HEAD R - MINISTRY OF LAW

Column: 1054

Head R – Ministry of Law

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

Legal Services Sector

Dr Teo Ho Pin: Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, in recent years, the legal services sector has encountered various challenges, such as shortage of lawyers, criminal breach of trust involving lawyers and many other complaints on the professional conduct of our lawyers. This problem is further compounded by the barriers to the legal profession in Singapore and the brain drain and attrition of lawyers, in particular, practising lawyers.

Dr Teo Ho Pin: 5.10 pm

In August 2006, the Law Minister appointed Justice V K Rajah to chair a

Column: 1055

committee to review the legal services sector. The committee recently announced its recommendations which were accepted by the Government. I wish to ask the Minister the following questions:

(1) What is the Government's action plan in implementing the recommendations of V K Rajah's report? What are the desired outcomes and key performance indicators of the report?

(2) What measures are in place to increase the supply of lawyers in Singapore? Are there plans to set up more law schools?

(3) What mechanisms are in place to promote professionalism and proper conduct of lawyers?

(4) How can client's interest be protected due to the failure of professional service delivery by lawyers?

Criminal Procedure Code

**__ ** Madam, on my second cut, I wish to ask the Minister the following questions:

(1) What is the Ministry's plan to review the Criminal Procedure Code?

(2) How does the Criminal Procedure Code compare with other jurisdictions in terms of transparency on protection of individual rights?

Madam, I would like to quote a comment by a criminal lawyer, Mr Subhas Anandan, as reported in the Straits Times on 25th January 2008:

'Criminal lawyers are going into a trial blindfolded with one arm tied behind their backs.'

This situation of our Criminal Procedure Code is indeed unsatisfactory and does not give due consideration to

Column: 1056

the rights of the defendants if this comment of Mr Anandan is true.

The Law Society has called for the review of the discovery process whereby defence lawyers can have early access to documents and information pertaining to criminal cases before the trial. This will provide a more level playing field for the prosecutors and defence lawyers, and would enable the defendants a better chance to defend his or her case. We need to address the Criminal Procedure Code so as to ensure transparency and a fairer trial for all criminal cases.

Review of Criminal Procedure Code/Liberalisation of Legal Profession

Mr Alvin Yeo (Hong Kah): Mdm Chairman, the rule of law is a value readily associated with Singapore in the vast hinterland that is Asia. It is also one of our most important competitive advantages up there with our political stability and our educated workforce. It is a principle we should hold dear and strive to enhance.

I would like to address two key aspects of our legal system. The first relates to the business law regime which supports Singapore's financial sector and the commercial dealings that underpin our economy. The second relates to the personal or criminal law which affects all of us as individuals and contributes to our social environment.

Taking the first aspect, and as mentioned by Dr Teo, the comprehensive report was issued last year by a committee under the distinguished chairmanship of Justice V K Rajah, Judge of Appeal. I should disclose my personal interest as a member of that committee as well as being a partner in a law firm.

The report covered the entire spectrum of legal services and made far-reaching recommendations in many areas,

Column: 1057

including the liberalisation of our legal profession. This calls for the introduction of two vehicles for international law firms to practise Singapore law - an enhanced joint law venture (JLV) and qualifying foreign law firms (QFLF). These recommendations have been accepted by the Government.

Why do we need to allow foreign practices into the Singapore legal market, which has traditionally been the preserve of our local firms? This is to attract foreign lawyers to Singapore and to anchor those already here even more firmly - all to swell the pool of intellectual capital within our shores, the better to service the mega deals that are becoming common place here. But then, why do we not simply allow any foreign law firm to set up here and advise on local law? The answer lies in the integral role that the law plays in the fabric of our society. Our well-regarded legal system rests not just on the law books but on the whole panoply of judges, state counsels and private practitioners. If we were to allow foreign firms to practise here totally without restriction, we would see, over time, that our local law firms would weaken before the greater economic muscle of international law firms who could hire away their best lawyers, and they would slide to become second or third tier firms. This has quite a deleterious impact on our legal profession - to give just one example on the quality of our judges. We draw our judges from the local firms

because we need judges who are not only proficient in the law but steep in our culture and beliefs and embracing the values of our multi-racial society. Weaker law firms mean fewer outstanding candidates to become our judges. So the key is to strike a balance between liberalisation and liberalising too fast. This is to allow our homegrown firms some scope to adapt and upgrade themselves to compete with the very best foreign firms.

Column: 1058

5.15 pm

The devil, as usual, lies in the details. The Ministry has rightly formed sub-committee to oversee the implementation of these recommendations. One key task would be to identify the target group of foreign firms which should be encouraged to partner local firms in forming joint law venture and the sort of firms which should be allowed to go on their own as a qualifying foreign law firm. This is my suggestion. Enhanced joint venture should be targeted at the very largest international firms – those with extensive branch networks - which aim to capture a substantial share of the legal market, both here and in the region. They should be encouraged to link up with the local partner to their mutual benefit.

The international firm will benefit from the local firm's contacts and highly educated workforce. The Singapore firm will benefit from the extensive know-how and infrastructure support of the international partner. In the process, our Singapore lawyers get to learn from the best international practices and gain exposure to cutting-edge transactions in the region. Some of these lawyers will leave our shores but a good number will stay here and the upgrading effect on them can only serve our country well.

The qualifying foreign law firm structure where the foreign firm does not need to have a local partner should be aimed at those firms whose main objective is to follow their clients to Singapore, rather than to compete for local or regional clients. Typically, it would be those servicing the international investment banks, hedge funds and the like, but not trying to grow their presence beyond that. To attract those law firms here and in turn make the environment more conducive for the financial institutions, they advise that they should be allowed the greater freedom of flying solo without having to pair up with the Singapore law firm.

Column: 1059

Turning now to the other aspect of the laws governing the individual. Our criminal justice system has rightly attracted widespread praise for its rigour, efficiency and the results it has delivered over largely crime-free Singapore. Yet, it has its blocks and it is hoped the upcoming review of the Criminal Procedure Code will seize the opportunity to clear these away.

Like Dr Teo, I am referring to the dearth of protection given to accused persons in terms of getting copies of the statements they have given to the Police during investigation and also getting access to legal counsel. The absence of strict rules relating to discovery in criminal proceedings means that all too often a statement is sprung upon the defendant at or shortly before the trial. For an accused who has undergone a lengthy investigation, given several statements, it might be almost impossible to recall in detail everything that was contained in the statement signed maybe a year ago. After all, which of you in this House would consider it fair to sign a document and not get a copy of it. Yet, that is the system that prevails in our Subordinate Courts. In the High Court, they have adopted the procedure of giving an accused copies of his own statements, which makes the dichotomy of practice all the harder to justify.

Another area where we can surely improve on is giving an accused person access to legal counsel. Again, many of us have seen televised legal dramas where the accused refuses to answer any questions before he sees his lawyer. Well, that would not get him very far in Singapore and probably rightly so. In some countries, the scales are so tilted in favour of an accused that murderers can walk free on a technicality. We should not aspire to that model. But that does not mean we cannot impose some time

Column: 1060

period, say, one to two weeks for the Police to complete their investigations and then let the accused see his lawyer. Provision can be made for extending that period in more complex cases by applying to a judge.

But what we have now is accused persons who are questioned for several weeks or even months without ever seeing a lawyer. No one wishes to hamstring our law enforcement agency so that they cannot carry out their duties efficiently. But it is necessary to maintain a proper balance between the interest of the individual and the State. It is possible to introduce these measures and still maintain our sparkling enforcement record with additional effort and discipline. It is feature of a civilised society that rules of fair play prevail, and if one needs an economic reason, it contributes to the overall attractiveness of Singapore as a place to work and live.

Review of the Dip Sing Course and Criminal Procedure Code

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Madam, the recent Report of the Committee to Develop the Singapore Legal Sector chaired by Judge of Appeal V K Rajah stated, and I quote, "the Committee received anecdotal feedback that the Dip Sing Course has outlived its utility and that some Dip Sing students find the course to be unproductive because it often repeats the content of courses already taken overseas." The Report was spot on about the anecdotal evidence.

In November last year, the Temasek Society, a UK-based Singapore students’ society, invited Mr Lim Siong Guan, Dr Lim Wee Kiak and myself to speak to about 400 Singaporean students in London. After the forum, at least one dozen law students from different faculties in the UK told me that they wanted to return to Singapore to practise law at some point in their careers, but

Column: 1061

that the Dip Sing Course was a major disincentive to do so.

Firstly, the students indicated that the Dip Sing requires them to repeat subjects they have already studied. Secondly, Dip Sing, being a one year full-time course, delays their pay cheque by one whole year. The students I spoke to indicated that they were better off taking up a training contract in a London-based law firm. This view was held even though a training contract would require them to take the one-year full time Legal Practice Course.

It appears that having to do the Dip Sing Course in order to qualify at the Singapore Bar has the negative consequence of discouraging the overseas law student-turned-lawyer from returning to practise in Singapore. There is a solution to this - remove the Dip Sing requirement. Therefore, I ask, would the Ministry of Law be open to removing the Dip Sing requirement for returning law students? Instead, returning law students could undergo training more relevant to practice, along the lines of the Vocational Training Course recommended in the V K Rajah Report. By fusing the Dip Sing and the current Practical Law Course into a one year VTC or Vocational Training Course, the affected law student (a) broadens his knowledge of local law by studying areas which he has not studied before and are, in fact, relevant to his future local practice; and (b) receives his first pay cheque, it seems, six months quicker (compared to the current system). This will go a long way to help meet the demand for locally qualified practising lawyers in Singapore. To this end, can Ministry of Law allocate resources to this proposal?

On a separate note, the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill was passed – it constituted a thorough review of the Code and will go a long way to ensure the law

Column: 1062

punishes new, innovative crimes with appropriate sentences and an up-to-date fine structure. However, to allow the amended Penal Code to have its full effect, it must be complemented with up-to-date criminal procedure. To this end, can Ministry of Law allocate resources to ensure the CPC review is completed expeditiously?

Supply of Lawyers

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Madam, the supply of lawyers in Singapore is an issue which has vexed this House for a number of years. In 1993, restrictions were imposed on who may practise law in Singapore, eg, a minimum Second Class Lower Honours from NUS or a minimum Second Class Honours or Upper Honours from a list of 15 UK universities. The rationale given then was a need to check the growing numbers of lawyers which could lead to a misallocation of valuable manpower resources, result in the creation of an over-litigious society and lower the standard of practice. Specific universities were identified to ensure quality control.

But like our family planning policy, these measures proved too effective. In 2001, Members of this House highlighted the growing shortage of lawyers in Singapore. That same year, the Minister for Law informed this House that based on projections concerning the size of Singapore population and the growth of the economy, there would likely be an increased demand for lawyers in the next 10 years. So over the next few years, the qualifying criterion was relaxed to allow more to qualify, eg, the top 30% of some Australian universities, the top 40% of four US universities. But the problem did not go away. Despite the perception that lawyers earn a good living, reasons such as job stress and long hours kept law graduates away from the profession or hasten their departure.

Column: 1063

So, in the period 2001 to 2006, while the population and the economy grew, the number of legal practitioners actually fell from 3,524 to 3,476. More worryingly, most of those leaving were young lawyers. So, far from growing in numbers, like the rest of the general population, lawyers were not replacing themselves. Recently, we have further relaxed the rules. Now, graduates from the selected universities who meet a lower academic standard will qualify, provided they have engaged in work of a legal nature for at least three years. Sir, these changes are welcomed but we need more immediate measures.

Currently, law firms are finding it extremely difficult to recruit. Big firms are seeing high turnover despite paying record salaries. Many medium and small law firms do not even receive applications. Some cannot even find pupils. The situation will be aggravated when we open our doors to foreign law firms to practise Singapore law. It will not just be the private practices that are affected, the drain will affect the Legal Service as well. Ultimately, those who remain will face even greater stress and longer working hours. I suggest we do away with these qualifying criteria. The many exceptions and qualifications have made them too cumbersome. Besides, to use a person's academic results to determine his ability to practise is a blunt and sometimes unfair instrument. There are many good lawyers now in private practice who may not have qualified under the current criteria. Others have spent enormous resources getting a degree but cannot realise their dreams of becoming a lawyer.

These criteria can also be counted as intuitive. It may make more sense for a person to go to an Australian university of a slightly lower standing to ensure he gets into a top 30% instead of a top-notch university where he faces more

Column: 1064

competition. In that event, how are we better off?

Madam, if the quality of lawyers is a concern, we should have better control of the admission criteria. Why rely on foreign university to determine who gets in and who does not? We can do that by a simple mechanism of setting appropriate standards for our Practical Law Course. The PLC focuses on matters more practical and relevant to the practices of law. Its examinations can be the sole gatekeeper and be set at a standard which separates the wheat from the chaff. Those who have the quality should have no concern. This will also be a second chance for those who did not do well enough in the university examinations. And we can also do away with the Diploma in Singapore Law (Dip Sing) Course at the same time. By this simple mechanism, we will be able to address the issue of supply and quality more directly and immediately.

This is not a unique proposition. The New York Bar examinations are well known for its high standards, the failure rate is high and they make no apologies for that. It is, therefore, no coincidence that passing the New York Bar is seen in the US and in many parts of the world as the gold standard for US lawyers. There is no reason why our local Bar examinations cannot be a standard bearer for quality as well, not just in Singapore but for Asia. At the time when we are trying to promote our legal services and the use of Singapore lawyers globally, this mark of quality will be an advantage.

Review of Criminal Procedure

Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, there are two best practices from developed countries which I believe should be adopted to strengthen our criminal justice system. The first is the video recording of statements and confessions taken by Police from accused persons. This

Column: 1065

practice is in place in Australian states, the UK and several states in the US. Having video recording has proven to be good for both the prosecution as well as the defence. For the prosecution, it protects police officers from groundless accusations that they mistreated the suspect or did not accurately record what the suspect said.

Video recording in other countries was found to have saved lots of Police and court time as more accused persons decided to plead guilty after watching the video recordings. For the defence, video recording helped to ensure that there was no mistreatment of the accused during the statement recording and that the record accurately reflected what the accused said. The technology for video recording is now relatively accessible and inexpensive. If adopted, this practice will encourage all to maintain high standards in law enforcement.

Madam, the second aspect is that the Ministry should provide a legal framework for comprehensive pre-trial disclosure of evidence. The issue is one of fairness. Currently, our Criminal Procedure Code already puts an obligation on the suspect to disclose his defence early when he is under investigation and he is warned that if he does not disclose it, the Court is less likely to believe him. The prosecution should likewise disclose early what evidence it has, whether it intends to use the material or not. Such disclosure is required in countries including the UK, Hong Kong and Australia. As for Singapore, whether one gets to see the evidence early, currently depends on the prosecution's discretion.

As former High Court Judicial Commissioner, Amarjeet Singh, noted in a 2005 article, "This is too important to be left to chance and a statutory framework should be enacted for early and comprehensive pre-trial discovery."

Column: 1066

Developing Local International Law Enterprise

5.30 pm

Prof. Thio Li-ann (Nominated Member): Madam, the international law has been seen as a faraway, mysterious institution, an unessential boutique subject. As an international law professor, I have borne collegial jibes of teaching "international non-law", in the face of realpolitik.

However, international law is part of our law; not an alien thing. The public saw its relevance in our dispute with Malaysia over Pedra Branca. While neither panacea nor myth, international law is one tool for forging a saner international order, through inter-state cooperation.

Government lawyers advise on international law issues relating to the UN, APEC or our many FTAs. As we sign more international instruments, we could be involved in more related disputes. The apparent trend is: Singapore will be increasingly engaged in international law matters. How does the Minister see the place of international law within our legal infrastructure? Are there sufficient local lawyers to handle international law matters?

A superficial comparison shows that Malaysia's International Affairs Department has 50 federal counsels, while Singapore has 15. Apparently, our FTA activity exceeds Malaysia's. Are sufficient resources allocated to supply enough advisors for periodic FTA reviews?

Today, an elite Euro-American tribe of international lawyers monopolise litigation and arbitration. In the long term, we must avoid over-reliance on expensive foreign counsel.

Column: 1067

Originally, international law was Euro-centric, serving the colonial agenda; in today's plural world, it must serve the interests of all, not the few. As a clear majority in multilateral forums like the UN, small states have a voice in shaping a just international order. Singapore must have her piece of the pie. We do not presume to spread a Lex Singapura ; only to defend our sovereign interests.

Distinguished Singapore lawyers were involved in matters like drafting UNCLOS. However, we need to develop a new generation of international lawyers – who knows, one day a Singaporean might sit on the World Court or International Law Commission.

How can we best channel resources to develop local international law expertise? I raise a few points for the Minister to consider. First, IAD officers may be better placed to cultivate specialist knowledge by being assigned to divisions handling specific issues, like trade or boundaries.

Second, international legal information could be made more accessible, promoting transparency. Like legislation, treaties concluded with other states could be made available online for free, through a regularly updated database.

Third, we should promote continuing international legal education. The Law Society now has an International Law Committee, demonstrating growing interest within the profession. Aside from holding expert seminars, international lawyers could be trained by facilitating internships in international organisations.

Fourth, academia has a role to play; subjects like banking law are affected by international anti-terrorist measures; legal education is thus deficient, without some international law knowledge. Today, our

Column: 1068

law schools offer a menu of specialist international law subjects.

Symbiotic linkages between practitioners and academics could be explored, to ensure that practical and aspirational mindsets engage. IAD could conduct student workshops on topics like obstacles in negotiating FTAs, providing real world insight and career inspiration.

Lastly, to broaden our perspectives as global citizens in a global city with a global hinterland, the IAD could promote public outreach by providing basic international law information on its website, such as what treaties are, and how treaties serve the national interest.

Community Legal Clinics

Dr Teo Ho Pin: Madam, since the opening of the pilot Community Legal Clinics at North West and South East CDCs in 2007, more than 1,100 residents have sought legal advice on many personal issues. This clearly shows the need for such free legal advice at the community. Many residents cannot afford to engage a lawyer to represent them for matters such as divorce, personal protection, claims or dispute settlements. As a result, many have not resolved their problems and are suffering in silence.

Providing accessible and affordable legal advice and information is instrumental to exercising human rights. Very often, the lower income or working class people are at a disadvantage when faced with legal issues. Many have been conned into purchasing dubious consumer products or services, property transactions, investments, renovation works or involved in family and neighbour disputes. Without proper legal advice, most of them do not know how to exercise their rights and take legal action to safeguard their interests and also to eradicate these conmen or dubious companies from operating in Singapore.

Column: 1069

Madam, we need to provide more protection to the vulnerables in our society, especially the elderly, children and the ill-informed. More public education programmes on legal rights should be conducted to protect these vulnerables so as to prevent them from being abused or cheated. I would urge the Ministry to identify common legal issues faced by Singaporeans and take preventive measures to prevent the re-occurrences of such problems.

Madam, I wish to ask the Ministry the following questions: (1) What are the Ministry's plan to expand the Community Legal Clinics to provide pro bono legal services for Singaporeans, especially the heartlanders? (2) What is the profile of cases handled at the Community Legal Clinics at North West and South East CDCs; and (3) What are the public education programmes conducted by the Ministry?

Legal Aid Bureau

Mr Michael Palmer (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Madam, I echo Dr Teo Ho Pin's views. The gap between those eligible for legal aid and those that can afford private legal representation in court is widening considerably. The legal clinics run by the Law Society are well patronised. The problem is that the lawyers at these clinics can only advise the people they see but cannot represent them in court.

Legal costs continue to rise. An uncontested divorce costs about $3,000. The total cost of a divorce and ancillary matters can exceed $10,000.

Legal aid cases can be generally divided into two categories. The first concerns all types of monetary claims. The second category includes matrimonial proceedings, adoption, accident claims, claims for outstanding salary and probate matters. The cases in the second category are usually unavoidable.

Column:1070

While I realise the means test was only reviewed last year, I propose having different means test for different types of cases. For example, where cases concern the second category, the means test can allow for higher limits, particularly where disposable capital is concerned. $10,000 in disposable capital can be the total cost of a divorce. Where monetary claims are concerned, eg, a claim for a debt, lower limits may be imposed.

May I also ask the Minister to clarify the scope of the discretion exercised by the Director of Legal Aid where an applicant does not satisfy the means test and the types of situations where such discretion will be exercised in favour of the applicant?

The Chairman: Mr Masagos, you may like to take both your cuts together.

Effectiveness of Community Mediation Centres

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Madam, the Community Mediation Centres (CMCs) have been in existence for about 10 years now. They deal with disputes which are more relational in nature, including between family members, neighbours and even among friends. As long as they are not legal or commercial in nature, CMCs will deal with disputes when both parties agree to attend them voluntarily or when referred to, say, by the court, Police or an MP.

Unless the parties are referred by the courts, neither party is obliged by law to attend a CMC session. In this instance, I believe there is an implementation issue. While the agreement, when signed, states specifically its binding nature, ensuring compliance to what was agreed has proven onerous, especially when one or both parties have not entered into agreement in good faith.

Column: 1071

There must have been many disputes that have been carrying on for so long that both parties must have felt aggrieved enough to need a third party to mediate. I believe, therefore, that the CMC is a good initiative that will enable disputing parties to avoid the long legal and costly route and a mechanism that allows a third party to objectively mediate the parties.

Like many hon. Members, I have encountered neighbourhood disputes that have gone through the CMC process but have not resolved itself. Residents continue to come to the meet-the-people sessions (MPS) to complain about their neighbour, despite having agreed to take active steps to minimise or resolve their differences at the CMC. Often, their squabbles inconvenience their other neighbours or continue to bear on the town council staff and the Police to intervene. Some of my grassroots members even express their scepticism of the institution because of cases like this.

I hope this represents the minority of the successful cases handled by the CMC. It has however prompted me to ask the Minister the following: (1) How many cases have the CMC handled so far and are there indicators to show that they have become more accepted as the preferred means to resolve non-legal disputes? (2) How effective has the CMC been in handling these disputes? How does the CMC measure effectiveness? (3) After 10 years, is it timely that the Ministry review the CMC and its processes vis-a-vis its effectiveness, the need to compel attendance, mechanisms to ensure compliance to agreed resolutions, the need to involve grassroots or third parties to follow up and counsel or oversee resolution after agreement has been signed at CMC session?

Column: 1072

State Land

Madam, there are a number of plots of land with a sign that says, "State Land. No Trespassing" or "No Dumping". Many residents in the past look forebodingly at these plots left empty, reserved for so many years without any known plan of use by the general public.

I understand the Singapore Land Authority, or SLA, has embarked for some time now on allocating some of these land plots for non-permanent community oriented purposes. So in Tampines today, there are signs that say, "STATE LAND. This Site is for recreational use. Please exercise caution and be responsible for your own safety."

May I ask the Ministry how much of these land and properties have been released for such use? What forms of use have been allowed by SLA and how well have they been utilised?

Is it possible for SLA to allow a mechanism for a more proactive demand-initiated request for designated State land or property to be developed appropriately by social enterprises for community use?

Will the SLA allow social enterprises or commercial ones to develop, operate and maintain large tracts of undeveloped State land for large scale development for purposes that are non-profit and for the public to use at very affordable fees? There could be many developments that will not require large infrastructure builds that could be suitable for temporary use, namely, perhaps lawn bowling club, wood ball course, an adventure trail or even golf course for the public.

In Sydney, for example, where I lived for three years, there were many no-frills and open-to-public walking-golf courses

Column: 1073

which offered good exercise and recreation for students and children, housewives and the retired. There were also parks that had facilities donated as a symbol of responsible corporate citizenship dedicated to youths and young children.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law (Prof. S Jayakumar): Madam, I thank the Members who have spoken. They have raised several issues. I will respond to the comments made on legal services sector and the Report of the Committee headed by Justice V K Rajah, which includes the points raised by Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mr Alvin Yeo, Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Christopher de Souza. I will also touch on the points raised by Prof. Thio Li-ann. My colleague, the Senior Minister of State, Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee, will respond to the other questions.

First, Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mr Alvin Yeo made some broad comments on the Report of the Committee, chaired by Justice V K Rajah. In responding to the suggestions and comments that they made, may I recapitulate why we accepted the recommendations of that Committee. We did so because we considered that it was in our national interest to do so. And why is it in our national interest to do so? Mainly because of three important reasons. The first is that it will help meet the needs and demands of our economy which has become more diversified and broad-based. As more and more international companies establish their presence in Singapore, the demand for corporate legal services in Singapore has continued to grow. In fact, our financial institutions, and even MAS, have fed back to us the need for increased legal services.

The second reason is because of the changing nature of the global legal landscape. Globalisation has led to an exponential increase and change in the volume and the types of international

Column: 1074

cross-border legal work, spearheaded largely by the rise of China and India. So we need to seize the opportunities and position ourselves as a centre for legal services to benefit from these changes. As a focal point between India and China, as well as Europe and US, we are a convenient locale for legal services, including international arbitration.

The third reason concerns attracting talent and keeping our own talent. We have to remain attractive for foreign talent and also ensure that we do not lose the cream of our own talent. By liberalising, our legal services, we think, will be enhanced

and be better able to attract legal talent around the world. We have to remain attractive for our own legal talent because, as the Members who have spoken and who are in the legal sector know, quite a number of our legal talent have been lost because they prefer to work in international firms abroad. By liberalising, we offer them the same work opportunities and work exposure which will be available in global cities elsewhere.

5.45 pm

Dr Teo Ho Pin has asked about our key performance indicators. We will measure ourselves by how well we have achieved our objectives. Of course, this is not easy to do, because some aspects may be measurable and some not. For example, in 2007, our legal sector contribution stood at 0.5% of our GDP. I think we can do better than this. But, of course, growth is always subject to vagaries of the general economic situation. We will regularly monitor feedback from the key economic sectors on how well our legal sector is or is not able to support the development of these sectors. In short, we will look at a combination of quantitative as well as qualitative indicators.

How will we implement the Report? We have three Implementation Sub-

Column: 1075

Committees: the first, concerning the liberalisation of the legal services sector; the second, on legal education and professional training; and third, recommendations concerning the legal profession. They will look into the details of the implementation and, where necessary, propose amendments to the legislation, especially the Legal Profession Act. Some may not require legislation in order to implement. We hope to have the legislation ready sometime later this year.

We will be implementing two new schemes: the Enhanced Joint Law Venture (EJLV) scheme and the Qualifying Foreign Law Firm (QFLF) scheme mentioned by Mr Alvin Yeo. The EJLV scheme will be available in the second half of this year, once our legislation has been amended.

To offer greater breadth and scope of legal services, we will award five QFLF licences by the end of this year through a Request for Proposals process. Some time will be needed, of course, to consult properly with various stakeholders, such as the legal profession as well as the industry; to put the necessary legislation in place; we need time to call for tenders, examine the various tenders and conduct the necessary interviews.

Mr Alvin Yeo made several suggestions, for example, that the EJLV scheme be targeted at the very large international firms, and the QFLF be aimed at those firms whose main objectives are to follow their clients to Singapore rather than to compete for local and regional clients.

The Joint Law Ventures scheme has always been a priority for us, since its commencement in 2000. Some have been successful. On the other hand, many foreign law firms have told us that they do not wish to participate in the joint

Column: 1076

ventures. They prefer autonomy and independence of action. But joint ventures are an excellent way for local firms to upgrade and acquire new skills. That is why, when we announced the EJLV scheme in December recently, we decided to go a step further than the recommendation in the Report. Potential joint venture parties may, in fact, propose to the Law Minister and the Attorney-General for permission to shape their EJLV scheme in a way that they prefer, to broker better arrangements for themselves to prosper in the long term. We may be prepared to consider it. I think the local law firms have a key role to negotiate with and offer an attractive enough deal for the international foreign law firms to forge a fruitful win-win partnership.

We have yet to firm up the details of the QFLF scheme. But I want to emphasise that the structure will be based on an assessment of what would bring the greatest benefits to Singapore in terms of supporting the needs and demands of our economy - that is why I said the national interest is paramount - and in terms of positioning ourselves to benefit from the tremendous growth in international and cross-border work, and the need to attract and retain top talent in Singapore.

We will look at the details of the proposals, but some of the things which we will look at are whether they will increase offshore law work from the region, whether they will increase the legal expertise and transactional skills of Singapore lawyers, especially in areas such as private banking, intellectual property and corporate law, and whether these foreign law firms will promote the use of Singapore law in international transactions - just to give Members an indication.

After the schemes come into operation, we will review them in 18 to 24 months' time with a view to further

Column: 1077

liberalisation at that time. It is, therefore, a calibrated approach – only five firms initially – and several areas of law practice will be ring-fenced. Because it is a calibrated approach and the changes will be gradual, I expect our Singapore law firms will be able to rise to the challenges and competition, and I think, in the longer term, they will be stronger for it.

Sir, Dr Teo Ho Pin asks for the measures to increase the supply of lawyers. Actually, the Government has put in place several measures. These include the recommendations in August 2006 from the Third Committee on the Supply of Lawyers chaired by the former Attorney-General Mr Chan Sek Keong, such as setting up the second law school, increasing the intake of students for the NUS Law Faculty, allowing Singaporeans and PRs who graduated from recognised overseas law schools with Second-Lower degrees to practise law upon fulfilling certain conditions, and enabling Singapore law firms to recruit outstanding lawyers from abroad under a special scheme to practise limited Singapore law. We also have the recent broad ranging recommendations in Justice V K Rajah's Committee Report.

The Singapore Management University School of Law has been set up. It has taken off with an intake of 120 students. This, together with the increased intake for the NUS Law Faculty from 220 to 250, will result in an almost 70% increase in the number of law graduates in two to three years' time. So, to the question whether we should set up another law school, I would say, let us see how this develops because the decision to set up another law school would be premature at this stage.

Mr Hri Kumar has asked for more immediate measures to address the current shortages. He was comparing the various steps to our family planning

Column: 1078

population. But I will ask him to look at it in a different way. The fact that we took incremental steps shows that we were attuned to the changing needs of the marketplace and we made adjustments whenever it was necessary. Yes, while we may need more lawyers, I would like to stress that it cannot be at the expense of quality. The 1993 controls have ensured that we have a sound crop of lawyers in this generation. We need to continue to maintain high standards in the admission of lawyers to the Singapore Bar as we adapt to the changing needs of our economy. Mr Hri Kumar makes a fair point. I agree that we must not be too rigid to the extent of denying ourselves exceptional candidates who ought to be admitted to the Singapore Bar, given the need for more numbers of lawyers. As he knows, we introduced the Second-Lower Scheme less than two years ago where we will give consideration to Second-Lower graduates and, under that scheme, we have seen a total of 18 applicants who have applied, 14 of whom were admitted last year. Justice V K Rajah's Committee has recommended shortening the three years' required work experience and we are prepared to consider that. With that change, we anticipate a larger number of entrants to the Bar through this method.

Going further, the Ministry of Law has also reviewed our exemption policy. Under our current policy, we only recognise law degrees from scheduled universities of UK, Australia, New Zealand and USA. They must be on a full-time basis and must have attained a certain standard in their degree. MinLaw has reviewed this issue and, together with the Board of Legal Education and the Attorney-General's Chambers, we agreed that there is a further need to review how our current policy could be fine-tuned even further so as to maintain our high standards and not exclude deserving candidates.

Column: 1079

The consensus is that we can treat such candidates in the same way as Singaporean graduates who have come home with Second-Lower degrees from scheduled universities. With the same proven work record, the Board of Legal Education may interview outstanding candidates, and we are prepared to consider them for admission to the Singapore Bar under the various exemption schemes.

Let me also highlight that the local law firms should take advantage of the special scheme under the Rules and the Legal Profession Act, which allows foreign lawyers who have worked for a local firm for one year practising offshore work, to then practise Singapore law in prescribed areas, such as banking, finance, corporate and other areas of legal or regional work, after passing a qualifying examination administered by the Board of Legal Education. There is an examination scheduled to take place this June.

So, to sum up, we have had many changes to enhance talent within the legal industry. Let us see how these changes work, and refine it as we go along.

Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Hri Kumar talked about the various requirements, including the Diploma in Singapore Law course (DipSing), and Mr Hri Kumar talked about the bar examination. I shall give consideration with the Attorney-General's Chambers to their suggestions, ie, what they said about the Practice Law Course, the DipSing, and the idea of a local bar examination. I am not able, of course, today to give a firm indication of what the changes will be. But let me say that Solicitor-General Walter Woon is heading the Committee which will implement the recommendations concerning matters affecting the Vocational Training Course and the whole area of professional

Column: 1080

training. Many operational details are involved in this exercise, and a comprehensive and holistic approach will be taken by Mr Walter Woon's Committee.

On Mr Hri Kumar's proposal for a bar examination, this was in fact envisaged by Justice V K Rajah's Committee, which said: "The Committee believes that, eventually, it will become necessary to impose a second gatekeeper to entry into the law profession as the number of law graduates increase." I also highlighted this long-term goal when I announced the Government's acceptance of the Report last December. Now that we have two law schools, and many routes of entry – scheduled universities, Australian universities, and so on – and more of our students are coming from these universities from abroad, I think this will be a sensible direction to go in the longer term.

For now, since we are restructuring pupillage, rethinking the Board of Legal Education's structure, bringing in Vocational Training Contracts, and so on, let us get these changes in place first, and we will be better placed to move in that direction later.

Dr Teo Ho Pin talked about the conduct of lawyers and the mechanisms for promoting professionalism. Dr Teo must have had in mind the recent publicity over a few high profile cases of misconduct. The Solicitors' Accounts Rules were significantly tightened in 2007 by the Law Society. The question one may ask is whether the new cases actually exploited loopholes in the amended rules. Of course, our rules must be practical, workable and at the same time adequate. The Chief Justice has pointed out at the Opening of the Legal Year that one option may be to completely bar lawyers from holding clients' monies. At the same time, he noted that such a change would radically

Column: 1081

alter a conveyancing system which may have a serious effect on the efficiency of the property market and, therefore, this requires careful thought and he has appointed a Judge of Appeal, Justice V K Rajah, to head a working committee to look into this matter and consult various stakeholders, and to consider the desirability and feasibility of introducing this or any other schemes to deal with such problems. He has given him three to five months to study the problem and make recommendations. Let us wait for the recommendations of this Committee.

6.00 pm

I should also say apropos the discipline of lawyers,

that it will be enhanced by some changes which have been proposed by Justice V K Rajah's Report. There will be firm adherence to stipulated timelines at every step of the disciplinary process. The current four-member Disciplinary Committee will be reduced to a one-man Disciplinary Tribunal. That tribunal will consist of a Senior Counsel, retired Judge or Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court appointed by the Chief Justice. I think all these changes are designed to cut delays and ensure a more effective disciplinary process for lawyers.

Let me finally touch on Prof. Thio Li-ann's points about developing international law expertise. Basically, she has urged us to pay attention to developing local international law expertise. Let me say that the Government is paying attention to this. I myself have had discussions with the Attorney-General and officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Of course, we do so not because of comparisons with Malaysia, ie, they have so many Federal Counsel and we have so few. For that matter, if we compare the Foreign Service, Malaysia has over 100 overseas diplomatic missions and our

Column: 1082

Foreign Service has only 45. So we are not in a numbers game.

When we pay attention to this issue, it is because of the reasons that she mentioned, ie, that increasingly, there is greater and greater involvement of international law. We have more conferences and forums where our delegations have to be sufficiently familiar with issues of international law so as to effectively participate in those conferences and meetings. And, of course, there are new emerging areas of international law, a good example being climate change.

I should also add, in parenthesis, that we are not developing local international law expertise because otherwise we would have to hire foreign counsel for cases like Pedra Branca. Nearly every country in the world, as far as I know, which has a case before the ICJ or other international tribunal hires foreign counsel, not because of any aspersions on their local lawyers, but for the simple reason that these foreign counsel have appeared before these tribunals regularly and have pleaded before these courts. And, therefore, it is important to use their services. Let me say that, for example, in the Pedra Branca case, much of the legal work, ie, the getting up and the drafting was, in fact, done by the Singapore legal team.

Of course, the International Affairs Division (IAD) in the AG's Chambers is a lean outfit. But let me say that having worked with them over many years on many issues, I can say that they are a very dedicated and competent group, able to address issues of international law of immediate concern to us by prioritising and optimising their resources.

I have spoken to the Attorney-General and he has informed me that IAD will be expanded and given more resources. And also, it will develop its expertise further

Column: 1083

and form pools or clusters of expertise in different areas of international law and practice. And there is a programme to emplace them and work closely with other agencies, especially the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Indeed, a scheme of attachment of IAD officers to MFA was already initiated a few years ago.

On her point about academia, yes, our talent pool is small. We should be prepared to enlist the services of legal luminaries in academia, as well as in the private sector. I know that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are fully supportive of this. I am also glad to say that the Ministries and the statutory boards have also recruited officers who are lawyers, many of whom have background or training in international law. In fact, MFA has some 30 or so foreign service officers who are law graduates.

Finally, let me say that the Law Faculty of NUS, Attorney-General's Chambers and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are working together to set up a Centre for International Law. This Centre will be the focal point of our common efforts to build a hub in international law. Hopefully, it will bring together academics, legal service officers, diplomats and private sector lawyers to leverage on the experience and expertise already available in Singapore. I hope that the teaching and research will not just be wholly theoretical, but will contain a substantial dose of practical experience. We envisage that the Centre will concentrate initially on areas where we have some comparative advantage, like law of the sea, aviation law, international trade law and ASEAN law. This is just an indicative list. We will have more details later on.

The Senior Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Madam, Dr

Column: 1084

Teo Ho Pin, Mr Palmer and Mr Masagos' cuts generally involve the issue of "access to justice". It is to facilitate access to justice that we continually review the legal aid means test and established the Community Legal Clinics (CLCs) and Community Mediation Centres (CMCs).

The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) keeps a close watch on the means test to ensure adequate access to justice to those of limited means. That is why we have amended the test several times, the last one only being in July last year. Arising from this amendment, an applicant with, say, a dependent wife and two children, will now qualify for legal aid if he earns less than $2,600 a month. Before the revision, he had to earn less than $1,900.

Last July, we also gave the Director of Legal Aid greater discretion to help special cases who fail the expanded means test but were deserving of legal aid. Mr Palmer asked under what circumstances. One example is if a person suffers hardship because he suddenly loses his job and requires urgent legal help, the Director now has the option to consider his income for the preceding six months, instead of the past one year. Another example is when a person is afflicted with a sudden physical or mental incapacity.

Mr Palmer suggests that we should apply a different means test for different types of cases. Madam, the means test is a measure of whether a person is in a financial position to obtain legal help on his own. It would not be right to draw a distinction between the different types of action he is faced with. Otherwise, we may end up in an incongruous situation where a person who seeks legal aid for different types of actions, such as a divorce and a commercial claim where he is the defendant, will be provided legal aid for the divorce but not the claim, when he actually requires help for both. To him, both actions may be "unavoidable". This

Column: 1085

would be difficult for the person seeking legal aid to understand, let alone accept.

Doing so also means that we are giving priority to certain types of cases, deeming them as more deserving of help. This is hard to justify. The principle ought to be to ensure that there is access to justice to deserving individuals, based on the means test and the merits test, regardless of the nature of their cases. We see no compelling reasons to move away from this approach which has served us well all these years.

Mr Palmer mentioned the high cost of divorce cases. I have actually responded to this by setting up a Family Relations Chambers in 2006 to help estranged couples, at no cost, to resolve their disputes in a non-adversarial setting. The resolution rate at 88% has been encouraging. This process helps the parties to arrive at a global resolution of the divorce and ancillary matters. When they go for uncontested divorce before the Family Court, I believe that party-to-party costs are capped between $1,500 and $1,800, thus making it more affordable.

Let me now touch on the CLCs. To provide greater access to justice and inform Singaporeans of what the law is, we now have the CLCs. At last year's COS, we announced we will launch two Community Legal Clinics to provide an avenue for members of the public to obtain basic legal advice. In September, two such Clinics started operating in North-West and South-East CDCs. MinLaw is happy to partner the Law Society, Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) and the CDCs. I thank Mayor Teo and Mayor Yao for their support.

The Clinics are doing well. Public response has been good. Over the last five months, volunteer lawyers at the clinics have helped more than 850 people.

Column: 1086

As for the profile of cases handled at the CLCs, matters include claims and personal loans, family matters such as divorce and separation as well as employment matters. Mr Palmer notes that lawyers at the CLCs can only advise the people they see, but cannot represent them in court. This is why the CLCs have established a system where they will inform parties whom they think are eligible for legal aid about what is available at the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) and help them to file their claims. In addition, some are referred to the Family Service Centres or the Law Society for follow-up action.

I must say that the response from the law firms has been good. Seventeen of the largest firms have come on-board. Altogether, about 200 lawyers, including some Senior Counsel, are doing this, including some from Mr Palmer's firm and also firms of other Members who are here, and also involving some of the students from SMU and NUS.

Dr Teo asked about the Ministry's plans to expand the CLC programme to cater especially for heartlanders. In fact, the two CLCs are already reaching out to all Singaporeans wherever they live. Users come not just from the two CDCs involved, but I believe that 60% of the users actually come from the rest of Singapore. So, we will continue to monitor the situation and expand if the need arises.

I agree with Dr Teo that there is a need for the public to know more about the law. This is being done through the CLCs. When they come, in fact, they are also informed about the law, their rights and obligations, but I think more can be done and I believe that more is being done, both by Government as well as by private sector bodies. So, for example, I know the Law Society has been actively organising a bi-annual Law Awareness Week. This is a very good outreach on

Column: 1087

the ground, reaching out to Singaporeans. Last year's topics were very topical: gambling, consumer credit, family charter, and employment. DPM and I have been helping them when we can, either with advice or with our presence at these functions. And books are also available: _"You & the Law" _ by the Singapore Association of Women Lawyers (SAWL). The Consumer Association of Singapore has also put out this information on their website.

I agree, however, that more can be done. Indeed, especially the more vulnerable Singaporeans should be apprised of what they can do, where they can turn to, should they need help.

On CMCs which Mr Masagos talked about, MinLaw set these up about 10 years ago to promote community mediation as a flexible, cost-effective and a conciliatory means for Singaporeans to resolve social, community and family conflicts outside the adversarial court system, thereby also avoiding legal cost. All these form a matrix of measures put in place so that those who need legal help, short of going to the Court, at least there are other processes where they can turn to first, which are cost-effective. And I am happy to say that largely, the CMCs have achieved this role.

How effective is it? Ten years on, the CMC has dealt with more than 3,400 community disputes with an overall success rate of 75%. It handled 534 cases last year, compared to 120 in 1998 when it first started. As importantly, in terms of effectiveness, it is not just the cases that are settled, but getting the parties to come and talk about it face-to-face, I think that is also a measure of effectiveness because it helps parties understand each other better.

Column: 1088

Is there a need to amend the law to compel attendance and ensure compliance with mediated agreements? In fact, we have been studying this issue carefully. Essentially, it is a question of how far, as a matter of policy, the State should be involved in getting Singaporeans to resolve their social and community conflicts through mediation.

Our current approach is to distinguish between cases that have escalated to the courts and those which have not. In the first situation, the courts can require the parties to go for mediation. For cases that have not reached the courts, we keep mediation voluntary rather than make it mandatory from the outset. To complement this, we have strengthened the voluntary framework to ensure that more cases are appropriately channelled to mediation, for example, through advice given by the Police or by having grassroots leaders, under a Persuaders' Scheme, to visit the parties and encourage them to go for mediation. I will consider Mr Masagos' suggestion to involve these grassroots leaders also in helping the parties keep the peace pursuant to the mediated agreements.

The question is: should we make mediation mandatory once an application has been filed at the CMC, ie, pre-court? Like I have said, mediation is essentially a voluntary process. But having thought about it, I am prepared to consider the option of introducing some pressure on the party who is invited to attend a mediation session by the CMC. We will explore the possibility of, for example, inserting a provision that allows a Magistrate to take cognisance of a party's earlier refusal to attend mediation at the CMC as a factor in assessing the reasonableness of the parties' actions and in determining how to deal with the Complaint, should a Magistrate's Complaint be lodged subsequently.

This may incentivise the parties to at least

Column: 1089

come for mediation and give the process a boost.

6.15 pm

On whether there is a need to amend the law to strengthen compliance by parties to their mediated agreements, I do not think this is necessary. A settlement arrived at by the parties at a CMC mediation session is already binding on them and enforceable in civil courts as a contractual agreement if it is written down, signed by all the parties, and the document itself contains a statement specifying its binding nature.

Madam, now, to the next series of cuts which is on CPC. Every country has to find the right balance in its criminal procedures and investigation processes between enhancing the public interest in solving crimes expeditiously and protecting the rights of the accused person. This is especially so in the realm of criminal law which reflects society's norms. So, to Dr Teo Ho Pin who asks how our Criminal Procedure Code or "CPC" compares with other jurisdictions in terms of transparency and protection of individual rights, my response is that, on the whole, our criminal laws and processes have worked well for us.

This is why Singapore scores highly in international polls for "legal framework" and "safety and security". Singaporeans also have confidence in our courts, prosecution and enforcement agencies.

Even though our system is generally working well, as in all things, we fine-tune its features, where necessary. This is why, for the first time in 40 years, the CPC is undergoing a comprehensive review. Dr Teo and Mr Christopher de Souza asked how the review is coming along. We are targeting to move the amending Bill in Parliament later this year. Areas reviewed include matters such as the pre-trial discovery process, bail

Column: 1090

procedures, composition of offences, the jurisdiction of the courts and powers of the appellate courts. As the CPC is an important piece of legislation with more than 400 sections, we want to be as thorough as possible in reviewing it.

I assure Mr Christopher de Souza that just as we gave a lot of thought and resources to the Penal Code amendments, we will give as much to the CPC. He is right that a good Penal Code needs a good procedure framework to back it up. When the amendments are ready, we will consult key stakeholders such as the Law Society and the Courts, and we will also consult the GPC.

Let me now address the specific points made by Members.

Dr Teo, Mr Alvin Yeo and Ms Sylvia Lim refer to the pre-trial discovery process. Actually, as lawyers know, there are already existing procedures to facilitate disclosure. But we intend to refine the process. We are still finalising the details, but, generally, we are looking at formalising a statutory framework where the prosecution will formally inform the defence of its case against the accused person. For now, our thinking is that this will include matters such as the list of witnesses, a list of exhibits relevant to the facts in support of the charge and the accused person's statements to be adduced by the prosecution, amongst other things. Then, as per current practice, there will be mutual disclosure as the defence will be required to indicate, amongst other things, its challenges to the prosecution's case. Thereafter, the prosecution will serve on the defence all relevant statements made by the accused person. This process will facilitate the crystallisation of the material issues before the trial commences. I believe that this statutory framework will inject greater transparency into the process to improve it.

Column: 1091

Now, on the point of access to counsel, Mr Yeo argues that accused persons should have earlier access to counsel. We have debated this issue in the House before.

Currently, the CPC already provides a safeguard because it requires every accused person to be brought before a Magistrate without unreasonable delay and, in any event, within 48 hours of his arrest. If Police wants to remand an accused person longer than 48 hours, it has to make out a case to the Court which will make a ruling based on the information and facts before it.

Police applies the guiding principle that an accused person should be allowed to consult counsel within a reasonable time and as soon as practicable. Further, there is in place a robust monitoring system to ensure that investigations are completed expeditiously so that remand would not be applied for unnecessarily.

Police has conducted a study that shows that more than 90% of the persons arrested were released within 48 hours of arrest, and would have been able to consult legal counsel thereafter. So, in fact, the vast majority of arrested persons have early access to counsel as only 1% of all such persons were remanded beyond a week, well within the one to two weeks mentioned by Mr Yeo. This 1% involved more complex cases such as murder which require extensive investigations. Let me assure the House that Police only applies for remand when absolutely necessary. Indeed, there have been instances when Police applied to the Court for accused persons to be brought back to the Court for an earlier mention date when investigations were completed before the end of the remand period.

Mr Yeo mentioned remanding an accused person for months without

Column: 1092

access to counsel. I think he says this so that I can correct the misperception, perhaps held by laymen on the ground that this is so. Because this is not the case. Remand for the purposes of investigation is not equivalent to keeping the accused in custody. An accused person may be in prison for a period before trial due to other reasons such as the failure to furnish bail, or he may be in remand for psychiatric examination at IMH. Under these circumstances, I would expect that he would have access to counsel already.

Heeding calls for Police to grant earlier access to counsel, Police initiated a pilot in March 2006, to refine its internal processes. In August last year, a procedure was then formalised where remanded accused persons can meet their lawyers earlier, ie, towards the end of the one-week remand period, on condition that the accused person did not discuss the case with his lawyer. So this approach strikes a balance between allowing counsel an opportunity to meet his client and upholding the principle that there should be no interference with Police investigations. The Law Society has been informed of this formalised process. The point, therefore, is that Police has moved on this.

Now, the next topic, recording of statements. Ms Lim advocates the videotaping of police interviews of suspect persons.

First of all, I reiterate my point that especially for criminal law and processes, we must find our own path - strike the right balance between protection of the public interest and protection of the rights of accused persons. So what may work in the US, I am sure many Singaporeans will say, please do not import it here. And also in other countries, videotaping has been introduced for different reasons, one of which is loss of public confidence in the police. In UK, there were the Birmingham

Column: 1093

6 and Guildford 4 cases which led to the introduction of videotaping. So too in Australia, with the Justice Woods' Commission of Inquiry in New South Wales.

The reason often cited for videotaping of police interviews is to guard against Police abuse. A key point, however, is that videotaping the interview is not a foolproof solution if the concern is that confessions made by accused persons may not be voluntary. This is because he can allege that the threat was made, or that the inducement or promise was held out to him before the tape, if it is audio recording, or the video recorder was turned on. So the use of videotaping may actually make it even harder to disprove such allegations as they lend a veneer of respectability to the process.

To put things in perspective, an accused person's confession statement, if any, is only one component of a range of evidence that the Police will usually adduce to prove its case. In addition, as Ms Lim knows, we have an established process called the " voir dire " or "trial within a trial" where the Trial Judge will review the evidence to assess if a confession statement was made voluntarily, or was made as a result of an "inducement, threat or promise". And, indeed, with this safeguard in place, there have been instances when confession statements have been thrown out.

So the crux of the matter lies in whether Singaporeans have trust and confidence in our legal system and our Police Force. On both counts, this is the case. Our criminal justice system is reputed for its clean administration, impartiality and efficiency, and the public has trust and confidence in our Police Force.

So taken as a whole, I would say that there is no need to implement videotaping of police interviews. Ultimately, the

Column: 1094

bottom-line is for the suspect to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". He should do so even without any videotaping.

The last cut is on land, by Mr Masagos. Let me say that SLA has done much to open up the use of State land for community purposes, in part also because of prompting by Members in this House every year at COS. So, 284 parcels of vacant State land are now open to the public, free of charge, for casual community and recreational activities, a substantial increase from the 153 sites when this initiative was launched in 2003. I think many of these lands are in Members' constituencies. Activities on these lands include soccer and kite-flying. Over the past year, SLA has levelled and improved the condition of these lands.

The signs on these lands, as Mr Masagos has mentioned, have actually evolved from "No Trespassing" – which is very foreboding – to "Enter at Your Own Risk" – still quite unfriendly to some people. So feedback came to me and to MinLaw and now we have replaced the "Enter at Your Own Risk" signs with friendlier signs that basically say you can come but when you use the field, be careful, because it is not entirely safe for all sorts of activities, it is not a perfect field, it has been improved, but be careful. Actually, SLA went the extra mile because they also made the field more level by compacting it. So they have done that. In fact, the public can just go there, it is for casual use and there is no need to book. They can go there for their weekend soccer, kite-flying, and it is on SLA's website as to where the fields are.

SLA also issues licences to grassroots organisations, at subsidised rates, for their constituents to use State lands. 131 such lands are in use as football fields, street-soccer pitches, and so forth. Another initiative launched last year was where private and public sector organisations

Column: 1095

actually come on board and adopt the field. I think Mr Masagos' point is to involve the private sector organisations. So, if the field is next to your company's premises, your workers use it after work, adopt it. But, of course, it is not exclusive but you take care of it, so that there is some sense of stakeholding and togetherness in this. And the FAS went off the block early by doing it for Farrer Park.

On Mr Masagos' suggestion to accommodate greater private sector participation, SLA welcomes proposals from commercial organisations interested in partnering non-profit organisations and Government agencies to use State land and buildings for social and recreational purposes with the support of a champion Ministry. This is similar to SLA's rental of State buildings directly to voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and private entities for social uses, on the request of supporting Ministries. Indeed, currently there are 54 State properties being used in this way, the number having grown considerably since the 1990s.

We have received positive feedback on these measures. SLA tells me that they will continue to be proactive and make available more State land and premises for community use.

The Chairman: We still have some available time for clarifications. Do any of the Members wish to seek clarifications? Ms Ellen Lee.

Ms Ellen Lee: Madam, can I just put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister? We are talking about the supply of lawyers and inevitably much resources would possibly be allocated into training lawyers and providing for more lawyers. In the course of their career, they would also be turned into judges as well. So I was wondering whether there are plans

Column: 1096

for the Ministry to consider training judges, in a sense, because I think we have a large pool of judges in the Subordinate Courts and sometimes there would have been some remarks being made as to the disposition of judges or that they may lack certain qualifications. And in contrast with the appointment of High Court Judges, they are drawn from the profession and usually the top lawyers get drawn in. In order to make sure that we do become a legal hub and uphold the high quality of the judiciary, perhaps something could be done to improve the training and the qualifications of the judges, particularly when they are the ones who are in the frontline with the public.

Prof. Jayakumar: I would appreciate it if she were to give me some specifics of the negative feedback. But the general feedback I have had about our judiciary, both of the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts, has been nothing but positive. If there is feedback of specific instances, then, of course, I will channel it to the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice who are in the Legal Services Commission, which in turn has oversight over all aspects of the legal service, including the appointment of Subordinate Courts judiciary.

The Chairman: Are there any further clarifications? Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, some clarifications for the Senior Minister of State. Firstly, on the issue of pre-trial discovery. I know the Ministry is working on

a framework. I wonder if the Senior Minister of State could clarify, in terms of the timing of the disclosure of the accused person's statements to the counsel or to the accused himself, what kind of timeframe are we looking at, how much in advance of the trial is the disclosure going to be done. Secondly, in terms of statements which are not incriminating, in other words, they are

Column: 1097

exculpatory statements where the accused explains his non-guilt or why he did certain things which make him not responsible, would those exculpatory statements also be disclosed to the defence in due time before the trial?

Thirdly, on the issue of videotaping, I think Assoc. Prof. Ho would also know that it is not in every case that the Police has evidence other than the confession to convict the accused. And the law stands that a confession itself can alone be the basis of a conviction. So, it is extremely incriminating if the statement is positive in police terms. A lot of weight is given to the statement and, hence, I do not quite understand why the Ministry is not willing to consider video recording because it would at least be an accurate record of what happened during the statement-taking process, whether the contents came from the accused's mouth or were paraphrases, for example, by the investigating officer because he felt it was more appropriate. Because certain nuances in the language can be very important, can be given much weight during the trial itself. So, I do not quite understand why the Ministry is resistant to this idea.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Madam, as I prefaced my remarks just now, we are still looking at all the details in the CPC. Since Members have asked, I have given a sketch of what is to come. Personally, in terms of the details, I think it will be premature to give the details here; otherwise you will say it is already cooked. We are actually cooking it, we want to consult our stakeholders. But, certainly, in terms of timelines, we will look at what is a fair timeline because here the point is to inject greater transparency. It would not work if the prosecution tenders its case to the defence too late for the defence to even prepare its case.

Column: 1098

The other point is about exculpatory statements. Again, we are looking at the entire situation. But what we are considering is after the defence has submitted its case to the prosecution, the prosecution will tender to the defence all relevant statements of the accused. So it could very well include these exculpatory statements. Like I have said, even now exculpatory statements are taken into account by the prosecution. There is nothing to hide because in framing the charge or in deciding whether to charge the accused, all these will form the entire matrix of evidence that will come before the Public Prosecutor when he exercises his discretion whether or not to charge.

On videotaping, like I have said, the context is important. Why did other countries introduce videotaping? The context is really loss of confidence in the police and public outcry to get the police to show what it is doing. In the context of Singapore, I think this is not the case. In any case, as I have said, even if the accused challenges the confession statement, its validity or its voluntariness, there is an established process where this can be verified or indeed thrown out by the Courts as has happened.

For the more serious cases, eg, murder, my understanding is that it is not likely that prosecution will proceed just on a confession statement. And certainly in recent years, because of forensic science and the ability to cull evidence from different sources, this is seldom the case.

Mr Michael Palmer: Madam, just two issues. The first one is on the pre-trial discovery process, whether the Senior Minister of State is considering providing consequences for failure to give pre-trial discovery. Will there be any specifications? And the second point is this. I believe he mentioned something about the Police introducing a trial process

Column: 1099

where the lawyer was allowed to see his client in remand before the end of the week, on condition that the accused did not discuss the case. I am a bit puzzled because I cannot see any other reason why the accused would want to see his lawyer but to discuss the case. Could he clarify on these two points?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Again on the CPC, we are looking at the details and my understanding is that there will be provision for consequence if there is non-disclosure of documents.

On the other point, it is a movement on the Police's part. We do not go all the way, as in other countries. But, in good faith, we have opened up the process so that the accused person at least would have sight of his lawyer and the accused person would know that a lawyer is helping him. We want also to avoid a situation where the accused discusses his case with his lawyer. That may constitute interference with the investigation, because coaching can take place. That is something that we do not want to happen. The presence of the lawyer will be a calming factor for the accused. And basically, like I have said, the requirement is for the accused to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and we go on the premise that the Singapore Police Force will not tolerate rogue officers and will be very hard on those who do wrong and abuse the process.

We should let the system run, a system which has worked. For access to counsel, the Law Society has been informed. We have had a pilot, and we decided this can happen and this will happen for a very small minority of cases, 10%. In fact, only 10% of arrested persons remain in custody beyond 48 hours and 1% beyond one week. But, now, towards the end of one week, even though investigations may not be fully

Column: 1100

completed but nearing completion, instead of the one-week remand period being taken to the full, Police is at least prepared to consider letting the accused know that he has counsel and letting counsel see him.

The Chairman: Dr Teo Ho Pin, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Dr Teo Ho Pin: Madam, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and the Senior Minister of State for their comprehensive replies. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $159,581,000 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $158,165,000 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.