HEAD R - MINISTRY OF LAW

Head R – Ministry of Law

The Chairman: Head R – Ministry of Law. Dr Teo Ho Pin.

Legal Education

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, the high attrition rate of law graduates who do not practise law, and restricted recognition of graduates from overseas law schools have resulted in a shortage of lawyers in Singapore. This problem is further aggravated by the limited capacities of local law schools to train more lawyers. Facing a shortage of lawyers and increasing workload, the legal profession is experiencing work fatigue. This may ultimately have an adverse impact on the quality and professionalism of legal services. Sir, this situation is unhealthy, and calls for urgent action to increase the supply of lawyers to serve our community, economy, and the global market.

Sir, Singaporeans who are keen to study law have few opportunities to do so due to the limited number of places offered by NUS and SMU law schools. As a result, many have to go overseas to pursue their law degrees.

Sir, to be a legal education hub, Singapore must offer quality and attractive law degree courses for both Singaporeans and overseas students. We should position our law degree courses to

Column: 3112

be equal or if not, better than the top law schools in the world. Today, the four-year law degree courses of both NUS and SMU are not attractive in encouraging more students to join the legal profession as compared to law degrees offered elsewhere.

Sir, NUS and SMU have embarked on a modular teaching system. Therefore, we should consider reviewing our local law degree courses to be a three-year law course comparable to the UK's Cambridge or Oxford law degrees. I wish to ask the Law Minister whether there are plans to review the law degree courses in Singapore.

Sir, over the last four decades, Singapore has developed a unique system of governance and public administration which has been regarded by many developing countries as role model. As such, there are lots of potential to develop Singapore into a legal education hub for budding lawyers and public administrators of these countries. In this regard, I would urge the Ministry to consider expanding the capacities of our local law schools or provide more opportunities for established foreign law schools to offer law degree courses in Singapore.

Sir, I received feedback that the one-year compulsory diploma course in Singapore Law for returning overseas law graduates is a waste of time and resources. This requirement seems to be an "equal misery" arrangement to ensure that both local and overseas law graduates of the same cohort are called to the bar at the same time. The compulsory diploma course is inflexible, and serves as a barrier in encouraging more overseas law graduates to practise in Singapore. I would urge the Ministry to review the compulsory Diploma course in Singapore Law.

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Judge of Appeal V K Rajah’s

Column: 3113

report stated and I quote, "the Committee received anecdotal feedback that the Diploma in Singapore Law Course has outlived its utility and that some DipSing students find the course to be unproductive". Taking a little bit of Dutch courage from the GPC Chairman, I also say I strongly agree that the DipSing has outlived its utility. Allow me to explain why.

In November last year, the Chief Justice and Justice V K Rajah flew to London to visit Singaporean law students studying in the UK. The trip was organised by the Legal Service Commission Secretariat and its purpose was to reach out to and meet and inform the law students of law-related job opportunities here in Singapore. Private sector firms were invited to accompany the Chief Justice. I was the representative of Lee & Lee. Various other firms also sent representatives. We had the opportunity to meet with close to 80 Singaporean students and 50 working professionals. They were candid about wanting to return to Singapore, fully intending to return but equally candid about how the one-year full time DipSing course was a major deterrent.

As I had spoken at the last COS, would MinLaw be open to removing the DipSing requirement for returning law students? Instead, returning law students could undergo training more relevant to practice, along the lines of a training contract. By fusing the DipSing and the current Practical Law Course into a one-year training contract, the returning law student receives his first pay cheque sooner, has greater incentive to return to Singapore and be a resource in our growing legal hub and studies areas of law relevant to practice, rather than repeating basic subjects he would have already covered at university even in his first year. This will also assist in meeting the increasing demand for more lawyers who have been called to the Singapore Bar.

Column: 3114

Legal Services

Dr Teo Ho Pin: Sir, as reported in the Straits Times on 5th April 2008, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong remarked, and I quote, "Singapore’s lower courts may have been placed high in international rankings, but what matters is the quality of justice people here receive." CJ has called for greater access to justice, and emphasised that justice must be accessible to everyone. This is indeed a timely call for the legal profession to make justice accessible to all at affordable cost.

At present, the majority of practising lawyers are involved in corporate services work, thus resulting in a shortage of lawyers in litigation work especially for criminal cases. This problem is compounded by the high attrition rate of practising lawyers. Consequently, there is now left a smaller pool of lawyers available to provide affordable legal services to the community, especially the middle and lower income groups.

Sir, I have come across a number of cases in which people cannot afford to pay lawyers to seek representation in courts. Although the Law Ministry and the Law Society have been providing pro-bono legal services, there are persons who do not meet the eligibility criteria, and also cannot afford to engage a lawyer. Thus, there is a service gap in providing justice for all.

Sir, I wish to ask the Minister of Law the following questions:

(1) What measures are in place to ensure that "justice for all" is accessible to all Singaporeans?

(2) Are there plans to further expand the pro bono legal services to lower income Singaporeans?

(3) Are there plans to increase the pool of litigation lawyers in Singapore?

Column: 3115

(4) Can the Minister give an update with regard to the review of lawyers’ handling of clients’ monies?

(5) How can we support smaller law firms to provide affordable legal services to the community?

Legal Education and Liberalisation of Legal Practice

Mr Alvin Yeo: Sir, the various measures to liberalise the practice of Singapore law for various law firms, either through enhanced joint law ventures or through qualifying foreign law practices (QFLP) licences are welcomed for they will add to the breadth and depth of legal talent and enhance Singapore's position as a leading financial services centre.

However, more reforms are still required. In the case of the legal education for locally qualified lawyers, we do need to question whether the existing set-up of a four-year university course followed by a six months' practice law course is still valid and appropriate. In the case of liberalisation of the legal profession, the situation still needs to be monitored carefully and fine-tune as appropriate to preserve the strength of the local bar and to ensure our home-grown law firms do not get hollowed out.

First, as regards to legal education. The present regime for local graduates, four years in university, six months of the vocational course and six months of pupilage should be revamped. The issue here is one of balance. The United Kingdom, long renowned for the excellence of its legal education, subject budding lawyers to a three-year degree course and then a one-year practice course and for those who inspire to be barristers or court lawyers, this is then followed by a one-year of pupilage in chambers. For would-be solicitors, they

Column: 3116

do a two-year traineeship at the law firm. In other words, there is less purely academic study and a better to on-the-job practical training. In the United States, probably the most heavily lawyered nation in the world, law is a postgraduate qualification which means lawyers spend several years in the pursuit of non-legal studies and are thus considered to be more well-rounded and matured before they embark on the specialised calling of the bar.

Which system would work best for Singapore? I believe the British model has much to commend it. The cutting age transactions in mergers and acquisitions, dead oil, equity capital markets are lugged far more quickly and far more thoroughly in a real life setting rather than in academia where almost by definition, the study of such matters lags a few years behind. At the same time, the shorter three-year degree course will make it more accessible to those who wish to benefit it from the analytical training required through the study of law but who do not wish themselves to practise as lawyers.

Turning now to the liberalisation of legal practice, the issuance of six QFLP licences was ground-breaking. This would enable those licensed foreign firms to practise Singapore law. This in turn would help to widen the availability of top-notch legal services here and broaden the use and appeal of Singapore law. As a member of the committee chaired by the Justice of Appeal V K Rajah that proposed this measure which has been accepted by the Government, I do believe that it is the right step for the country. However, care must still be exercised and progress monitored to avoid the situation where our local law firms are stripped bare of the cream of Singapore legal talent.

Foreign law firms with their greater size and financial resources have the ability to cherry-pick up young lawyers

Column: 3117

out of the local firms, the legal service and even right out of university. Yes, we need talent to devise the corporate deals that drive Singapore's financial sector. But we also need talent to become the next generation's judges, Attorney-Generals, Public Prosecutors and Ministers of Law. Such persons would not only possess the requisite legal acumen, but they would also be steep in our Singapore values and culture to act as a future guardian of our society. If all our top talent was hired away by foreign firms, subject to direction from New York, London or Hong Kong, perhaps even residing there, would we have the judicial system that is ranked at the top in most surveys of international competitiveness and is the envy of others?

We need to strengthen our local firms' ability to compete by offering financial and other incentives to upgrade themselves so that they can stand toe-to-toe with the best international firms. We need local companies including TLCs to give local firms a chance to compete. I emphasise that local firms must still prove themselves. Of course, we cannot simply have a "by Singaporean" edict. And if we need to, we should not be afraid to temper the pace of liberalisation. There is no turning back in terms of liberalising the legal profession in Singapore. But as with other policies of this Government, we should steer our own course at our own speed to achieve the best outcomes for Singapore.

Recognising Crime Victims' Rights

Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, many countries now recognise that the criminal justice system focuses too much on the offender and how he should be punished. By contrast, the victim is a pawn in the process. He is to cooperate with the State to participate in Police investigations and later to give evidence in court. He often gets no

Column: 3118

compensation for losses, pays for his own medical treatment and suffers inconvenience during case processing.

To address this, the United Nations, in 1985, adopted the declaration of basic principles of justice for victims of crimes and use of power. Countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia, amongst others, have since changed their domestic laws in line with this declaration. There has also been growth in victim studies and victimology movements, not only in the western world, but also in Asian countries like Japan. The focus of these efforts is towards giving the victim more voice in the case process and some redress for the wrongs suffered.

Crime victims in Singapore suffer similarly. I believe it is timely to consider how we can ensure that the victims' concerns and rights are systematically addressed. One suggestion is for the Police to routinely ask crime victims if he or she wishes to make a victim personal statement (VPS) which is practised in countries like the United Kingdom. This is not the same as the witness statement where the victim states how the crime took place. Rather, the VPS focuses on the victim, how the crime has affected the victim's life, what safety concerns he or she now has, whether physical or emotional support is needed or whether he or she wishes to be kept informed of the process and important decisions made in the case. Such a statement would then be kept on the file and at the relevant stages of the case, the victim's views can be presented. For example, the victim's fear of the offender causing harm can be surfaced at the bail hearing. Key decisions by prosecution such as reduction of charges should be informed and explained to the victim. As the case proceeds, the sentencing judge can also refer to the statement to assess the seriousness of the offence by looking at the harm suffered by the victim.

Column: 3119

Sir, currently victims often do not get compensation. The Chief Justice recently called for the courts to re-activate the compensation order provisions to ensure that victims can benefit. To increase the likelihood of such orders being made, the VPS can document exactly what losses have been caused by the offender with some supporting evidence. Their statement can then be easily referred to by the judge to calculate an appropriate sum for an order of compensation from the accused person.

Singapore has used victim impact statements for several years but only in a small minority of cases usually where the prosecutors instruct the Police to record them. This is very limited as it does not address victim's concerns early in the case. We should look at how the system can be improved to systematically recognise victims' rights rather than take ad-hoc approaches. I hope the Ministry can seriously study the progress made by other countries in giving victims a better deal under the criminal justice system.

Legal Status of the Right to Vote and Entrenchment

Prof. Thio Li-ann (Nominated Member): Sir, we live in unquiet times and need a sense of rootedness to steady us as we navigate the choppy waters ahead. In a crisis, do we respond with flight or fight? In a crisis, mercenaries follow the pull of lucre; patriots stay, because of their affection for intangible things.

Sir, the right to vote is what makes the often abstract and intangible idea of democracy tangible to the citizen; it is something corporeal, which the citizen can hold on to. Voting rights are the hallmark of democracy; it is the Political Right of rights, a Super-Right necessary for democracy to function authentically. Individually and cumulatively, the right to

Column: 3120

vote affirms that government rests on popular choice; that the voice of every citizen counts.

What are the ABCs of the vote? A, it is an Anchor which B, gives us a sense of Belonging which provides the Ballast for C, our Commitment and Care for our Country and Community. The vote underscores the stake each citizen has in the country, inspiring a sense of loyalty, stewardship and responsibility for Singapore. It reminds us of our vested interest in national affairs. After all, if we have no say, why care?

The issue of the vote is not esoteric but fundamental to our polity; it is the cornerstone to our personal and corporate identity as citizens of the Republic. Voting allows the citizen to select the best political leaders for the job, those able to manage crisis effectively where required. This is a high stake decision and reminds us that rights carry responsibilities. Citizenship evokes both entitlement and duty.

Sir, the legal status of the right to vote is unclear. Is this right a constitutional right and part of the fundamental law of the land, or merely a statutory right, regulated by ordinary law? A right of fundamental importance should be recognised as a fundamental right and constitutionally entrenched. Only the most important rights or interests are constitutionalised and receive maximum legal protection as part of the supreme law. The right to vote is not an ancillary or new-fangled right; it is fundamental and long-established.

In discussing fundamental rights, the 1966 Constitutional Commission specifically highlighted the right to vote: as one deserving to be cherished as an inalienable right. An inalienable right is not a boon from the state; instead, it inheres in the individual and the state is bound to secure it, to enable its realisation. The

Column: 3121

right to vote inheres in individuals living in a democratic state. Our courts have affirmed that fundamental liberties are recognised as inalienable rights "to the extent that the Constitution is supreme".

Back in Singapore's salad days, the Constitutional Commission considered it "necessary and wise" to constitutionally entrench the right to vote, and to provide that this could only be removed by a two-thirds vote at a national referendum. This was to make it difficult to change. What is fundamental is not frequently amended. When something is given constitutional status, this has an educative effect as this status underscores the importance of the right or interest entrenched. It communicates fundamental values to the polity. Unfortunately, the Constitutional Commission's recommendation to entrench the right to vote apparently was not given explicit form. Expressly entrenching our right to vote would accentuate our responsibilities as citizens in choosing good governors.

The legal status of the right to vote is unclear for two main reasons. First, the High Court made an odd, fairly disturbing obiter statement in Taw Cheng Kong v PP [1998] 1 SLR 943 at 965. In contrasting fundamental liberties against carrot and stick privileges which the legislature may confer or withhold as a matter of political will, the judge seemed to indicate that these privileges included "subsidies or the right to vote." The term 'privilege' connotes a lesser interest which warrants less legal protection than a 'right'. This is alarming as one might interpret this as reading down the right to vote to a statutory interest, which any ordinary Act can repeal. Surely, our right to vote cannot depend upon legislative will? This would place something so basic on too tenuous a footing, for what Parliament gives, Parliament can take away.
Secondly, as the Constitution contains no express right to vote, some might

Column: 3122

argue this right is contained in the Parliamentary Elections Act. If so, the right to vote is merely statutory, which does not afford it much protection. If so, the remedy would be to accord the right to vote constitutional status, to affirm its primary importance.

However, I understand the Parliamentary Elections Act as not being a source of voting rights; this statute does not constitute or create the right to vote. Rather, it facilitates elections by identifying who the People are for voting purposes, in maintaining a register of electors, and by regulating the conduct of elections. It does not create an entitlement to vote, merely secures it.

Could we argue that the Constitutional text is not exhaustive, that rights may be implied from it? Certainly, our courts have found and declared unwritten constitutional principles, such as the separation of powers and rule of law.

Courts in jurisdictions with Westminster based Constitutions have found implied basic rights to political communication, these were considered embedded in the Constitution which established government based on representative democracy. Our own local jurisprudence provides some support for the idea of unenumerated or implied rights. One could argue there is an implicit right to a judicial remedy embedded in Article 93, the judicial power clause. The courts have affirmed their role in declaring unconstitutional exercises of government power invalid.

One might argue that implied voting rights may be derived from the system of parliamentary democracy the Constitution establishes, that this was a historical "given" in such political systems; further, that representative democracy remains a normatively desirable form of accountable government, compared to dictatorships and juntas.

Column: 3123

Indeed, the Attorney-General appeared to hold this opinion. When this House debated whether voting was a right or duty in May 2001, the AG's opinion was that the right to vote for elections was "implied within the structure of our Constitution". This frames our "parliamentary form of government". In providing for regular general elections, the Constitution established "representative democracy in Singapore", to which the right to vote was considered "fundamental". The Parliamentary Elections Act gave effect to this implied right.

6.30 pm

Apparently, this indicates that the right to vote is an implied constitutional right, implemented by Statute. It was implied, of necessity, from Article 66 which requires the relevant actors to ensure General Elections are held within three months after Parliament is dissolved.

Article 66 embodies a constitutional commitment to representative democracy and obliges the Government to ensure that elections are held within the stipulated time-frame; from this, the citizen's right to vote is inferred. Article 66 is not formulated as an individual voting right. There is a difference between a state obligation and a fundamental liberty.

While the Attorney-General's opinion is authoritative, it is not determinative under our system of separation of powers. The final say belongs to the courts. In the interests of clarity, would the Minister consider invoking the Article 100 process which allows for constitutional questions to be put to a tribunal to obtain an advisory opinion?

Better still, to affirm and underscore the workings of our system of

Column: 3124

representative democracy, would the Minister consider taking the desirable step to amend the Constitution to expressly entrench the right to vote in the Fundamental Liberties Chapter? This would put its legal status beyond the shadow of a doubt and underscore who the right-holder is – we, the Citizens of Singapore. In addition, while the Constitution provides for regular elections, it does not guarantee direct elections, secret voting or universal equal suffrage. Such details are basic and should be succinctly expressed in a constitutional voting clause, not left to Statute.

Such a clause could be accompanied by an associated duty to vote responsibly by exerting sober reason and conscience. Would the Minister consider amending the Constitution to include this important political right?

Sir, some might consider this issue merely symbolic, a luxury we can ill-afford because of the current economic exigencies. However, I would argue that this is basic, foundational, fundamental to our political order; it is a necessity, not a luxury. Ever conscious of the dominant pragmatic mindset, my plea is that in an Age of Democracy, this is the one issue where symbols ought to count.

Constitutionally entrenching the right to vote as a citizen's right will more fully vindicate the ideal and reality of representative democracy. It will strongly indicate to Singaporeans that we are stakeholders in this nation, with all the responsibilities of ownership and upkeep, serving the common good.

Expressly constitutionalising the right to vote has both symbolic and practical significance. We need to be very sure our fundamentals, whether economic, social or political in dimension, are sound. It is always good to shore up the foundations of the House, before the hurricane strikes.

Column: 3125

I trust the right to vote is considered fundamental. It is democracy's most potent symbol; it gives concrete, tangible expression to the democratic spirit upon which our constitutional order rests. In a democracy, the people are King or sovereign. Every citizen has a voice and her choice for governor is articulated through the vote as an empowering tool. This tool must be protected as a fundamental constitutional right.

Sir, the hardware of providing for a fundamental right affects the heartware of the right-holder. As we approach our Jubilee in 2015, let us, the descendents of lion-hearted pioneers, move ahead as one united sovereign people, each carrying our little slice of sovereignty, our right to vote, the badge of our citizenship.

And, Sir, affirming the constitutional status of this right or otherwise taking steps to ensure it, will not cost very much.

Professional Qualifications

Mr Christopher de Souza: Sir, at present, holders of Second Lower Honours or equivalent law degrees from scheduled Universities who were full-time internal candidates must fulfil a two-year legal work requirement in order to qualify to practise law in Singapore. I ask that this two-year requirement be abolished. These students should only be required to meet the same conditions that apply to overseas law students who have obtained First Class or Second Class Upper Honours.

This is because we should let the market forces recognise talent. I have practised law in the Legal Service and in the private sector with lawyers who obtained Second Lower Honours. I have found their work exceptional, deserving of recognition and promotion. Therefore, would the Ministry of Law consider abolishing this two-year practice

Column: 3126

requirement and allow market forces to attract and recognise talent?

Admissions

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, the supply of lawyers in Singapore is an issue that has been raised a number of times in this House. I spoke about it last year. The regulations have since been amended to allow foreign firms to enter the marketplace and practise Singapore law in certain areas.

But since then, the world economy has taken a turn and lawyers in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries are losing their jobs by the thousands. So under-supply of lawyers in Singapore may not be a problem in the short or medium-term.

Nonetheless, there is still reason to fine-tune our admission criteria to make it more rational and responsive to the circumstances. The rationale for identifying and limiting qualified universities was to a large extent, to ensure quality control. But we are, in fact, placing quality control in the hands of foreign universities who determine what class of honours to confer and therefore who gets to practise law in Singapore, either immediately or after a two-year stint.

Sir, I repeat my call last year to do away with these incremental changes to our admission criteria. To use a person's academic results to determine his ability to qualify is at best a blunt and, sometimes, unfair instrument. There are many good lawyers in practice who may not be qualified or qualified immediately under the current criteria. If the quality of education is an issue, we should control standards ourselves and simplify the whole process. In this regard, I agree that we should get rid of the DipSing programme. What we should do is to have a common practice law course and examination for all graduates, local or

Column: 3127

foreign, and the standard of the examination will ensure the quality. And those who have the right quality should have no concern passing this examination.

But, at the same time, we should also ensure a level-playing field for local and foreign graduates. Many foreign law schools have three-year law degrees while our local law school is a four-year law degree. The system we implement should not enable a foreign graduate to be admitted quicker than a local graduate.

Finally, on the issue of reciprocity and fairness. Many legal systems are closed to foreigners and foreign graduates, including Singaporeans. While we open up our country and our legal market to foreigners, it must be on the basis that their home countries are similarly open to us. I therefore hope that the Minister will ensure a level-playing field in any scheme to allow foreign lawyers to practise law in Singapore.

The Chairman: Ms Ellen Lee, you may take your two cuts together.

Legal Aid

Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang): Sir, when the monthly income ceiling was last raised in 2007, more people qualified for legal aid. Some legally-aided litigants in matrimonial proceedings have actually abused the policy of not having party-and-party cost ordered against them, to insist on contentious proceedings to improve their stakes in claiming custody and care/control of children, maintenance for the wife and children and the division of matrimonial flat. By refusing to settle at appropriate junctures, although it is their prerogative to insist on a trial, doing so would inflict cost injuries for their spouses as well as their own assigned lawyers whose fees are fixed, especially when the final judgment was not in their favour.

Column: 3128

Would the Ministry consider:

(1) allowing recovery of party-and-party cost from such Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) applicants;

(2) allowing LAB or its assigned lawyers to recover from such applicants an extra fee commensurate with the time taken in the proceedings;

(3) having fixed periodical reviews of the means of qualified applicants whose fortunes may have changed for the better in the course of or after the court proceedings are over. This will result in better management for public resources and litigants' expectations; and

(4) in intestacy cases where there are minor beneficiaries, to lift the requirement that a co-administrator must also satisfy the means testing when the co-administrator is often not a beneficiary but was just being helpful.

Community Mediation

Community Mediation Centres (CMCs) have been in existence and in operation since January 1998. CMCs have been useful in settling disputes which would otherwise have to go the normal litigation route. However, increasingly, my residents are complaining that their disputes cannot be resolved because their neighbours refuse to go for mediation, especially in cases involving noise, dirty laundry, high-rise litter and the encroachment of space. Would the Ministry of Law consider:

(1) empowering the CMCs to compel attendance in cases assessed to be genuine and non-frivolous;

(2) making settlements enforceable between the parties with sanction meted out for non-compliance; and

Column: 3129

(3) escalating contentious cases for resolution by community mediation tribunal.

Staffing at Small Claims Tribunal and Subordinate Courts

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Marine Parade): Sir, last August, the Consumer Protection Fair Trading Act (CPFTA) was amended to increase the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunal for cases brought under the CPFTA. It is to allow more consumers to seek redress under the Small Claims Tribunals for breaches of the CPFTA without having to incur hefty costs.

From the records of the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) in 2008, we handled 23,888 complaints, of which 746 cases relate to complaints under the CPFTA. CASE refers quite a large number of consumers to the Small Claims Tribunal whenever we are unable to resolve the matter amicably between the consumers and the businesses. We understand that a large number of other agencies, like SP Services, Town Councils and SingTel, use the Small Claims Tribunal to claim for payment of their bills. From the 2008 Annual Report of the Subordinate Courts, the Small Claims Tribunal adjudicated 16,180 cases last year. With this increase in the jurisdictional limits, I am concerned whether the Small Claims Tribunal is able to cope with the likely increase in workload. Does the Ministry of Law allocate enough resources to the Small Claims Tribunal by supplying them with more mediators, referees and other support staff? Would there be a slowdown in the level of services to be provided to the consumers if there are inadequate resources?

Next, let me declare my interest in speaking as a practising advocator and solicitor. I understand that last year, the Subordinate Courts handled more than

Column: 3130

86,150 civil cases and 249,540 criminal cases. I also notice that there are occasions where more than 60 cases are placed before a Deputy Registrar of the Subordinate Courts. For example, last Sunday, when I checked last Monday's list of cases for hearings, the ADCR, at 2.30 pm on Monday, showed 93 cases before one Deputy Registrar and 84 cases before another Deputy Registrar on Wednesday at 2.30 pm. If at one minute per case, it will still take 1.5 hours for the last case to be cleared. Any practising lawyer in Chambers will tell you that it takes at least three minutes to even seek a simple by consent adjournment. This has resulted in long waits by lawyers waiting to see the Deputy Registrar. I understand that it is not uncommon for lawyers to wait up to one hour or more.

Considering that the Government has pledged to provide service excellence to members of the public, may I know whether the Ministry could allocate more resources to the courts so that the courts can endeavour to reduce waiting time for lawyers as well? It will certainly alleviate the work fatigue for lawyers which the hon. Member Dr Teo Ho Pin refers to.