LEGAL PROFESSION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.59 p.m.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill seeks to make two amendments to the Legal Profession Act, 1966. These amendments are considered necessary both by the Government and by those most concerned with the functioning and operation of this Act, namely, the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society.

Although subsection (1) of section 82 of the Legal Profession Act, 1966, as it now stands, is reasonably clear in regard to its intent, it has given rise to a possible interpretation of permitting two solicitors in the same firm acting for both the vendor and the purchaser of property. It is, therefore, considered desirable that the subsection be amended in order to remove all possible doubts therein. The effect of this new amendment will be to prohibit solicitors in the same firm from acting separately for both the vendor and the purchaser in any one transaction for the sale and purchase of property. As an interim measure, and in order to enable solicitors who had uncompleted contracts on their hands at the date of the coming into operation of the Act to complete the contracts, and to save purchasers from having to incur the additional cost of employing another solicitor, a new subsection (5) to section 82 of the Act has been introduced. This provision would take care of those transactions where the contract of sale was entered into prior to the 11th day of February, 1967, the day when the provisions to be amended came into operation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as with most Bills which are tabled in this House, this Bill was sent in advance to the Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society for their comments, it is a great pity that the members of the Committee of the Society did not take more pains to point out the defects in the Act. I am very reluctant to move amendments to any Bill which has become law only a few months ago, and I hope that in future when we send draft Bills to the Society for their comments, they will take more pains when looking into the provisions of the Bills.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

6.04 p.m.

Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker. Sir, the present Bill seeks to amend only section 82 of the Legal Profession Act on the question of solicitors in the same firm doing work for both the purchaser and the vendor in a sale of immovable property developed by a housing developer under a housing development. If we accept the premise - and I do accept the premise - that both vendor and purchaser in a sale of immovable property should be represented separately, I think that this is a logical amendment to section 82 of the Legal Profession Act.

I think the Minister for Law and National Development is quite right in saying that had the Bar Committee, as it was then called, taken more pains over the Legal Profession Bill which was sent to it for consideration before that Bill was passed in December last year, this amending Bill would probably not have been necessary. Possibly as an afterthought, the present Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society had appointed a sub-committee to review the Legal Profession Act. This sub-committee reported some time ago and made suggestions on amendments to a great many sections of this Act. I am not too sure whether the present amending Bill is the result of the recommendations of this sub-committee, but in its report to the Advocates and Solicitors Society, section 82 was recommended to be amended in exactly the same terms. It is a great pity that other amendments recommended by this sub-committee had not been taken into account by the Government. The explanation may be that there was no time. The Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill was, in fact, read the First time on the 24th May, 1967, whereas the sub-committee did not report to the Advocates and Solicitors Society until quite recently.

As I have said, this sub-committee recommended various amendments and I wish particularly to draw attention to sections 54 and 55 of the Legal Profession Act. Section 54 provides for the election of eight members of seven years' standing and two members of less than seven years' standing to the Advocates and Solicitors Society. Section 55 provides that members of the Advocates and Solicitors Society of seven years' standing can only vote for candidates of similar standing, and that members of under seven years' standing are similarly restricted to voting only for candidates of under seven years' standing. Section 55 is particularly unfortunate. It injects an element of inequality into an otherwise ancient and honourable society where all members are equal and are considered as brothers in the law.

The sub-committee of the Advocates and Solicitors Society recommended that this section be now repealed and that there should be only one electoral roll, and I am glad of this recommendation. It is unfortunate that the Government has not seen fit to incorporate this amendment into the present amending Bill.

Section 54, as I have said, provides for eight members of seven years' standing as against two of less than seven years' standing. The sub-committee of the Advocates and Solicitors Society now recommends that the number of seniors, as we call them, should be reduced to six. This section is not particularly a democratic section, seeing that members of the Society of seven years' standing form a minority of the legal profession. But apart from the fact that it is not quite democratic, it gives the impression that lawyers of less than seven years' standing are not capable of handling their own affairs. This does not speak well for the profession and does not inspire confidence -

Mr Speaker: Mr Tang, in view of my own connection with this piece of legislation in its very early days, I have been very reluctant to call you to order. But I am beginning to have a feeling that your present speech should have been made on the Bill debated last December. The provisions to which you are now referring are not part of this Bill, and your comments are irrelevant and out of order. You are at liberty now to speak only on the clauses in the present Bill.

Mr Tang See Chim: As you please, Mr Speaker, Sir. My point is that it is rather unfortunate that the Government does not take this opportunity to incorporate other amendments into the Legal Profession Act -amendments which have, in fact, been recommended by the sub-committee appointed by the Advocates and Solicitors Society to consider and make recommendations on the Legal Profession Act.

Apart from this, Mr Speaker, Sir, I accept the premise that purchasers and vendors should be separately represented. It is, therefore, logical that this amendment should come about, and I support it.

6.13 p.m.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me tell the hon. Member for Choa Chu Kang that the amendments which he proposes and which he says were recommended by a sub-committee of the Advocates and Solicitors Society have not reached me. Sir, if I may speak briefly in reply to him, this Act was first read in this House in December last year. Prior to its introduction, the Bar Committee, as it then was, was consulted and, in fact, it approved of all the provisions in this Bill. But apparently the Bar Committee did not, as I had expected it should have, consult its own members. But even so, if any member of the Bar had any complaint about this Bill, he could have raised his objections through the hon. Member for Choa Chu Kang in between the First Reading and the Second and Third Readings of the Bill which took place, I believe, about 12 to 14 days later. If only members of the Bar read the newspapers to ascertain what is happening in this House, then their suggestions and recommendations will certainly be given careful consideration in this House. But after the Bill has been tabled and taken through its Second and Third Readings and then enacted as law, it is a bit too late to grumble about the unfairness of the Bill in respect of certain provisions. The younger lawyers are apparently going against the older lawyers. I state my position here quite clearly. On a Bill which deals with any profession, we must consult the profession, and naturally we consult the committee in charge, and it is the duty of that committee to consult its members. If it does not, it is time to change the committee. But having consulted them and having got their support and approval and having passed the Bill, I am most reluctant to come to this House again and make amendment after amendment. I agreed to these two amendments because they are essential. Any other amendment which is not essential must wait. The Bill having been passed, we propose to let it run for a year or maybe more to see how it works. And it is only thereafter that we will pass other amendments.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Barker].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.