the Senate of the Singapore Academy of Law, and if he or she holds office as DAG for at least two years, then a Fellow of the Singapore Academy of Law. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam]. (proc text)] Page: 106 [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)] Page: 107”
“– [Mr K Shanmugam]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)] Page: 105”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on Mr Singh's question on pension versus gratuity, pensions are payable continuously for a period of time until the person passes away, and the person would be entitled to medical benefits. With a gratuity scheme, he gets a lump-sum at the end of service and that is that. Yes, if there is misconduct after he receives the money, then, of course, you cannot claw back, because I thought that was the question that was being asked. His misconduct after he receives it – say, at age 75, 80 or whatever – is not going to be relevant for what he received at 65, for example, and he will not get any medical benefits. In terms of whether he is entitled to the gratuity when he retires, if he retires honourably, then there is no issue. If he does not retire honourably, then, obviously, he would not expect to get the gratuity. But to be more precise, regulations would have to be made by the President on these issues, at least in broad terms. As regards Mr Lim's question, yes, I agree. The compensation cannot be the only issue. The Deputy Prime Minister explained the points; the committee considered it. The people who come in, by and large, take a pay cut. They have been delinked from political office holders, and the current judicial officers, such as Judges, High Court Judges, their compensation broadly, according to the committee's view, taking into account the entire remuneration, including pension – was acceptable. All we are doing is changing it from pension to gratuity. We are not increasing or reducing it. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill amends the Judges' Remuneration Act which, together with the amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill moved earlier, provides a gratuity plan for future judicial and statutory appointment holders. [Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair] The Bill focuses specifically on the judicial appointments of the Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal and Judges of the High Court. It specifies the terms under which such a gratuity plan may be paid to judicial appointment holders. It also confers on the President the power to make regulations to prescribe a gratuity plan for judicial appointment holders. This is similar to the amendments to the Constitution for statutory appointment holders. The Bill also provides for a death gratuity to be paid to the dependants or estate of judicial appointment holders, should they die in service. Both the gratuity plan and the death gratuity will be paid from the Consolidated Fund. As the death gratuity will now be provided for in this Bill, the Bill makes a consequential amendment to remove its provision for this group under the Pensions Act. This will prevent double claims for death gratuities under separate Acts for judicial and statutory appointment holders. This gratuity plan will apply only to future judicial appointment holders. Current appointment holders will not be affected by the change. Mr Deputy Speaker, in summary, the amendments in this Bill, together with those to the Constitution, will make future judicial and statutory appointment holders non-pensionable, like most public officers. I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 6.07 pm”
“PCC, of course, will issue those rules in the context of now regulating a much broader entity, including foreign lawyers. And the Law Society will have jurisdiction over the disciplinary processes over those lawyers. But in terms of issuing the rules – what sort of ethical rules, what sort of guidance – the PCC headed by the Chief Justice will do it. Thank you. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] Page: 100 [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)] Page: 101”
“We are also looking at the major economic challenges that are on the horizon and how we can position our legal sector. I think that is the best I can do at this point in time. We see a bright future for the legal profession if we get these rules through and if ASEAN integration comes through.”
“Fundamentally, what is our intention? It is to create the circumstances which will make sure that there is a lot of work for the legal profession. It may not be created out of our own economy, in which case we create a new sector. That is what we did with arbitration and that is what we are hoping to do with the SICC. By positioning Singapore as a legal hub, if we succeed in that, a lot of work will be attracted here. We intend to keep to the current framework where Singapore lawyers have rights of audience for Singapore cases and the foreign lawyers can come and practise foreign law. QFLPs have fairly limited rights in specific areas. That is the broad scope that we can see. At the same time, because of our financial services industry, and the economy is so integrated with the rest of the world, what happens with the legal practices elsewhere, and where they are moving towards multi-disciplinary practices with ABSes and so on. We have looked at it a number of times, we have been cautious, we did not want to move in that Page: 99 direction after consulting the industry. But you cannot say that you will forever preclude it. I cannot say I rule it in, but neither can I say I rule it out. So, LDPs is a small step. I think bigger law firms will not have a problem, but small law firms – two-man law firms, three-man law firms, one-man law firms – they often need capital. If their capital is going to come from someone who is not a lawyer, then we should allow it as a way of encouraging them to upgrade, to do better. This seeks to help the smaller and medium-size law firms. The Drew & Napiers of this world do not need LDPs. ABSs offer a very different challenge from the ethical and business perspectives. It is working in other countries; we are studying it carefully.”
“I am putting a slight caveat because if they are appearing purely on a matter of, say, German law and such terms are governed by German law and it has got nothing to do with Singapore, and there are certain things that are permitted under German law which are not permitted under Singapore law, I think that has to be taken into account. That is why I hesitate to say it will be exactly the same, but I understand the point Mr Kumar makes and I think the intention is to not disadvantage anyone. That is the answer to the first point. On the second point, non-legal practitioners are subject to the same rules, but, of course, to disbar a person who does not have a right to practise in the first place may not appear to be much of a sanction. Those are the very reasons why because it is a little too premature to try and put it in the Act. Every possible person who may potentially become a member and then what are all the different types of sanctions? We need to find our way in this a little bit. That is why the Act is worded a little bit broadly and then we hope to put into the rules some further criteria. My thinking is that we will have to refine it as we go along and we need to be cautious upfront. We need to take into account that the sanctions that are imposed on the non-lawyers must be effective. So, I accept that point and that is something that will be given as guidance, and the relevant rules committee would be very much aware of that point. There is no point saying that we have a sanction which has got no bite. The third point is a much more difficult one: an overview of how the profession is developing. This is something that we are giving a lot of thought to. In fact, all these changes are meant to try and anticipate what is going to happen.”
“On the first question: will foreign and local firms be subject to the same rules if they are bidding for work in the SICC? Of course, this is subject to the point that just because it is in SICC does not mean that a foreign firm can appear. There are those requirements of no substantial connection and/or representation on a specific aspect of foreign law. Those are not cast in stone. The rules will have to be structured but those are broadly the principles for foreign counsel. The intention is to unify the rules for foreign and local lawyers, to make them subject to certain minimum standards and then impose on Singapore lawyers additional rules insofar as they pertain to Singapore law practices. For example, appearance before the High Court, not before the SICC. There will be specific rules which may not apply to, say, a foreign lawyer who does not appear in Courts. If he is practising German law as a solicitor, there will be some rules which do not apply to him which will apply to Mr Hri Kumar who appears before the Courts. Logically, if there are lawyers who are practising and who appear before the Supreme Court, the intention as described in the report, foreign lawyers, even if it is on a matter of foreign law, the intention is that certain basic standards should apply. And to some extent we may have to look to their own jurisdictions on what would be required when they appear in court. But when they appear in the Singapore Court, we should impose on them fairly Page: 98 similar standards and rules.”
“In terms of the specific criteria, we will go into a little bit more details in subsidiary legislation because of the requirement for flexibility, but it is more looking at the individual rather than saying who will not be. As regards to the question of whether the Law Society was consulted, I am a little curious because the Report was out in January; we consulted members of the Bar; we consulted the Law Society; it was engaged before and after the public consultation; and we continued to work with it on implementation and aspects of their feedback was incorporated. The PCC, we want to make sure there is a broad representation and representation from the profession. Those are my responses, Mdm Speaker, to the questions and queries.”
“Page: 96 For entity regulation, the functions currently handled by the Law Society relate to fairly administrative issues like the naming of business, approvals to share premises, and so on and the licensing criteria of Singapore law practices, and these will be transferred to the LSRA. The broader regulations and the transfer to MinLaw is necessary, really, for us to adapt, anticipate and keep ahead of changes and have a certain logical framework for allowing structures to come through which would help our legal profession and the industry. For example, the LDPs and in future, perhaps, the ABSes, how they should be dealt with, what sort of rules should we put in and what sort of equity caps should be allowed. Of course, we will consult the legal profession but these have wider economic implications as well and therefore they have to be dealt with by MinLaw as recommended by the Committee headed by the current Chief Justice. To emphasise, disciplinary matters will continue to be handled by the Law Society coming under the ultimate oversight of the Supreme Court. As regards the regulation of LDPs, non-lawyers partners, directors, owners, they will be, as I have explained in answer to Mr Kumar's question, subject to the same obligations and duties as their lawyer counterparts. Issues of conflict of laws, issues of costs, and so on, will have to be dealt with as law practices are dealt with now. Clients, first of all, have a choice of finding out what the likely costs are going to be. Second, they can always file a complaint and, third, ultimate supervision by the Courts if it amounts to misconduct. Who will be prevented? I think we have defined the broad criteria.”
“If approved, the non-lawyer owners or managers will be subject to the same management and ethical rules as in the new PCR as lawyers. If found to be in breach of these rules, they will be subject to the same disciplinary framework as their lawyer counterparts. As to the detailed requirements that a non-practitioner has to fulfil in order to become a director, partner or shareholder, or to share in the profits of a law practice, again, the intention is that this will be addressed by way of subsidiary legislation which will be drawn up in consultation with the Law Society as well as other industry stakeholders. The Regulatory Committee had recommended that a 25% cap on the total non-practitioner ownership be permitted, and there be a "suitability" or "fitness" test. The concept of ABSes, of course, is new to Singapore as Mr Kumar has pointed out. We intend to adopt an incremental approach starting with LDPs. In relation to the possibility of allowing other types of ABSes, we will study this issue carefully in consultation with the industry. As regards the points made by Ms Lim on Law Society's regulatory role, I think it is important to understand what the amendments are. We have been working closely with the Law Society on the implementation details. Let us be clear – there is individual regulation and there is entity regulation. For individual regulation, the lawyer himself, for professional conduct matters, the Law Society will continue in its current role as secretariat supporting the Inquiry Committee and the Review Committee for the disciplinary process. The key change will be that the disciplinary process will now also extend to foreign-qualified lawyers, ultimately, subject to the control of the Courts.”
“The DLS will head a new division within MinLaw, likely to be named the Legal Services Regulatory Authority, and he or she will oversee, first, the licensing and regulation of business criteria applicable to law practices, so it is administrative; and, second, the registration of foreign lawyers. The DLS' regulatory focus is to ensure that there is adherence to some sort of logical business and licensing criteria, for example, the licensing of QFLPs or the naming of law practices and profit sharing and equity limit rules on Joint Law Ventures and Formal Law Alliance arrangements between a Singapore and foreign law practice. As part of this role, Page: 95 section 2E allows for mutual co-operation between the DLS and other stakeholder agencies which are involved in various aspects of the regulatory regime of the legal profession. For information to be shared, it must be required for the discharge of the relevant agency's functions. The DLS' powers, as Members can see, are scoped for the formulation of regulation and policy, and the administration of his functions under the Act. The DLS is legally required to exercise his powers reasonably and for a proper purpose. Section 2F allows the compilation and aggregation of more accurate and timely information relevant to the legal services industry as a whole. Currently, that information must be obtained through surveys under the Statistics Act. However, data which are current and of good quality are not always available and this can, in turn, affect the quality of policymaking and regulation. As regards the points Mr Kumar made about allowing non-practitioners to own equity in or share in the profits of a law practice, the Bill seeks to set out some safeguards.”
“The approach taken for registration and administrative issues under the LPA is that, for example, under the current LPA, the qualifications and requirements for registration of foreign lawyers in local or foreign firms are left to subsidiary legislation. So, we have taken the same approach now, and really because most of it relates to administrative details that may change from time to time. For registration to appear before the SICC, the intention is to set out a basic standard of qualifications and requirements in subsidiary legislation as well. I had previously explained the substantive aspect as to when you can register for actual appearance. Mr Kumar also asked about the PCR which will apply to foreign lawyers registered with the SICC. Section 36Y(2)(j) provides that Rules may be made for regulating the professional practice, etiquette and conduct of foreign lawyers registered under section 36P. The Code of Ethics applicable to these foreign lawyers, therefore, will be set out in subsidiary legislation. As for the query on whether a foreign lawyer who has had due cause shown against him may be debarred from applying to register in future, section 36U(5) states that a foreign lawyer shall be permanently prohibited from re-applying for registration where his registration has been cancelled, unless the Court otherwise orders. So, we give the discretion to the Courts. The questions on Director of Legal Services: first, I think it is important to emphasise what is the role of the DLS.”
“The intent behind a unified disciplinary framework is to have a basic set of requirements applicable equally to both Singapore and foreign lawyers offering legal services in Singapore. In proposing this reform, the Regulatory Committee which comprised both Singapore lawyers and foreign lawyer representatives, was mindful that lawyers in Singapore are now largely operating in the context of an international environment. As Mr Kumar has pointed out, there are some differences across jurisdictions with regard to specific rules. As such, the Regulatory Committee proposed the following approach to devising the new Professional Conduct Rules (PCR). First, general and universally accepted principles of conduct will apply to all lawyers in Singapore; and second, specific rules that are more relevant to the practice of Singapore law will only apply to Singapore lawyers, and foreign lawyers practising Singapore law. For example, rules relating to court proceedings and rules peculiar to the practice of Singapore law. Third, new management rules will apply to local Page: 94 and foreign lawyers involved in the management of a law practice. The Regulatory Committee has tasked a Sub-Committee comprising practitioners from both the local and foreign Bar to work through the details and the rules will be put out for consultation as soon as a draft is ready. Mr Kumar had some questions on foreign representation in the SICC. He has pointed out that the Bill does not spell out the qualifications and requirements for registration with the SICC.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. If I can take the points raised, Mr Yeo asked about the purpose of introducing "regulated non-practitioners", and the classes of persons who may apply to become one. The reference to a regulated non-practitioner is to implement the recommendation to allow law firms to structure as Legal Disciplinary Practices. I had set out the purpose earlier. Mr Yeo also asked about the power to make all partners in an LLP, or directors in an LLC, jointly liable for "unbefitting conduct" which cannot be attributed to one or more identified individuals. That provision is actually not new. It is found in sections 81F(2) and 81U(2) of the Legal Profession Act. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that consumers of legal services are protected notwithstanding that the firm is structured as an LLP or LLC and to ensure parity with other forms of corporate structures, such as sole proprietorships and partnerships, but I take Mr Yeo's points and since really we are talking about something that is quasi criminal, I think appropriate discretion ought to be exercised depending on the extent of liability and the extent of mens rea and culpability involved. As to what constitutes "conduct unbefitting an honourable profession", I think even the Courts have struggled with that, but it would include any breach of ethical or professional responsibility standards set out in the Act or Professional Conduct Rules. I think it will also go beyond that. Mr Kumar enquired about the approach taken to unify the professional conduct rules for Singapore and foreign lawyers practising in Singapore, given the varying professional conduct rules across different jurisdictions.”
“Fourthly, the Bill expands the membership of the Law Society by allowing foreign lawyers who practise only foreign law to join as an associate member of the Law Society. Lastly, the Bill makes changes to better organise the categorisation of foreign-qualified lawyers seeking registration under the Act and sunset categories that will be streamlined. In this regard, a new category of registration will be created for foreign lawyers who do not practise in Singapore, but who wish to hold an interest in a Singapore law practice, to register and obtain approval to do the same. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 5.24 pm”
“It introduces anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing obligations into the primary legislation. These obligations are mainly taken from existing obligations in the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules. The Law Society will also be given the power to make related rules, with the approval of the Minister for Law. The Law Society's existing powers to inspect Singapore lawyers for compliance with such obligations will be extended to foreign lawyers. These amendments are part of Singapore's ongoing efforts to implement international best practices, including recommendations by the Financial Action Task Force, and to ensure Page: 86 that there are sufficient safeguards put in place to combat money laundering and terrorism financing in the legal sector. Secondly, the Bill enables the Law Society to introduce a new requirement for Singapore lawyers to disclose the number of hours spent in each preceding year on pro bono work. This will take effect from 2015 onwards. This requirement was recommended by the Committee to Study Community Legal Services Initiatives. This Committee was chaired by Attorney-General VK Rajah, who was then a Judge of Appeal, and it included representatives from the Singapore Bar. This will generate the information that will enable a more holistic appraisal of the pro bono landscape in Singapore. Thirdly, the Bill streamlines the process of applying for practising certificates by allowing Singapore lawyers to make a declaration that they have paid or made arrangements to pay all relevant fees in the Supreme Court's Integrated Electronic Litigation System without having to obtain certificates evidencing the same.”
“It will also allow law practices to gain access to additional sources of capital and investments to grow, attract senior non-lawyer stakeholders with strong management or finance experience, to better manage the business or financial aspects of legal practice and to offer a wider range of value-added services to their clients. In considering the issue of ABSes, the Committee recommended an incremental approach and stressed the importance of appropriate safeguards to address concerns about independence and conflicts that could arise from allowing non-lawyers to be involved in managing and developing a law practice. As recommended by the Committee, the Bill will permit Legal Disciplinary Practices (LDPs) to be established. This allows non-lawyer employees to become partners, directors or shareholders, or to share in the profits of the law practice. However, LDPs will only be permitted to provide legal services. Further, Non-Lawyer Owners will need to apply for approval to become an owner or manager of the law practice. The suitability of each applicant will have to be assessed. If approved, the Non-Lawyer Owner will be subject to the same management, professional responsibility and ethical rules in the professional conduct rules; and the same disciplinary framework as their lawyer counterparts. As for other forms of ABSes, this is an issue we will continue to study in consultation with law practices, legal industry stakeholders and consumers of legal services. A prudent, calibrated and incremental approach will be taken with regard to ABSes, with appropriate regulatory safeguards put in place to ensure adequate consumer protection. Mdm Speaker, the Bill also makes some miscellaneous amendments which I will now go through.”
“The DLS will have the following powers and functions. He will take over the Attorney-General's and Law Society's respective powers to register law practices and regulate business criteria that are applicable to law practices in Singapore. However, all matters relating to professional conduct will remain under the Supreme Court's oversight. He will take over the Attorney-General's function of registering foreign lawyers in Singapore, and he will regulate and license law practices wishing to structure themselves as Alternative Business Structures (ABSes) in Singapore. I will explain more about ABSes shortly. Having an integrated licensing system would make it administratively more convenient for law practice entities to set up offices in Singapore by streamlining processes and allow for more consistent supervision and enforcement of the "business criteria" applicable to the various law practice entities, thereby facilitating a more coherent and consistent regulatory approach. The Bill also provides for the flexibility to accommodate alternative business structures or ABSes which have begun to come up in other major jurisdictions such as Australia and the United Kingdom. Unlike traditional law practices which are completely owned by lawyers Page: 85 and only offer legal services, ABSes are innovative structures where non-lawyers are allowed to be partners, directors or shareholders, or to have a share in the profits of the law practice; and/or firms which offer multi-disciplinary services beyond the provision of legal services, for example, by including accountancy services. ABSes present new ways for law practices to better organise their business.”
“The various stages of the disciplinary framework, namely the Review Committee, the Inquiry Committee, the Disciplinary Tribunal and the Court of three Judges, are identical to Page: 84 the present framework that is applicable to Singapore-qualified lawyers. However, where a foreign-qualified lawyer is being disciplined, a foreign-qualified lawyer will sit on each of the committees, as well as on the Disciplinary Tribunal. The Bill also establishes a new Professional Conduct Council (PCC) chaired by the Chief Justice. The PCC will oversee the enactment of the relevant rules relating to professional conduct matters for Singapore-qualified lawyers and foreign-qualified lawyers practising law in Singapore, and the management of law practices. This ensures that all lawyers will be subject to common ethical and professional responsibility standards. I will now turn to the regulation of entities within the legal profession. Presently, there is no integrated regime governing the regulation of law practices as entities. The Attorney-General oversees the regulation and discipline of foreign law practices, as well as collaborations involving Singapore law practices and foreign law practices, and the Law Society oversees various approvals pertaining to Singapore law practices, such as name approvals, but does not otherwise regulate or license Singapore law practices. The Bill seeks to consolidate the parallel regulatory regimes into one by establishing an integrated licensing system administered by a single central body, which we intend to name the Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA). The LSRA will oversee and regulate local and foreign law practice entities that operate in Singapore. The Bill establishes the post of the Director of Legal Services (DLS) to head the LSRA.”
“In January 2014, the Committee released its Final Report recommending, first, to streamline the disciplinary framework for all Singapore-qualified and foreign-qualified lawyers in Singapore; second, to establish a new Professional Conduct Council (PCC); and, third, to create a new statutory office under MinLaw that will be helmed by a Director of Legal Services (DLS) to regulate Singapore and foreign law practices. The amendments seek to maintain high professional standards in the legal industry. Let me elaborate on this set of amendments by discussing the regulation of individual lawyers and the regulation of entities. Presently, Singapore-qualified lawyers have to adhere to the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules, come under a professional disciplinary process administered by the Law Society and are subject to the ultimate oversight of the Supreme Court. On the other hand, foreign-qualified lawyers are generally not subject to our Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules and come under the regulatory oversight of the Attorney-General. The streamlining of disciplinary processes will ensure that a common disciplinary framework applies to all lawyers operating in Singapore. To this end, the Bill will extend the existing disciplinary regime that is applicable to Singapore-qualified lawyers to foreign-qualified lawyers and ensure that both categories of lawyers fall under the Supreme Court's ultimate supervisory oversight. The Law Society of Singapore will remain involved as the Secretariat for proceedings before the Review Committee and the Inquiry Committee.”
“The Bill also introduces a framework for dealing with complaints on the professional conduct of lawyers registered with the SICC. Under this framework, upon receipt of a complaint, the Chief Justice will appoint a complaints committee to hear and investigate the complaint. If the complaints committee Page: 83 determines that there is a prima facie case for investigation, the appointing committee will appoint a solicitor to frame the charges to be preferred against the foreign lawyer and thereafter conduct proceedings before the complaints committee, in accordance with the instructing authority's instructions. After the solicitor prefers the charges against the foreign lawyer, the complaints committee will hear and investigate the complaint. The foreign lawyer will have a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the complaints committee. If the complaints committee finds cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action, the appointing authority will appoint a solicitor to make an application to the Court of three Judges. The Court of three Judges, apart from the usual powers to order a penalty and/or a censure, will also have the power to cancel the foreign lawyer's registration. Mdm Speaker, the next set of amendments aims to modernise Singapore's regulatory framework for lawyers and law practices. This set of amendments arises from the recommendations made by the Committee to Review the Regulatory Framework of the Singapore Legal Services Sector. The Committee was headed by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, who was then the Attorney-General.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". The Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill contains two key sets of amendments, as follows. First, to provide for the registration of foreign lawyers who wish to appear and plead before the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), and second, to modernise and streamline Singapore's regulatory framework for lawyers and law practices. I will take each set of amendments in turn. Mdm Speaker, earlier, I explained the rationale and structure of the SICC during the Second Reading of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill and the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill. I also explained that foreign lawyers will have to register to appear and plead before the SICC, or to argue appeals from the SICC. The Bill provides for two forms of registration. First, full registration, which allows a foreign lawyer to appear and act in proceedings before the SICC and appeals from the SICC in certain cases to be prescribed in subsidiary legislation, for example, where the case does not have a substantial connection with Singapore. Second, restricted registration, which allows a foreign lawyer to appear and act solely for the purposes of making submissions on matters of foreign law in the specific case permitted by the Court. The foreign lawyer's registration may be cancelled in limited circumstances, for example, where he has been subject to disciplinary action in another jurisdiction. The Judge hearing the application will give the foreign lawyer a reasonable opportunity to be heard before making the order to cancel the registration. His decision is not appealable. Foreign lawyers who are registered to appear before the SICC are subject to the oversight of the Supreme Court.”
“But we have to define "success" at two levels: one, the number of cases and the type of claims that have come through; and, second, also, the intangible, which is how it positions us as a legal hub, as a place to go to in all of Asia. So, if you sit anywhere in the world and you think of a dispute resolution in the Courts, in a neutral forum, would you think of Singapore? That is what we want to try and achieve. To some extent, we are the only jurisdiction in Asia now that can even think of it. It is not going to be easy. It is not going to be achieved any time soon, but we have to try. And this is an attempt. [(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)] [(proc text) The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]”
“We envisage a system of registration. They will have to register under the Legal Profession Act to appear in the SICC. There will be two types of registration – either a full registration or a restricted registration. I will deal with the requirements for registration in the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill. Basically, in essence, foreign lawyers will only be allowed to appear in cases defined in the Rules of Court. These could be cases which are governed by foreign laws or have no connection to Singapore, or Singapore law cases but with an element involving foreign law, and you want a foreign lawyer to come and argue that specific foreign law part. So, subject to that, for Singapore cases, it is not envisaged that they will come and argue. If you look at the report of the SICC Committee, there can be situations where a case involves Singapore law but has no substantial connection to Singapore. Foreign parties, with Page: 81 disputes arising overseas, but Singapore law has been chosen for some reason. In such situations, foreign counsel may be permitted to appear, but the objective is a very different one. It is to persuade parties to choose Singapore law as a choice of law, which will be beneficial for our legal industry. Finally, on the question of how the success of the SICC will be defined, I think the data is important, like the number of cases filed and disposed, the values of the claims, which is very much the way we look at arbitration. Everyone knows it is a success now. I think it is not going to be possible to precisely track the direct and indirect economic benefits.”
“It is not required, it is not essential, but sometimes parties do not want to start and then face an objection that the case is not appropriate. So, if you wanted to have a higher level of certainty, you will go and apply for the certificate. And because the SICC is new and untested, parties would be very uncertain as to whether it will or will not have jurisdiction, or how it will resolve threshold issues. They may not even be sure if their dispute is international or commercial in nature, which are jurisdictional requirements. So, we thought that it would be advantageous for parties to be able to apply for such a certificate in advance of the actual proceedings commencing. We considered other options, a number of options, and we spent a lot of time thinking about this. But in the end, we thought that allowing this pre-action certificate is the easiest and it will be certified by the Court. The third point that Mr Kumar made relates to the Court's power to order a transfer of cases from the High Court to the SICC and vice versa. The rationale is to allow the cases to be heard in the Court which is more appropriate, rather than again trying to set it in stone upfront, and the Rules of Court again are expected to set out the detailed procedure for such transfers. Section 18J(3) contemplates the Court making consequential orders to address the procedural and other issues that Mr Kumar raises. On the adoption of foreign rules of evidence and foreign representation, these are optional. Unless the parties make the necessary application, the status quo will prevail, which means the Singapore rules of evidence apply and parties will continue to be represented by local counsel. So, when can parties be represented by foreign lawyers in the SICC?”
“I thank Mr Hri Kumar for supporting the Bill. I will address the questions that he raised or at least try to address them. Mr Kumar's first concern is that a number of details and issues concerning the SICC will be set out under subsidiary legislation, for example, those relating to SICC's jurisdiction. Section 18D provides three requirements to be satisfied before the SICC will have jurisdiction to hear any action. As Mr Kumar noted, the three requirements are cumulative. So, for SICC to have jurisdiction, it must first be an action that can be heard by the High Court under its original civil jurisdiction. Second, there is the additional requirement to show that the action is international and commercial. So, that circumscribes the nature of the cases. The Rules of Court cannot enlarge the jurisdiction of the SICC. It can refine it, it can define it, but it cannot enlarge what is set out in legislation. Ultimately, Parliament, of course, has direct control over the ambit of SICC's jurisdiction. For example, if necessary, we can enact further laws. At this stage, we have not sought to Page: 80 define it with too much precision, because the objective is to attract international and commercial cases to Singapore and we took the approach that flexibility is key and that is best achieved through putting it under the Rules of Court. The Rules Committee is chaired by the Chief Justice and includes the Attorney-General, Judges and Members of the Bar. I will come back to the type of cases the SICC will hear, but let me first deal with the pre-action certificate question governed by section 18E of the Bill. This is an optional step for parties to take.”
“Parties may also strengthen the enforceability of SICC judgments by including clauses in their jurisdiction agreements that will have the effect of waiving their rights to defend against an action based on an SICC judgment in any jurisdiction. Mdm Speaker, I will now turn to the other amendments. The Supreme Court has suggested amendments to the Act such that it will enable the Court of Appeal to hear applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 34 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (SCJA) without compromising on its case management capabilities. The Bill also introduces a new procedure for applications made to the Court of Appeal, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Such applications may be determined by two Judges of Appeal without the need to hear oral arguments. The Bill also introduces consequential amendments relating to the appointment of Senior Judges and International Judges of the Supreme Court. These amendments were discussed during the debate earlier. The Bill also contains amendments to align the position for appeals from the High Court, other than the Family Division, with that for appeals from the Family Division of the High Court in family proceedings. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] Page: 77 4.34 pm”
“Proceedings in the SICC will be heard by either a single Judge or by three Judges. Where proceedings are heard by three Judges, the Chief Justice shall appoint one of the Judges to preside. The cases will be decided in accordance with the decision of the majority. The SICC will have the same powers as the High Court, except the powers that the Family Division of the High Court exercises and it will also not have the power to make Page: 76 prerogative orders. The rules and procedure before the SICC will differ from those before the High Court in three broad areas. First, cases before the SICC will not be bound by the rules of evidence that are applicable under the Singapore law in such cases and to the extent as provided for in the Rules of Court. Second, the Rules of Court may provide for different procedures and practices to be followed in the SICC. Third, even where Singapore's laws of evidence are applicable, the SICC may allow any questions of foreign law to be determined on the basis of submissions, without requiring formal proof by experts. The SICC's jurisdiction will generally be consensual. Parties who have voluntarily chosen to have their disputes adjudicated by the SICC are expected to comply with its orders without the need to resort to enforcement measures. The Bill further provides that the parties to an agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of the SICC shall be considered to have agreed: (a) to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the SICC; (b) to carry out any SICC judgment without undue delay; and (c) to waive any recourse to any court or tribunal outside Singapore against any SICC judgment or the enforcement of such judgment. That is, unless the parties have expressly provided otherwise.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill introduces amendments in two main areas: first, it establishes the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC); and, second, it refines the procedure for obtaining leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in civil proceedings. I will take each set of amendments in turn. Mdm Speaker, I have touched on the rationale and general framework for the SICC during the debate on the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. I will, therefore, focus on the key features of the SICC that are found in this Bill. This Bill establishes the SICC as a division of the High Court. The President of the SICC shall be the Chief Justice, unless he appoints a Judge of Appeal, a Judge of the High Court, a Senior Judge or an International Judge to be the President. The SICC will have jurisdiction to hear cases that can be heard by the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction, and are international and commercial in nature. The Rules of Court will set out the types of cases that are considered international and commercial in nature. For certainty, potential parties will have the option of applying for a pre-action certificate to certify that the intended action is international and commercial in nature. The pre-action certificate may also certify such other matters as the Rules of Court may prescribe. In addition, cases commenced in the SICC may be transferred to the High Court, and vice versa. This will enable cases which are more appropriately heard in the other Court to be transferred. The procedure and conditions for such transfer of cases will be set out in the Rules of Court.”
“Now, Madam. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."”
“Yes. I understand. By definition, those who became Judges obviously did not go back. That is why they remained as Judges. There are those who have left. And we believe that they contributed. We believe that having such a system where they come in for a two- or three-year appointment, and then let them make the choice, and also the Chief Justice sometimes will recommend that they are very good lawyers but they may not have the right judicial temperament. So, that has allowed us to have the flexibility, without really, I think, anyone questioning their independence or integrity. Therefore, we have not sought to change that system. And up to now, I can tell Ms Lim that when practitioners are approached, often, their preference is to come in as Judicial Commissioners, and then decide. They often say to us, "We do not know whether this is something that we can do." It is not a question of aptitude. It is not a question of wanting to contribute. It is not a question of taking a salary cut. Even when they are prepared to do all that, they do not know whether they would be cut out for it. It is a very harsh isolated life and it is very hard work. So, combine the two, some people have told us they would prefer to go back. So, I think it has worked well. With the touchstone that, as far as possible, as our Bar increases in size, in depth, in quality, we should try and move towards greater rather than lesser security. With that caveat, I think, at this point in time, these changes would greatly enhance the reputation of our Judiciary. Thank you.”
“Can I ask Ms Lim to repeat the third point so that I can respond?”
“I will deal with the two questions. The first is an observation which I do not think requires a response. Do I agree or did I say that, as a matter of principle, the short-term appointments undermine the principle of judicial independence? I think maybe Ms Lim and, perhaps, Mr Singh, will be the only two people in the House who might have gotten that impression. It is the very opposite of what I said. What I was saying is that, as a matter of principle, I agree that we should try and look at giving security of tenure and, we do, for Puisne Judges, up to the age of 65. But you also make adjustments and, in the context of a small Bar, the difficulty of getting people and the need for people to come in for a short term and go off. You make your adjustments. It will not undermine judicial independence. Indeed, our Judiciary already has all these structures, and the only change that is being made here is the appointment of Senior Judges. Other than that, everything is the same. With all that existing structure of Judges after 65 being appointed for short terms, even the Chief Justice was reappointed – Chief Justice Yong Pung How and Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong had more than one short-term tenure extended a number of times. The independence of our Judiciary is something I do not think you challenge, I do not think anybody else challenges it, and we are very highly regarded and ranked. So, I believe that the current structure does not undermine the principle of judicial independence or integrity. And, indeed, we rank very highly. But I do agree also that, where possible, we should move towards greater security of tenure. So, there is a slight difference in emphasis. As regards the third point – I am not quite sure.”
“One, they will not get monthly payments; and, second, there will be no post-retirement medical benefits. They will get a lump sum at the end of their tenure. And that is the way that most of the Public Service has moved. The amounts were at the right level. The way you quantify that amount, we are trying to make sure that it is consistent with the rest of the Public Service. And this is the opportunity to make the Constitutional amendments without impacting on the current Judges because we do not want any suggestion that we are making changes to their income in a way that is detrimental to them. We are being quite careful about the way we are making this amendment. I think I have dealt with the questions that have been raised. Thank you, Madam. 4.10 pm”
“How does he interact vis-a-vis the Solicitor-General? The Deputy Attorney-General will be the equivalent of a High Court Judge and that is why we are making the Constitutional amendments. He will be between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. And the Attorney-General needs a person of the calibre of a High Court Judge who is constitutionally protected and has his salary paid from the Consolidated Fund, to do the duties that the Attorney-General may give to him to do to help the Attorney-General manage AGC. There is a need for that, and also to deal with a substantial increase in other aspects of work, including criminal work. Page: 68 Now, as regards clean wage, there is no inconsistency at all in the position that is being taken. Deputy Prime Minister Teo said to this House that the Judges' salaries were at about the right level, as determined by the committee that was appointed. He said last year that the outcome of the PSD's review was the appointment holders are paid at about the right level in order to recruit and retain persons of high ability, integrity and commitment to hold such key appointments, which included pensions. So, pensions were computed and that was part of the package. Salaries of Judges were delinked from salaries of political officeholders. Political officeholders do not get pensions. But Judges continue to get pensions and we have been very careful. By way of a Constitutional amendment, for example, you could have removed pensions of current Judges, but we do not want to do that. This amendment relates to future Judges who will be appointed and we want to move them from the pension system to a gratuity system. The main difference is two-fold.”
“Outstanding Judges, some of them started out as JCs – Chan Sek Keong, for example, possibly the greatest jurist of his generation, decided he would stay on and then he became the Chief Justice. In the context of the point made by Mr Singh about independence, I do not think anyone questioned his independence, even though he was renewed for short terms after he turned 65. I do not disagree with the fundamental point. I am just saying that those fundamental points sometimes have to be leavened with a practicality of a small Bar, which is what we have. And it is a very small talent pool. So, really, what we should be looking at is appointment of persons of the right timbre. At the end, that is your best guarantee. And judgments are public – we have a highly educated public, they can look at the judgments and decide whether the Bench is or is not of the quality that we want. Now, the other points, and I do want to emphasise, this is not really about the amendments we are making, it is about the amendments that they wish we were making. But I will deal with it in this broad way anyway. Two other points that were made by Mr Singh is, first of all, the Deputy Attorney-General – why? I think there was a gratuitous point about taxpayer's money, the suggestion being that we are wasting taxpayer's money. Really, let us just be quite fair about this without being theatrical. Of course, the Attorney-General's Chambers is strengthening its middle sector. It has expanded substantially in the last few years. It has taken on a lot of officers. At the same time, the Attorney-General spoke with us and said that he felt the need for someone at the Deputy Attorney-General's level. We are people who take the views of our Chief Justice and Attorney-General very seriously.”
“In an ideal world, that, I think, is an approach that should be considered and, fundamentally, we do not disagree. But the point is, you have to take the profession as you find it and then you have to try and fit the rules as best you can. If you are too theoretical or too dogmatic about this, in the end, you will not have the Judiciary that we have had with the outstanding reputation that it has. It has that reputation. It is highly ranked by the World Bank and other such institutions precisely because of the approach we have taken. What is the balance between giving them security and the practicality? The practicality is that we have a small Bar, a small pool and an even smaller pool of talent of the quality to become High Court Judges and Chief Justices. If you approach a lawyer from the private sector, many of them – as Mr Lee Kuan Yew explained to this House long ago when he was dealing with Judicial Commissioners – have indicated and continue to indicate that they do not want the appointment as Puisne Judges immediately. They would rather come in as Judicial Commissioners (JCs) – take a short-term appointment, take it for three years and then decide whether they want to continue or whether they want to go back into practice. Page: 67 Some have stayed, some have gone back. If you do not give that flexibility and if you are like some other countries where perhaps you have 100 people who can become High Court Judges, yes, then you have a wealth of talent. But if you have very few, then you need to make that adjustment and we have, therefore, provided for the appointment of JCs which has worked very well.”
“As regards the discretion that is given to the Chief Justice on International Judges, the intention is that we want the Bench to be of an outstanding quality. It is difficult to prescribe, through legislation, who they are or where they will be from. But there are a number of checks and balances. It has ultimately got to be on the advice of the Prime Minister and agreed to by the President. And our intention is that this will be a Bench that will attract international work. If you do not appoint people of that quality, you simply would not get work. So, I think we have to look at how the process goes, but I take the point. Moving to the points made by Ms Lim and Mr Singh, in a sense, their speeches relate to amendments which are not being made. It is not so much that they oppose the amendments that are being made. They are saying that this is an opportunity, since we are amending the Constitution, why do we not change parts to make sure that there is no possibility of appointing Judges or Judicial Commissioners for the short term. I take it that, specifically, and I heard them say that for the SICC and the related amendments, there are no objections. The objections are in relation to the appointment of Judicial Commissioners and Senior Judges, which is, in fact, a continuation of the existing practice, except that we are introducing the category of Senior Judges. Now, let me take that at two levels. The first is the broader philosophical issue. Of course, security of tenure is important, and that relates to independence. We now guarantee Puisne Judges up to the age of 65. Should we make it absolute to age 70 or such other age and should we not make the practical adjustments that we have made in respect of having appointments like that of the Judicial Commissioners?”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members for supporting the Constitution Bill and will address the concerns that they have raised. Mr Vikram Nair raised a query as to how many Deputy Attorneys-General will be appointed, at least at the start, and how this appointment impacts on the role of the Solicitor-General. On the question as to how many DAGs will be appointed and what their duties will be, our intention is to largely leave this to the Attorney-General to determine according to the organisational needs of the Attorney-General's Chambers. At the beginning, we think there will be one. How does the DAG interact vis-a-vis the Solicitor-General? The Solicitor-General will be the Permanent Secretary-equivalent for the Attorney-General's Chambers. I thank Mr Nair for his suggestion that the appointment process for Judicial Commissioners, International Judges and Senior Judges could be made simpler. We will consider his suggestion. But this is what we think works now. Let me now turn to Mr Lim Biow Chuan's comments. Mr Lim noted that the internal organisational changes in the Attorney-General's Chambers were made public recently and queried the need to make amendments to the Constitution to appoint the Deputy Attorney-General. The internal organisational changes are meant to streamline the internal processes. The amendments to the Constitution are required because the Deputy Attorney-General will enjoy the same security of tenure as the Attorney-General. Mr Lim also made some comments in respect of the independence of Judges. I will take those comments when I deal with Ms Lim's and Mr Pritam Singh's comments. Page: 66 I welcome Mr Alvin Yeo's points.”
“The PCMR's main functions are to draw attention to any legislation that contains differentiating measures and to consider and report on matters affecting persons of any racial or religious community in Singapore as may be referred to it by Parliament or the Government. Page: 54 Presently, PCMR comprises a Chairman appointed for a period of three years, not more than 10 permanent members appointed for life, and not more than 10 other members appointed for a period of three years. The composition of the PCMR will be amended to remove the limit on the number of non-permanent members and to retain the cap of 10 permanent members and the aggregate cap of 20 members, apart from the Chairman. The amendment ensures that the PCMR will continue to be representative of the major races and religious groups in Singapore. We consulted the President on the amendment to the composition of the PCMR and the President is supportive of this amendment. Mdm Speaker, the last set of amendments is to Article 142(4) and the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. This is to reflect the change of name of the "Government of Singapore Investment Corporation Pte Ltd" to "GIC Pte Ltd". Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 3.27 pm”
“AGC estimates that the public sector's demand for legal advisory services from AGC has grown by more than a third between 2008 and last year. The effect of globalisation on enforcement and on policy development and implementation has introduced additional work and a new level of complexity. There has been a fourfold increase in requests for attendance in international negotiations and dispute resolution, and a threefold increase in mutual legal assistance requests. It is, therefore, timely to introduce the office of the DAG, to assist the AG in the discharge of his functions and responsibilities. The DAG will discharge such duties of the AG as the AG may assign. This may include assisting the AG to have oversight of the day-to-day administration of criminal justice. The DAG will be a constitutional appointment, and there may be one or more DAGs. A DAG will be accorded the status of a High Court Judge and conferred the same security of tenure as that of the Attorney-General. The remuneration and allowances of the DAG will be charged on the Consolidated Fund. Creating the office of the DAG will enable AGC to have and retain, at its apex, individuals of the same standing and ability as our Judges. The creation of the office of the DAG will also require consequential amendments to various Acts to include mention of the DAG alongside the Solicitor-General. These are found in the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments – Deputy Attorney-General) Bill, which I will take the House through later. The next set of amendments deals with the composition of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR).”