S Jayakumar
Singapore
“It is well and good for countries to announce various targets and emissions. But one vexing issue ultimately is: what will be the method for verifying compliance with each country's announced measures? Another vexing issue, of course, is the issue of financing.”
“I would appreciate it if she were to give me some specifics of the negative feedback. But the general feedback I have had about our judiciary, both of the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts, has been nothing but positive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the information that I have is that there is always medical advice present when caning is administered and that if the medical opinion is that caning cannot proceed beyond a certain point, that medical opinion will be observed and the caning will not proceed.”
“Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent announcement to make immediate improvements to the public transport system (a) whether the Ministry has set a timeline for the increase in frequency of feeder bus services; and (b) whether the Ministry can immediately target such services that are currently running at…”
“SCDF will continue to work with HDB and other relevant agencies to ensure that such older buildings with one exit staircase meet the prevailing fire safety requirements when they undergo major renovation or upgrading works. CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS 3.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Teo Ser Luck) (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Mrs Jessie Phua's and Dr Lim Wee Kiak's questions together as they both relate to the same issues.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,291 lines we hold for S Jayakumar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 66.
“But at the same time, let us not have these commentaries on ASEAN cause us to prematurely write the orbituary of ASEAN, because I think one must take a realistic position. If you ask me what is the realistic position, it is that while ASEAN faces many serious challenges, I think there are some grounds for optimism. I would not lose all hope and I think ASEAN can overcome its challenges, provided, firstly, it gets its acts together on the internal challenges; secondly, provided it stays on track on some of the initiatives which have been launched; and, thirdly, if it continues to be outward looking and not inward looking. I will elaborate on this shortly. I said that there are internal and external challenges. Some of the Members have alluded to them. On internal challenges, it covers points Mr Tan Soo Khoon and others have mentioned. Many countries in ASEAN underwent or are still undergoing internal political transitional challenges. Some are undergoing economic challenges. And until these countries are able to effectively overcome these challenges, it is very difficult for them to pay attention to the bigger picture of regional solidarity and big picture imperatives for ASEAN. First, every country in ASEAN must get its own act together - economic, political. Then the group, as a group, has to overcome some of the challenges mentioned by colleagues, namely, that of integration, how not to allow the recent expansion from 7 to 10 to become an unwieldy gorilla or elephant, and not to let decision making processes be severely circumscribed. These are internal challenges. On the political side, reference was made to Myanmar. I was asked for an assessment. I think it is too early to make a full assessment.”
“In doing so, not only do we advance our own interests but, I believe, it also helps focus these external players on the importance of Southeast Asia. Of course, specific policies will have to be adapted to changing circumstances. I may add that the total effect of September 11 events is that they have really underscored the unpredictability of international developments, and have underscored the need for a small country like Singapore to be agile and nimble, and to adjust both its economic, strategic and other facets of its policies to rapidly changing external environment. With those general remarks, let me turn to the specific comments my colleagues have made about ASEAN. I discern a common theme or concern in many of the points made by Members, which is a concern as to where ASEAN is heading. Is it in decline? Does ASEAN have a future? Can it have a new lease of life? What has Singapore done? What can Singapore do in this re-engineering or remaking of ASEAN? How do we answer these questions? I would start, first, by recalling what I said last year, and that is ASEAN is going through a very difficult period, largely because of both internal and external challenges. When I outlined those challenges last year, I was being frank and realistic. But much of what I have said still continues, but made more complex by the events of September 11 and by the uncovering of terrorist networks in several places in Southeast Asia. Commentators continue to write articles about ASEAN which give a dismal picture and rather pessimistic prognosis. It will be misleading of me to paint an overly rosy and upbeat picture of ASEAN.”
“Muslim anger in some quarters against the United States is another fact of life. Therefore, America's pre-eminence means that there is no real alternative for any Southeast Asian government than to try to forge good relations with the United States. Good relations with the United States are not possible unless governments cooperate in the anti-terrorism campaign. But many Southeast Asian governments will also have to find ways to assuage the anxieties of their Muslim ground which may be uneasy or unhappy with the United States' policies, while at the same time taking firm action to neutralise extremist Islamic elements in their societies. How governments are going to deal with this matter is a real political conundrum. How they are going to deal with this will have a profound influence on Southeast Asia. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked how is Singapore going to position itself on many of these fast-changing developments. As a small state, we do not have that many options. But Singapore, as we all know, cannot exist without effective links to all parts of the world. At the same time, we must realise that Singapore's future is inextricably linked with Southeast Asia. That is why I have always stressed in this House that we will have to have a multi-track approach to our engagement with the rest of the world. We are firmly committed and must remain committed to ASEAN and to the region. And, as I will show, when answering questions on ASEAN, we have, in fact, played our part in trying to assist ASEAN to deal with some of the enormous challenges that it faces. At the same time, we have to engage with regions beyond Southeast Asia, with the major powers, with Europe, with the United States, and with North East Asia.”
“Prime Minister Goh made a very successful visit to Washington last June and, more recently, Senior Minister did so. The Prime Minister and Senior Minister met President Bush and other United States leaders, and they had very fruitful exchange of views on both regional and bilateral matters. I think many other Ministers have also had visits to the United States, or are planning to do so. This close relationship is in our interest and, as several colleagues have mentioned, both on this Ministry and other cuts, the negotiations on FTA with the United States will benefit, not just our two countries, but also the entire region. When completed, the FTA will strengthen the bilateral relationship. The third way in which September 11 has affected the strategic landscape is that, as I had mentioned last year, the political and economic changes that have catalysed across the region by the crises of 1997 and 1998 are still being played out, and many countries are adjusting to those events. Matters are compounded by the events of September 11. A key factor will be how countries deal with political Islam and religious extremism, again a point which Dr Ong mentioned. There are more than 230 million Muslims in Southeast Asia. Southeast Asian Islam has traditionally been syncretic and tolerant. Mainstream Muslims in Southeast Asia have been moderate in their beliefs. We all know that most Muslims in our region want nothing to do with terrorism or extremism. But it is a fact that in Southeast Asia, Islam is changing under pressure. Why? Pressure of external influences. As Dr Ong said, there are extremists with political agendas, and some of the most dangerous terrorist organisations try to invoke Islam as their motivating ideology.”
“And it is a fight that all states in the world have to take a stand to combat this new menace. 3.00 pm The second way in which the global situation has changed is that the events of September 11 have, in fact, stabilised United States-China relations, a point which Dr Ong also referred to, and that is a very important factor in the East Asian strategic equation. The terrorist attacks and the fight against terrorism have affected big power relationships significantly. As Dr Ong mentioned, the United States needs China's support for its global anti-terrorism efforts. Although China may not agree fully with every aspect of United States' policies, it also wants stable relations with the United States. When United States-China relations are stable, it has a calming effect on the region across the board. But when United States-China relations are disturbed, as the collision of the planes incident last April showed, the entire region is considerably unsettled. I think we can expect the geo-political positioning to continue in many different forms. There may be the occasional differences, but it is inevitable in the relationship between big powers. For now, the US-China-Japan strategic triangular relationship which underpins East Asian growth and prosperity can be described as stable. We are fortunate, in Singapore, to have very good relations with China and Japan as well as with the United States. Singapore and other countries in the region will benefit from the strategic stability of US-China-Japan relations. Dr Ong asked specifically about our relationship with the United States. I would describe the relationship as excellent. It is multi-faceted. It is a relationship which is a strong one that pre-dates the events of September 11.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Members who have spoken. Let me respond to, first, Dr Ong Chit Chung, on the strategic overview, and then the various comments on ASEAN. First, I agree, almost completely, with what Dr Ong Chit Chung has said in his overview of the strategic situation. I think he has put it as comprehensively as any Foreign Minister could. Last year, I had noted that South East Asia was going through very uncertain times and the situation not only has not changed materially, but the terrorist attacks of September 11 have really added considerably to the complexities. He is right when he describes it as a watershed year. In my view, the September 11 events have affected the geo-political and strategic environment in several ways. I would mention at least three ways. Firstly, the attacks and the United States' response to them have underscored the United States' pre-eminence, and in a sense, has provided a focus for it. The anti-terrorism campaign will now clearly be the main focus of United States' priority for the foreseeable future. Washington, as we all know, is quietly determining who its friends and allies are in this new situation. The results of its determination will be a critical influence on East Asia's development and prosperity. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked about our relations with the United States and also about an assessment of our position on counter-terrorism. I think Members will know that we have taken a very strong stand on terrorism, like all other countries in East Asia. Singapore has stood with the United States in its global fight against terrorism. Why? Because it is the right and correct thing to do. As the arrests of the Jemaah Islamiyah and the uncovering of the network in Singapore have shown, we are clearly not immune.”
“Chin wants to be involved in this exercise, we will be happy to do so. I understand that the Legal Services Working Group, chaired by Solicitor-General Mr Chan Seng Onn and Senior Counsel Mr Shanmugam, will be making recommendations on how Singapore can be further developed as an alternative dispute resolution hub in this region, and I understand these recommendations will be examined carefully. I have several other points here, but I should allow other topics to be raised.”
“Since there are two MPs who are moving cuts on mediation later, I will leave it to my colleague, Senior Minister of State Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee, to deal with that shortly. But, overall, I do not think the cost situation in Singapore has posed such onerous obstacles. Our court fees have been kept low, our lawyers' fees are competitive internationally and, for those who cannot afford, there are various alternatives. But we should seek constantly to see how we can improve it. Finally, on his point about arbitration, I welcome his comments about the recent Ministry of Finance's removal of the tax. I agree with him when he says we should position ourselves in Singapore as an arbitration hub. It is a matter on which I myself have spoken. I think we have all the assets and advantages to do that. We have excellent infrastructure, a good legal system, our reputation is sound internationally, we have common law and English-speaking lawyers. He mentioned China. I think we are one of the few places where there are English-speaking lawyers who are familiar with the Chinese language and traditions. So we have all these going for us. We have to harness these strengths and position ourselves. The removal of the tax for international arbitrators is but one step. Of course, much more must be done. He has enumerated many points to be taken into consideration. We will consider, and I will ask those who are following up on this to take into account Prof. Chin's ideas. Working with other agencies? Indeed we do so. We work with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, Singapore Academy of Law, the Law Society and various other agencies in our plan to develop Singapore as an international arbitration hub. If Prof.”
“Chin would make it out to be. For those who really cannot afford legal fees at all, there are various avenues of assistance which are available, including legal aid and free legal advice at various legal clinics. The Legal Aid Bureau revised the means test quite recently and more people, as a result, qualify. There has been some 15% increase in the number of cases. Let us not forget that when we talk about cost of legal proceedings, there are really two components. Firstly, are the court fees, which include stamp fees paid for filing of court documents and so on, and hearing fees. Secondly, the fees charged by lawyers. As far as the costs by courts are concerned, the courts have taken efforts to keep court fees low. Stamp fees have not been increased since 1991, and hearing fees have not increased since 1993. So, there have been efforts to keep them low. As for lawyers' fees, like all professional services, lawyers' fees are determined largely by market forces. Are they too high or too low? Prof. Chin says the lawyers are not cheap. How do they compare with other countries? According to Asia-Pacific Legal 500, "Singapore's legal market is extremely competitive. Fees remain at relatively low levels, particularly among Singaporean clients who, as a result, receive some of the best value legal advice in the world." Compared to their international counterparts, Singapore lawyers are cheap. But that does not mean we should not strive to reduce legal costs. In this regard, let me also say that the justice system does not mean only the courts. We must also take into account alternative dispute resolution methods. He referred to the mediation centres and the Small Claims courts.”
“The JLV scheme serves to achieve this by attracting more top foreign legal talent to Singapore and providing opportunities for Singapore lawyers to be trained with the leading law firms of the world and, thereby, facilitate transfer of top-tier legal expertise to local firms. In terms of training of Singapore lawyers, most of the JLVs have indeed put in place comprehensive training programmes for Singapore lawyers. And I think benefits of this objective of training are quite clear. In terms of transfer of legal expertise, because this is in existence for just a period of 20 months, there are not really enough opportunities for this to take place in a very significant way. To compound matters, the uncertain economic outlook in the region has also made it difficult. But as a partner from a top UK law firm recently quoted in Legal Week, he said, "it started a bit slowly because of the downturn, but now the benefits are coming through and we are happy about it." We should be better able to assess the situation after the economic outlook of the region picks up. But nevertheless, the local law firms have been able to obtain considerable intangible benefits from the JLVs. He asked why are these relationships short-lived? Again, let us remember the JLV system has been in operation for about only 20 months. It is therefore too early, in my view, to arrive at any final judgement on the scheme. Out of the eight JLVs, only one has been dissolved. So, that does not tell us enough to arrive at a conclusion on the success or failure of the scheme. 5.15 pm Professor Chin talked about access to the justice system. I think we cannot disagree with him that we must always ensure that there is access to the legal system for the common men. But our position here is not as bad as Prof.”
“So it is in the interest of the profession to provide for continuing legal education and whether they would like this continuing legal education to be made optional, or compulsory. I would first want them to study the matter and take an initiative. If, after they have studied it, they feel that amendments to the Legal Profession Act ought to be made, I would be prepared to entertain this request. But I would rather that this approach be taken than a Government decree in the first place that the Legal Profession Act should be amended to make it compulsory. In this regard, we would be prepared to have discussions with the Law Society. As for post-graduate degrees, we have discussed this last year, and I would like to point out that the key considerations are to take into account scarce resources, the need to prevent legal education from becoming prohibitively expensive. Having said that, I am aware that the NUS Law Faculty is encouraging more graduates to take law as a second degree. It is also moving towards allowing law to be taken as part of a multi-disciplinary degree. And in this regard, they are also considering the possibility of law as a double degree. I do not know when they will take the decision. But I think this is moving along the direction that Prof. Chin mentioned, and these are good moves. Then Prof. Chin talked about the joint law venture (JLV) scheme. He asked for an update, whether it was a success and why the joint law venture was so short-lived. To quickly recap, the objective of the joint law venture scheme is to ensure that there is a sufficient top-tier legal expertise in Singapore to service our growing financial sector.”
“In the meantime, we may experience two or three years of negative growth in the number of lawyers. But I do not think there is reason to be overly alarmed. She mentioned the need for us to take into consideration lawyers who would be in supportive role, other than in the private practice of law. I do not think there is a restriction on that. For example, the restriction we have from one of the scheduled universities, having a second class upper degree, is a restriction on practice of law. But there is no restriction for non-practitioner roles. But at the end of the day, let me repeat what I have said before on numerous occasions in this House, that I do not view these figures as being cast in stone, that when we have these reviews and adjustments, we must be prepared to adjust to changing circumstances. And if there is a need for us to make adjustments earlier than expected, for example, after we have studied the comprehensive report that I referred to, we should be prepared, and I would be prepared, to do so. As for training of lawyers, a point raised by Prof. Chin Tet Yung, the Law Faculty, the Law Society, the Academy of Law, to name a few organisations, do conduct a wide variety of courses for training of law amongst our legal profession. There are all sorts of seminars and workshops, etc. As to the question whether continuing legal education should be made compulsory, I am of the view that the lead should not come from the Government. It must be the profession itself that realises that it is in the interest of the profession to be abreast of fast changing developments in Singapore, in the region, in the world, both in law and other disciplines, which have an impact on law.”
“Should we be concerned? What should we do? The first thing we should do is to have a better understanding of the underlying reasons why lawyers are leaving the private sector. And this is one of the main reasons why the Ministry of Law is conducting a very comprehensive survey, together with the Department of Statistics, on the legal services industry and the profession. The response to the census, in fact, has been very good. Some 99% of the law firms responded and 75% of individual lawyers have responded. The information is being collated and, I think, for the first time, we have an in-depth study of the nature of the legal industry and the profession. Hopefully, we will then be able to chart the various directions and steps that need to be done. On the quota of law students, Ms Indranee Rajah was right about the rationale for these steps we have taken. The emphasis is really more on quality than on the numbers. In this regard, the Second Committee's Report on Supply of Lawyers, made only last year, made recommendations on how we can bring a wider variety of talents into the profession, and these include admitting of law students from Australia, New Zealand, giving the Board of Legal Education greater flexibility in approving combined and double degree courses and in admitting, on a case-by-case basis, quality graduates who do not meet the normal criteria. I should, in response to the point that she made, assure her that the Committee, when adjusting the NUS intake numbers, did so taking into account the higher attrition rates in the legal profession. This is one of the factors they took into account. But here, again, I would say that it would take a few years before the effects on the recommendations are felt.”
“Sir, I thank the two Members who have spoken. I notice that quite a number of serious items are proposed to be raised under the Ministry of Law, but the time allotted is very limited. So to enable as many of the topics to be raised, I will be as brief as possible to enable answers to be given on the other cuts that are forthcoming. And I apologise if, in the process of being brief, I do not give complete answers and if a serious point has not been answered, I hope Members will raise it under Questions for Oral Answer. I will take first the different aspects related to the legal profession on law. First, lawyers leaving the profession. What Prof. Chin and Ms Indranee Rajah said in a sense are related to matters of the same issue. Are there too few lawyers today? Why are they leaving? Is there a need to worry? What must be done? This is partly caused by the publicity about lawyers leaving the private sector. I think that, like any other job, people leave the legal profession for various reasons. And since Ms Indranee Rajah has listed some of them, I will not repeat them. But there are many reasons. And I do not want to add to the speculation whether it is the stress of the work, and so on. But I do want to say that the legal profession is in a state of flux because of the many changes that have taken place within the global environment and, indeed, within our economy. The profession has experienced a wide variety of changes and changing expectations of how the legal services will develop. So, to some extent, I am not surprised that quite a number of lawyers are leaving the profession in recent years. I think things would settle down after we have gone through the period of redistribution of legal talent following especially the abolition of the conveyancing scale fees.”
“I would say that this situation underscores the importance of observance and compliance with principles of international law, compliance with United Nations Security Council, respect for territorial integrity, avoidance of the use of force and violence and, above all, I think it shows that for a small country, it is important for us, on this situation or any other crisis situation, to show support for the United Nations and to show support for initiatives by the United Nation's Secretary-General. CONTRACT WORKERS 4. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Manpower, with the increasing use of contracts for services in engaging workers when they are obviously employees, what more can his Ministry do to prevent employers from denying such workers their benefits under the Employment Act and the Central Provident Fund Act.”
“Sir, to deal with the second part of his question first, yes, we are in the Security Council. And for this month, in May, we have the Presidency of the Security Council. We will do our part as a member of the Security Council and, for this month, as President, working closely with the other members of the Security Council and the Secretary-General, to facilitate the discussions, to reach whatever constructive solutions that can be had for this very difficult problem. It is a problem that has been in the world and the region for decades. Many a leading statesman has been involved in offering good offices. There have been many accords and peace plans; the Mitchel Plan, the Tenet Plan, Oslo Accord, Madrid Accord and so on, but the crisis has not eased up. We have a sense of realism as to what Singapore can do because, as I said in my main answer, really it calls for political will and a resolve of the parties themselves. Clearly also that there can be no military solution to the conflict. But to the extent that we can, we will play our part as a member of the Security Council, but I would not want to overstate it because it essentially falls on the parties themselves and the permanent members of the Security Council; the United States particularly plays a very important role in this process. What lessons can we draw?”
“Sir, we believe also that the UN Secretary-General has a vital role to play. We have responded positively to his proposal to deploy an impartial and robust multi-national force to the region, and we have urged the Council to consider the situation seriously. In closing, let me say that the immediate priority now is to break the cycle of violence. What is urgently needed is a political will to end the violence and implement the ceasefire which would pave the way to the resumption of peace talks. But the primary responsibility, Sir, clearly falls on the parties themselves. Nonetheless, Singapore will continue to work with other members of the Security Council to adopt the constructive approach to assist the parties to reach a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.”
“At the UN, we have said that the only way to objectively assess the situation is for an independent and impartial body to establish the facts. Therefore, we and other Council Members voted unanimously on 19th April to support Secretary-General Kofi Annan's initiative to despatch a fact finding team to Jinin. We believe that it was in Israel's interest to have a full and public clarification of the situation in Jinin. It is therefore unfortunate that the Secretary-General has now been forced by Israel's continued rejection of the fact-finding team to disband the team. In the informal consultation at the Security Council, we have joined others in expressing deep regret at Israel's rebuff of the Secretary-General's efforts. We hope that the Secretary-General will continue to collate all available information on Jinin and keep the Council informed as accurate information becomes available. Sir, Singapore supports the immediate relief efforts to address the humanitarian crisis. Israel's obligation and the international laws are clear. It must allow and facilitate immediate access by humanitarian agencies to mount emergency rescue operations in the affected areas. Sir, decades of tragic violence have clearly demonstrated that there can be no military solution to the conflict. We support all efforts to bring about an end to the violence and the resumption of the peace process. These include Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah's Arab peace initiative, the efforts of the quartet involving the US, EU, Russia and the UN Secretary-General, and all these efforts have been supported by the UN Security Council. We also welcome the latest news that the siege on Chairman Arafat has been lifted as a result of diplomatic efforts undertaken by the US and UK.”
“In the United Nations Security Council, we have joined other members in expressing outrage that innocent civilians have been targeted and killed for military and political reasons. In particular, we have expressed our concerns over alarming reports of what UN officials have described as a horrific devastation and a dire humanitarian situation in the Palestinian cities. We have deplored in the strongest terms all acts of terror, and have called for an end to the extreme acts by both sides. As an elected member of the Security Council, we have worked with the 14 other members and voted in support of four resolutions in the recent two months to demand an immediate end to the violence. Sir, we believe that there must be a withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Palestinian cities, accompanied, at the same time, by genuine efforts of the Palestinian Authority to take action against acts of terror. In this regard, Sir, the UN Security Council has supported the joint statement of 10 April 2002 of the quartet, ie, the US, Russia, EU and the UN Secretary-General, which called on Chairman Arafat to use the full weight of his political authority to persuade the Palestinian people that any or all terrorist attacks against Israelis should end immediately. This is in the interests of the Palestinians, for, as the joint statement also said, "Terrorism, including suicide bombs, is illegal and immoral, and has inflicted grave harm to the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people, and must be condemned, as called for in Resolution 1373." Sir, there have been claims and counter claims as to the nature and extent of the humanitarian situation, especially in the refugee camp in Jinin.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Middle East issue is one of the most complex and intractable issues of our time. We are fully aware that there are no easy solutions. Singapore's position on the Middle East has been guided by our support of the principles of international law, observance of the United Nations Charter, and compliance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. These include opposition to the use of force against the territorial integrity or political sovereignty of any state, and respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. Sir, we have good relations with Israel as well as with the Palestinian Authority. Singapore has supported the aspirations of the Palestinian people, and has voted in support of all United Nations General Assembly resolutions pertinent to the Palestinian question. At the same time, we recognise the right of Israel to exist as an independent state within secure and recognised borders, but Israel, in turn, must recognise the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to a homeland of their own and must comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions on withdrawal from the occupied territories. The vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side, within secure and recognised borders, has been enshrined in the UN Security Council Resolution 1397 of 12th March 2002, for which Singapore voted in favour. The recent deteriorating crisis in the Middle East is a matter of grave concern. This escalation of violence has continued unabated for far too long, resulting in a senseless loss of lives of so many innocent people.”
“What we need are details of how our reclamation has adversely affected them, then only we can reply. We have to-date not received such a note itemising and setting out the details of their concerns. They have said that they will send us that note. Members would have read in the media comments by their leaders that they are preparing such a note and it may take a few months. We await that note. When we receive that note and we have the details of their claims, not broad allegations, we will study them and give a reply. GENERAL ELECTION 2. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Prime Minister whether for the next General Election he is willing to (i) release the report of the Boundaries Review Committee at least six months before the dissolution of Parliament; (ii) limit the number of candidates in a Group Representation Constituency to three or, in any case, to not more than six; (iii) reduce the election deposit from $13,000 to $3,000 for each candidate; (iv) have more than one designated rally site in a single-member constituency; and (v) increase the number of days for campaigning from eight to fourteen days.”
“Mr Leong Horn Kee asked two questions. The first part of his question was: what was the Malaysians' response to what we have said about developing alternative sources? There has not been any official response because this was a statement made by the Prime Minister. But I am sure the Member as well as other Members would have noted in the media, some of their leaders have made statements to the effect that this is up to Singapore. But there has not been any official response. Whether we will take this up in detail during the first round of discussions is another matter. Reclamation is not an issue as part of the package. But since the Member has raised the question, let me recall, first, what we have said in this Chamber - that Malaysia had previously sent us two notes. And these notes were on 28th January and 2nd April. But those first two Notes were confined solely to their claim that our reclamation in the Tuas area had encroached on their territorial waters and jurisdiction, which is not true and we have categorically refuted those claims. More recently, Malaysians have sent us a note on 30th April protesting our reclamation works around Tekong and Ubin on broad grounds of trans-boundary environmental impact. But I should say that neither the latest Note nor the two previous Notes in any way contain the detailed facts about their concerns of how the reclamation has affected them. You will recall that Singapore has consistently said that the Malaysians ought to send us a note itemising their concerns. And this was requested by Deputy Prime Minister when he visited Malaysia in March. The Malaysians have said that they will send us such a note. What we need really is not itemisation of general allegations or broad complaints.”
“I thought the Prime Minister had already sketched in broad outlines our approach in moving towards developing alternative sources, both in terms of NEWater and desalination. As Foreign Minister, I do not have the details of this, but if he were to file a Question or use the opportunity during the Committee of Supply to direct his request to the appropriate Minister, which will be the Minister for the Environment, I am sure he will get a fuller answer.”
“It will not be possible for me to give a guarantee that there will not be further changes in their approach or changes in their proposals. But as Foreign Ministers, I hope Minister Syed Hamid and I will be able, after so many years, to get down to brass tacks at our first meeting, together with our officials.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I can understand the desire of the Member to obtain the details. But, at the same time, I am sure the Member will appreciate that I would not be able to disclose at this stage the details of those proposals and our response, in that the nature of negotiations, I think, it is premature for us to divulge the details when the first round of discussions has not yet taken place. As to the broad approach, let me say that Singapore will naturally want to advance our interest. We have heard the Prime Minister speak in this Chamber of the position we will take on water, so that we will increasingly distance ourselves away from dependence on water and rely on alternative sources. The issue now is not on broad principles any more. Both sides have to get down to details. And on water, for example, we have to get down on details, such as the amount, the quantum, the mix between raw and treated water, and on pricing. But these will have to be sorted out together with a host of other issues when we first meet.”
“For instance, Singapore has ratified the Genocide Convention, but this has not been fully incorporated into our national laws. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“These, for example, are the sanctions on Iraq that, in some views, have persisted for too long a time and affected many of the Iraqi people. The second question I would like to ask is on the process of how we do this. As the Minister noted, in almost all cases up to now, we have amended the laws on a case by case basis. This requires that the laws would have to come to Parliament to be approved or disapproved. This is consistent with what is called the dualist theory of international law, that is to say, that while international law may say one thing, it is not binding in Singapore until it is incorporated through our national laws. And this keeps the primary focal point on our Parliament as a sovereign law-making body. However, Sir, in this present Bill, I notice that it will basically short-cut Parliament. It will delegate to the Executive the decisions on how to implement UN Security Council resolutions. Sir, I understand, in some ways, that these resolutions may come at such a pace and with such urgency that there may not be time to consider a Bill fully in Parliament. I wish to ask the Minister whether there will be some time for another mechanism, perhaps a consultation with a smaller group of Members of Parliament, like the GPC for Foreign Affairs. My third point is that I do acknowledge the need for Singapore law to be consistent with international law, and I generally support this Bill. However, I wish the Minister would consider that the UN Security Council resolutions are only one aspect of keeping our national laws consistent with international obligations. And I must, in that sense, ask what is our approach to other treaties and laws that bind us.”
“This is reassuring for Singaporeans, that is to say, that while we will follow the UN Security Council directions, we will still be protected by the Singapore Constitution. There is, however, another question as to whether this Bill, when given effect, would be through the Singapore police or other officials. This is because clause 2(1)(b) of the Bill provides that the Government or the Minister might empower whichever people they desire. If I could just read that relevant clause. This would allow "empowering any person or class of persons to exercise, when investigating any offence under this Act or any regulations made thereunder, all or any of the powers of a police officer under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68) in relation to seizable offences." In this sense, I would ask the Minister if he would envisage that non-Singaporeans, non-police officers or other persons would be used to effect these regulations. Sir, I have three smaller questions. First, while I recognise that the UN Security Council has the power to compel all states, including small states such as Singapore, to follow its resolutions, there must be some thought given to the need to consult affected states. Singapore has, in the past, talked about UN Security Council reform and brought up the point about the need to consult smaller states before they are effected. I would like the Minister to answer whether this would continue to be our stand or whether now, we will simply accept whatever the UN Security Council decides upon. I ask this question in the context of some sanctions and other moves which in the long term have come to be questioned by such a community.”
“Mr Simon S C Tay (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. The UN is the most important international organisation today, specifically for a small country like Singapore. Yet, there is no world government. In this sense, there is always a tension between what each country must do to fulfil its international obligations and what each country must do on the basis of the sovereignty of its own people as represented in Parliament. Clearly, Sir, the UN Security Council has powers under Chapter VII to make laws and to bind governments, as the Minister has said. This is particularly under Article 41 of the UN Charter, read together with Article 48. In the past, this has not been of much use because each permanent member of the Security Council can exercise a veto and, during the Cold War, the disagreements among these permanent five members led to a very few resolutions being binding on the governments of the world. But since the end of the Cold War, there has been much more agreement among the permanent five and many more Chapter VII resolutions have been called for and this is likely to increase further in the wake of the 11th September events. It is often good that the nations of the world can act in concert. There are, however, other cases in which there may be some cause for concern. While the general approach of the present Bill is correct, I think these questions must be raised in the minds of people. The first question is whether Singaporean laws will be overridden. The Bill provides that they can be. However, it also provides an assurance, Sir, that constitutional protection continues.”
“However, given its unique scope and breadth of the resolution, there are some aspects of the resolution that cannot be met under our existing laws. For example, there is a requirement that member states shall: "Criminalise the wilful provision or collection, by any means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in their territories with the intention that the funds should be used, or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in order to carry out terrorist acts;" However, our existing laws do not criminalise the provision or collection of funds by Singapore citizens outside Singapore for criminal or terrorist acts committed outside Singapore. We also have to consider the possibility that there may be future UN Security Council resolutions to deal with terrorism or other pressing international crimes. We would not be able to anticipate or predict the breadth and depth of these possible future resolutions. Nonetheless, we must ensure that we are in a position to be able to give effect to them effectively and promptly. This Bill is therefore necessary to ensure that our laws are adequate and to overcome any possible lacuna that would prevent Singapore from effectively fulfilling our international obligations. This Act will enable the Government to pass such regulations necessary to give effect to the decisions of the UN Security Council. It will avoid a situation where gaps in our laws prevent us from implementing the UN Security Council resolutions. Let me add that countries such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and India (amongst others) already have in place facilitating legislation, mostly broadly similar, to allow speedy implementation of Security Council decisions. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Singapore is a member of the United Nations. Like all other members of the United Nations, we are legally bound by the UN Charter to implement mandatory resolutions of the UN Security Council. A failure to give effect to the measures mandated by the Security Council would be a breach of our international obligations for which Singapore may be subject to censure and sanctions by the Security Council. A good illustration is the recent United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 adopted on 28th September 2001 which was after the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11th. It calls upon member States to implement a series of measures against terrorism and the financing of terrorism. This resolution, passed under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, is binding on all member States. It calls for international cooperation to combat threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist attacks and provides for the imposition of strict new measures to criminalise and prevent the financing of terrorism. Sir, the approach we have hitherto taken has been to implement mandatory UN Security Council resolutions through a variety of existing legislative and administrative measures. Where we have not been able to give effect to Security Council resolutions through existing laws, we have sought to amend specific legislation. For example, last year, Parliament amended the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act, the Air Navigation Act and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to enable Singapore to be better able to give effect to our various treaty obligations. We can implement most of the requirements of the recent Security Council Resolution 1373 under our existing laws.”
“I am very glad to hear that, Sir. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ARBITRATION BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.30 pm”
“Let us try this first, see how it works, and he, or other colleagues who feel the same way, can take it up to try and persuade me or the future Minister for Law on another occasion. Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: A point of clarification, Sir. When the Minister mentioned that law lecturers in the Law Faculty have got more intensive experience, I do agree. But has he taken note that nowadays, in the other universities, when the law lecturers fight for their promotions, they have to be compared with their peers in the law faculty and their research papers have got to be the same class, or else they do not make it?”
“The lecturers in the Law Faculty are training future practitioners of law and they have to constantly keep up with the legal skills and knowledge, well-honed, up-to-date and even a cutting edge. It is for that reason that Parliament saw it fit to regard each year spent teaching law in the NUS Law Faculty as equivalent to one year's legal practice experience for the purposes of qualification used in the term "consultant". Without appearing to underestimate those teaching law outside the Law Faculty, I should say that, relatively speaking, the demands on a law lecturer teaching non-law students may not be as intense as the Law Faculty because the Law Faculty lecturers are in a total law environment and they interact with some 40 to 50 other colleagues who are specialists in their law disciplines. I am not sure that the other departments outside the NUS Law Faculty have this total interactive environment which is not unlike a leading law firm in town. While this Bill has opened up certain NUS law lecturers' privileges to also non-law faculty lecturers and other institutions, they do not make the conferment of such privileges automatic. For example, the issuance of a practising certificate is subject to the Attorney-General's approval and the Attorney-General can impose conditions. This would allow the Attorney-General to exercise some control. My response may not satisfy Prof. Toh See Kiat because he would favour a result where all law lecturers are conferred the benefit which is given to the NUS Law Faculty. Let us take matters one step at a time. I would not completely rule it out. But as Prof. Toh See Kiat knows, my approach is not to rule it out.”
“It is also hoped that this would allow the Board and firms to engage in win-win partnerships for the benefit of the legal profession as a whole. I myself do not fear that this would lead to imprudent and unwise investments because the control over these investments rests with members of the Board, which is chaired by the Attorney-General and includes the Dean of the Law Faculty, as well as the President of the Law Society, all of whom, I am sure, would make it a point to ensure that the investments are defensible and on good grounds. On his point about dining terms, let me say the Board of Legal Education has been trying out this idea informally for the past two years. But unlike the way dining terms are kept in England, the arrangement here would have considerable educational flavour or component and I understand that the intention is to invite prominent speakers for such dining sessions, and the pupils would be seated with practitioners. I think this idea should be encouraged as it would add a further dimension to education of our younger budding lawyers and hopefully, it would enable them to absorb the values and traditions of the Bar by interacting with more senior practitioners. I have taken note of what Prof. Toh See Kiat has said. First, I want to make it clear that I do not underestimate the expertise and competence of the law teachers who are teaching law outside the NUS Law Faculty. But in response to his points, let me say that there is a difference between teaching law full-time to law students in the Law Faculty and teaching law to engineering, accountancy or business students. The Member may or may not agree with me.”
“It is really intended to cater mainly for cases where a law lecturer has been instructed by a practising lawyer, or where the law lecturer is invited by the court to assist in a particular case. Prof. Chin also made the point about the need for the Law Society to print and disseminate information about how it deals with complaints. This is a suggestion which I would certainly take up with the Law Society. But, in fairness, let me say that the Law Society does publish and distribute pamphlets explaining to the public the procedure for making complaints about lawyers and the pamphlets are also available on the Internet. For Members of the House who previously had difficulties explaining the procedure to their constituents, I can also get my officials to forward the relevant website address to the constituency secretariats so that MPs can advise their constituents. Mr Chandra Mohan was particularly concerned with two points. One was on the Board's investment powers. It is true that these amendments have given a new flexibility to the Board. But one should not conclude that this means that the Board is going to be speculative and engage in questionable investments. This new provision on the Board's investment powers is actually similar to those on investment powers of many other statutory bodies in Singapore. So it is not unprecedented. The idea is really to give the Board greater flexibility to invest its funds to better meet its objectives. I believe that the Attorney-General hopes that this flexibility would allow the Board, on suitable occasions, for example, to selectively grant loans to law firms to assist with operations on worthwhile projects.”
“I was impressed with him and he was thinking of just a three-year contract with the Law Faculty. But he stayed on, became a PR and he is none other than Prof. Chin. But at that time, how could we say that this outstanding graduate was just going to meet the demands of the Law Faculty at that time and would not be useful later? So, we are talking about other outstanding people like Prof. Chin. I think it would be a provision that would be used judiciously. As to clause 7, let me say that it does not impose any new limitations but actually it creates exceptions to limitations which are already found in section 26(1) of the Legal Profession Act. Because section 26(1) says that no one can be issued with a practising certificate unless he intends to practise law as a sole proprietor, in partnership or as an employee of a law firm or law corporation or as a director of a law corporation. This naturally means that lawyers working in statutory boards and universities are disqualified from holding practising certificates. The existing section 26(3) created an exception for lawyers working in statutory boards, subject to certification by the Attorney-General. What clause 7 does is to widen the exception to include also law lecturers. Let me say that this creation of a new exception for law lecturers would create greater opportunities for law lecturers to sharpen their legal skills which will in turn benefit their students. The requirement for certification by the Attorney-General would allow the Attorney-General to impose conditions and controls over situations in which the law lecturers can make use of the practising certificate. As I have said in my speech, it is not the intention to allow law lecturers to set up a full-fledged legal practice.”
“This means not just the traditional role of a lawyer, as understood by most laymen, it means getting into the cutting edge where there is an interplay between intellectual properties, genetics, patent law and so forth, where you need to have some experts knowledgeable about the law and, at the same time, knowledgeable about other areas. For example, a law graduate with multiple skills and experiences may apply for certification under this provision. Another example would be an IP lawyer with science or engineering background. So really, it does not mean that by this amendment, we are going to have a deluge of applications. It is that the previous criterion was very rigid for this purpose. Let me also say that the amendment does not mean that the Board has to approve every case. The Board is given the discretion, and I am sure that it would exercise its discretion judiciously. I think it has to be very selective in its use of powers under this new provision to ensure that high quality persons are admitted under this route, and it will not be a backdoor entry to get to the Singapore Bar. Of course, the Board will have to establish its own guidelines, and the broader wordings of this new section would enable the Board to have the flexibility to adjust its internal guidelines to suit changing needs and circumstances. Prof. Chin posed the question whether Singapore's needs may be changing and people who are admitted to fulfill the needs of certain times, may not be useful later. We are really talking about outstanding people and I hope he does not mind if I were to mention that many years ago, when I was the Dean of the Faculty, I had interviewed a young, promising lawyer from Sabah for the Law Faculty.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members who have spoken in support of the Bill and I would touch on the points that they have raised. Prof. Chin asked about the broader wordings for section 7, whether it would pose some difficulties and wanted some idea on what sort of legal professionals we expect to be making an entry through this route. Let me say that previously, the applicant must be an exceptional one in that his qualifications and expertise must be such that it would enhance the quality of legal service in Singapore. Out of the many applications we received under section 7 over the past six years, the Board could only grant approval for four cases. The new wordings will provide the Board with a little bit more flexibility because it emphasises more on the economic contribution that an applicant can make to Singapore in such areas of economic activities where there is presently a lack of expertise both qualitatively as well as in numbers. It would allow the Board to take into consideration whether the expertise or experience of the applicant is required or desirable for Singapore generally. This would allow successful applicants to contribute to an emerging range of new economic activities in which there is insufficient legal expertise. As Prof. Chin has said and Mr Chandra Mohan also commented, the world of legal practice is changing rapidly. And for Singapore, the legal service is an important supporting pillar for our effort to maintain our competitiveness.”
“I hope the Minister can look into ways on how members of the public can be informed of their rights concerning allegations of mishandling of cases by their solicitors. With the above comments, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Secondly, I would like to turn to clause 7, which contains disqualifications for practising certificates. In the new provision, it is envisaged that the Attorney-General can, through his certificate, allow certain types of solicitors, such as those working in the university, to get a practising certificate. I would just like to ask the Minister to confirm that this is the new procedure that the Attorney-General's certificate is required for solicitors who are working for statutory bodies or for universities before they can apply for a practising certificate. If so, could the Minister explain why there is a need for disqualifications? Thirdly, I welcome the new complaints provisions set out in the Bill and, especially, in clause 17. In particular, I note that the Council is obliged to inform the complainant and the advocate concerned if the complaint is dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance. This is certainly most welcome. Anecdotal evidence in the past suggests that complainants do not really know why the complaints are dismissed without further action. However, I would like to ask the Minister whether some more public-friendly mechanism can be found to inform those who wish to complain about legal services. Is there sufficient information given to those who wish to complain? Can the complaints mechanism be made simpler for the public? Many Members in this House must have come across cases where a member of the public informs them of some alleged mishandling of legal matters and professes a lack of knowledge as to what to do. The other problem is that they fear the lawyers and do not expect a satisfactory outcome in most cases.”
“This Bill provides for several important changes to the conduct and regulation of the legal profession. The legal profession, together with other professions in Singapore, is going through a period of necessary change, both in the way it works and in the way it seeks to upgrade itself to meet the challenges of the so-called New Economy. I refer, first, to clause 3 that seeks to broaden the discretion of the Board to certify persons who are not qualified persons to be so, if they possess "such qualification or expertise as would contribute to, promote or enhance the quality of legal services in Singapore or the economic or technological development of Singapore". This is wider in at least two respects from the original provision which requires the Board to act only in exceptional cases and where the person's qualification or expertise would enhance the quality of legal services. Under the new provision, once an applicant can contribute to the quality of legal services or economic or technological development of Singapore, he can be certified. This is really open-ended and there may be difficulty for the Board to exercise this discretion in a focused way. It may open the door for judicial review of the Board's decisions. I should also like to ask the Minister what is intended in this broader provision and what type of legal professionals would therefore be expected to gain entry through this route? My concern is that such persons may be admitted to fill certain needs of the time but, subsequently, may not be so useful. Would these individuals still be welcomed to general practice in Singapore? After admitting them to the profession, it may not be so easy to tell them to leave.”
“For consistency, section 34(h) of the Act, which presently applies only to a law lecturer of the Law Faculty of the NUS, is amended by clause 10 of the Bill to extend to all law lecturers of institutions of higher learning in Singapore. This would enable them to render any legal opinion or act in an advisory capacity. Again, this is intended to be limited to only matters in which the law lecturer has been instructed by an advocate and solicitor. Amendments Concerning Law Society's Operations Sir, the final group of amendments consists mainly of housekeeping amendments to improve the administration of the Law Society. Clause 15 amends section 51 to make provision for electronic voting in Council elections, to exempt the Law Society members who are overseas from having to comply with the compulsory voting requirements. Clause 13 amends section 48 to allow the Council to co-opt more members into the Council. The Law Society requested this because many lawyers are willing and prepared to volunteer their time to help out with the work of the Council but they are unwilling to campaign for election into the Council. Clause 12 provides for the Law Society to take in as non-practitioner members foreign lawyers working in offshore firms in Singapore. Clause 28 allows the Law Society to intervene in a lawyer's practice in two additional instances to protect the public. These two instances are where the Council is satisfied that a sole solicitor has abandoned his practice, and where the Council is satisfied that a solicitor is practising without a practising certificate. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of this Bill.”
“Limited Purpose Practising Certificates The next group of amendments, Sir, deals with special categories of persons who can be issued with limited purpose practising certificates notwithstanding that they are not actually practising law as a member of a law firm. Clause 7 amends section 26 of the Act to allow the Attorney-General to issue limited purpose practising certificates to a legal officer of a foreign government to appear in our courts to represent their governments on certain matters. Sir, let me explain that this amendment is mainly meant for cases like extradition cases and proceedings for taking of evidence in our courts under the schemes for mutual legal assistance. Allowing legal officers of foreign governments to participate directly in appropriate cases can indeed speed up proceedings and free up our prosecutors to handle other work. Section 26 is also amended to enable law lecturers from NUS and other institutions of higher learning in Singapore (who are advocates and solicitors) to appear in court, if they have a certificate from the Attorney-General for this purpose. This amendment, Sir, is intended mainly to cater to cases where the law lecturer has been instructed by a practising lawyer, or where the law lecturer is invited by the court to assist on a particular issue. The Attorney-General's certificate will only be issued to those who have been employed as a member of the academic staff by the law department of any institution of higher learning in Singapore for at least three continuous years (unless the Attorney-General shortens the period). Sir, this proposal would allow the law lecturers to enhance their skills which in turn would benefit their students.”
“The Second Committee felt that the current wording of section 7 was overly tight, resulting in only a small handful qualifying under it in the last five years. While the new section 7 will allow more to qualify, I wish to stress, Sir, that this is not meant to be used as a backdoor to enter the Singapore legal profession. The Board will be vigilant in ensuring that the quality of entrants to the legal profession is at the high standard. Together with the widened discretion in section 7, the Second Committee on Supply of Lawyers also recommended allowing the Board wider powers to grant exemption from pupillage. Currently, the Board can only grant exemption for up to three months' pupillage. The wider exemption powers will allow the Board to better take into account the varying levels of experience of persons seeking admission to the Singapore Bar. With these increased roles being given to the Board, two amendments touching on the administration of the Board are also being proposed. First, clause 4 amends section 8 to make the President of the Law Society an ex-officio member of the Board of Legal Education. The Attorney-General and the Dean of the Law Faculty, NUS, are already ex-officio members. Sir, the President of the Law Society has also traditionally always been appointed to the Board. Putting it into law that the President is an ex-officio member would signify a formal recognition of the important role played by the Law Society in its work of the Board. Second, section 5 is amended to increase the Board's powers to invest its funds, including allowing the Board to lend money to law firms to pursue projects which the Board finds worthy of its support.”
“Clause 21 amends section 93 to require the findings of all Disciplinary Committees to be published either in the Singapore Law Gazette or in such other medium as would adequately inform the public of the findings of the Committees. Clause 18 amends section 88 to require the publication in the Government Gazette of all orders by the Council to a lawyer to pay penalty. Currently, only orders to pay penalties exceeding $1,000 have to be published in the Government Gazette. Legal Education I now turn to some amendments concerning the Board of Legal Education and the qualifications for practising law in Singapore. Clause 2 amends section 5 to allow the Board of Legal Education to make rules requiring pupils to keep dining terms before they can be admitted to the Bar. The keeping of dining terms will provide an additional avenue for imparting the values and tradition of the legal profession through social interaction with senior members of the Bar and also, through interaction, to pick up relevant social skills needed for a successful legal practice. Clause 3 amends section 7 to widen the Board's discretion to recognise as qualified persons lawyers who, although not graduates from universities recognised for the purposes of admission to the Singapore Bar, nevertheless possess such qualifications or expertise as would contribute to, promote or enhance the quality of legal services in Singapore or the economic and technological development of Singapore. This amendment is to give effect to a recommendation of the Second Committee on Supply of Lawyers that we should empower the Board to admit persons who possess such skills and expertise as the Singapore legal profession needs.”
“At present, after an Inquiry Committee makes a report to the Council, the Council can make one of four recommendations - (1) to send the matter to a Disciplinary Committee for a formal investigation, (2) dismiss the complaint, (3) dispose of the complaint by reprimanding the lawyer, or (4) dispose of the complaint by ordering the lawyer to pay a monetary penalty. That is the Inquiry Committee stage. But at the end of the Disciplinary Committee process, the Council can only (1) make an application to the court to strike off or suspend the lawyer, (2) dismiss the complaint, or (3) dispose of the complaint by reprimanding the lawyer. The option of monetary penalty which is available at the Inquiry Committee stage is now being made available at the Disciplinary Committee stage. On a related amendment, Sir, all penalties which lawyers are ordered by the Council to pay as a result of disciplinary proceedings go to the Consolidated Fund. The Law Society has recently asked the Government to allow the Law Society to retain the penalties paid by lawyers, in order that the Law Society can use these moneys for worthy causes, such as promoting law awareness, providing legal aid or assistance. They have pointed out that other professional bodies, such as accountants, architects and engineers are similarly allowed to retain the penalties paid by their members pursuant to disciplinary proceedings. The Government has considered this and agreed to the request, and clause 23 therefore amends section 95 for this purpose. Sir, amendments have also been made to provide for more transparency to the disciplinary process.”
“If either one of the Committee members feels that there is some substance to the complaint, the case must proceed to an Inquiry Committee. This new arrangement seeks to carefully balance the need to have an efficient disciplinary process and the need to ensure that every complaint is looked into as thoroughly as possible. Next, clause 16 removes the cap on the number of lawyers and lay persons which can be appointed to the Inquiry Panel. This is the panel from which members of the Inquiry Committees and the Disciplinary Committees are chosen. Currently, there is a maximum of 40 lawyers and 40 lay persons. Experience has shown that this number can sometimes be insufficient. To ensure that the disciplinary system retains sufficient flexibility to deal with changing caseload in a timely manner, it is proposed that the Chief Justice be given the flexibility to appoint as many lawyers and lay persons to the Inquiry Panel as may be necessary. Similarly, section 90 of the Act says that the Chairman of a Disciplinary Committee is to be appointed from a pool of not more than five senior lawyers. This means that we can only have five Disciplinary Committees functioning concurrently at any one time. Clause 19 removes this cap, for the same reasons of flexibility. Clause 21, Sir, amends section 93 of the Act to allow a Disciplinary Committee to recommend that a lawyer be ordered to pay a monetary penalty. This is really to correct an anomaly in the current process.”
“However, the Court of Appeal ruled earlier this year that the Council should not be performing such a sifting function, but should simply forward all complaints to be dealt with by the Inquiry Committees. Sir, this is not practical and has resulted in some difficulties. The Law Society receives more than 100 complaints a year. More than half of them are without substance and are sifted out by the Council, while the remainder goes to an Inquiry Committee for a full inquiry. If the Council is not to sift, the caseload on the Inquiry Committees will more than double. Each Inquiry Committee is made up of two lawyers of at least 12 years' standing, a Legal Service Officer of at least 10 years' experience as well as a lay person. Doubling the caseload of the Inquiry Committees will create a serious strain on scarce resources and slow down the disciplinary process. Therefore a new machinery known as the Review Committee will be set up to act as a sifting mechanism. This Review Committee will have two members. One will be a lawyer of at least 12 years' standing. The other will be a Legal Officer of at least 10 years' experience. Under the new arrangement, the Council will forward every complaint to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel who will convene a Review Committee. The Review Committee will have two weeks to decide whether there is sufficient substance in the complaint to warrant an inquiry by an Inquiry Committee. The Review Committee does not have a blank cheque to dismiss any case. Its mandate is limited. It can only dismiss a case if both members of the Committee agree that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill amends the Legal Profession Act to improve and fine-tune the operation of the Act in several respects. These include the disciplinary proceedings for lawyers, the qualifications for practice of law in Singapore, and the general operation of the Law Society of Singapore. The amendments have been finalised after extensive consultation with the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore. Disciplinary Proceedings I will first deal with the disciplinary proceedings for lawyers. The first amendment creates a new machinery known as the Review Committee. Section 85 of the main Act requires all complaints against lawyers to be made to the Law Society. The Council or the Society is to forward every complaint to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel for him to form an Inquiry Committee to look into the complaint. Prior to 1986, the Council could only refer to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel those complaints relating to the conduct of a lawyer in his professional capacity. The Council therefore weeded out those complaints which did not relate to a lawyer's professional conduct. In 1986, the Act was amended to allow any complaints relating to any conduct of a lawyer, not just conduct in his professional capacity. This was because, sometimes, misconduct by a lawyer, even in his private capacity, may be sufficient to render him unfit to continue being a member of the honourable profession. The Council thereafter acted on the assumption that they should continue to play a sifting role in the post-1986 regime.”