LEGAL PROFESSION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 6.36 pm

The Minister for Labour and Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill has three main objects. The first is to extend the classes of legally trained persons who may be admitted to practise here. The existing definition of "qualified person" is very restrictive. Only those who have qualified as barristers or solicitors in the United Kingdom or those who have graduated from our local Law Faculty are regarded as qualified persons for the purpose of the practice of the law. An excellent graduate who studied in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Malaysia, Hong Kong or other universities cannot at present be admitted to practise in Singapore.

Such a restrictive approach is not in the public interest as it excludes persons who are competent and are of the right calibre but who received their legal education elsewhere than in Singapore or the United Kingdom. We must attract good legal talent from a wider pool to come to Singapore for employment in either the private sector or the Legal Service. However, they are not likely to come so long as they cannot be professionally qualified. In order to widen the pool of legal talent available, we must allow entry of the more highly qualified lawyers from countries where legal systems are based on common law.

Sir, Singapore's talent pool is limited. We must persuade talented and skilled persons who can be assets to Singapore, in every sector, to come to Singapore and strike roots here. It is only this way that our society can have that extra lift necessary to sustain as well as to take our economy and our country to even greater heights. With this in view, our policy is to freely allow qualified professionals with recognized qualifications to work in Singapore. We must, therefore, ensure that our legislation governing the various professions is consistent with this overall objective.

It is therefore proposed to amend the Legal Profession Act to confer discretion to grant recognition to certain university or professional qualifications of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Malaysia, Hong Kong or other countries where the legal systems are based on common law. Therefore, clause 3 of the Bill will empower the Minister (on advice of the Board of Legal Education) to declare any degree or qualification to be a sufficient qualification for admission to practise law. At the same time, however, care has been taken to ensure that proper control will be exercised. Thus, the clause provides that persons in possession of such declared qualifications will not have automatic entry but will have to satisfy the Board of Legal Education of the sufficiency in standards they have attained and will have to obtain a certificate from the Board to that effect.

Such persons will also have to attend the post-graduate practical course, to serve pupillage and fulfil other requirements applicable to qualified persons.

Sir, I pass on to the second object of the Bill which is to provide for the admission of Hong Kong practitioners who have been in practice for at least three years. This is dealt with in clause 5. This provision is considered necessary in order that we attract to Singapore the considerable pool of legal talent in Hong Kong that exists today. The legal system in Hong Kong approximates closely to Singapore.

Sir as Members are aware, we are actively seeking to attract skilled and talented persons from Hong Kong. These efforts to attract the best talents and brains from Hong Kong must also include the recruitment of good legal talent there. Lawyers from Hong Kong, in particular, have been brought up in the traditions of English common law. The talented and experienced among them afford us in Singapore a unique source of talent.

The new section 13A in the Act relating to admission of Hong Kong lawyers is analogous to the provisions in our Act for admission of Malaysian practitioners of at least three years' standing. However, here again, there are controls to ensure that standards will be maintained, both in regard to expertise and integrity in the discharge of professional duties and obligations. Thus, there is a further requirement of such Hong Kong practitioners having to practise for two years with or as an associate of an advocate and solicitor in Singapore of at least 12 years' standing before he would be permitted to practise on his own. Moreover, during that period of two years, he must have resided in Singapore for a period of 12 months in the aggregate. However, in exceptional and deserving cases, the Minister may waive this requirement.

Finally, let me refer to the third object of this Bill which is to repeal the provisions relating to articled clerkship (clause 6). This is an amendment made at the instance of the Board of Legal Education. This route of entry into the legal profession could be justified when there was no Law Faculty in Singapore and when the only way one could become a lawyer was to study in the United Kingdom. Those who could not afford it, at least had this other avenue open to them. It had never been a popular method of obtaining legal qualifications and, with the creation of a local Law Faculty since the late 1950s, it has fallen into desuetude. Now that the Law Faculty has been in existence for more than 25 years, these provisions can no longer be justified and should be repealed. In any case, the figures show no more than 13 advocates and solicitors who have qualified in this manner all these years. However, transitional provisions are incorporated to ensure that the position of those already registered as articled clerks is not affected. The Board of Legal Education further has made provisions for those who, in good faith, have started on their one-year's employment with an advocate and solicitor with a view to articleship.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I understand the Minister, the purpose and the object of this Bill is to attract into Singapore lawyers, I suppose, from all over the world, who have qualifications which may be acceptable to the Board of Legal Education. May I ask the Minister why is this necessary?

First of all, I suppose I should have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am a practising advocate and solicitor but I have no personal pecuniary interest in this Bill. But let me say that I am an advocate and solicitor.

May I ask the Minister: Is there a dearth in Singapore of persons qualified as lawyers that it has been found necessary to open the doors to all and sundry who have the qualifications that the Board will approve? I see by section 9 of the Act, which is the section empowering the courts to admit advocates and solicitors into Singapore that:

'The court may in its discretion and subject to the provisions of this Act admit as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court -

(a) any qualified person under the provisions of this Part;

(b) any Malayan practitioner under section 13;

(c) any articled clerk who is duly qualified under the provision of this Part.'

It seems to me that with the widening of this qualification clause, at present contained in the definition section (section 2) of the Act, the door is open wide for anybody, provided he has the acceptable qualifications, to apply to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor of Singapore. It would seem to favour foreigners. But what I cannot understand is the cutting down of admission into this profession of our own people through the medium of articling themselves to advocates and solicitors. This is now possible, as the Minister pointed out, under sections 19 to 25. Why is it necessary to cut down on our own people who wish to be admitted to this profession whilst opening the door to everybody outside Singapore?

The Minister spoke about this mode of entry being adopted at the time when there was no Faculty of Law in the University and the only mode of entry was by going to England and qualifying oneself there as a barrister or as a solicitor. That is true. But not everybody can gain entry into the University's Faculty of Law. There may be good reasons. They may not be able to afford the fees. Secondly, they may have reached an age when it is not possible for them to enter the University and do a full-time course there.

So this provided a convenient method of entry into the legal profession for those who are desirous of so doing. They could find work with an advocate and solicitor, be paid for it, and qualify after they have served their period of articleship. Why is this Government taking away this provision from our own people whilst favouring the entry into the profession of foreigners? Is it not discriminating against your own people? They may be few in number. But why? What is so very objectionable against this mode being continued? We have not heard of any detailed objections to the continuance of this mode of entry into the profession.

May I ask the Minister: is it the intention of the Government that, with the amendment, as I have said, foreigners should be freely admitted? He says we are short of talent and it is the policy of this Government that professionals should be freely admitted. Is that the intention of the Government, to the detriment of our own people? As I asked him earlier, is there a dearth of our own people practising as advocates and solicitors in Singapore that it has become necessary to bring in foreigners into this country? And what is worse. Whilst you open the doors to them and say, "Come along everybody", you are cuffing down on your own people, few though they may be in number, who seek to enter this profession. And you say, "You cannot do that. Go into the University or go to England." I thought this Government was interested in enabling our citizens to acquire the necessary skills and talent. This is a recognized method of acquiring this skill and talent.

So may we know from the Minister, what are the great objections that have been advanced by the Board of Legal Education? He says the Board has given reasons for the discontinuance of this mode. May we know what are these reasons? I would ask that I be allowed to come back once I have heard the Minister on these reasons for the proposal to discontinue this mode of entry. So far we have not heard anything.

6.52 pm

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the first point raised by the Member for Anson is: why is this necessary; is there a dearth of local lawyers since we are opening the door wide to all and sundry? He finds this objectionable. I thought, in my Second Reading speech just now, Sir, I have set out the rationale quite clearly. The issue is not whether there is a dearth or whether there are adequate numbers. The issue really lies with all sectors, the public sector and the private sector. Singapore has managed to reach its present stage of development because we have never practised a closed-shop policy. We have extended our arms to talented and skilled persons coming into Singapore, joining hands with Singaporeans, establishing roots, and this has added and widened our pool of skilled persons and resources to sustain the economy, the progress and the stability that we have had.

The years ahead of us are full of challenges. The question is, how do we go forward? We must continue with the same policy in the public sector or private sector. This has been an important ingredient of our success in the past, specifically with regard to lawyers. Whether there is a dearth or not, whether there are adequate numbers in terms of quantity, is not the issue. The question is this: The Member for Anson says that admitting these foreign talented and skilled persons will be to the detriment of local Singaporeans. I do not think so. In our policies administered thus far, has the admission to the public sector or private sector of skilled persons been to the detriment or been to the benefit of Singapore? The answer clearly is that it has been not only to the benefit of Singapore but it has also proved indispensable because of the limited pool of talent we have in the various sectors. So also in the professions - medicine, dentistry, architecture, law, and what-have-you. The injection of good brains from abroad can have but only one consequence, and that is, to inject new blood, new talent, in various sectors, specialized sectors, general aspects of legal practice, and this will give a further boost to the skills that are available in our legal profession. He says we are letting in all and sundry. Obviously he has not read the Bill nor has he listened to my opening remarks.

As to the widening of the definition, if he had looked at the Bill he would see that it is not letting in all and sundry. First and foremost, the Board of Legal Education has to advise the Minister. It has to deliberate and recommend a list of these additional qualifications. Those persons who come within the list do not automatically come in. They must satisfy the Board that they have attained a sufficient standard. Third, they must get a certificate. Fourth, the Board can impose such conditions or requirements as it thinks fit to be complied with by an applicant. The Member has not read any of these provisions.

With regard to the Hong Kong practitioner, he again has not read it. It is not letting in all and sundry but a person who has had at least three years' practice in Hong Kong; not all, but only a person who satisfies the Board or the Attorney-General. The Board or the Attorney-General must certify that such a person, by reason of his qualification and experience, is a fit and proper person. Again, there is no automatic entry.

Third point - cutting down articleship - "why this is necessary", "how it discriminates." I have already explained that this provision for articleship is, in fact, an anachronistic provision. It had a rationale at the time when there was no Law Faculty in Singapore. The Law Faculty has been in existence for 25 years. Articleship was an avenue to those who wanted to do law but could not afford to go to England, and therefore this avenue was open to them. The Faculty of Law having been in existence for such a long time, all those in that category who would have taken up law would now have made use of the opportunity. And as I have said, it has fallen into desuetude.

Of the 18 candidates who were approved for the years 1977 to 1983 - I have even looked at the level of qualifications - only one of these candidates could have been admitted to the University on application during the year following the GCE 'A' level results. Eight of the candidates applied for articleship within a few years of sitting for the GCE 'A' level and would not have been admitted to the NUS. Eight other candidates who were admitted articleship were admitted after five years of working, and all of them did not satisfy the minimum admission requirements to the University. In other words, a very large percentage of those who have been registered for articleship would not have been admitted to the University on merit. Therefore, it is important, in my view, that the articleship should not serve as a backdoor entry into the legal profession of persons who would not have been able to make it to the University on merit.

The Member for Anson talks about those who are unable to go to the University for financial reasons. I think the Minister of State of Education will be able to tell him that there is no lack of financial bursaries or scholarships available for a person who is able to get admission to the University but who faces financial difficulties to take up the offer.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the proposal to repeal the provisions for articleship is in a sense overdue. It has come from the Board of Legal Education in which representatives from the Judiciary, the legal profession, the Law Faculty, the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Ministry of Law are represented. And I think they had very good reasons for proposing this move.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Is it for clarification? You are not supposed to speak twice.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I wish to clarify with the Minister the reason that he has now advanced. Really it is no reason at all. We have heard from him for the second time. It is a repetition of what he said earlier that this mode of entry was provided when there was no Law Faculty in Singapore. We have heard this earlier. So it is mere repetition.

He went on to say that a number of these articled students would not have qualified for entry into the University. That may well be. But surely the answer would lie, would it not, Mr Minister, in this. If you think that the requirements for articleship should be raised or tightened, you could do that and even raise the standard of examinations that are set. The answer would not lie, as I see it, in throwing it out altogether. That way, you are closing the door to some of our people. They would not complain if you raise the standard and say, "If you are going to do articleship, you have got to pass these exams. We'll allow you but we are going to raise the standard." But I have not heard any complaint that the standard is low. As I understand it, the standard is something that has been set by the Board and persons who have gone through articleship have not shown themselves to be any less capable than those who have qualified through the University. Has the Minister had any complaints that persons who qualified through articleship are less capable than those who have gone through the University? So I really cannot see that that is any reason at all. The reason remains in what he said earlier - that this was something that we provided in days gone by. But the need is still there for some people. Why take it away? What is the great objection to it? I still have not heard the objection.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to prolong this debate. Suffice it for me to say only that two significant developments have made it timely to review this mode of admission. First, our University Law Faculty since 1982 has already doubled its intake of students to about 200 a year. Secondly, a significant upgrading of academic and professional training has been undertaken both at the University and post-graduate practical course. This has been to upgrade the quality of the new entrants to the legal profession.

The trend in many countries, Sir, if the Member for Anson does not know, is that admission to the legal profession is to be primarily available through the University graduating process. And also in Singapore this should be the main route of entry.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof S. Jayakumar].

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