Committee of Supply – Head R (Ministry of Law)

Pro Bono

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, this year's Budget has a central theme of inclusiveness. Many Members in the House have spoken about what that means – helping the elderly, helping low-income families, Singaporeans with disabilities. One other group which should not be forgotten are those who require expert advice to navigate our laws and legal procedures so as to ensure that their rights are protected and advanced but do not have the means to pay for it. In criminal proceedings, life and liberty may be at stake. We have done much to simplify our laws to make them more friendly and less tied to the formal and rigid processes of the days gone by. We have gone to the extent of substituting technical and even Latin phrases with modern everyday language so that our laws are more intuitive and can be better understood. But the law and its workings remain a mystery to most. Most are intimidated by it and would prefer to avoid the legal process even if it can help them.

Page: 2037

The concept of access to justice involves being able to access the court and judicial remedies, as well as legal representation. Legal representation is vital, particularly because of the adversarial nature of our legal system that is structured for and by the legally educated. While a person is entitled to represent himself in court, the truth of the matter is that most litigants in person will have a hard time knowing what to do and understanding what is going on. And so, hiring a lawyer becomes a necessity, but that is difficult for many as professional legal fees and even the routine disbursements you have to incur are not low.

To help Singaporeans who cannot afford legal representation, we need to have a ready pool of lawyers who will act for free or at substantially reduced fees. That brings me to one Latin term, which remains with us because it has been woven into our language: pro bono publico or pro bono for short, which means "for the public good". Pro bono work should remain at the forefront of the legal profession, as we must never forget that the practice of law is a noble calling and is ultimately for the service of the public good. It should be the aim of every self-respecting legal system to ensure that access to justice is not obstructed by the individual's pecuniary circumstances.

Today, there are schemes to provide legal help to individuals who cannot afford it, such as the Legal Aid Bureau and the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme. Many lawyers provide free legal clinics at community centres, religious institutions and other organisations every week. Some firms even offer pro bono services but, save for few exceptions, these are usually left to the individual lawyers to participate in and are not structured. For a lawyer, particularly a junior one who is under pressure to meet the demands of the court, the client, his senior partner and that "master" known as billable hours, pro bono work may be a luxury he can ill afford and cannot commit to on a regular basis. As a result, pro bono work is still considered an exception rather than the norm in our legal system. However, I strongly believe that there is a great untapped potential in the legal profession to offer such services.

Many lawyers are willing to do pro bono work and give back to the community. What they need is a system or structure, within the profession and, particularly, within their own firms, to facilitate this and recognise their contributions. In the opening of the Legal Year, the honourable Chief Justice proposed that firms could encourage pro bono work by crediting such work with a notional income based on what they would have earned for the firm at their normal charge-out rates. This would help reduce the pressure on lawyers who turn away pro bono work and will focus the effort on the firm and not just as individuals. I believe that this is a sound step forward and should be encouraged.

It has also been suggested that lawyers should be mandated to complete a minimum number of pro bono hours as part of the continuing professional development. I understand mandatory rules make it more convenient and efficient to implement a pro bono system, but I would prefer that such initiatives be voluntary and driven from the ground by the lawyers and the law firms because they see a need for this and the good it will do. Every single lawyer must be imbued with the mindset that each has a role to play – from junior lawyer to senior lawyer and from every field of practice. Making it compulsory detracts from the spirit in which this help should be offered. But the Government can help to make this a reality. It should work towards providing a framework that will allow lawyers to offer pro bono services and get recognition without being saddled with copious paperwork or heavy administrative costs. For example, pro bono work should only benefit those who need financial assistance. However, it would be onerous for lawyers and law firms to administer means-testing. If, for example, there is a registry which can certify individuals who qualify for pro bono assistance, lawyers can take on these cases with the knowledge that their goodwill is being extended to the right recipients.

Page: 2038

The Government can also help in other ways. For example, cases which have been certified pro bono should enjoy discounted filing fees and shorter waiting times for lawyers so that the time they can devote to billable work will not be too compromised. Could the Government share its plans on promoting pro bono work and, in particular, how it can reduce the disincentives for lawyers to participate in such work?

On a related note, many cases which would qualify for pro bono work will be in the domestic practices in criminal and family law. During the debate on the amendments to the LPA, I spoke of the danger of how such practices are in danger of hollowing out as more law graduates turn to more lucrative and sexier corporate and arbitration. We need to ensure that there are sufficient lawyers in the system to practise in these domestic areas. One source of lawyers would be graduates from non-recognised universities as well as those with external law degrees. Some of them have switched careers midway. They, too, have dreams of practising law and have made considerable efforts and incurred huge sums to obtain a law degree. We should not deny them the opportunity to practise simply because of the school they went to. If the concern is to ensure those who practise law are of sufficient calibre, we can address that by making the Practice Law Course rigorous enough to ensure that only those of the right quality will be called to the Bar. In other words, we set the standards for admission and not rely on someone else's examinations. I hope the Government will consider this suggestion. I would also be grateful if the Government could share what steps it will take to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of practising lawyers in Singapore.

Legal Aid Qualifying Criteria

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang): Sir, more than 50 years ago, in April 1956, when the Legal Aid and Advice Bill was first introduced, its aim was stated to be to make legal aid and advice in the colony more readily available to persons of limited means. That mission of a legal aid bureau remains valid today except that the absolute definition of "limited means" must be considered in the context of changing income levels. Applicants for legal aid have to undergo means testing before such aid is granted. The means criteria has got two components, both of which must be satisfied independently. An applicant's disposable income which is income in the past 12 months before the date of application, after deducting prescribed allowances, must not exceed $10,000. In addition, as a separate head, the disposable capital after relevant allowances must also not exceed $10,000.

Page: 2039

Sir, I hope the Minister can consider a review of the means criteria of both respects. First, the disposable capital criteria. This is meant to exclude persons who have significant capital assets, such as motor vehicle or private property. Anecdotally, there have been instances where applications have been rejected where the disposable capital exceeds $10,000 on account of the surrender value of life insurance policies. Sir, the surrender value of $10,000 is not very high and there is a growing number in our population who own life insurance policies. More importantly, a legal aid applicant, unlike for a motorcar or property, should not be expected to cash out on life insurance policies to fund his legal expenditure. Sir, I hope the Minister can consider raising the disposable capital when it comes to surrender value for life insurance policies.

Second, disposable income criteria. Sir, the last time a review was done, it was in 2007. By way of illustration, the median household income for all residents and the average monthly household income from work of residents have risen about 35%-40% in that period. Whilst figures do not tell us everything, what it does tell us is that the means criteria should be regularly and constantly revised to keep pace with the changing income levels. Sir, in that regard, would the Minister also consider reviewing the relevant disposable income levels as a means criteria testing?

Criminal Procedure

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Sir, the Court of Appeal judgement in Muhammad bin Kadar v PP (2011) 3SRL 1205 was a welcome breakthrough in our journey towards a more balanced criminal process. The judges squarely addressed an issue I had first canvassed five years ago at MINLAW COS which fell on deaf ears then. Due to the vast State powers in investigations and gathering evidence, the prosecution should rightly be under a duty to disclose to the defence before trial relevant evidence gathered even if the prosecution does not intend to use it, especially if it is helpful to the defence. After the judgement, the prosecution got worried and took out an application to clarify its scope, in particular, whether the prosecution was under a duty to go through all the evidence gathered by investigators in order to disclose it. The Court of Appeal clarified that it was not under such a duty and needed only to disclose evidence which the prosecution was itself aware of. This, unfortunately, may give rise to some potential for miscarriages of justice if the processes between the police and the prosecution are not tightened up.

There should not a situation where the police shield prosecutors from relevant evidence gathered resulting in prosecutors not being aware of it and accordingly being under no duty to disclose it. That should defeat the purpose of the judgement.

The Kadar case noted that, in the UK, there is a disclosure manual guiding police on what they should disclose to the prosecution. This document is publicly available for scrutiny at the website of the Crown Prosecution Service. The British police designate disclosure officers to go through the evidence and prepare schedules of unused evidence to be disclosed to the prosecutor.

On 9 January 2012, the Minister for Law updated the House that prosecutors had been briefing investigators on the requirements laid down in Kadar . Can the Ministry tell us what the duties of disclosure are between the police and the prosecution? Will there be a detailed document published for public scrutiny?

2.15 pm

Page: 2040

Recognition of External Law Degrees

Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): Sir, currently, external law degrees are not recognised for admission to the Singapore Bar. This was based on recommendations in 1993 by the First Committee on the Supply of Lawyers, as part of broader measures to restrict the supply of lawyers and enhance the quality of the legal service in Singapore.

In coming to the recommendation, the Committee took into consideration the comparative entry requirement, time taken to complete the degree, class supervision and interaction time as well as access to resources of external and full-time degrees. Nevertheless, the Committee recognised that there could be outstanding external degree students who could make a valuable contribution to Singapore's legal services sector, thus individuals can seek an exemption from the Minister for Law to be granted in his discretion. External law degrees are so called, as they involve study outside where the university offering the course is based. External law studies may be on a part-time or full-time basis. Part-time study is particularly suited to students who wish to study for a law degree but need to continue working in their full-time jobs, say, as police officers, accountants, legal secretaries or paralegals in law firms.

One emphasis of this year's Budget is on increasing productivity. We are investing significantly in continuing education and training to help our workers develop new skills and expertise and increase their versatility. In view of the above, it may be timely to ask whether the existing rules may be changed or discretion exercised in such a way to allow more external law degree holders to take the Bar examination and undergo relevant legal training at law firms for admission to the Bar, like many of their counterparts holding full-time law degrees.

Many external law degree holders are mature students who may have first degrees in other disciplines or work experience in other fields; who for various reasons, often financial, have taken to the study of law only late in life. The value of such cross-training, such work experience and industry knowledge, such versatility, is increasingly recognised and may be helpful and desirable to future clients, provided that the external law degree holder is admitted to practise.

Much has changed since the First Committee made its recommendations almost 20 years ago. In fact, the Third Committee on the Supply of Lawyers has since recommended measures that will, in effect, increase the number of practising lawyers in Singapore to ensure Singapore's growth as a leading provider of legal services. In these 20 years, factors such as technological changes affecting distance learning may also have addressed in part some of the concerns expressed by the First Committee, such as those over class supervision and interaction time, and access to resources for external law students.

In any case, for an external degree holder who is granted exemption by the Minister, she would only be admitted to practise after she has passed the Bar examination and undergone relevant legal training at a law firm, which ought to afford us reasonable assurance as to her ability to practise law. I believe it is timely for us to consider or reconsider if more, like her, should be given that chance.

Page: 2041

Prosecutorial Discretion

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Chairman. This is the cut on Prosecutorial Discretion. I refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ramalingam Ravinthran vs Attorney-General with specific reference to the nature and width of prosecutorial discretion as vested in the Attorney-General (AG) by Article 35(8) of the Constitution.

Ramalingam Ravinthran was charged with a capital drug offence, while his co-accused was charged with a non-capital drug offence. Both men committed the same offence, but the charge preferred against Ramalingam was not reduced to a non-capital one. In the aftermath of the court's ruling, it was noteworthy that there were two relatively clear public camps on the matter, one contending that the Attorney-General, as Public Prosecutor, should explain how discretion was exercised in such cases. The other camp opined that the public should trust the Attorney-General and that he will carry out his duties in good faith.

In the Ramalingam case, the Court of Appeal accepted that the Attorney-General has no general obligation to disclose his reasons for a particular prosecutorial decision. I also note the Attorney-General's Chambers issued a press release on 20 January 2011 on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, assuring the public that the decision to charge an individual is made very carefully.

Nonetheless, in view of the gravity of the punishment prescribed for drug offences that carry the mandatory death penalty, would it not be better for the Attorney-General to explain the reasons for his discretion to charge some accused offenders with a capital charge, and yet others for a non-capital offence for the same transaction? In addition, taking public interest into account, would not disclosure by the Attorney-General also engender greater trust in the legal system, and in the office of the Attorney-General?

Simplification of Legal Processes

Mr Desmond Lee (Jurong): Sir, during the Debate on the President's Address last year, I asked the Ministry of Law to further enhance access to justice for the man-in-the-street by simplifying legal processes at the common interface between community and the law. This will make it easier for laypersons to navigate the law, particularly if they fall outside the Legal Aid Bureau's means test, but who still find it expensive to engage a lawyer. This can be an area for the Law Reform Committee to regularly look into.

Some areas of practice ripe for review include family law and inheritance law, for example. Let us just take a look at the process for the application for probate and letters of administration, and you will know exactly what I mean. To apply, one needs to prepare a number of documents, including (a) a petition by way of originating summons; (b) a checklist; (c) a supporting affidavit; (d) two copies of the Schedule of Assets; (e) an Administration Oath; (f) certified true copies of the death certificate and Will; (g) if the Will is not in English, then certified true translations; and (h) a certificate of result of caveat search together with the search reports from both the High Court and Subordinate Courts.

These documents must be electronically filed at the Service Bureau, which attracts fees. There are also procedures to be followed for electronic filing. After Probate or Letter of Administration is granted, it needs to be extracted through a Request to Extract Grant of Probate or Letter of Administration and the filing of the Administration Bond by sureties. The person extracting the grant must also check to ensure there are no caveats in force against the estate.

Page: 2042

Sir, the purpose of Probate and Administration is to ensure propriety in the handling of a person's estate. Estate duty is no longer payable. While the process is relatively easy for lawyers, it is not the case for the man-in-the-street, who will at some point in time need to engage in this process. I also hope Ministry of Law will consider amending the law to allow the Public Trustee to help administer small estates below $50,000 which are non-contentious but which involve the Will. These are usually simple estates. I urge the Ministry of Law to look at these and other procedures for review.

Internet Regulation

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Chairman, this is the cut on Internet Regulation. I refer to the Minister's comments made in early January at the launch of "The Mortal Enemy", the winning trailer for The Originals Get Reel Contest organised by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS), where it was revealed that the Government is in discussion with the Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA) over the issue of piracy and intellectual property protection.

It is noteworthy that the Government's concerns were similar to the concerns raised by some United States lawmakers, who have sought to pursue the now apparently derailed legislative proposals in the United States for legislation known as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA).

Mr Chairman, one of the main purposes of these Bills was to make it harder for sites €” especially those located outside the United States €” to sell or distribute pirated copyrighted material, such as movies and music, as well as physical goods, such as counterfeit purses and watches. On the one hand, the importance of protecting intellectual property is self-evident. However, the worry is that such a move will introduce many unwanted consequences, such as the stifling of legitimate expression of free speech. One of the biggest fears is that such legislation can be abused and could lead to censorship, on the pretext of protecting intellectual property and preventing online piracy.

Since the launch of the Mortal Enemy and Minister's remarks on the same, SOPA and PIPA are apparently dead in the water in the US, as the co-sponsors of the legislation have withdrawn the Bill, ostensibly to seek more agreement on the matter. On its part, the Obama administration has said that it would not support any legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cyber-security risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet even as it recognises the serious problems posed by online piracy. Can the Minister please clarify what stage of talks the Government is at with the Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA), and what plans it currently has for similar legislation in Singapore?

Protecting Intellectual Property Rights of SMEs

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, this year's Budget encourages SMEs to find new ways to increase performance and productivity. Innovation is about all the development of new ideas to reap better economic performance. New inventions and innovative ideas can be harnessed and put to use in improving the operations of a business or it can also be exploited by the innovator by selling the idea or invention, or by licensing it to or managing it for third parties.

Page: 2043

Sir, in that context, it is vital that the IP regime and environment of Singapore be robust and accessible. There are two aspects to this. The first is the enhancement of Singapore as a regional or even a global hub for IP services, much in the same way that the Government has successfully developed Singapore as a leading arbitration hub. We should build our infrastructure and offer tax and other incentives for global MNCs to come to Singapore to develop, manufacture and exploit their patents here.

In the last 10 years, Singapore's IP landscape has seen much progress. But the need continues to grow. Between 2006 and 2011, the number of patent applications by local enterprises in Singapore almost doubled. And these numbers reflect the global trend. In China, for example, patent filings have increased significantly in the last decade and the Chinese government has been aggressively building its IP marketplace, with IP exchanges being set up providing a suite of services, such as matching, valuation services and, generally, facilitating IP transactions.

These allow IP owners to monetise their IP assets. Singapore, with its complementary legal and financial services infrastructure, can also prosper in this space. Will the Minister share his plans for enhancing Singapore as an IT hub and how the services which make up the entire IP ecosystem in Singapore can be enhanced? Of particular importance will be how local SMEs can stand to benefit from such enhancements. It appears that some SMEs do not fully exploit their IP rights due to lack of awareness or perhaps because their existing environment is not sufficiently conducive. Will the Minister be able to address this as well?

The second aspect is to build a strong culture and system for the protection and enforcement of IP rights and resolving conflicts in an efficacious manner. This is crucial to fostering intervention and innovation. Without appropriate protection being given to businesses, it is unlikely that businesses, both local and global, will be incentivised to innovate and operate within the fields in Singapore. May I, therefore, ask the Minister what plans he has in ensuring a stronger, more robust IP regime for the recognition and protection of IP rights.

Intellectual Property Dispute Resolution

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Thank you, Sir. The protection of IP rights is important to many industries, including media, technology, entertainment and pharmaceuticals. Asia is an increasingly important hub for many of these and Singapore, in particular, is getting stronger in biotechnology. One important aspect of growing an IP hub is the protection of IP rights. Before continuing on this particular aspect, I should probably declare my interest as a lawyer practising at Norton Rose (Asia).

In the past, many of the high profile IP litigations took place in the western markets. Examples would include litigations involving HTC, Samsung, LG, Sony and so on. Domestically, in recent years, we have seen a number of IP-related disputes across a variety of sectors, including media, technology and pharmaceuticals. Might we expect more of such cases in Singapore? IP disputes, in particular, are known to be highly complex, requiring an intricate understanding of law, technology and business practices. As markets develop and sophisticated IP licensing deals become more common, we might find increasingly complicated IP disputes being brought before the courts. How can we ensure that Singapore's capacity to deliver efficient and effective dispute resolution for such cases is available? And this is particularly because of the different skills involved; it is not necessarily purely legal skills.

Page: 2044

Singapore has also made significant progress in establishing ourselves as the key arbitration and mediation hub in Asia. And I was wondering whether Singapore would also be playing a greater role in catering for IP alternative dispute resolution, along with our growth as an IP hub.

2.30 pm

Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office's Caseload and Service Levels

Ms Sylvia Lim: Several of my constituents are undischarged bankrupts. They wish to move their cases along but tell me of the frustration they face in dealing with the Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office (IPTO). I am not sure if this is representative of overall service levels but this has been their experience. Their feedback is that trying to fix appointments with the IPTO officers in charge of their cases is difficult and results in long delays. When they want to leave phone messages, the mailboxes are full. There was one incident when a proposal for settlement made took more than a year to elicit a response.

From the statistics published on IPTO's caseload, it appears that, overall, the number of new bankruptcy cases and new corporate insolvencies each year had fallen over a 10-year period. This does not tell us of the caseload accumulated over the years or whether there are particular bottlenecks which have affected service delivery.

Specifically, since the Bankruptcy Act was amended in 2009, bankruptcy applications where the debt is $100,000 or less have to be referred by the High Court to the Official Assignee for assessment as to whether they should be placed under a Debt Repayment Scheme (DRS) in lieu of bankruptcy. What has been the impact of the DRS on IPTO's workflow? Would it make sense, for example, to outsource DRS' assessments to an accounting firm?

In summary, how does IPTO measure its service delivery levels?

Bankruptcy Regime in Singapore

Mr Vikram Nair: Sir, I have many residents who are undischarged bankrupts, just like Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned as well, and I understand that more help is now being provided by IPTO to help bankrupts work towards repaying their debts and being discharged from bankruptcy, including two financial rehabilitation programmes announced last October.

However, I wonder if our bankruptcy regime can be more compassionate towards discharging bankrupts who are unable to service their payments as a result of, say, ill health, old age or other inability to generate income. I have personally encountered many such cases at Meet-the-People sessions. In one case, a retiree, who was withdrawing his CPF, had to repay the Official Assignee because he was having difficulty juggling his medical expenses.

Page: 2045

I just wonder if there is enough flexibility in the bankruptcy regime to accommodate such difficult or hardship cases.

Regulation of Moneylenders

Mr Chen Show Mao: Sir, when the Moneylenders Act was re-enacted in 2008, its stated objectives were to facilitate moneylending in the modern credit economy and to strike a proper balance between regulating licensed moneylenders and safeguarding the interest of borrowers. In liberalising the market, many of the controls under the old Act were relaxed. Importantly, interest rate caps were removed except for 18% for unsecured and 12% for secured loans of up to $3,000 granted to low-income borrowers.

Just three years after the Act took effect, the results of that liberalisation appeared to be trending clear. The number of licensed moneylenders increased from 173 in 2008 to 249 in 2011. The press reported that interest rates are as high as 240% a year and effective rates could be even higher. And even though some interest rate ceilings are in place, the press reported that debtors are often subjected to additional high charges under permitted fees. These include fees for loan administration and late payment charges. According to press reports, the Registry of Moneylenders received 67 complaints in 2010, up from 16 the year before. Most complaints were about high interest rates, strong-arm debt collection methods and unfair loan terms and conditions.

The Government has recognised that more action needs to be taken. It has implemented new rules to regulate the advertising and other activities of licensed moneylenders. It has imposed a fit and proper test and written test. There is now a Bill before Parliament to increase some enforcement powers. In addition to these measures, would the Government consider additional substantive regulations of the interest rates and fees charged by the moneylenders? Sir, the high interest rates and fees and the number of complaints reported seem to suggest that this segment of the credit market, for whatever reason, is not functioning well to deliver benefits to its participants, which include not only the licensed moneylenders but also the borrowers who turn to them.

Licensed Moneylenders

Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast): Mr Chairman, Sir, the moneylending business in Singapore affects a vulnerable segment of our society. More so, the family members of the borrowers are affected and bear the brunt of the methods of these lenders, licensed or otherwise.

We need to keep in view and regularly update the enforcement methods and even more stringent legislation to ensure that the interests of this segment of Singaporeans are adequately protected.

The moneylending industry, Sir, is a lucrative one. It has grown from 2007 to 2011 by 60%, from 169 to 267. The attraction of this business has prompted these operators to set up branches in neighbouring countries. Licensed or not, their business model evolves and changes and we must keep up with their practices.

Sir, we need to ensure that the applicants and those approved are closely monitored and not allow them to use the Moneylenders Act as a Trojan horse. Some ground response has fed back that the licensed moneylenders' methods in collection management are no different from the " Ah Longs "or illegal moneylenders, known as loansharks. We need, therefore, to have better control, audit the methods and ensure compliance with the Act, much like the financial institutions registered with MAS are subjected to. Licensed moneylenders, on top of their interest rates, will have other fees and charges snowballing to as high as 260%, even higher than what Mr Chairman was talking about – 260% of the borrowed sum. This is no different from the unlicensed loansharks, as reported in the media. Moneylenders are creative in charging all sorts of miscellaneous fees and administration costs to the borrower.

Page: 2046

Sir, I hope the Ministry may be able to better control and supervise on-the-ground practices and to draw up a transparent schedule of charges so that there is transparency available to the borrowers.

Community Mediation

Mr Desmond Lee: Sir, an inclusive society is one where there is tolerance, respect and mutual understanding. Yet, when people live cheek-by-jowl in highly urban Singapore, disputes among neighbours are almost inevitable.

The number of mediations conducted by the Community Mediation Centres (CMCs) has generally been rising over the years. It is very telling that 75% of all disputes mediated by CMCs involve neighbourly disputes. The next highest, 12%, are between family members. More than 60% of disputes involve people below the age of 50. Some of these disputes have hit the headlines.

But many other squabbles that take place all over the island are no less serious. In the last month alone, I had been asked to intervene in three neighbour disputes, all of which already involved the police. One pair of neighbours came last night and sought my assistance. All these cases involved young or middle-aged families.

While as a matter of principle, mediation should be a voluntary process conducted in the spirit of conciliation and give-and-take, I feel that there are some instances where disputes may have become so serious that a far more robust approach may be warranted. This could involve making attendance at mediation sessions mandatory if assessed to be sufficiently serious and are referred by certain agencies, such as the Police or the CDCs. This is far better than letting the matter escalate to the Courts, or worse, letting the feuding parties take things into their own hands. There may also be some value in giving the Community Mediation Centres legal teeth to require neighbours to keep the peace. For example, the Community Mediation Centres Act can contain powers similar to those found in the CPC to require warring parties who have reached a settlement at the CMC to sign a bond to keep the peace. I hope MinLaw will study these ideas for the future.

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, I thank all the Members who have spoken. I will first deal with the points made by Messrs Edwin Tong, Vikram Nair and Pritam Singh on IP.

Sir, IP has become an important part of the global economy. The value of intangible assets for S&P 500 companies, of which IP is a major component, is about 80%. Thirty years ago, it was just 17%. Over the last decade, global patent and trademark filings have increased by over 40%. Worldwide royalty and licensing revenue has more than doubled, to over US$200 billion. These trends will continue. Singapore must try and ride on this trend. Our strengths are a well-developed legal and financial system, and a workforce that is comfortable with science and technology. At the same time, our challenge is that we have a small domestic market which faces difficulties in creating the marketplace and generating the demand for IP services. Our ambition is to make Singapore the Asian IP Hub. We have progressed well so far. Since 2006, Singapore's IP regime has been consistently ranked amongst the best in the world by the World Economic Forum as well as the IMD.

Page: 2047

We need to progress further. We will convene an IP Steering Committee to study and develop the IP Hub Masterplan. Members of the Committee will be from both the private and public sectors. The Committee will be chaired by Mr Teo Ming Kian, who was formerly Chairman EDB, Chairman of the then National Science and Technology Board and Permanent Secretary (National Research and Development). He is eminently qualified to lead the committee. The committee will look into two key areas: (1) developing a vibrant marketplace for IP transactions and commercialisation; and (2) building world-class IP capabilities and infrastructure.

The first thrust is to develop a vibrant IP marketplace. The technology market is changing rapidly and considerably. Consumer products combine IP in diverse and complex ways. Some sources cite that a typical smartphone today involves as many as 250,000 patent claims. Significant IP transactions are required to achieve such aggregation. The Committee will recommend strategies to: develop Singapore as the marketplace of choice to transact IP; attract international firms and professionals who provide IP transactional services, for example, licensing and brokerage; and incentivise the creation, management and exploitation of IP in Singapore. This will also benefit local companies which, as Mr Edwin Tong points out, are creating more IP.

The second thrust is to build world-class IP capabilities and infrastructure. There are many different aspects to it, including IP filing and protection.

We will enhance our patent regime. At present, we adopt a self-assessment system, where patents can be granted even if objections are raised in the examination report. To enhance it, we should move to a positive grant system where patents will be granted only if patentability requirements are fully met first. This will increase confidence in the quality of Singapore patents.

We will also develop indigenous search and examination capabilities for patent applications in niche technology areas. Currently, search and examination work is outsourced. We aim to develop world-class expertise to attract companies in the region to have patents in niche areas examined in Singapore.

We also aim to develop the patent agent sector. There are about 100 Singapore-registered patent agents in practice today. We want Singapore to be a key node in global patent work. We aim to attract world-class patent firms to operate here. We want to enable Singapore to service more of the regional demand, and benefit local companies and research institutions as well. We will provide better support to develop the local patent agent profession.

Page: 2048

Enforcing IP rights: Mr Singh asked about our review of measures to address online piracy. He has some concerns about whether this is all a pretext and whether we are going to curtail freedom of speech under the pretext of protecting IP. I think there are any number of hypotheses one can come up with on a review that is not yet concluded.

Let me give Mr Singh and Members some data on what is actually happening now.

Our position has generally been that IP, including copyright, is a private right. Its enforcement should be initiated by owners of those rights. Under our current regime, copyright owners have the ability to take actions against online copyright infringements. In recent years, owners of copyright have indicated that digital piracy was increasingly taking place online and that the traditional approach to address piracy would no longer be sufficient for a number of reasons. Time does not permit me to go into that.

We formed an inter-agency working group last year to look into the various issues concerning copyright, including that of online piracy. The Working Group has been consulting various parties to determine the impact of piracy in Singapore and has also been assessing the measures employed in other countries.

2.45 pm

What is the current status of online piracy in Singapore? Based on the data that rights holders have shared with us, Singapore appears to have one of the highest incidences of online piracy in the Asia-Pacific region. According to various studies and inputs from rights holders, it has been estimated that Singapore had over 300,000 incidences per month of illegal downloading on average. It ranked the worst out of 15 countries in the Asia-Pacific with 0.8 per capita incidences of infringement per annum. In 2010, over 693,000 connections were detected in unauthorised sharing of video games and work software on peer-to-peer (P2P) networks through internet service providers (ISPs) located in Singapore. Six out of the top hundred sites visited by Singapore internet users for November 2011 host some copyright infringing content. Over 20% of internet users in Singapore accessed selected file-sharing websites at least once a month; and 3.7 million P2P downloads of US major movies were initiated by Singapore users.

There are some caveats. The data focuses on online piracy and does not include figures for piracy of hardcopy CDs and DVDs, which would be higher in other Asia-Pacific countries.

There is evidence that the consumption of online printed material is not insignificant here. There is also feedback from one of the ISPs that there is a higher number of copyright infringement notices for its Singaporean subscribers compared to those in Hong Kong and Australia.

We have been warned of possible consequences. Rights holders have stated that digital music sales make up a large percentage of music producers' revenue. Online piracy, if unchecked, could reduce the revenue. The Recording Industry Association of Singapore (RIAS) has reported that physical sales have declined from US$42.4 million to US$14.5 million in the decade leading up to 2010, and were expected to fall further. However, unlike the rest of Asia and the world, the decline in physical sales in Singapore has not been compensated by a rise in digital sales. RIAS has warned that this, in turn, could reduce the funding available for the development of new musical talent in Singapore and stifle the growth of the creative industry.

Page: 2049

There have also been some concerns raised that online piracy has contributed to providers of legitimate online content staying away from Singapore. There could be other problems, but these have been suggested to us. EDB has estimated that the music industry could be worth about US$34.1 billion in direct benefits; US$133.5 billion in indirect benefits in the longer term.

So, I would invite Mr Singh eventually, when I finish, to make it clear whether he is indeed suggesting that this review is being based on a pretext or some other motive. Let us have the review. We are aware of concerns both by the industry and our need to be an IP Hub with tremendous value for our creative producers, our young talents. At the same time, we are also aware of the concerns on the other side where people are very concerned about how any rules or regulations could impact on a whole variety of areas. We are very mindful, and that is why we are conducting a review. And eventually when the review committee comes to a conclusion, we will have that in Parliament. At that time, one can see whether this is all a pretext or not.

Mr Nair spoke on our IP dispute resolution capabilities and how they can grow. We agree that our IP dispute resolution capabilities must grow in tandem with the growth of IP transactions.

Since last year, specially IP-trained Registrars at the Supreme Court conduct pre-trial conferences and hearings. While any High Court Judge may be able to handle IP cases, the Court has recently announced the formal designation of judges with considerable experience and expertise in IP cases as IP Judges.

IPOS has collaborated with the World Intellectual Property Organisation Arbitration and Mediation Centre in Singapore. Under the MOU, disputes about the ownership and validity of IP rights filed with IPOS can be resolved through mediation at the Centre. We are looking into setting up a panel of expert IP adjudicators drawn from professionals to hear IP registration disputes

Taken together, the initiatives will help grow our capabilities and expertise in IP dispute resolution.

Next, let me turn to the issue of the supply of lawyers. I think Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Chen Show Mao made some comments on this. It is important that we get this right to ensure access to justice and in respect of our efforts to be a legal hub. It involves both qualitative and quantitative aspects, and it is something that we are continuously monitoring.

Our current approach is that we recognise degrees from the two Singapore law schools, and scheduled universities in the UK, US, Australia and New Zealand − they number 35. Many choose such avenues, and exemptions are also granted to those who have studied in non-scheduled universities on a case-by-case basis.

The current policy on external degrees has two aspects: (1) the degree itself; and (2) the individual.

Page: 2050

On the degree itself, as Mr Chen remarked, this was first considered by the First Committee on the Supply of Lawyers in 1993, headed by then Attorney-General (now Chief Justice) with a Supreme Court Judge, Permanent Secretary (Law), Permanent Secretary (Trade & Industry), as well as the Deputy Vice Chancellor of NUS (now Justice Tan Lee Meng), and the Dean of the NUS Faculty of Law. They considered very carefully the comparative entry requirements for such degree courses, the time taken to complete the degree, the amount of class supervision and class interaction time and access to resources. They concluded that they could not say, as a class, that external law degrees were equal to full-time degrees, and that, therefore, as a general policy, external law degrees have not been recognised.

If we move to the individual, nevertheless we recognise that individuals who hold an external law degree can apply themselves diligently and prove themselves in any field, and the policy takes that into account; individuals who have substantial experience in the legal or law-related fields, who have been validated by the market as it were, are granted exemptions. Less than 30 have applied since 1994 and 11 of them have been granted exemptions.

We have also made changes to allow more people to qualify. At the Third Committee on the Supply of Lawyers' recommendation, we set up a second law school. The total number of graduates increased from 250 to 370, which is quite significant. The majority of that pioneer batch will be called to the Bar this year.

Since 2009, we have replaced the one-year Diploma in Singapore Law course with an optional course followed by the Part A Bar Examination, and relaxed criteria to allow Second-Lower degree graduates from overseas universities to qualify. About 600 Singaporean/Permanent Resident law graduates from overseas universities have passed the Part A conversion examinations. In 2011, 210 law graduates sat for Part A and 92% passed. We have also replaced the post-graduate law course with the revamped Part B examination that everyone sits for.

Nevertheless, our view is, and I agree with Mr Chen here, that the types of lawyers qualifying to practise should be reviewed again, to deal with changing conditions. For example, three factors (and he mentioned at least one of them): (1) the aspirants have difficulties getting into our law schools; (2) there is the cost of going overseas (we recognise that); and (3) smaller law firms have difficulties in finding lawyers; and I have mentioned that and one or two of the other factors a number of times.

We do need to look into these areas and see what can be done. So, I have recently convened a Fourth Committee on the Supply of Lawyers to look into this and other issues, because I think we need to re-look − not just external law degrees but also the needs of the smaller law firms − how we can get people who have the aspirations to become lawyers but cannot afford to go overseas; what can we do about all of these, and how can we do it in a rational manner so that we have lawyers who are then able to use their skills in our marketplace. I think that is important as well.

So, in that context, I have asked Judge of Appeal V K Rajah to head the Committee to look into these issues. The Committee will consider how to augment the talent pool for lawyers, including in domestic areas of law, for example, criminal and family law, which we consider to be important for access to justice. And they have been asked to consider possible adjustments to current admissions policy, including the external law degrees policy.

Page: 2051

And they could consider − I think Mr Kumar mentioned it, if I am not wrong − moving to a model where a single Bar examination serves as the sole gatekeeper. It is one of many possible models. There are other approaches that can be considered. I do not want to pre-judge the Committee. Let them do their work and come back, and we will report it in Parliament.

Let me now move to the administration of criminal justice. On prosecutorial discretion, Mr Singh's point, we accept Article 35(8) of the Constitution vests prosecutorial discretion in the Attorney-General.

The Court of Appeal, in the Ramalingam case, has held that the prosecutorial power is constitutionally co-equal to the judicial power, and the Court should be slow to interfere with its exercise. And I think it is important to see what the Court said in this context. In the Court's judgement, at paragraphs 70 and 71, it says, "In this regard, the mere differentiation of charges between co-offenders, even between those of equal guilt, is not per se sufficient to constitute prima facie evidence of bias or the taking into account of irrelevant considerations that breaches Article 12(1). Differentiation between offenders of equal guilt can be legitimately undertaken for many reasons and based on the consideration of many factors." Paragraph 71: "... given that there are many legitimate reasons for the prosecution to differentiate between the charges brought against different offenders involved in the same criminal enterprise, such differentiation per se does not necessarily mean that the prosecution has not given unbiased consideration."

And the Court, I am sure Mr Singh is aware, went on to say that there are many good reasons why differentiation may be necessary. It indicated some of those good reasons, including the fact that there could have been intelligence which the prosecution is not willing to share in the open.

3.00 pm

Now, should we change the system? I think we need to start with a context here − what is the kind of criminal justice system that we want? We want a system where the guilty are convicted, the innocent are acquitted and the wider interests of society are protected, which include the protection of society from those who could cause it harm. If it is clear that public disclosure by the Attorney-General, of his reasons why differential treatment has been given, will improve the criminal justice system, then it is a no-brainer; we must make sure that the law requires such disclosures.

So, the question is: is that clear? The reality is that the position is not so clear. There are trade-offs, as Members will know. What are the trade-offs here? If the reasons for the underlying prosecutorial decisions are revealed, it can compromise intelligence and other confidential sources that inform such decisions, which, as I said earlier, the Court of Appeal recognised. Let us not kid ourselves, you will have some criminals who will try and work around the guidelines and game the system. That is in the nature, not everyone, but there will be some people who will do that.

Page: 2052

In the United Kingdom, as I am sure Mr Singh is aware, there was a case where a person applied to court, for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to disclose in advance, the guidelines that would inform the DPP's decision whether an offence which was going to be committed would be prosecuted. So, I am going to do this, you tell me in advance − because you have published the guidelines − whether I will be prosecuted when I do this.

On the other hand, if reasons are revealed, it can, of course, be a safeguard against the discretion being exercised wrongly or maliciously by the Attorney-General.

So, the question that we have to ask ourselves is this: there are these two situations, the risk of the prosecution acting wrongly, compared to the risks associated with the compromise of intelligence and all the other attendant risks if disclosure is made. Which is the more serious risk in the context?

Our view is that the prosecution acting wrongly or maliciously is the lesser of the two risks. The Attorney-General's Chambers has internal guidelines and layers of review, and, in capital cases, the Attorney-General reviews the facts himself.

The Court of Appeal has also held in Ramalingam that if a prosecutorial decision is untenable on its face, it must be explained, or else the Court will infer that there is no good reason for it.

So, you have all these layers of checks and, within this framework, we believe that a system where the Attorney-General exercises his discretion without having to make those reasons public is better for society. If we are convinced of the opposite, I say to Members, unhesitatingly, that we will change the law.

Let me now turn to discovery. Ms Sylvia Lim asked how the prosecution can work with the Police to ensure comprehensive discovery of relevant evidence, in the light of the Court of Appeal's judgement in the Kadar case. I think we accept – Ms Lim accepts – and everyone who has read the judgement would accept, that the Kadar case did not go into how the Police and the prosecution should interact. That was stated clearly in the supplementary judgment.

In practical terms, for the Police, the function and duty of both the investigators and investigation supervisors are that they need to go through the investigation papers and ensure that all relevant information is presented to the prosecutor. And the prosecution is under a duty to disclose relevant, credible, unused material in its possession to the accused, and that duty has been given statutory form through the CPC 2010, which we took through this House. And the prosecution has to work closely with the investigating officers to assess evidence in this regard. Any doubts in a case will be referred by the prosecutor or the investigating officer to their respective superiors, who will give guidance on the proper practice.

Since the enactment of CPC 2010, AGC has been working on a joint Code of Practice for prosecutors and defence counsel, which will carry general guidance on disclosure.

Following Kadar , the Attorney-General's Chambers has also engaged the Law Society as well as the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) to flesh out the disclosure obligations of the prosecution under Kadar , discussing and working out what the Bar will consider acceptable and appropriate. Both the AGC and the defence bar are attuned to the same objectives in the administration of a proper justice system.

Page: 2053

Ms Lim said that, five years ago, she made some suggestions which fell on deaf ears. I am not sure I was in the House five years ago listening to her, being a backbencher then. I think what needs to be recognised in context is that the CPC and Penal Code have been amended substantively since then. Discovery by the prosecution and the defence, which are major steps, was included in the CPC which we took through the House, and the Penal Code which was taken through by my predecessor. Before we amended the CPC to substantively enhance the rights of the accused, we consulted extensively, including with Ms Lim, who made various suggestions. It was a long period of consultation.

If we have seen how the law evolved, when we made the amendments and thereafter, I have more than once made clear in this House about the duties of the prosecution in respect of the evidence that they have, which is that the fundamental duty of any lawyer, whether prosecutor or defence, is to be honest with the Court. Honesty requires you to disclose all relevant evidence, whether or not it is in the Statute, and if you withhold credible evidence, that is misconduct. I took pains to make that clear, and the Court of Appeal referred to that statement I made here in Parliament in making its decision; it adopted that statement as the statement of principle in its decision in Kadar . So, when Ms Lim talks about a breakthrough in Kadar , the Court of Appeal was applying the law that we discussed in this House.

Now, I have answered that question as best as I can from the Ministry of Law's perspective. As for the detailed duties of the Police and what they may or may not do, it is something that I am in no position to answer because that is a Ministry of Home Affairs policy issue. But I can assure Ms Lim that in our consultations with MHA on various issues, including this, we have been assured, and I have set out for Ms Lim and Members, of the kind of processes that are now in place.

Let me now turn to access to justice. Mr Desmond Lee spoke on access to justice generally, and probate in particular. We thank him.

In respect of the Supreme Court, there are generally lower numbers of litigants-in-person. We created educational material providing information on court process for bankruptcy proceedings where most of the litigants-in-person in the Supreme Court are concentrated. Materials are available online and we are in the process of upgrading that.

In the Subordinate Courts where you find more litigants-in-person, we have created a dedicated HELP (Helping to Empower Litigants-in-Person) Centre to help litigants navigate the court processes. We are collaborating with the Law Society and law firms to deploy pro bono lawyers at the HELP Centre. For example, the Singapore Association of Women Lawyers assists with pro bono clinics at the Family and Juvenile Division under the auspices of the HELP Centre. And we are in the process of putting together a "Probate Toolkit" to help litigants with the probate process as well. The toolkit will come with standard forms for simple probate cases.

Mr Lee also raised a specific concern on simplifying the process for probate and letters of administration. We intend to review and update the Probate and Administration Act, together with the Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office. We will look at how we can refine the criteria and threshold of estate cases that can be administered by the Public Trustee, and how we can simplify the existing procedure. The Courts are supportive of all of these and we are working with them closely.

Page: 2054

My Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ms Sim Ann, will further elaborate on two other pillars of our access to justice efforts – pro bono and legal aid – and also take the remaining cuts.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Ms Sim Ann): Mr Chairman, Sir, Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Edwin Tong spoke on legal aid and pro bono.

On legal aid, we will be revising the means test for legal aid. The last revision, as pointed out, was in 2007, and a review has started and will be completed soon. We will consider Mr Tong's suggestion – which was also made by Mr Michael Palmer before he was elected as Speaker, as well as other Members – to exclude life insurance policies from the means test, and also revise the income criteria. The amendments will be tabled in the middle of the year.

Next, please allow me to share some measures that we have been exploring with regard to fostering more pro bono work. Some measures which we have considered include, first, making pro bono work a mandatory component of legal education. The Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) will work with the two law schools to put this in place in time for the next academic year. This will help foster the pro bono spirit in law students at an early stage as well as help them gain practical legal skills outside of the classroom.

We are also considering with SILE how lawyers who do pro bono work can be better recognised. We are also increasing the number of internship places in the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) to support the implementation of pro bono as a mandatory component of legal education.

We are also actively growing the pool of Assigned Solicitors in LAB. In 2011, 50 new lawyers joined the pool. In the past, the volunteers tended to be from the smaller firms, and we are glad to note that a good number of the new volunteer assigned solicitors are coming from the large and medium-sized firms.

I am also glad to note that the Law Society is expanding and enhancing its pro bono programmes. It is working on an online portal to match volunteers with pro bono opportunities, developing a "Pro Bono Friendly" certification scheme for law practices, and these schemes, together with existing schemes such as the Community Legal Clinics and also those run by LAB, will provide structured opportunities for lawyers and law firms to do pro bono work. The Ministry of Law has been making financial contributions to the Law Society's Pro Bono Services Office (PBSO). We are reviewing our contribution to PBSO to enable it to do more.

We will also be expanding the Legal Aid Steering Committee (LASC) chaired by former Senior Minister of State for Law Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee. A wider cross-section of the legal community, including the judiciary, academia and practitioners, will be involved. This will bring key stakeholders in the legal community together in the Legal Aid Steering Committee to set the strategic direction for pro bono efforts and rally the legal community to do more pro bono work. Together, we hope these initiatives will help foster a greater spirit of giving within the legal profession and improve access to justice.

Page: 2055

Next, on bankruptcy. Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Vikram Nair expressed concerns on the administration of bankruptcy cases. Currently, the Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office (IPTO) administers over 25,000 bankruptcy estates. IPTO's staffing in its Individual Insolvency Division has been increased from 37 posts in 2009 to 74 now. IPTO is aware of the concerns such as those raised by Ms Lim and Mr Nair. We will continue to review the need for additional resources, always bearing in mind the cost to the public purse.

IPTO is also looking for new ways to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of its processes. For example, in 2011, IPTO enhanced its bankruptcy case management system and introduced an electronic document management system, which digitises and routes public correspondence electronically to case officers, and facilitates monitoring by management. Later this month, IPTO will be launching an enhanced online platform for bankrupts and creditors to access case information, for example, claims made, and the amount available in the bankruptcy estate. Bankrupts can check the submission deadline for their Income and Expenditure Statements, and they can also check the status of their applications to travel overseas, manage businesses, or act as a company director. This service will be provided to bankrupts free of charge.

Ms Lim asked if the Debt Repayment Scheme (DRS) may channel resources away from bankruptcy administration. As I shared with the House last month, the DRS is to allow debtors with regular incomes and debts not exceeding $100,000, an opportunity to avoid bankruptcy. This is part of IPTO's work. Whether it is in administering bankruptcy cases or administering the DRS, IPTO will continue to look for efficiency gains in their operations.

As for Mr Nair's question, IPTO does and will continue to take into account the bankrupt's inability to earn a living as a result of factors such as old age or ill health when evaluating the case for discharge. Other factors considered include the bankrupt's conduct during bankruptcy, and the amount of contributions he has made to his bankruptcy estate.

Next, on moneylenders. Both Mr Arthur Fong and Mr Chen Show Mao have spoken on the regulation of moneylenders and moneylending. We share their concerns, particularly over protecting the interests of borrowers.

Allow me to first explain our approach in this area. There will always be people in need of credit and are unable to borrow from banks. Moneylenders meet this need. If we completely abolish the industry, it will only be driven underground, and borrowers will have no legal protection and will be at the mercy of loansharks.

Our approach is to permit the industry to operate, but regulate it to give protection to borrowers, particularly those with lower incomes. What we have done in 2011 include the following: first, requiring moneylending licence applicants to pass a test on the Moneylending Act and Rules; we have also tightened the rules on moneylenders' business conduct − for instance, they may not obtain borrowers' SingPass, bank account and other passwords. Sir, in Mandarin.

3.15 pm

Page: 2056

( In Mandarin ): [Please refer to Pg 2123 for Vernacular Speeches.] In November last year, MinLaw put in place new rules relating to moneylending advertisements. Recently, the Chinese press reported that new restrictions on advertisements by licensed moneylenders have led to a proliferation of advertisements by unlicensed moneylenders, which were misleading the public into believing that they were legal. Let me reiterate that the purpose of the rules is to prevent moneylending companies from using advertisements to stimulate excessive demand for loans by the public. In the past, we permitted licensed moneylenders to advertise in a variety of media, to allow the borrowers to compare terms across different moneylenders. However, we noticed that excessive advertising could stimulate excessive demand for loans amongst those who did not truly require them, resulting in unnecessary debt. Furthermore, borrowers needed to check the Registry of Moneylenders' website to determine whether the advertisements were being put out by licensed or unlicensed moneylenders.

We therefore put in new rules: if moneylending companies wish to advertise, they can only do so through business and consumer directories of services, their own websites, and through advertisements at their premises. They are not disallowed from advertising; they are only disallowed from unsolicited advertising. The new rules help the public differentiate between licensed and unlicensed moneylenders. Now the public no longer need to verify if the flyers, SMSes, emails or other forms of advertisements they received are from licensed moneylenders because they can be sure that all such activities are not allowed. Such advertisements would either be from licensed moneylenders operating in violation of our rules, or loansharks. Errant licensed moneylenders would be investigated by the Registry and loansharks would be investigated by the Police. We urge the public to avoid taking loans from them. We will continue to spread the message to let the public understand such unsolicited advertisement is illegal.

( In English ): We have also been studying how to further strengthen our regulatory framework, and will be rolling out new measures to strengthen the regulation of the industry and the protection of borrowers. We will be amending the Moneylenders Act to strengthen the enforcement powers of the Registry of Moneylenders; safeguard borrowers' information from unlicensed moneylenders; and clarify the provisions governing the moneylenders' place of business.

We have also been considering for some time changes to the Moneylenders Rules to further strengthen protection of borrowers, and these would address the concerns raised by Mr Fong and Mr Chen. The directions that we are considering include: requiring the use of Effective Interest Rate instead of Nominal Interest Rate; extending existing caps on interest rate to protect a larger range of borrowers; abolishing non-contingent fees which jack up the true cost of borrowing; and abolishing all exceptions to the limit on the amount of unsecured credit that a borrower can obtain, to close loopholes that could lead to excessive debt.

I will give more details when moving the Second Reading of the Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill after the Committee of Supply debate. We will continue to watch the industry closely, and ensure that borrowers' interests are adequately protected.

Mr Desmond Lee raised several issues pertaining to community mediation in his cut. In particular, he asked if mediation could be made compulsory and if the CMC could be given powers to enforce community mediation. I thank him for pointing out a very important concern and I would like to assure him that we will be doing more. We are currently in discussions with frontline public agencies, for instance, the HDB, on several issues such as compelling the use of mediation for disputes in their purview and enforcing mediation agreements between parties. Mr Lee suggested that CMCs be given the power, similar to Courts, to bind parties for good behaviour. We will consider how best to do this in the context of the whole community mediation framework, and so I thank him for this.

Page: 2057

In conclusion, Sir, MinLaw is committed to driving high value and sustained growth in the legal and law-related sectors; developing a sound and progressive legal framework; and ensuring equal access to justice in all segments of society.

The Chairman: Members, we have a few minutes for clarification. Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I refer to the Minister's remarks on my cut. First, on Internet regulation. The Minister said that somehow I suggested that the review was a pretext to censure. I think I need to put in context of what I am saying one more time. I referred to the US and its attempt to introduce legislation. I also referred to the Protection of Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) and Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). For example, PIPA, you have big corporate − US corporate and Internet corporate like Google − who actually spoke out against this Act. I was coming from that angle where there is a concern that while on the one hand, you protect intellectual property, such legislation to protect intellectual property could be used abusively and could even lead to censorship. That is where I was coming from. It was a point that I made in good faith, and I am not suggesting that the Working Committee somehow was looking for a reason to initiate legislation which would lead to censorship. That is not where I was coming from.

On that note, can I just clarify, who are the members of this Working Committee that the Minister was referring to? I have to say that the cut really came from the comments that were made at the launch of "The Mortal Enemy". That was where the concern came up, because that was the first time I understood that the Government was in discussion with the Motion Pictures Association of America. So, that is where I was coming from. The second point about prosecutorial discretion −

The Chairman: Mr Singh, can you please try and keep it short?

Mr Pritam Singh: Yes. On my second cut on prosecutorial discretion, I note the Minister's comments, and I appreciate them. I did not make a case for introducing guidelines where the AGC is expected to release these guidelines to the public, as the Minister suggested. The real crux of the cut comes to the point of the punishment with regard to the offence that Ramalingam eventually was charged with, that is, the mandatory death penalty. Again, in good faith, if the AG would decide to come out and say, look, these are the reasons why we have decided not to review or to review, I think that may be helpful for the general public. That is really where I was coming from.

Mr K Shanmugam: I thank Mr Singh for those remarks. First, there have been concerns expressed internationally that when you move legislation like what were proposed in the US that could affect freedom of speech or other concerns, my point would be: first, all that we have said is that we are studying this area. There is an inter-agency committee that is looking at it, and we must obviously look at the US' experience and the experience of the others. I made it quite clear that we look at it from the perspective of the economic impact; should we do nothing, but we also need to consider the legitimate viewpoints that have been put up by users and others on a variety of issues. So, no decisions have been taken. It is being studied and, as I have indicated, as and when we reach a conclusion, then it will certainly be debated here. I only wanted to be quite clear that Mr Singh was not suggesting that we were using it as a pretext to cut down on freedom of speech because Mr Singh combined the word "pretext" with "freedom of speech", and I understood him to be suggesting that this exercise may be construed by some as a pretext. I am glad he clarified that he holds no such view.

Page: 2058

Second, on prosecutorial discretion. I went through it quite carefully. You have two possibilities. The prosecution, under our Constitution, is given the discretion to make a decision on how offenders should be charged, and to make distinctions. That exercise of discretion has to be made in good faith, and it could be based on a number of factors, not all of which can be publicly disclosed, as the Court of Appeal itself recognised. For example, it could rely on intelligence; there could be real reasons why one person could be treated differently from another, but you cannot say it publicly. I said there are two possible models: one, we require the prosecution either to publish guidelines, but Mr Singh said that this is not what he was asking for, he wants the AGC to explain publicly. But after a series of times when you have explained publicly, it is as good as publishing the guidelines.

So, it comes back to the same thing, and you come back to this issue that there are all these trade-offs. The prosecution sets out its decisions over a series of cases over many years. In such a case, we make a distinction; these are the reasons for the distinction.

Then, you consider two alternate risks. The first risk is that the prosecution acts maliciously or wrongly in making distinctions between two people who ought not to be treated very differently. That is what society should guard against. That is a risk and I accept that it is a risk. On the other hand, there is a risk that criminals would start looking at those published reasons and work out how the exercise of prosecutorial discretion will take place, and then they will start gaming the system.

So, you have to assess, this House has to assess, which is the more serious risk and which is better for society. My assessment, and the assessment of the many professionals involved, is that the risk that the prosecution will act wrongly is far less serious compared with the possibility that people or criminals will start gaming the system. And, do not forget, ultimately, the Court of Appeal has indicated that where on the face of it, the distinction that the prosecution makes between two different accused, if it cries out for an explanation and the prosecution offers no explanation, then the Court will make inferences. So, that is a further check and safeguard as well.

We are all here trying to work towards a better criminal justice system, and we believe the current approach strikes the appropriate balance between the different interests involved. But, as I have indicated more than once in my explanations, if we believe that requiring the prosecution to explain its reasons publicly, either by way of published guidelines or by way of a case-by-case response, if we believe that that is better, we will amend the Constitution. That is a no brainer and I say that unhesitatingly.

Page: 2059

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, two points for the Minister for Law, in relation to my cut on criminal procedure. First, in his response, he suggested that my description of the Kadar case as a breakthrough was not quite fair − I am summarising what he is saying. Or rather, he mentioned that in the CPC review resulting in the Code in 2010, there had already been big steps taken towards discovery and so the Kadar case is supposed to be part of that, if I can just maybe dilute the statement.

But does the Minister not agree that actually nowhere in the CPC 2010, does it require in its wording for the prosecution to disclose to the defence, evidence which it does not intend to use as part of its case? That is not present in any of the provisions, specifically in the CPC. That is why the Kadar judgement talks about common law duty to disclose evidence which prosecution does not intend to use. The second clarification which I like to seek from the Minister is whether the Attorney-General's Chambers has actually issued any guidelines to the Police on what they should disclose to the prosecution, post- Kadar judgement and, if it has issued some written guidelines, would it consider making them public? If not in entirety, at least some sanitised version which I think will go a long way to promote public confidence in the system.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I made no comments on Ms Lim's statement about the Kadar judgement being a breakthrough. I think Ms Lim would recall a few weeks ago that I said in this House that most lawyers would consider that the Kadar judgement rightly expresses the law, and that expresses my view. In terms of what the CPC 2010 does, I made the point that it significantly enhanced the rights of the accused in terms of the discovery obligations on both sides, and I think that made for a better criminal justice procedure. It does not, in terms, in the statutory provisions, refer to unused materials, but that was a matter of debate during the Second Reading, and if I may quote myself, I think for the second or third time, as to what I said then − and Ms Lim could not have forgotten it – this was what I said, "Lawyers appearing in Court, whether prosecution or defence lawyers, are officers of the Court. If they deliberately suppress material evidence, they would be acting in gross breach of their duties. One cannot put forward evidence in Court while holding back other evidence which could put a different complexion on the evidence that is in fact being tendered in Court." I have no doubt that the Court would take a serious view of such conduct. Ms Lim knows that the Court of Appeal referred to that statement and said that it expressed their view correctly and, in fact, relied on that statement to express its own views. So, the law is clear. We are both involved on the same side, as it were, to try and improve the administration of criminal justice. Whether or not it is expressed in terms in the Statute, this is what was said as being the law, and this was accepted by the Court of Appeal as being the law. There is no doubt about it. I think I have answered both Ms Lim's questions.

3.30 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, the second clarification.

Mr K Shanmugam: In terms of Police guidelines, both before and post- Kadar , the approach the prosecution has taken has always been that Police investigating officers conduct the investigations and the material they collect is gone through for relevance. They have supervising officers who look through it, and that is then brought to the Attorney-General's Chambers and there are guidelines on the kind of material that should be produced. In fact, everything that they collect should be reviewed by a Legal Officer within the Attorney-General's Chambers. So, they have fairly clear guidelines on how they work with each other.

Page: 2060

But, I must say, whether it is private practice or the Attorney-General's Chambers or the Police Force, any system that is operated by human beings, there can be lapses. That is not to say no lapses will ever occur. But we have systems in place that try to minimise these lapses. Ultimately, the Attorney-General's Chambers and lawyers are answerable to the Court to practise to the best standards of the profession.

The Chairman: Yes, Ms Lim. Last clarification, please.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. Just to clarify again, Minister, you did not answer my question as to whether Government would consider publishing the guidelines or at least a sanitised version of the guidelines for the public to understand more about the system and to have some assurance of the rigour of the discovery.

Mr K Shanmugam: Publishing which guidelines?

Ms Sylvia Lim: Any guideline that is issued by the Attorney-General's Chambers to the Police on what they should disclose to the prosecution.

Mr K Shanmugam: Everything that the Police collect needs to be disclosed to the prosecution, and then the prosecution needs to apply its mind to see what is relevant.

The Chairman: Mr Hri Kumar, can I invite you to withdraw your amendment?

Mr Hri Kumar Nair: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister and his team for their clear and comprehensive responses, and to the officers and staff in the Ministry for their good work. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $199,958,800 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $340,236,700 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

The Chairman: I propose to take the break now.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.36 pm until 3.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm

[ Mr Speaker in the Chair]