Rahayu Mahzam
Singapore
“We engage the insurance providers quite regularly, but we are very mindful about where we intervene, especially because they need to be competitive and there is a commercial dimension to it, which we feel that we should respect. So, how we intervene is via the conditions that are put in place vis-a-vis the consumers.”
“So, that is not something they can worry about. There is already the S+3M framework that is already in place, so we know that MediShield Life is one, they have their MediSave and if all else fails, there is MediFund.”
“Should there be disputes over specific claims, policyholders can take it to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (FIDReC), an independent and impartial institution that assists with insurance-related disputes.”
“It is just a symptom, so the underlying cost pressures still need to be addressed. The description that we had put earlier in the past is that it is a knot that we need to untangle; and that is something we are doing with a multi-pronged, with engagements with different parties and stakeholders.”
“I appreciate the Member's feedback. As I said earlier, this is something that we will continue to consider. But we do also have to appreciate that the information that we get is live, in terms of waiting times and all that.”
“But I do take the point and we are actually reviewing to see what is a meaningful way to put out this information so that the public can understand, so that we can all track properly whether the good health outcomes are a result of the efforts that we are making. I will take the feedback back and we will continue to review this.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,289 lines we hold for Rahayu Mahzam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 26.
“This Bill will amend section 29(4)(c) to clarify that the "person" the gas transporter is to notify, is the person prescribed under section 29(3) of the Gas Act to be responsible for such maintenance, repair or renewal, if that person is not the gas transporter. I now turn to Clause 11, which amends the Second Schedule of the Land Transport Authority of Singapore Act 1995 (LTA Act). The Second Schedule sets out taxes, fees and charges to be paid to the Land Transport Revenue Account. Paragraph 1 currently relates to fees imposed under the Parking Places Act (PPA). This includes fees under Part 3 of the PPA, which was repealed by the Share Mobility Enterprises (Control and Licensing) Act 2020. Paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule of the LTA Act will be amended to reinstate the original wording that existed before Part 3 of the PPA was introduced. A new paragraph 26, relating to fees and charges prescribed under the Small Motorised Vehicles (Safety) Act 2020 (SMVA) will be inserted to the Second Schedule of the LTA Act. The SMVA originally made this amendment, but it could not be commenced as there was an existing provision with the same number. Next, I come to amendments relating to the Medicines Act 1975. Clause 12 deletes provisions in the Medicines Act relating to intellectual property obligations for pharmaceutical products. Those obligations are now found in the Health Products Act 2007 and its regulations. The provisions in the Medicines Act are therefore unnecessary. In addition, section 76(1) of the Medicines Act 1975 currently provides for the repeal of the Medicines (Advertisement and Sale) Act 1955 (MASA) and the Sale of Drugs Act 1914 (SDA) in the same subsection such that they must be repealed together.”
“Clause 9 makes several clarifications related to that new mechanism: (a) first, that the Magistrate's power to remand a fugitive who has consented to his or her surrender includes the power to remand such a fugitive who is provisionally arrested and where the formal extradition request from the Requesting State is pending; (b) second, a consenting fugitive does not need to additionally waive his or her right to apply for a review of the committal order; and (c) third, that the power to re-arrest fugitives who escaped during their arrest or from custody covers fugitives who have consented to their surrender. This power of arrest is exercised in the same manner as that involving a person accused of an arrestable offence against the law in force in Singapore. Next, clause 10 makes amendments to section 29 of the Gas Act 2001, which provides for the inspection, maintenance, repair or renewal, of any part of a gas installation or any part of a gas service pipe linking a gas service isolation valve to the gas installation. The amendments will clarify that the Energy Market Authority will prescribe persons responsible for the inspection, maintenance, repair or renewal of such parts by way of an order in the Gazette; and section 4(b) of the Energy (Resilience Measures and Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2021, which has not commenced, deletes the existing section 29(4) of the Gas Act and substitutes it with new sections 29(4), 29(5) and 29(6). The new section 29(4) of the Gas Act relates to obligations on the gas transporter to inspect gas installations or gas service pipes and to notify certain persons to carry out maintenance, repair or renewal following the inspection.”
“This right to challenge the availability of the defence before a court, tribunal or adjudicator continues to be available even after these applications for Assessors' applications are deemed withdrawn. Clause 7 also addresses another issue. Pursuant to section 1(2A) of COTMA, Part 2 expired at the end of 19 April 2022. However, the COTMA regulations permitted applications for an Assessor's Determination in respect of construction and supply contracts to be made up till 30 April 2022. Clause 7 therefore validates applications made from 20 April 2022 to 30 April 2022. Next, I turn to clause 8. Section 97(5) of the Guns, Explosives and Weapons Control Act 2021 (GEWCA) introduced a new section 7(2) to the Customs Act. This section, which has not been commenced, stated that customs officers are to be provided with "such staves, guns, ammunition and other accoutrements which may be prescribed". Clause 8 of the present Bill inserts a new section 6A to the Customs Act in place of section 7(2). Section 6A is substantively similar to section 7(2), save that the word "staves" is replaced with "batons" and the arms to be provided need not be prescribed. Consequently, the amendments made by section 97(5) of GEWCA is superseded and deleted. I now come to clause 9, which amends the Extradition Act 1968 (EA). The Extradition Act was amended in April this year to introduce, amongst others, a new mechanism for fugitives to consent to their extradition.”
“The Part 2 and Part 8 reliefs are no longer available – they are only applied for prescribed periods, the last of which came to an end on 28 February 2022. It is now time to wind down the PACT Registry. Clause 7 therefore provides that applications which remain pending at a prescribed date will be deemed to be withdrawn. Determinations and subsequent determinations also cannot be made after a prescribed date. In this regard, there are 20 applications concerning construction and supply contracts which remain outstanding, which will be deemed withdrawn when this amendment comes into effect. The withdrawal does not affect the substantive rights of the parties. The assessors' role for such applications is to determine whether a Notification for Relief (NFR) was validly issued to enable a party to seek relief under Part 2 and Part 8. For construction and supply contracts, the service of a valid NFR would entitle the affected party to two categories of relief: (i) a moratorium against legal and enforcement action, and (ii) a statutory defence against damages for delays or breaches which are materially caused by COVID-19. Applications relating to the availability of the moratorium are now moot, as the moratorium expired on 28 February 2022, together with the expiry of the prescribed period. As regards applications relating to the statutory defence, the Assessors' role has always been limited to assessing whether the NFR was valid. The party receiving the NFR could choose to challenge the statutory defence if it is invoked by the serving party in the course of proceedings before a court, tribunal or adjudicator.”
“Subsection (1)(a) will be amended to make clear that the "copy" referred to in that subsection refers only to a copy of a "sound recording" and not other types of works. Fourth, the CA, which came into force on 21 November 2021, introduced the right for authors to be identified in relation to the public use of certain works. Section 377(2)(b) provides a transitional arrangement for existing works made before 21 November 2021, whereby the first copyright owner's initial assignee or licensee is exempted from having to identify the author of the existing work. Section 377(2)(b) will be extended to exempt: (a) the first copyright owner and (b) subsequent assignees and licensees beyond the first copyright owner's initial assignee or licensee as well. This amendment will put the first copyright owner, initial assignee and licensee, and subsequent assignees and licensees of an existing work on equal footing. Next, I will address the amendments to the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 (COTMA). As this House is aware, Part 2 and Part 8 of COTMA introduced reliefs for individuals and businesses affected by COVID-19 in certain contracts and situations. The Panel of Assessors for COVID-19 (Temporary Relief) (PACT) and its supporting Registry were formed in April 2020 and heard disputes relating to Part 2 and Part 8. Since PACT was set up around two and a half years ago, it has issued about 1,070 determinations. This helped parties avoid costly and time-consuming litigation, relating to contractual disagreements arising from COVID-19. With the COVID-19 situation having stabilised, these urgent reliefs, introduced during very exceptional times, have run their course and are no longer necessary.”
“Turning to the next amendment, clause 5 deletes the definition of "company" and "corporation" in section 63(1) of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore Act 2009 (CAAS Act), because they are unnecessary in the context of the CAAS Act. Next, clause 6 of the Bill amends four provisions in the Copyright Act 2021 (CA). The first amendment is to section 193 of the CA. The CA makes a distinction between "works" and "performances", and recognises that both "works" and "performances", can be fairly used for the purposes of criticism or review. Where works are concerned, section 193 of the CA provides that any underlying materials that are incorporated in works are deemed fairly used if the works themselves are fairly used for the purposes of criticism or review. However, this deeming provision does not currently extend to performances. Clause 6(a) of the Bill thus amends section 193 of the CA, such that section 193 will also apply to underlying materials in performances that are fairly used for the purposes of criticism or review. Second, section 285 of the CA provides that a "public act", which is an act done for the service of the Government, by the Government or by an authorised person, is an exception to copyright infringement. Section 285(2)(a) currently provides that the Government is to inform the relevant rights owner as soon as practicable after the public act is done. Section 285(2)(a) will be amended to signpost that the means by which the Government is to inform a rights owner of the public act is set out in subsidiary legislation. Third, section 301 provides how copies of a work or a recording of a protected performance should be notated.”
“Members may also access this material through the SG PARL MP mobile app. The Annex lists the amendments to be made via this Bill, which I will take Members through. Clause 2 of the Bill makes two amendments to section 2 of the Interpretation Act 1965. First, the non-exhaustive definition of "repeal" will be amended to clarify that it includes "delete", which is a term that is used in amending legislation. Second, a new general provision will be inserted, which provides that definitions in written laws apply unless the context otherwise requires. This obviates the need to repeat similar provisions in each definition provision in legislation. Next, clause 3 amends section 9(1) of the Air Navigation Act 1966 (ANA) in two ways. It will expressly enable the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) to make certain insurance-related regulations, including regulations necessary to comply with the 1999 Montreal Convention. It will also specify that the fees that CAAS is currently empowered to prescribe under section 9(1)(t) can be either one-time or periodic in nature. I now come to the amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 (CYPA). The CYPA was amended by the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 2019. Sections 27 and 55 of the 2019 Amendment Act have not been brought into force. Clause 4 of the Bill makes substantively the same amendments as those sections, but updates references to other statutory provisions that have since been renumbered in the 2020 Revised Edition of Acts. It will also allow the First Schedule and the Second Schedule of the CYPA to be brought into force separately.”
“Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Sir, this Bill contains 23 operative clauses. It makes miscellaneous amendments across a number of Acts. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerk to distribute an Annex to my speech.”
“Mr Speaker, patients with Motor Neurone Disease (MND) are cared for by a multi-disciplinary team, which may include neurologists, advanced practice and specialty nurses, physiotherapists, speech therapists, occupational therapists and medical social workers. Wheelchair-bound MND patients can tap on private ambulances for transportation between their home and the clinic. Special transport arrangements may need to be planned for more severe MND patients who are bedridden, on tube feeding and portable ventilator support. Those facing financial difficulties may be referred to a medical social worker for help with their medical and transport costs. The National Neuroscience Institute (NNI) also provides follow-up video consultations for some less mobile MND patients to reduce their need to travel to clinic for consultation. Home-based nursing care has also been available for stable MND patients not on ventilation support through the NNI Community Health Programme since November 2020. Under this programme, NNI has provided inter-professional training and advice to community care partners on the management of persons living with neuro-degenerative conditions, including MND. These community nurses are empowered to make home visits to review patients with nursing needs, such as pressure sores and feeding tube issues. In addition, MND patients needing respiratory support can tap on the the Ministry of Health (MOH)-funded national Home Ventilator and Respiratory Support Service (HVRSS). The HVRSS team from Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) provides home-based ventilation support, caregiver training and routine follow-up for chronic conditions, including blood tests, care coordination and referrals to other specialists, thus minimising clinic visits for the patient. 1.29 pm”
“I thank Mr Seah for the question. And actually, he has hit the nail on the head. These are some of the issues that we are facing because we are facing competition from other countries. We are watching closely and trying to see how we can come up with strategies where we can overcome and make jobs more attractive and for healthcare workers to want to come and work in Singapore.”
“The reality is, even if we set the rules, the professionals, even if they are going to leave their shift, if they see a patient who is unwell, they would also still stay and still want to take care of the patient. I think this is the reality that we have to accept of the nature of the work in the healthcare sector. Notwithstanding that, we appreciate that it is a challenging time. I have explained just now and also in earlier Sittings, that we are looking at this from a multi-pronged approach. We are looking to see what are the areas where we can augment the work with regard to, maybe, having technology, employing more people to help with the administrative load, looking at how we can augment the workforce with foreign nurses, looking at how we can get families and caregivers to understand where they can alleviate the load of the nurses. So, these are all the efforts that are being put in place. We appreciate the concern and care, issues that Mr Louis Ng has raised, are issues that we are cognisant of and we are taking steps to try and address them.”
“Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions and I appreciate the concerns he has for the nurses and the healthcare workers in general. He has raised many questions in this House relating to their workload and the things that they have to address in the realities on the ground today. But I am sure he also appreciates and understands that it is a pandemic situation that we are dealing with, and these are the realities on the ground. We have to be cognisant that we not only have to ensure that the nurses are taken care of, we also need to ensure that the patients are taken care of. So, in the light of the context that we are facing today, these are the realities on the ground that we have to acknowledge and learn how to manage. We have accepted that there are some difficulties and I have explained in previous Sittings in response to Mr Louis Ng's questions about the efforts that we have been taking. There is a staff well-being committee that has been set up to look into different areas and different aspects of the work and to see how we can improve and fill in some of these gaps. We have set up a task force, looking at issues relating to abuse of healthcare workers. We also have the workgroup looking into the issues relating to the junior doctors. This is the holistic effort and we are taking into account. So, one aspect of it is the managing of their workload. This is something that we need to leave to the hospitals and public healthcare institutions to manage. It is an operational setting and setting too much rules does not help. It will be counter-productive.”
“The rostering of nurses for shifts is managed by the hospitals which MOH does not and should not interfere. Hospitals are operational environments, which have to address patient needs on a day-to-day basis. Generally, healthcare workers understand and embrace this, and will cover for each other occasionally when there is an operational need, even if it means a heavier workload. A rigid system will result in compromising on patient care. On Mr Ng's suggestion in respect of the MOE Connect Plan, we would highlight that MOH regularly reviews and adjusts the compensation and benefits for healthcare workers to ensure that they remain competitive. Our most recent review saw the base salaries of nurses in the public healthcare sector enhanced between 5% and 14%, which was implemented over two phases in July 2021 and 2022. We can study Mr Ng's suggestion along with other options in future reviews. We will continue to work on various ways to support, develop and retain our healthcare workers. We have to take a multi-pronged approach including ensuring staff well-being, regularly reviewing compensation, attracting foreign nurses to augment our local workforce and working with families and caregivers to alleviate the load on healthcare workers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I address Question No 34 together with queries on related matters filed by Mr Seah Kian Peng1 and Mr Louis Ng2 scheduled for future Sittings?”
“I thank the Member again for his question. Indeed, I understand the concerns and I mentioned earlier that there was an internal committee that was set up, the Staff Well-being Committee. And amongst some of the issues raised is clearly the issue of giving sufficient rest to the nurses. And this is something that they are looking at. There have been a few recommendations. The implementation of these different recommendations is being rolled out and we do hope to see that these recommendations and proposals are impacting the workflow and, hopefully, they will improve outcomes. On the other hand, there are also other things that we hope to see, because I also mentioned earlier about how family members, there is a certain expectation of what nurses are expected to do in hospitals and this also does not help in terms of adding to their workload. The culture may be different elsewhere, and we may want to educate and look into this matter. There is also a task force that is looking to address issues of abuse, which also impacts the work conditions of the staff and the nurses. These are also all things that we are currently looking at. So, give us some time to roll out some of the recommendations that have been put up. Hopefully, through all these efforts that we are putting up, there is improvement and we will constantly review this to see how it has impacted the ground.”
“MOH remains committed to trying to look at this issue holistically and adopt a multi-pronged approach in improving the situation on the ground.”
“And that is a priority because patient care is important. So, in a lot of the settings, what we are trying to do is also ensuring that they have sufficient time to dedicate to patient care. What are the other pieces of work that they need to do? For administrative work, we are looking at various ways on how we can manage some of this work, so that there is sufficient time and they are able to dedicate their time to the work in relation to patient care. In relation to the Member's concern and queries with regard to salaries, and also that of the other workers, the healthcare workers, I think this is something that we are constantly looking at because we know how valuable they are in our community. We are concerned about the pandemic still being around and also the fact that we have an ageing population. So, this is something we are constantly looking at, at making this sector a favourable one, something that is attractive, so that we can have people go into the sector and relieve the manpower on the ground. But the reality is, as I have mentioned earlier, we are doing everything. It is a multi-pronged approach. The issue that we are seeing right now is the fact that we are losing foreign nurses due to the pandemic. Now that the borders are open, they can go back. They are also being attracted by prospects overseas. So, there is international competition and we are losing all these workers. That means that we are losing the numbers on the ground here, locally. So, while salaries and working conditions are important and we are constantly looking at how we can improve these, we should not jump to the conclusion that they are always the root of the manpower problems.”
“I thank the Member for the question. Let me address the first one, in relation to rest hours. There are many different arrangements within the public healthcare institutions in the different clusters on how they actually manage the rest hours amongst the healthcare workers. So, in some clusters, it is about ensuring that they typically work on rotating shifts and they are rostered such that they have adequate rest time within shifts. Guidance has also been given, so that they are given rest time for their breaks. Duty rosters are planned in advance and there are guidelines, so that they are not working consecutively beyond a certain number of days so that they get the rest they needed. Within the working space, they are also given dedicated hall rooms, staggered break times so that they can have sufficient rest. The reality on the ground is that there are many challenges and these nurses work very hard. There are realities of their workplaces that require them to go beyond their call of duty. We really appreciate that and we know that it has been challenging for the nurses and all the healthcare workers. So, the key thing is making sure that there is a sufficient number on the ground and that is something that we are continually looking at. The attrition rate is a reflection of this. The numbers that we are looking at in respect of the local nurses are actually stabilising. Our key issue and problems are that we are losing the foreign nurses. The second question is related to the ideal nurse-to-patient ratio. This is a function of the type of wards and the work that they do, because it is a function of the care that is needed for the patient. And, as you know, they are all tiered in terms of what specific care needs to be given. So, this is a function of those two.”
“MOH remains committed to provide support to the public healthcare clusters in our efforts to ensure that there is sufficient manpower on the ground, and look after the well-being of our nurses, as they continue to face pressures from COVID-19 surge waves and an ageing population.”
“The rest day provisions and work hour limits for public healthcare workers are stipulated in the Employment Act or set out in the public healthcare clusters' employment contracts, as previously explained to Mr Louis Ng in Parliament, in March. While the Ministry does not impose a minimum number of rest hours, duty rosters for nurses are planned in advance to ensure staff have adequate rest between shifts. Even as we prioritise the well-being of our nurses, we appreciate the reality of their work, which is to deliver timely and quality patient care. The Ministry is working to ensure there are sufficient nurses on the ground. In fact, the registered stock of nurses over the past few years has remained stable, with a slight increase from around 42,800 at end 2019, to 43,000 at end 2021. Local nursing intakes have also increased from around 1,500 in 2014 to around 2,100 in 2021, to ensure that there is a stable inflow of nursing manpower into our healthcare system. We understand the importance of recognising nurses' contributions and the Ministry has worked on reviewing their salaries and allowances. Over the last five years, the annual salaries of local nurses in public healthcare institutions – which comprises base salary, allowances and bonuses – have increased. With the easing of COVID-19, public healthcare institutions have been allowing nurses to take time off work to rest and recover. This includes allowing foreign staff to return home to spend time with their loved ones, after a long period of time away from them in 2020 and 2021, when many borders were closed and travel restrictions were in effect. We know from clusters' data that leave is being approved and allowed.”
“I also urge families and caregivers to be a partner in the care journey of your loved ones, as working together with us will help alleviate the workload faced by our healthcare staff. Mr Louis Ng also asked if the National Wellness Committee for Junior Doctors (NWC-JD) could broaden its scope of work to include the working hours and conditions of nurses. We would like to explain that the NWC-JD was formed to specifically address issues related to junior doctors. These need to be tackled differently in the case of junior doctors because of their regular rotations across the public healthcare system, compared to other staff groups who are employed directly by the respective public healthcare clusters. MOH and the public healthcare clusters have always been concerned about the well-being of nurses and other staff groups. For example, we had formed an internal cross-cluster Staff Well-being Committee in 2019 for clusters to share best practices with one another and provide feedback to MOH on enhancements to improve well-being across all categories of staff. One example of its recommendations was for MOH to look deeper into the issues of abuse and harassment of healthcare workers. Hence, we announced earlier in March 2022 the formation of a Tripartite Workgroup to address this nationally. Clusters have also enhanced their support measures for staff. For example, Chief Wellness Officers have been appointed by clusters to oversee and develop system changes to improve the well-being of all healthcare staff. Counselling services, peer-support networks and staff support assistance plans have also been put in place to support staff.”
“The median annual salaries for SNs ranged from $42,800 to $53,700 in 2017, and rose to $46,300 to $58,500 in 2021, while that for SSNs ranged from $65,000 to $79,700 in 2017, increasing to $71,200 to $87,600 in 2021. In general, it takes an average four to six years for a fresh graduate to move up to SSN. Hence, an SN in 2017 may be drawing the annual salary in the SSN range by 2021. The key issue is to retain the services of nurses. Our strategy to stabilise the nursing workforce covers several key aspects. These include reviewing the scope of work that nurses are doing to enable them to spend more time on direct patient care. Equally important is to ensure that remunerations are competitive, locally and also internationally. On reviewing the scope of work, our public healthcare institutions adopt a multi-prong approach to reduce the administrative workload for nurses and enable nurses to focus on patient care. This includes streamlining care processes and deploying dedicated administrative and support care staff to assist nurses. Over time, we have also introduced innovations in automation, technology, robotics and AI-enabled technology to assist nurses and healthcare staff, to ease the load of non-clinical and administrative tasks. An example of such technology is the Nursing Software Suite, introduced by Singapore Health Services (SHS) in their hospitals to enable patients to self-help, such as enabling them to check their results, medications, schedules for tests and indicating their requests to the care team. Other than reviewing the job scope and administrative workload, as our population ages, there will continue to be growing demands on healthcare manpower.”
“My answer will also address written Question No 36 from today's Order paper, oral Question Nos 20 and 21 and written Question No 53 raised by Mr Louis Ng from the Order Paper on 1 August. Thank you, Mr Ng, for your concern over our nursing workforce. I believe it is also not too late to wish all nurses in Singapore, Happy Nurses' Day. [Applause.] Over the last five years, there has been a slight overall increase in the attrition rates for local nurses. The attrition of local public sector nurses increased from 6% in 2017, to 6.3% in 2018 and 7% in 2019, then dropped to 5.4% in 2020, before increasing to 7.4% in 2021. For foreign public sector nurses, international competition has been more intense and attrition rate has increased more significantly, from 8.2% in 2017, to 9.1% in 2018 and 9.4% in 2019, then dropped to 7% in 2020, before increasing to 14.8% in 2021. The typical nurse-to-bed ratio for general wards in the public acute hospitals is one nurse for every four or five beds. The typical nurse-to-patient ratio in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in the public acute hospitals is one nurse for each ICU patient and could be higher, such as two nurses for more complex ICU cases. This has not changed significantly over the past five years. Mr Ng has asked for salary comparison between private and public hospital nurses. We are reluctant to provide this so openly, as we know that both sectors compete for manpower. We also do not have data for the private sector. I will, however, share a few data points. Staff Nurses (SNs) and Senior Staff Nurses (SSNs) form the largest proportion of our nursing workforce.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, may I address Questions Nos 12 and 13 together? Deputy Speaker: Go ahead.”
“If Mr Lim feels that any information given by any Police officer to an accused person is improper, he may wish to share this with the relevant authorities so that they can look into it. I also thank Mr Saktiandi for his suggestion for a one-stop shop to apply for all types of legal aid. We can consider this as part of our broader efforts to shape the access to justice ecosystem in the future. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude by thanking the Members for their support and suggestions. The PDO is a significant move that will benefit society and enhance access to justice. We are establishing the PDO to institutionalise public defence. We will continue to work closely with all our partners and stakeholders to ensure that criminal defence aid goes to those who need it most, when they need it most. Sir, with that, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move. 7.31 pm [(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. – [Ms Rahayu Mahzam]. (proc text)] [(proc text) Bill considered in Committee. (proc text)] [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] [(proc text) Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. (proc text)] [(proc text) Clause 2 – (proc text)]”
“This ensures that legal representation is provided as early as possible. We do not expect many such cases. Second, the remaining cases will be shared between PDO and CLAS. This forms the bulk of cases. The actual number of cases taken on by PDO or CLAS would depend on factors such as workload and capacity. Apart from urgent cases that will be assigned to the PDO, we do not expect fundamental differences between the cases handled by the PDO or CLAS. On Mr Saktiandi Supaat's query on the exchange and sharing of knowledge between CLAS and the PDO, we will consider this at the appropriate stage and share what we can, subject to confidentiality and privilege. Rest assured that the PDO is committed to playing a part in strengthening the expertise and knowledge of the defence bar. MinLaw is also working with the Law Society Pro Bono Services to develop a one-stop portal, which will provide legal information in simple layman's terms. This portal will also include the various avenues of legal assistance available so that applicants will not find it challenging to navigate should they require assistance. This is part of our broader efforts to enhance access to justice. We will also be collaborating with other agencies and stakeholders to plug the PDO into the social service ecosystem. We want to provide a more holistic support. To this end, we will consider Mr Raj Joshua Thomas' suggestions on working with the Police to inform accused persons about the PDO and making the application process simple and accessible. On this note, we assure Mr Lim Biow Chuan that there are rules governing the conduct of our Police officers when dealing with any witness, suspect or accused person.”
“If a victim wishes to take up private prosecution against an alleged perpetrator, the victim can file a Magistrate's complaint. The Courts have put in place mediation facilities to assist such private disputes, which are intentionally simplified so that there is no real need for legal representation. Hence, criminal defence aid is not provided for private prosecutions. If the victim wishes to take up a private civil suit and cannot afford a lawyer, he or she may apply for civil legal aid with the Legal Aid Bureau. Ultimately, we want to provide aid to those who need aid, but in a sustainable manner. Finally, the third bucket deals with the co-delivery of aid by PDO and CLAS. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Sylvia Lim noted that the PDO would overlap with CLAS and asked what cases would be handled by each outfit. Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms Hany Soh also proposed centralising all legal aid. CLAS remains an important partner and player in the criminal justice system. We will continue to work with CLAS to provide criminal defence aid. This will ensure a sustainable and effective legal aid system. To this end, PDO and CLAS will co-deliver Government-funded aid in criminal matters and applicants can apply for aid through a common application platform, whether online or at the physical shopfront at the State Courts. The assignment of cases to PDO or CLAS will be done at the backend. Broadly, there is a two-step process for deciding which cases go to PDO or CLAS. First, the case would be assessed for urgency. Cases which are time-sensitive, such as remand cases where the eventual sentence of the applicant could be less than the remand period, will be assigned to the PDO.”
“For example, a grant of aid may be cancelled if the applicant provides false information in the application for criminal defence aid. Where a grant of aid is cancelled, the PDO will work with the aided accused person and/or his or her subsequent solicitors to minimise any disruption to the criminal proceedings and ensure the proper administration of justice. As for Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim's question on the offence for making a false or misleading statement, this is equally egregious whether someone is applying for criminal defence aid or civil legal aid. Both are criminal offences and are a waste of public resources. On this basis, we have decided to impose the same penalty for both offences. On Mr Lim Biow Chuan's query regarding a solicitor who has been excluded from the panel of solicitors, the Bill does not cover and the PDO will not interfere with the relationship between solicitors and accused persons who are both outside of the criminal defence aid scheme. As for whether such a solicitor can continue with a frivolous Court application, there are existing provisions within the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) which will address such conduct. Mr Yip Hon Weng expressed concern that some victims may wish to seek personal redress through private actions. Mr Raj Joshua Thomas also asked about private prosecutions. Thorough investigations are conducted by our Police and the AGC considers criminal complaints seriously before determining if charges should be brought against accused persons. Where a criminal charge is brought and the accused person is found guilty, the Court may also make an order for compensation to the victim, where appropriate. This process does not require the victim to engage his or her own legal representation.”
“We recognise and respect the confidentiality that exists within a client-and-solicitor relationship but such confidentiality is subject to exceptions even within the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules and includes situations where the disclosure is permitted or required by law. On Ms Sylvia Lim's question regarding a witness who lies to a Public Defender and whether he or she will be committing an offence, not all untruths will be covered. There will be instances where the individual lies about the means of the aided accused person in relation to the grant of aid. In such instances, the conduct will be covered. Mr Louis Ng, Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about processes relating to the termination of criminal defence aid. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about the discharge of an assigned solicitor. Clause 18 governs the relationship between an aided accused person and an assigned solicitor. It does not cover the representation of an aided accused person by PD officers. Clause 18 is intended to address a situation where, for example, an aided accused person repeatedly seeks to change the assigned solicitor to delay the criminal proceedings. The criminal defence aid scheme should not be used for such abuses of process. When deciding whether to grant permission for the aided accused person to discharge an assigned solicitor or for an assigned solicitor to discontinue the provision of criminal defence aid, the Chief PD will consider all relevant factors, including any reasons provided by the aided accused person and the assigned solicitor. Mr Murali Pillai asked about the cancellation of aid. We expect that the factors under Regulation 8 of the Legal Aid and Advice Regulations would generally apply here.”
“The other co-accused persons will still receive aid as they will be referred to CLAS or, in future, assigned solicitors from a panel. This would be the case whether the co-accused person decides to plead guilty or claim trial. An assessment will be made as to which of the accused persons would most require representation by the PDO and who can be referred to CLAS instead. For example, an accused person in remand may require more urgent representation, which can be provided by the PDO. Mr Murali Pillai asked about how the PDO will deal with accused persons with mental illnesses. The issue is one of mental capacity. While an accused may have mental illnesses, he may not lack cognitive abilities and can give instructions. If he lacks mental capacity, there are provisions in the Mental Capacity Act for an application to Court to be made for a deputy to make decisions on the person's behalf. If the accused person cannot give proper instructions to his or her solicitor or PD officer because of a mental condition, the Court can call for a psychiatric assessment to determine whether the person is of unsound mind and incapable of making a defence. There are provisions under our law for Court proceedings to be held off if an accused person is found to be of unsound mind. Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about the extent that clause 4(5) may affect legal professional privilege and confidentiality applicable to communications between an assigned solicitor and an aided accused person. Under clause 4(5), privileged information may have to be disclosed to the Chief PD so that the Chief PD can perform his or her statutory functions in deciding whether to grant, vary or cancel aid. Such information may be necessary to enable the Chief PD to make a fully considered decision.”
“The Chief PD can grant provisional aid to accused persons if he is of the view that the case requires urgent attention. For instance, because the accused has been in remand for some time or by virtue of the accused person's age. We will work with the Singapore Prisons Service and the Courts to ensure that these urgent cases are handled expeditiously. On Ms Sylvia Lim's question regarding the deliberation of non-prescribed offences by the board, the presence of the board allows for greater deliberation of offences which carry a more serious consequence on the applicant. Regarding Ms He Ting Ru's suggestion on an appeals mechanism, none is provided. After we get some experience with the PDO, we will consider whether such an appeals mechanism will be useful. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked if contributions will be a norm and when an applicant will be informed of the contributions required. Mr Louis Ng asked if an applicant's aid will be discontinued if he or she is unable to make the contribution. As I mentioned earlier, the amount of contributions is decided based on the means of the applicant. Any contribution required will be made known to the applicant before aid is granted. If an aided person is unable to pay, we will take into account any extenuating circumstances and will work with him or her to meet the contribution. Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about the provision of criminal defence aid to multiple co-accused persons. Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim also asked how the PDO would choose which cases to take up if there are multiple co-accused persons. As I mentioned earlier, where multiple co-accused persons qualify for aid, the PDO will only represent one accused person.”
“It will be an offence for an applicant to provide false or misleading statements to obtain aid. As for our merits test criteria, I assure Mr Yip Hon Weng that the Chief PD will assess the merits of any application before deciding if aid should be granted to the applicant. Aid will not be granted indiscriminately. Even if an applicant satisfies the means and merits criteria, the Chief PD can decide whether to grant aid depending on whether it is appropriate to do so. The Chief PD will consider factors such as those in clause 12(2) of the Bill. These include whether the applicant is likely to lose his or her livelihood if any matter in the proceedings is decided against him or her, whether any benefit may accrue to the applicant if criminal defence aid is granted and our resource constraints. This discretion allows aid to be given to those who need it most. We will use this discretion judiciously. To circle back to Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim's question, aid can certainly be granted to an applicant who intends to plead guilty, for the purposes of formulating a mitigation plea for sentencing, so long as the requirements to the means and merits are satisfied. Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked about the provision of aid for criminal appeals and criminal applications. Aid can be provided to such applicants, even if it was not provided at first instance. Where an applicant is unsuccessful in his application, the referral mechanism under clause 12(5) will not be applicable. The applicant can seek aid from organisations providing pro bono legal services such as the Law Society Pro Bono Services' Ad Hoc Pro Bono Assessment Scheme. Next, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas queried the speed at which the merits and means tests are conducted.”
“Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Leong Mun Wai asked about the specifics of our means and merits test criteria. Mr Yip Hon Weng also asked about the safeguards to prevent the use of the PDO's resources for frivolous appeals. Our means test criteria is largely aligned with that of civil legal aid and other social support schemes where we look at the per capita household income (PCHI). The difference with the civil legal aid's criteria is that our gross monthly PCHI covers up to S$1,500. Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested increasing the PCHI to S$2,200. We have pegged it to S$1,500. As Ms Hany Soh said, in a family of four, that would be S$6,000. It is a significant amount. We have tried to be prudent in spending taxpayers' monies. We need to be careful. Money has to come from taxes. The House knows that expenditures are increasing and there is some resistance to how we raise the monies needed. The provision of legal aid has been a subject of abuse elsewhere and we need to be fiscally prudent. We will start with S$1,500 and consider whether it should be further refined after the PDO commences operations. It depends on the available funds as well. We are mindful that there may be applicants who have extenuating or special circumstances such as those listed by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim. We will develop administrative discretions for our means test framework, which can be applied on a case-by-case basis. We can confirm to Ms Sylvia Lim that the Minister's discretion to grant aid in the interests of justice or where it is just and proper is not intended to extend to the excluded offences in the Schedule. I assure Mr Lim Biow Chuan that we have robust measures in place to check that an applicant is not hiding his or her income and assets.”
“For example, in Ontario, Canada, aid is restricted to offences that are indictable or which carry a risk of incarceration. We have to strike a balance between providing aid for all offences and ensuring that costs are sustainable. We also recognise that in a single set of proceedings, an accused person may face multiple charges, some of which are excluded offences. The Bill covers such accused persons. If granted aid, they will not be treated any differently. The amount of contributions required will be based on the applicant's means rather than the type of offences which he or she is charged with. The PDO will see through the matter until the criminal proceedings have concluded, even if the non-excluded proceedings are withdrawn or replaced mid-way, leaving only excluded proceedings. Where charges are taken into consideration, these remain part of the criminal proceedings. On Ms Hany Soh's request for discretion to provide aid for offences under the 10 Acts specified in paragraph 1(1)(d) of the Schedule, we have explained the reason for their exclusion. These are Acts whose primary purpose is to deter certain behaviours which are morally depraved or bring about significant negative externalities to society. Nonetheless, we will monitor and periodically review the list of excluded offences after the PDO has commenced operations. If we find excluded offences that are assessed to be deserving of aid, we can subsequently amend the list of excluded offences. Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the provision of aid for Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO) matters. MinLaw remains open to the possibility of the PDO covering capital offences at a later stage.”
“The intent is to only provide criminal defence aid to criminal proceedings before these Courts. The term “criminal proceedings” does not contemplate other types of proceedings, such as those before the Subordinate Military Courts, the Military Court of Appeal or the Industrial Arbitration Courts. Moreover, proceedings before Military Courts are only against persons subject to military law. In light of the clarification above, I hope that Mr Murali Pillai will withdraw his Notice of Amendment. Mr Yip Hon Weng, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Ms Hany Soh asked about the exclusion of offences under various legislation listed in the Schedule. First, I should reiterate that we are excluding offences under specified legislation in paragraph 1(1)(c) of the Schedule, only where the accused person is served with a notice to attend Court or a summons. In other words, if an accused person is charged in Court after being arrested or is issued an arrest warrant, their offences under these specified legislation are included. These offences tend to be more serious in nature. The same applies to accused persons who have been arrested and charged for more serious traffic offences under the Road Traffic Act, which is one of the specified Acts. Accused persons can apply for criminal defence aid for these offences. On Mr Yip Hon Weng’s concern that not all drivers are well-off, they can qualify for aid as long as they pass our means and merits tests, so long as the offence is not an excluded one. Our decision not to provide aid for regulatory or minor offences is in line with many other jurisdictions, where certain offences which are less serious are also excluded.”
“Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked what conditions need to be satisfied before the PDO will outsource cases to lawyers in private practice. I thank Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas for their suggestions. We will consider them. The selection process to appoint solicitors onto the panel for outsourced cases will be stringent. Only solicitors who are sufficiently skilled and with a good track record in handling criminal cases will be appointed. On Mr Lim Biow Chuan’s question about how we will pay these lawyers, these are operational matters which we are still working out. Second, on the Bill. Mr Murali Pillai proposed to amend the definition of “court” in clause 2 of the Bill to limit to Courts constituted under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 or the State Courts Act 1970. I should, first, highlight that the Bill is intended to include criminal proceedings tried in a Family Court or a Youth Court. A Family Court and a Youth Court are not constituted under the State Courts Act 1970 or the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969. Mr Murali Pillai’s proposed amendment, therefore, excludes the Family Court and Youth Court, which can exercise criminal jurisdiction. This is not our intent. The definition in the Bill is clear and our position is that an amendment is not needed. Let me explain. The scope of criminal defence aid is determined by the scope of proceedings in clauses 8(1) and 12(8), which have been carved out to only cover criminal proceedings. The definition of "court” cannot be looked at in vacuum. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, criminal proceedings are heard by the Court of Appeal, the General Division of the High Court, a Family Court, a Youth Court, a District Court or a Magistrate’s Court, which exercises criminal jurisdiction.”
“Ms He Ting Ru asked about the provision of aid to non-Singaporeans and Permanent Residents. Our intention is that the assistance under this Bill will be provided to Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents (SCPRs). Non-SCPRs can look at other avenues for legal aid. Mr Yip Hon Weng was concerned that the public might find it repugnant if tax dollars go towards supporting accused persons who are viewed as morally reprehensible. As the Minister for Law had raised in his Ministerial Statement in April, public outrage alone cannot be the basis upon which criminal defence aid should or should not be provided. Rather, these assessments will be made based on the legal merits of the applicant's case. Mr Murali Pillai suggested that the PDO and the Prosecution can explore the joint appointment of experts that will bind both sides. This is not the current practice for criminal cases. This suggestion involves broader procedural considerations. It will require further study. Currently, the Prosecution, generally, asks for the accused person to undergo a forensic psychiatric assessment only after the accused person is charged in Court. Likewise, the PDO will have the avenue for doing so even after the accused person is charged in Court. As for the early involvement of the PDO in certain cases, the Bill is only intended to cover criminal defence aid to accused persons who have been charged in Court and not those under investigations. Not all investigations result in criminal charges in Court. It is not fiscally prudent to extend aid to accused persons who are still under investigations. Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas suggested how we could manage the lawyers we outsource cases to.”
“As mentioned in my opening speech, PD Officers are subject to the same disciplinary framework as Judicial and Legal Service Officers. As public officers, PD Officers are also subject to internal disciplinary proceedings if they misconduct themselves. Mr Murali Pillai asked for data on accused persons who have legal representation and how that relates to the number of acquittals when they claim trial. From 2017 to 2019, about half of the criminal cases involving Singaporeans and Singapore Permanent Residents in the State Courts were unrepresented. However, it may not be fair or accurate to measure success in terms of acquittal and to measure that against legal representation. As Mr Murali Pillai pointed out, there are many factors that affect the outcome of a case – legal representation is one of many. I assure Mr Murali Pillai that our focus is on ensuring that those who need and are deserving of help, get help. Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked how many more people will receive legal representation when the PDO is established, compared to the number represented by CLAS. In FY2020, the Government funded CLAS to cover 712 cases. With the enhancements to income and offences coverage, we estimate that this number will likely increase by about 50%. Mr Saktiandi Supaat also asked about the provision of criminal defence aid for the bottom 35% of households by income. As I mentioned earlier, we raised our income coverage to the 35th percentile because our analysis showed that individuals up to this income threshold would find it challenging to pay for their legal costs, even for a plead guilty case. We have to balance providing sustainable aid, while exercising prudence in the use of public funds.”
“We are also reviewing our staff remuneration package and career development opportunities to ensure that the PDO is competitive enough to attract and retain talent. We will monitor the caseload of the PDO to see that there is adequate staffing and capacity. I would also like to assure Mr Yip Hon Weng and Ms He Ting Ru that the PDO is not here to compete with the Criminal Bar. We intend for the PDO to be an important stakeholder in the criminal justice system and play its part to develop a competent and reputable Bar. The PDO also provides an additional avenue for lawyers to engage in community work and serve vulnerable communities. We will consider Ms Hany Soh’s suggestions on working with the Law Society to organise trainings for our officers and for young lawyers in private practice to have the opportunity to volunteer for cases with the PDO. Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Mr Raj Joshua Thomas asked how we could manage the quality of our PD Officers. Our aim is that the pool of PD Officers will comprise a healthy mix of experienced criminal lawyers, young lawyers and fresh graduates. The officers will, obviously, have to act in the best interests of the aided accused person during plea bargaining, an area of concern highlighted by Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim. I thank Mr Murali Pillai and Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim for their suggestions on the conduct of independent audits and publishing of annual reports. We will, certainly, look into them. On Ms Sylvia Lim's question regarding the powers of the Chief Public Defender (Chief PD) and PD Officers, they will not have the powers under the Bill to compel witnesses for interviews, similar to private solicitors. Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim asked how complaints against PD Officers would be handled.”
“They will report to the Permanent Secretary and Minister for Law. This ensures a clear separation of powers and responsibilities from the Prosecution. Ms He Ting Ru mentioned secondments. We want talent flows from AGC, but we want to be careful to maintain independence. We are working out how this can be done and whether it should be secondment or some other mechanism. This will provide opportunities for knowledge sharing, job exposure and career development for the officers. Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about funding and cost control measures that the PDO would need to adopt. We have worked closely with MOF to size the resourcing needs for the PDO in the immediate term. The PDO will start modestly and scale up over time. We will review the PDO at an appropriate juncture and assess the PDO’s needs in the medium and long term, based on the trends from its initial years of operation. On cost controls, I spoke earlier about the means and merits tests that function as key checkpoints. We want to ensure that aid only goes to those who deserve it. I thank Mr Murali Pillai for his suggestions on how we can manage our costs, such as requesting that certain fees be waived. We will work with other agencies to ensure that our budget is well-managed. Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Yip Hon Weng, Ms Hany Soh, Mr Raj Joshua Thomas and Ms He Ting Ru asked about the recruitment and remuneration of PD Officers. We are in the process of recruiting suitable candidates via a robust selection process. We are looking for individuals with both the heart and necessary legal qualifications and skills. I am heartened to say that there has been a very good response from both fresh graduates and mid-career lawyers.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken for their views and support of this Bill. Mr Leong Mun Wai suggested that this Bill arises from the Motion concerning Ms Parti Liyani's case. That is not accurate. He might recall that the Minister for Law had specifically stated that the Ministry had started reviewing our criminal legal model and how we provide aid, in 2018 and 2019. He repeated this point during his Ministerial Statement in April this year. Members have raised questions and suggestions on the structure and management of the Public Defender’s Office (PDO), specific provisions in the Public Defenders Bill and the provision of aid by both PDO and the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS). I will address each bucket of issues in turn. First, on the PDO’s structure and management. Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim and Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked about the independence of the PDO and if there would be any conflict of interest between the PDO and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC). The PDO will be set up as a department within MinLaw, separate from AGC. First, this ensures that the Government has oversight over the PDO. The structure we have adopted for the PDO follows a study of various common law jurisdictions, such as the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. The offices in these jurisdictions are accountable to the Executive arm but retain independence in day-to-day operations. This accountability is necessary to ensure better governance and fiscal control. Second, this structure ensures independence from the Prosecution, which is under AGC. Officers in the PDO, or PD Officers, will be employed directly by MinLaw and are placed on a different scheme from the officers in AGC.”
“Sir, to conclude, the Bill has been carefully calibrated to ensure that only deserving persons are provided with criminal defence aid in a timely manner, while ensuring that we manage our resources prudently and do not strain the public purse. The Bill will enable the Public Defender's Office to provide criminal defence aid, which will enhance access to justice for the more vulnerable members of society. Justice should not only be the preserve of those who can afford lawyers. It should be accessible to those without the means to do so. This is a measure of how far we have come and how caring and compassionate we are as a society. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Those with very little savings and investments may even pay nothing. This ensures that applicants contribute towards their defence and do not abuse the system. This is no different from the current approach by CLAS and the Legal Aid Bureau for civil legal aid. The co-payments may be provided in a lump sum or by instalments. The Chief PD will have the discretion to reduce, waive or refund any such contributions. In future, the PDO will adopt a hybrid model of managing cases in-house while outsourcing some others to the private sector. To cater for this, the Bill includes provisions for the appointment of one or more panels of solicitors to act for aided accused persons and for the solicitors to be paid fees. The fees payable to a solicitor will be agreed on between the Chief PD and the solicitor based on considerations that include: the complexity or novelty of the issues involved in the case; as well as the skill and specialised knowledge required of; and time and labour expended by, the solicitor. Finally, there are criminal penalties if an applicant abuses the system. This includes making false or misleading statements in the application, failing to make full and frank disclosure about one's means or failing to inform about changes in one's means or other circumstances that would render an applicant ineligible for aid. For such cases, the Bill provides for a fine not exceeding S$5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both. The Bill also provides for the Court to order costs against a person who: (a) obtained aid through fraud or misrepresentation; or (b) acted improperly in defending or contesting any proceedings or in the conduct of those proceedings.”
“Solicitors on the board will also provide a diverse and independent point of view on the application and enhance public confidence in the merits test assessment. This classification will be provided in the subsidiary legislation. The Chief PD can also refuse aid if he considers that it is not appropriate in the circumstances of the applicant's case to grant aid. This could include cases where the applicant may not benefit much from legal representation, such as those with established sentencing frameworks. Where the Chief PD decides not to grant aid, the Minister is empowered to authorise the Chief PD to grant aid in the interest of justice. Some applicants may require legal aid urgently. Examples are those in remand or who are minors. Such applicants can be issued with a provisional grant of aid if they are likely to pass the means and merits tests. This ensures that no deserving applicant will be denied aid while waiting for the means and merits tests to be completed. To prevent wastage of resources, the Chief PD can refuse to consider repeat applications for the same matter unless there is a change in circumstances. This ensures that resources are optimally allocated to deserving cases. The PDO will only represent one accused person in proceedings involving multiple co-accused persons, if more than one party qualifies for aid. This is to prevent any potential or perceived conflicts of interest where the co-accused persons have inconsistent defences. The Chief PD will have the discretion to decide which accused person will be represented by the PDO. The other co-accused persons may be referred to CLAS. Applicants will be required to co-pay the costs of legal aid. The less they have, the less they pay and vice versa.”
“The income criterion is the monthly PCHI threshold, which will be raised from S$950 to S$1,500 when the PDO commences operations. This is a significant move to ensure we cover more needy applicants who would otherwise struggle to pay for a lawyer at these income thresholds. The wealth component looks at an applicant's savings, assets and investments. Even if an applicant does not satisfy the means test criteria, the Minister can direct the Chief PD to grant aid if the Minister is of the opinion that it is just and proper to do so. This gives leeway to provide aid to those who do not satisfy the means test criteria but are unable to afford legal services due to extenuating circumstances. For example, an applicant may be battling an illness or may have to care for an incapacitated family member. We will consider all relevant circumstances in the grant of aid. For the merits test, aid can be granted where the applicant requires legal representation to plead guilty or there are reasonable grounds for defence. In appeal cases, aid can be granted where there are merits to the appeal brought by the applicant or in defending the appeal brought by the prosecution. The merits test will be administered in two ways. For expediency, the Chief PD will decide on the merits to an application in respect of offences or class of offences that carry lesser penalties. The merits to an application in respect of offences or class of offences that carry heavier penalties will be decided by a board comprising the Chief PD and at least two private solicitors. This ensures that applications with more severe offences will be subject to greater deliberation.”
“Third, offences under 10 Acts whose main purpose is to deter behaviours that bring about negative externalities to society. These offences cover gambling and betting, organised and syndicated crime, and terrorism. Fourth, private prosecutions that have not been taken up by the Public Prosecutor. Criminal defence aid will only be given for state prosecutions. If an applicant for aid does not qualify because his offences are excluded, his application falls outside of the Bill but it does not mean that he cannot obtain legal aid elsewhere. If there are such applications that may deserve aid due to their particular circumstances, the applicant may apply instead to the Law Society Pro Bono Services, or LSPBS, for consideration. The Bill provides for criminal defence aid to be given to accused persons who face multiple charges before the same Court in respect of offences, some of which are excluded offences. The PDO can represent such accused persons if he or she passes the means and merits test for the offences that are not excluded. This will allow the PDO to effectively represent the aided person when all his charges are dealt with in the same Court. Third, the administration of criminal defence aid. As mentioned earlier, all applications for criminal defence aid will be subjected to rigorous means and merits tests. These tests ensure that only deserving and needy applicants receive aid. The Chief PD can also refer applications that pass the means and merits tests to other organisations to provide legal aid rather than assign the case to a PD officer. CLAS is an important partner in this. And the PDO will co-deliver aid with CLAS. The exact means test criteria will be laid out in subsidiary legislation. It will comprise two components: income and wealth.”
“The related amendments to the Evidence Act are for the purpose of extending statutory protection to PD Officers, in respect of professional communications with an advocate or a solicitor. Second, the scope of criminal defence aid. The Bill provides for criminal defence aid to be granted to needy Singaporean Citizens and Permanent Residents, or SCPRs, who are charged with offences not excluded by the Bill. An SCPR is therefore not eligible for aid if he or she is only under investigation for such an offence. The scope of criminal defence aid also covers criminal appeals or criminal applications arising from criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant. As mentioned earlier, we will widen our coverage to all criminal offences with specific exceptions. These exceptions fall into four classes of offences. First, offences that are punishable by death. These are capital cases that will continue to be covered by LASCO, the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences, which is administered by the Supreme Court. Second, offences that are generally regulatory in nature. This refers to minor offences for which the accused person is served a notice to attend Court or a summons by an officer of a statutory body or Government agency. This exclusion is not intended to extend to criminal offences that are dealt with by law enforcement agencies such as the Singapore Police Force, Central Narcotics Bureau and Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. This ensures that criminal defence aid is only given in respect of proceedings for serious offences as opposed to minor traffic offences or offences brought under departmental summonses such as littering and failure to file income tax returns.”
“Having set out the broader policy considerations behind the PDO, I will now turn to the provisions in the Bill. There are four key areas: first, the appointment of the PDO's officers; second, the scope of aid, called criminal defence aid in the Bill; third, the administration of criminal defence aid; and fourth, the penalty framework. First, the appointment of the Chief PD and other officers. The Bill provides for the appointment by the Minister of a Chief PD, Deputy Chief Public Defenders and Assistant Chief Public Defenders. The Chief PD can also appoint qualified and experienced persons as Public Defenders to assist him or her. The officers of the PDO, or PD Officers, will have the right to appear and plead in the Courts, and can therefore represent aided accused persons. Just like a Deputy Public Prosecutor, a PD Officer is expected to assist the Court in coming to a correct decision in respect of guilt or sentence. The Bill also includes related amendments to the Evidence Act and the Legal Profession Act, to bring PD Officers under the provisions of both Acts, where relevant. The related amendments to the Legal Profession Act ensure that the PD Officers have the standing to advise and represent accused persons in criminal proceedings and subject PD Officers, as officers of the Court, to the disciplinary framework administered by the Supreme Court. This disciplinary framework currently applies to officers under the Judicial and Legal Service Schemes. This gives the public confidence that PD Officers are subject to the same checks and balances as Judicial and Legal Service Officers.”
“The Chief PD will maintain operational and professional independence. Similarly for the officers under him. The Chief PD and his team will exercise their discretion in deciding whether to grant aid or not, by carefully examining the merits of each legal aid application. They will also be able to exercise their professional independence when providing representation and advice to persons granted legal aid. Second, to ensure that only deserving applicants receive aid, all applications for criminal defence aid will be subjected to robust means and merits tests. These tests are our key gatekeepers to ensure that aid is given to those who truly need it. There may still be applicants who try to game the system to get aid. For example, they may not be eligible for aid, but lie about their means or make false declarations. There will be criminal penalties to deter such behaviour. Third, to keep our costs in check while ensuring quality representation, frameworks will be put in place for the PDO to ensure costs continue to remain sustainable. We will hire full-time officers. This will allow us to budget and let us know what the overall cost will be. I will emphasise again what the Minister for Law mentioned in his Ministerial Statement. If there is no careful control of the cost initially, it would be difficult to bring it back down later. We will build up the capability and credibility of the PDO to command the trust and respect of Singaporeans, the legal fraternity and the accused persons we serve. We have to learn from the examples of other Public Defender Schemes overseas and take pre-emptive steps to make sure we do not face the same issues. This is not going to be easy, as there will be demand for legal representation and we would have to be careful about this.”
“The PDO will have its own full-time officers. This will allow us to deliver timely and higher quality representation. The PDO will also help to build up the capabilities of the criminal bar. The Minister for Law had spoken at length during his Ministerial Statement about the experiences of other jurisdictions with Public Defender Schemes. He mentioned an example of escalating costs in Hong Kong. They spent S$217 million on criminal and civil legal aid in 2016. This was due to continual increases in lawyers' fees of around 4% to 10% every year. He also shared other examples of abuse from various jurisdictions and how these strained the public purse, and led to cuts in funding. For instance, some asset-rich individuals managed to find ways to meet the eligibility criteria. These legal aid recipients would show up in Rolls Royces and other fancy cars, which they said were not theirs. Thus, while we press ahead to establish our own PDO, we must be careful to avoid the challenges of escalating costs and abuse by accused persons who can afford representation. It is important to learn from others' experiences and avoid making the same mistakes. We are determined not to run down their routes. This includes instituting various safeguards into the Bill. Let me touch on three key elements. First, to maintain public confidence. Good governance is important. That is why we are moving this Bill – to provide us with a strong governance framework, with legal backing, for the PDO. We will set up the PDO as a department under MinLaw. This enables better oversight of criminal defence aid by MinLaw. The PDO will be helmed by a Chief Public Defender or Chief PD. He will report to the Permanent Secretary and Minister for Law.”