LEGAL PROFESSION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 11.44 am

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

This Bill seeks to amend the Legal Profession Act in two main aspects. First, it will bar a legal practitioner convicted of offences involving fraud or dishonesty or who has been suspended from practice for six months or more from holding office as a member of the Council of the Law Society, which is the governing body of the Law Society. Secondly, it will make significant amendments to the provisions dealing with the disciplinary processes of the legal profession.

Sir, in Singapore, as in most countries, there are certain key professions which, on grounds of public interest, are regulated by law. Why is this so? This is so because of the fact that these professions are very important to the functioning of society. The services which the members of these professions render are essential to modern society and the public must rely and expect certain minimum standards of integrity in the reliance they have to place on such professionals. Therefore, laws are enacted to prescribe minimum qualifications for those who want to enter these professions. And the laws also establish the structure of the professional body and also set out procedures to discipline and punish errant and delinquent members. The legal profession is one such key profession in Singapore. And before the present Legal Profession Act, there were previous legislations such as the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance.

Good and competent lawyers together with a strong and independent Judiciary are necessary foundations for Singapore's further development as a banking and financial centre. We all know that lawyers represent individuals as well as corporations in their dealings with others. In fact, members of the public have very little choice but to engage the services of lawyers in a wide variety of situations - whether in civil or criminal cases, whether as defendants or plaintiffs, or as accused persons or as parties in commercial or land transactions, matrimonial disputes and so on. In other words, members of the public have no choice really but to place their problems, their difficulties, their fortunes, their liberties and, in some cases, even their lives in the hands and the trust of lawyers.

So the legal profession, not surprisingly, is described as an "honourable" profession. All Advocates and Solicitors, under section 83 of the Legal Profession Act, are described as "officers of the Supreme Court". And it is from the ranks of the legal profession and the Legal Service that our Supreme Court judges are selected and appointed.

It is important, therefore, that the public have the utmost confidence in the ethical standards, financial and personal integrity of lawyers. Fortunately, the majority of the members of our legal profession are honourable and practise their profession conscientiously and in accordance with the ethics of the profession. But, unfortu- nately, in recent times there have been increasing instances where the integrity of members of the Bar, including senior and well established lawyers, have been cast into doubt. Lawyers have been convicted of cheating, criminal breach of trust, of making false statutory declarations and some lawyers have taken their client's money. Recently, a lawyer, then a partner in a leading firm, was found to have participated in a scheme to defraud members of the public who desired to trade in commodity futures. Unfortunately, his conviction was quashed on appeal because of a technical error in the proceedings. He is still in practice, unpunished because of a technical or procedural error in his trial. In another case, a former President of the Law Society had to be severely reprimanded and admonished by the Chief Justice for gross overcharging of his client. Not surprisingly, Sir, the standing of the profession as a result has been damaged by such deplorable conduct.

The primary responsibility for punishing such black sheep in the profession is in the control of the Judges of the Supreme Court. This responsibility is shared by the Council of the Law Society. Under the Legal Profession Act, the Inquiry Committee, which is a standing committee of the Law Society, conducts preliminary investigations into complaints or allegations of misconduct by a member of the Bar. If this Inquiry Committee finds that there is cause for further investigation, then the matter is referred to a Disciplinary Committee comprising three lawyers appointed by the Chief Justice. This Disciplinary Committee has to ascertain the facts and then report whether there is a case strong enough or grave enough to warrant disciplinary action. When a Disciplinary Committee finds that there is such a case, the matter is brought before the Judges of the Supreme Court. Only they have the power to suspend or strike off an advocate and solicitor from the roll.

At present, the persons who sit on the Inquiry Committee and the Disciplinary Committee are all lawyers. The errant member is therefore judged entirely by his peers. This is based on the traditional British practice of self-regulation which grew up in guilds of people in a particular trade, historically. In recent times, the permissive attitude of these self-regulating bodies have created doubts in their willingness to police themselves or to discipline members of their own kind.

In one case, a Disciplinary Committee recommended merely a reprimand for an advocate and solicitor who was convicted of cheating. In another case, a Disciplinary Committee refused to inquire into certain charges preferred against an advocate and solicitor. In addition, in another recent case, no action whatsoever was taken on information referred to the Law Society by the Attorney-General even though the information on the face of it disclosed grave misconduct on the part of a prominent lawyer. These cases diminish the standing of the legal profession and raise grave doubts as to their will or resolve to police themselves.

I must add that most of these cases of misconduct which I have referred to, have become public knowledge only because they have been brought before our courts. Many other instances of misconduct go unnoticed and unreported as to how they are leniently disposed of by the Inquiry or Disciplinary Committee in which there is no representation for the consumer or public.

The legal profession does not disclose the number or the nature of complaints received. Neither is the general public informed of how all these complaints are dealt with. The public can only come to know of these instances of misconduct when the proceedings are brought before a Court of three Judges. We have no knowledge, for instance, of cases where lawyers have been found guilty of misconduct but were merely reprimanded or fined without being brought before a Court of three Judges. But, as I have said, we have seen that even with regard to instances where an errant member of the Bar is brought before the Court of three Judges, there were considerable delays in the investigations.

Sir, because of the confidentiality which surrounds the investigations by the Bar and because all persons involved in the investigations are themselves members of the Bar, surely dissatisfied members of the public would have good reasons to question the manner of such investigations. This is a grey area. It is faulty with respect to the present structure for the discipline of lawyers, and it must be put right.

With regard to the amendment concerning eligibility to hold office, the present system of self-regulation under the Act entitles any advocate and solicitor, regardless of his conduct, to hold office as a member of the Council. It was never imagined, Sir, that a body of honourable members of the legal profession would choose from amongst themselves those who have been found guilty and punished for unprofessional conduct. It could never have been imagined because to have flawed members to sit on the Council to govern and maintain standards in the profession is really a preposterous notion. It is like having an ex-drug addict or drug trafficker or other notorious criminal being appointed as a judge. It is like appointing a poacher as head game-keeper. But this has in fact now happened. Self-regulation has become a farce.

Let me also say that the absurdity of this can be appreciated if I draw Members' attention to section 79(1) (a) in the Act concerning solicitors' clerks. This little provision prohibits any person who is convicted of "an offence involving dishonesty" from being employed by a lawyer. Unless there is an order of Court, such person is permanently barred from such employment. Here we are talking about an ordinary person with 'O' level or 'A' level results who wants to work in law firm. He is permanently barred from even working for a law firm. But, on the other hand, a lawyer convicted of such offence can serve on the Council! I repeat, the disqualification was never spelt out in the Act because it never occurred to the legislators that a body of lawyers would elect flawed men to guard the standards of their profession and punish others, like themselves, who have violated the trust placed in them.

When this happens, what is the responsibility of the Government? The Government has a duty to the public to put an end to such scandalous professional mis- behaviour. And this is why these amendments are being moved. The President and members of the Council must be untainted men, capable of discharging their duties because their own integrity and personal conduct have never been called into question. They are the persons who set the moral tone for the profession. And tainted men do not and cannot command moral authority over other fellow professionals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these amendments put lawyers on notice that if they do not clean up their own house, then the Government will do so. Former wrongdoers surely cannot police other wrongdoers in this profession. The disciplinary processes of the profession cannot be dilatory and lax. And the inclusion of lay persons or non-lawyers in the Disciplinary Committee will stop the belief that self-help and mutual forgiveness is the way lawyers maintain standards of professional conduct.

If I may turn to the amendments to the disciplinary proceedings. There are really three main amendments. First, the maximum membership of the Inquiry Committee is increased to 15. These 15 members can work through panels of three members each. In other words, five panels can function at any one time. This will enable speedier disposition of complaints and make it less onerous on the Committee of the whole.

Secondly, the Disciplinary Committee will now comprise a legal practitioner, an experienced Legal Service officer and a lay member who represents consumer interests. The inclusion of non-lawyers and of people who are regular users of the services of lawyers will help allay some of the apprehensions caused by the present in-house nature of the disciplinary processes. We have, however, retained the practice of only members of the Bar deciding on the norms of proper conduct of the profession.

Thirdly, amendment to section 90 concerning application to appoint a Disciplinary Committee. The amendment does not alter the existing position whereby the Inquiry Committee reports to the Council of the Law Society which then makes a determination if there should be a full formal investigation. That is retained. However, the Bill provides for two other situations where the Law Society Council shall apply to the Chief Justice to appoint a Disciplinary Committee.

Finally, Sir, the Government has also taken this opportunity to introduce amendments to the Act to put right certain provisions of the Act which have been subjected to an overly restrictive interpretation by the Privy Council in the case of James Chia v. The Law Society of Singapore. If I may explain, Sir. That decision now prevents the Attorney-General as well as the Law Society from taking steps to have a finding of a Disciplinary Committee reviewed, although the person who made the complaint may bring about such a review. It is considered that, for the future, it should be open also for either the Law Society or the Attorney-General, to apply for a review of the finding.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose to commit this Bill to a Select Committee so that an opportunity can be given for members of the public, and in particular the Law Society, to make known their views.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Koh Lam Son (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Amendment Bill and also to take the opportunity to say a few words.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a fact that the amendment to the Legal Profession Bill has come about following certain action of the present Council of the Law Soceity. Through their own doings, the Council members have placed themselves in disrepute. Do they act as leaders of the legal profession, or do they have political motives in issues they recently raised with the Government? I think it is clear to many of us that there was political posturing, both in manner and tone, of the public attack on the Government on the recently amended Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act, and in the publicity they gave to their Sub-Committee's work on the question of the need to change the Legal Service Commission and on the constitutional implications of an elected President.

Sir, the legal profession plays a vital role in carrying out justice and protecting the rights of the people, and the Law Society represents the legal profession. Membership is compulsory for all practising lawyers. The Society handles all the affairs of the lawyers and speak on their behalf. Their leaders are therefore expected to be men of irreproachable character. The Society, Sir, is not a private club. It is a body passed by an Act of Parliament. Parliament sets out the objectives and requirements, and therefore Parliament is ultimately responsible for the Law Society.

Sir, with regard to this Bill, I had thought that the cause for public concern was the question as to whether we should allow people who are politically motivated from using a non-political body such as the Law Society as a political-shooting station. This was, in fact, the attempt made by the present Council of the Law Society. However, Sir, the proposed amendment has not taken cognizance of this problem, and I would like to ask the Minister for Law to explain this.

Sir, I do understand the predicament of some members in the Law Society and in other non-political organizations who may feel that they have a political cause to expound, but they are not prepared to stand up and be counted. We cannot, however, allow these people to exploit non-political organizations and put them in disrepute.

The present Amendment Bill seeks to preclude those members who have committed offences from joining the Council of the Law Society. Some lawyers, including the Member for Potong Pasir, have said in the press that such high moral standards as spelt out in the Amendment Bill are not necessary. And they argued that if a member has paid his penalty and has been allowed to practise law, he should be fit to stand for election in the Council. I find that this argument is more motional rather than rational. Surely, Sir, there is a difference between the way we judge erring lawyers and the way we appraise outstanding lawyers aspiring for leadership roles.

The Amendment Bill, in fact, does not seek to elevate the moral standard of Council members but it seeks to preserve standards. And the question is, if members of the Law Society choose to relax standards, would this not affect the high standing of the Law Society in the eyes of the public? Sir, had this moral requirement of Council members been incorporated in the original Professional Bill, nobody is likely to query it but because the timing of the Bill may affect the office or the term of office of the incumbent President of the Law Society, some members, obviously his supporters, find themselves arguing against it.

Sir, I support the Amendment Bill. 12.06 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, before I speak on this Bill, may I say that I have no direct personal pecuniary interest. But I certainly have an interest because I am a member of the Society and I am an advocate and solicitor.

Secondly, may I also make it quite clear that I am not speaking on behalf of the Law Society or any group. I am speaking here as a Member of Parliament and expressing my own views on this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not that the Bill is devoid of any merit. I can find one particular amendment which commends itself to me and I think it should commend itself to the public at large, and that is, that there should be somebody outside the legal profession sitting on the Disciplinary Committee when it makes a formal investigation into a complaint against a member of the Law Society. I think it may be perhaps judicious that we should apply this generally now to all professions, and I would like to commend to the Minister and to the Government that perhaps they should set up a professional tribunal panel consisting of memebers who would be called upon from time to time to sit on Disciplinary Committees or other committees inquiring into the conduct of professionals. And at least one member should come from a profession outside the profession of the member who is inquired into. So it is completely not without merit, Mr Speaker, Sir. But nevertheless I oppose this Bill and I do so, Mr Speaker, Sir, vehemently.

My opposition to this Bill springs largely from the motives for the introduction of this Bill. I question the motives and I think it is necessary that the Minister should explain the real motives for this Bill and not hide behind platitudes. Nobody, Mr Speaker, Sir, questions the need for the public to repose the utmost confidence in any professional grouping. It is not only just lawyers, but doctors, accountants, architects. It is necessary that the public should be protected from errant members of these professions who service the public. So no one questions that need. I do not think the lawyers have ever questioned that need. But it is not as though there has been no protection for the public against errant members of the legal profession, and I shall, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the time allotted to me, show that there is ample protection at the moment.

Let it not be forgotten that the legal profession is the one profession where its members are controlled and disciplined not by the members but by a body completely outside. The control and discipline of the members of the Law Society lie with the Judges of the Supreme Court. I shall show that the Minister is wrong when he says that the Council shares this responsibility. The Council does not share the responsibility.

At the moment there is ample protection for the public in the measures outlined in the Act relating to complaints against members of the Law Society, against the members of the legal profession. So what has prompted this Bill? I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is quite plain to anyone that this Bill has been prompted purely for one reason, and one reason only. Just as I said about the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) (Amendment) Bill, that it was prompted only for one reason and that it had nothing to do with the decorum and dignity of the House. This Bill has been prompted simply because the Law Society has done the unforgivable thing in Singapore. In the past, the Law Society had somehow carried out its functions in a manner that the Government approved or accepted. If it had any recommendations or any communications to make, it made it direct to the Government. So that was all right. The public were not told. But sometime this year when the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill was introduced, the Law Society took upon itself to fulfil one of its roles, and I say that it is one of the roles of the Law Society. It is a role that the Society should discharge to members of the public. It is a role that any professional society should discharge to members of the public, and that is, to voice their criticism or fears of any impending legislation, or indeed of any issue that might concern and affect the citizens generally. And that is what the Law Society did. But that was unforgivable. The Government took umbrage when a government in any other democratic country, a government which respected its citizens, a government which trusted its citizens, would have welcomed the criticism of the Society or the group. But not in Singapore. In Singapore, no one, I repeat, no one can stand up and voice his criticism and especially so if that criticism carries some weight, as indeed the criticism by the Law Society did, because it was voicing the criticism of the members of the legal profession. And we had, immediately following the criticism by the Law Society, statements by the Ministers that the Law Society was entering into the political arena, that the President of the Law Society was politically motivated - all quite uncalled for. A society which voices criticism is not necessarily thereby entering into the political arena.

The fallacy which I have said outside is that this Government says that it is open to any individual member of the society to voice any criticism. But it says he cannot do it with 10 others together. That is the fallacy. I have said, if the Government says quite seriously that any member of the public can voice his criticism, then that right must be given or recognized, whether the person says it individually or whether he says it with 10 others. Freedom of assembly is an integral part of the freedom of speech, and that I am afraid this Government fails to grasp or recognize.

It would appear, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Government has no faith, no trust. I said, in speaking on the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill, that the Government would appear to have no trust or faith in the judgment of its citizens and it was necessary to regulate and con- trol their reading. Now it would appear that the Government has no faith or trust in the members of the legal profession. That, this Government has made quite plain from its inception in 1959. It had no trust, no faith in its own citizens, and I say, Sir, in all sincerity and with all force, that a government which has no faith, which has no trust in its citizens, and particularly in its professionals, has no moral right to govern. If you do not have any faith in the citizens, then you have lost your right to govern the citizens because government can only proceed upon mutual trust and confidence, ie, mutual trust of the citizens in the government and mutual trust of the government in the citizens, and particularly of the professions. But if that is lacking, then you have lost your right to govern.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is intended to humiliate the members of the Law Society. Again, as the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill was intended to humiliate our citizens, this is intended to humiliate the members of the Law Society. And so I ask the question that I asked then: why does this Government take it upon itself to ridicule and humiliate our people? What right does the Government have? Not long ago, we had the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office making a completely unwarranted attack on the professions.

I have been accused here of having made a scurrilous comment on the Chief Justice. I have asked, what is my scurrilous comment? What about the comments made by the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office? If mine was scurrilous, what were these comments? Pure abuse of the profession and at a time when we need the people outside Singapore to repose confidence in Singapore and Singaporeans. But here is the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office branding all professionals in Singapore as crooks, swindlers, and what have you. So what will an investor think before he decides to come to Singapore? A man with money to invest, what will he think? He will say, "I have got to think twice. Here is the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office giving me plain warning that Singapore is full of crooks." I hope the Government realizes the damage that has been done by this Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office.

The humiliation is that before this Bill was introduced in Parliament, the Council of the Law Society was never consulted. No views of the Council were sought on this Bill and yet this Government speaks time and time again of consultation, of feedback. After the 1984 elections, it was recognized that there was a need for consultation and they set up the Feedback Unit. What happened to the Feedback Unit when this Bill was thought of? Why were the lawyers not consulted? Why were their views not sought?

If I may mention by way of contrast, Mr Speaker, Sir, there was another Bill, not concerning lawyers, but concerning the gentlemen in the stockbroking industry. We were told this year in March, I think, that as early as the middle of last year or the beginning of last year, the Government had proposed to introduce a new Securities Industry Bill to give the MAS more powers over the stockbroking industry. We were told that the draft of that Bill was sent to the Committee of the Stock Exchange sometime at the beginning of last year or the middle of last year. And we were told by the Minister that the gentlemen in the Committee of the Stock Exchange were not very happy about the Bill, and so nothing was done. It was not introduced in Parliament until, of course, these gentlemen in the Stock Exchange Committee and others had brought ruin to thousands of Singaporeans by the Pan-El crisis, leading to the closure of the Stock Exchange for three days. After they had wrought the damage, simply out of pure greed, then the Government decided that it could not wait any more for their views. It decided to rush through the Securities Industry Act, with or without their views.

But there you have it, by way of contrast. The Government sought the views of the Committee of the Stock Exchange in 1985, but not the Council of the Law Society on this Bill. Why, may I ask, was a distinction made? Why were the members of the Committee of the Stock Exhange treated in a preferential manner? What clout did they have? Would the Minister try and explain? I ask again the Minister to be honest and tell us what is the reason for the Government introducing the Bill. Has there been any public outcry? Has there been any public disquiet that members of the Law Society, the lawyers, are getting away unpunished, or is it just merely in the mind of the Government and its Ministers?

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I propose to show what control now exists over the members of the legal profession. As I said a little while ago, the disciplinary control is not exercised by the Council. It is exercised by Judges of the Supreme Court, and what better protection than that can the members of the public have? By section 85 of the Act, Mr Speaker, Sir, the members of the Inquiry Committee are appointed not by the Council, and this is why I think the Minister was not altogether truthful when he said that the Council shared the responsibility. He was omitting this - that the members of the Inquiry Committee are all appointed by the Chief Justice. He selects them. The Council has no hand in the appointment of Inquiry Committee members.

Then, by section 86 of the Act, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Council is required to refer all complaints to the Inquiry Committee from any member of the public or any public application. The Council has no discretion. It must go to the Inquiry Committee. And by section 87, the Inquiry Committee is required, it is mandatory, to report within two months. They cannot drag their feet over any complaint and I thought there were some vague allusions or insinuations that things were being covered up. I shall show that there is no possibility of any cover-up, and I do regret that the Minister should have chosen in this House to smear the whole of the legal profession in the manner he did.

The Inquiry Committee must report whether a formal investigation is necessary and, Members of the House, that means that the matter should be referred to a Disciplinary Committee, or the Inquiry Committee can report that a formal investigation is not necessary, or it can report that the Council itself can take action on it. Then once the Council receives the report from the Inquiry Committee, the Council must determine within one month what it proposes to do. If the Inquiry Committee recommends a formal investigation, the Council has no choice in the matter. It must go to the Disciplinary Committee. But the Council is allowed to disagree with the Inquiry Committee if it proposes no formal investigation. The Council can, nevertheless, still refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee even when the Inquiry Committee says no formal investigation is necessary. And then by section 91 when the matter is referred to the Disciplinary Committee, the members who sit on the Disciplinary Committee are all appointed by the Chief Justice. The Council has no choice. It does not select any member to sit on the Disciplinary Committee. The Chief Justice does it. It is his decision and his decision alone.

Then if we look at section 94 of the Act, you find that the Disciplinary Committee decides whether the member should be made to show cause. It makes a recommendation to that effect. But the important thing is this: that the report of the Disciplinary Committee does not go only to the Council, it also goes to the Chief Justice because it reports to him. And in cases where the Disciplinary Committee recommends that no sufficient gravity exists to ask the member to show cause, the Chief Justice can still direct the Council to apply to the Court by way of Originating Summons for the member to show cause. So there you have it. Even where the Disciplinary Committee says, "We don't think it is necessary for the member to show cause" after their formal investigation, the Chief Justice can disagree. Of course, the Council cannot, but the Chief Justice can and he can direct the Council to apply to the High Court for an order to show cause. So I hope I have made it quite clear that the real control lies with the Chief Justice, not with the Council.

And then you have sections 96 and 97 of the Act. By these sections, Mr Speaker, Sir, any applicant who is not satisfied (by an applicant, of course, I mean a member of the public who has complained about the conduct of a member of the Society) if he is not satisfied with the decision of the Inquiry Committee that it should not go up to a Disciplinary Committee or, again, if he is not satisfied with the report of the Disciplinary Committee that the member should not be asked to show cause, he still has a remedy. He can himself take out an application in the High Court before a Judge and ask the Judge to direct that the Inquiry Committee's findings be set aside and the matter be referred to the Disciplinary Committee, or that the Disciplinary Committee's findings be set aside and that the man should be made to show cause. We have had instances of that in the recent past. So the public are adequately protected and, at the risk of repetition, the control vests with the Chief Justice and the Judges of the Supreme Court.

Let us look, Mr Speaker, Sir, at some of the figures over the last five years of reports made to the Law Society and what action has been taken in those cases. I have culled these figures from the reports of the Inquiry Committees which were presented along with the annual reports of the Law Society. The Law Society, like every other society, presents an annual report, and attached to the annual report is a report of the Inquiry Committee. So the figures are taken from those reports.

For the year October 1980 to September 1981, there were only 29 complaints which were investigated by the Inquiry Committee. Out of these, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Inquiry Committee held that 21 either had no grounds for complaint or that they should be dismissed. So out of 29, 21 were dismissed by the Inquiry Committee. And, as I said, the person who made the complaint could have taken it up if he had any qualms about the decision, and again the Chief Justice could have taken it up if he had any qualms or doubt about the decision. Fines were imposed only on six lawyers, and only in one case was a Disciplinary Committee appointed.

We come to the year October 1981 to September 1982. There were 38 cases which were inquired into by the Inquiry Committee. I have only got the figures for dismissals. About 15 were dismissed and only in four cases were Disciplinary Committees appointed.

For the year October 1982 to September 1983, there were 40 complaints and the Inquiry Committee held that 27 of them either had no grounds or that there was not enough evidence to justify the complaint. So 27 were dismissed and fines were imposed on six and Disciplinary Committees appointed in seven.

Then if you look at the October 1983 to September 1984, 33 cases were inquired into by the Inquiry Committee. Of these, 22 were dismissed and fines imposed on eight, and Disciplinary Committee appointed in only three cases. I should perhaps explain, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the benefit of Members, that a fine is the discretion given to the Council where the Council agrees with the view that no sufficient gravity exists for the member to be asked to show cause but nevertheless feels a fine should be imposed, and under the Act, the Society may fine any member up to $5,000.

Then if you come to the last year for which I have the figure, and this is October 1984 to September 1985, there were 25 cases inquired into by the Inquiry Committee, of which 21 were dismissed, fines imposed on three and Disciplinary Committee appointed in one.

That is the position up to 1985. I do not have the figures after that. Do they show, Mr Speaker, Sir, an alarming state of affairs in the legal profession? Mr Speaker, Sir, we have more than 1,000 members in the legal profession. I think the latest count would probably be about 1,350 or more. And the number of complaints does not come up to 5% in any year. May I say that is a remarkably low figure - complaints from members of the public - because if you look at the position in the United Kingdom, for example, again of course, they have got far more solicitors, you will see the complaints there come up to quite a big figure.

So why has the Government suddenly come up with this Bill? The Minister has not explained to this House why he considers the present sections in the Act inadequate and what is wrong about them. As I said earlier, we are left then with only one reason, and that is, the Law Society and its members have to be put in their place, and their place is not to criticize the august Government, however gently they may do it; their place is simply to obey; that the Government was the embodiment of all that is good for Singapore, and that nobody should be allowed to deviate from the Government's embodiment of what is good for Singapore.

So the Government decided that the Society and the President had to be punished. The President of the Law Society, under the amendment, will have to vacate his office. It is quite clear to me that once this Bill becomes law, he can no longer remain as President of the Law Society. If one looks at clause 3, one finds that section 59(1) which deals with members of the Council vacating their office, is amended by deleting the existing paragraph and substituting the new paragraph (a) which reads:

'he has been struck off the roll or suspended from practice for a period of 6 months or more or has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty;' So it seems to me patently clear that the President will have to vacate his office. And this is a slap in the face for the members of the Law Society. They elected him and the Government decides that they should not have elected him. This is gross interference with the rights of the members of the Law Society.

There is a section in the Act which says that all members of the Society shall enjoy the same privileges and rights. Of course, for the period of the suspension, the member does not enjoy the same rights and privileges. But once the suspension is over or he is restored to the roll of advocates and solicitors, then he enjoys the same rights and privileges. Why should he be denied this right and privilege to stand for election to the Council of the Law Society? The Minister says that it came as an utter surprise, to the utter amazement of the Government, that the members of the Law Society should be so foolish, should be so unwise, had gone out of their minds perhaps, to elect as their President someone who had been suspended at one time from the membership of the Society. May I ask the Minister whether any squeak was heard from the Government when he was elected? Did the Government express any regret? Did the Minister for Law express regret? Nothing. We heard nothing about it. But, of course, the position changed when the Law Society committed the unforgivable sin in Singapore of speaking against the Government on a proposed Bill.

That is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is necessary to expose the hypocrisy behind this Bill. I say that the motives are not genuine and it is brought simply because the Government has decided it is time that the Law Society should be punished. And this, of course, is in line with the entire manner in which things have been done in Singapore. In 1973, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was a member of the Council of the Law Society, and so was Mr Dennis Murphy a member of the Council of the Law Society. But I was told, after it happened, that the Prime Minister had summoned all the members of the Council, excluding me and Mr Murphy. He did not want to see us. He had summoned all the other members of the Council and had told them how they should run their affairs. And it was there, I was told, that the Prime Minister said that he was going to deal with me outside. That was why I was not there before him. But this is it, this desire, this insatiable thirst, to control every activity in Singapore. No one can be allowed to regulate their own affairs and to run their own house but the Government must control it.

There is yet one other incident, Mr Speaker, Sir, before I sit down and which comes to mind is this summoning by the Prime Minister of the pilots of the Singapore Airlines. There they were complaining, they were involved in a wage dispute with the company over their pay and the matter had been referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court. And I think the Industrial Arbitration Court is equated to the High Court. Notwithstanding that the matter was before the Court, the Prime Minister summoned the executive body of the Pilots' Association and gave them a dressing down and they were asked to withdraw all their demands. As I said, this is all in line; it is part of a pattern, a pattern that was set when the PAP took office in 1959. And it makes nonsense of all their protestations after 1984, of listening to the people, of a desire to relax and let the people have their say.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I sit down, may I just run through one or two points made by the Minister. One of his points was that the Law Society does not disclose the number of complaints. As I said, they make a report. The Inquiry Committee furnishes a report every year.

Prof. Jayakumar: They do not make it public.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is in the annual report. It is available. The Chief Justice will have it. The Minister for Law, if he calls for it, I am sure the Law Society will send it to him.

What I would like to know, please, Sir, is: why is the present procedure faulty? The Minister says the present procedure is faulty. In what way does he find the present procedure faulty? I cannot find anything that is faulty about the present procedure. As I said, it is the only profession whose members are controlled by the Judges of the Supreme Court. Does he find that faulty? Does he think that somebody else should control the members of the Law Society?

The Minister says self-regulation has become a farce. The point is that the Council does not regulate. The regulation is now left to the Judges of the Supreme Court. So may we have clear details about all the statements made by the Minister?

There is one section on which I must speak, Mr Speaker, Sir, and that is on clause 8 which seeks to amend section 91 of the principal Act and which deals with the appointment by the Chief Justice of the members to the Disciplinary Committee. At present, it is all members of the profession who are appointed to the Disciplinary Committee. This amendment seeks to bring in somebody from outside the profession, which I commend. I think it is a step in the right direction. But what I do not understand is the inclusion of a legal officer who has at least eight years' service. If a complaint is made by the Attorney-General against a member of the Law Society, is it right and proper that a legal officer should be sitting on the Disciplinary Committee inquiring into the charge or complaint made by the Attorney-General? In any case, why is it necessary to have a legal officer?

In 1979, there was an amendment to bring in three Government appointed members on to the Council. The Minister was given the power to nominate three members on to the Council. May I say, Members of the House, that over the Causeway, they trust their lawyers. They allow their lawyers to regulate, and I think they discharge their duties. But not here.

Mention has been made about suspended members not holding office. As the Member for Potong Pasir said, I think in a press statement, that apparently does not disqualify someone being appointed by the Government to a high office. So I find so many inconsistencies and contradictions in this Bill. And one is left with the feeling, I repeat, that the whole purpose of this Bill is simply to humiliate our legal brethren here, members of the Law Society. And why? Because they have spoken. They have discharged their duty to their fellow members of society. That is the unforgivable thing that they have done. They have at last woken up to their duty and they tried to discharge it. But lo and behold, the Government comes down upon them. It is for this reason, Sir, that I will oppose this Bill, and I give notice that I shall be calling for a division.

Mr Speaker: I propose to suspend this sitting now and will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): May it please you, Mr Speaker. It is typical of this Government sometimes when there is no danger in any situation, this Government will make out one, and where there is no need of a law the Government will go ahead and implement one. This particular Bill is a good example.

So far, I am not convinced at all by the Minister. I cannot see one valid reason why I should support this Bill. The Minister has said that in recent times there has been an increasing number of lawyers guilty of misconduct. I think he also said something to the effect that the Bar Council believes in self-help and mutual assistance and it is reluctant to punish its own members. Both these statements are furthest from the truth. As has been pointed out by the Member for Anson, the statistics were in fact taken from the Report of the Law Society which shows that there is a drop in the number referred to the Disciplinary Committee, ie, the Committee that punishes defaulting lawyers. Over the last five or six years, in fact, from 1982-83 period to 1984-85 period, there has been a tremendous drop from seven members to one having been referred to the Law Society. That is a drop of over 80%.

So what is the rationale? There is no rationale at all to amend the Legal Profession Act as it stands. There are enough provisions to keep lawyers, so to say, in line. The Minister has said that Singapore is an important banking and commercial centre. We all know that. And the lawyer has played his part to make it that way. So if there is really no valid reason to amend this law in the public interest, we should find what are the reasons. Perhaps a clue has already been given by the Member for Telok Blangah and also by what has transpired in the press.

The Law Society has been accused of meddling in politics. That is furthest from the truth, again. It is the duty of pressure groups in Singapore, like the Law Society and other professional bodies, to take part in issues which are of public interest. And, of course the amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act is one such issue. Whether or not we are going to change the style of government in Singapore to that of a Presidential type of government, or whether we are going to have a Westminster type of government, I think all persons in Singapore should have a say, not only professional people. But, of course, I would imagine the Minister bringing out his own set of statistics to show that, in fact, there has been an increase of lawyers defaulting. If that were the case, then there would be two sets of statistics. I wonder which set is the truthful one.

The reason seems to be political. Anyone who criticizes the Government, anybody who dares to speak against any Government policy will have to be silenced. There must be a deterrent for every situation. That is the new philosophy of the PAP. But, of course, we must always take note that it is not always that the interest of the ruling party must be upheld. The interest of the country and the interest of the people are equally important. Is it good or not for bodies in Singapore, ie, associations, professional bodies, business people, to regulate themselves? I think this question is an important question. In fact, it has to be highlighted and debated. From the Government's point of view, the Government does not think that it is pursuing its paternalistic policy, ie, everybody has to be regulated in Singapore. As has been pointed out by the Member for Anson, this is part of the pattern of governance of the PAP - regulation. In fact, there is already over-regulation, and it is high time the Government realized that this kind of a policy is leading Singapore to a dead end, as we are experiencing now. Neighbouring countries are still enjoying positive growth, whereas ours have gone to a minus.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. Would the hon. Member tell us which countries in Southeast Asia are enjoying positive growth?

Mr Chiam See Tong: You are an economist and I think you know the answer. It is high time the PAP sought new formulae to rule the country. Discard your old ways. Control and more control is bad for Singapore. This Bill is in line with that kind of a policy. Why tell professional people what to do? Because at the moment there is no solid ground for the Minister to amend this Act. As they say in the temperate countries, "One swallow does not show that Spring is coming." So one or two people in the profession, or members of the public, who have defaulted like in the ---

An hon. Member: One swallow does not make a Summer.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, of course, Spring comes before Summer! I think the last amendment to the Housing and Development Act is in the same pattern. We get four cases in a year of people just dropping something out of their window, and they are slammed down with a sledgehammer.

This Bill is also the same. We have got here a complaint by the Attorney-General, whom we have been told, is a Government man. A complaint from him, and the Disciplinary Committee straightaway has to take action, bypassing the Inquiry Committee. Why the need for that?

An hon. Member: Who says so?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, read the Bill. So unless the Minister can come out with some valid reasons, I think one Member has already said, there is a lot of loose and ludicrous legislation going through this House. This is one of the ludicrous and loose legislation. Half-way through, they say, "Ha, all kinds of errors are coming in. Put it to a Select Committee." Why does not the Government sit down and look at it properly? There is the Law Society whom they can consult. There is no better body to consult than the Law Society. Consult them. I think consultation is perhaps a duty of the Government, and the Government has forgotten this over these last 25 years. It has taken the role of "the Government knows best" attitude. Again, this is another point which the PAP must change. This is their old style of governing Singapore. They must change.

I would say of this Bill, after it has gone through Select Committee, that they will probably find that there are, in fact, no good points in it at all. Therefore, I am not supporting this Bill.

Mr Chua Sian Chin (MacPherson): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on this Bill as a person who had been in Government for many years and before that in legal practice for more than eight years and now back in legal practice.

While I was in Government, I had cognizance of the shortcomings of the legal profession. I am therefore not surprised that things have now come to a head that the Government has considered it necessary to introduce the amendments to the Legal Profession Act which are before us. It is a rather sad reflection on members of the profession as a whole. In my view, this sad state of affairs has come about because the vast majority of the members of the profession,especially the senior members, have been so busy attending to their legal practice, that they have no time to be involved in the affairs of the profession. As a result they have ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not giving way.

Mr Speaker: He is not giving way.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: As a result, they have, by and large, allowed a minority group of activists to run and dictate the affairs of the profession in their name. And when the majority in the profession also fail to take action or to dissociate themselves from the activities of the delinquent few, then the public must inevitably conclude that the misdeeds of the few are accepted as the norm by the whole profession. This must seriously tarnish the good name of the legal profession.

The contribution of the legal profession to the well-being of our society is a crucial one. There is no aspect of our everyday life that is not affected in some way or other by the law. Lawyers interpret the law and give advice to their clients who are members of the public. Members of the public act on their advice and stake their lives, careers and fortunes on the word of their lawyer. In many instances, because of the requirements of the law, people must place their monies in the hands of their lawyers. Because of such heavy responsibilities, it is absolutely vital that every member of the profession must not only be a person of the highest integrity and trustworthiness but must also be seen to be so. The lawyer must, like Caesar's wife, be above suspicion.

Thus, if the legal profession is rather tardy in correcting their shortcomings and is unconcerned with protecting the good image of the profession, the Government is duty bound in the public interest to intervene and put things right. I was there- fore rather curious to know why, when the Government first announced the introduction of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill, there was an immediate strong reaction on the part of 62 members of the profession who came out against it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why don't you go there and speak?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: They called for an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Law Society ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Get your members.

Mr Chiam See Tong: That's right. Get your own members to speak.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: --- to deplore the Government's action.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I think we must have some decorum in the House. The Member for Anson spoke for one hour and he was not interrupted. Why cannot he give the same courtesy to other Members of this House?

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I meant to ask him to go before the members tonight.

Mr Speaker: Stop interrupting, Mr Jeyaretnam. You had your say.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: I believe, Mr Speaker, Sir, he has not learned his lesson.

I was therefore curious, Mr Speaker, Sir, to know why, when the Government first announced the introduction of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill, there was an immediate strong reaction on the part of 62 members of the profession who came out against it. They called for an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Law Society to deplore the Government's action. Among the reasons they gave was that the Bill deprived a member, whom the Supreme Court considered fit to be reinstated as an advocate and solicitor after his period of suspension, the right to stand for election and to hold office. To me, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is rather spurious logic because it does not follow that a member found to be fit to practise and to earn his living is in the same category as those who are elected to hold office. This is because the office-holders not only set the standards of behaviour and ethics of the profession but they also reflect the public image of the profession. Office -holders must therefore have an unblemished character.

The small group of activists also complained that the Bill would deprive the lawyers of their independence, ie, their right of self-regulation. I wish to point out the misconception of their claim that without self-regulation there cannot be a strong Bar to safeguard the rights of all persons. The fallacy of their claim of inviolability of self-regulation is clear enough when we look at the record of the legal profession in Singapore in setting proper standards and policing its members. From what I know, the record of the Law Society in this respect is rather disturbing. And this knowledge is quite well known among members of the legal profession.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me cite some of the examples apart from those already cited by the Minister. In one case that I know of, a complaint was made against a lawyer in 1982 alleging that he deceived a magistrate into granting a postponement of a case. A Disciplinary Committee was appointed in April 1983. Nobody knows whether today, after a lapse of three years, the Disciplinary Committee has submitted its report. It is generally believed that it has not. There is even one case of a Disciplinary Committee investigating into the misappropriation of client's monies by a solicitor which did not make any finding at all in its report. It had to be reminded to make a finding.

However, Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say that the majority of cases brought before the Disciplinary Committee were processed satisfactorily. But there are sufficient examples which have been cited of undue delays in the conduct of proceedings and the tardiness in policing that make it clear that the system of self-regulation has failed and should not be allowed to continue. May I also point out that the cases I have cited are the known ones. What about the other cases which we do not know because they never went beyond the Inquiry Committee stage?

If we compare, Mr Speaker, Sir, the position of the legal profession with other professional bodies, the legal profession is in a much privileged position. The Law Society is the only professional body in Singapore where Government officials are excluded from its governing council. On the other hand, Mr Speaker, Sir, as you know, the Medical Council, which is the governing body of our doctors, has the Director of Medical Services sitting as the ex-officio member of the Council.

Self-regulation, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a privilege which carries a corresponding responsibility. It has a responsibility to prescribe proper standards of conduct for its members which must be sufficient to instil the confidence of the public. The growing size of the profession and its relative youth places added responsibility on the more senior members of the profession who must set high standards of conduct. The principle of self-regulation of the legal profession was introduced by the British. However, even in England today, there has been much apprehension over the principle of self-regulation. This is because the situation there is largely the same as that in Singapore. In England, non-lawyer members already sit on the regulatory bodies of the legal profession. There have also been calls for complaints against solicitors and disputes with clients to be dealt with by a body outside the Law Society and for a legal ombudsman to be set up to protect the interests of the general public.

To sum up, Mr Speaker, Sir, what has in fact finally brought matters to a head is not only the lapses on the part of the legal profession to discipline their errant members and to maintain high standards of professional conduct but this negative impression was compounded by the fact that the Law Society has now elected as its President a member who has been disciplined not once but three times. He has been reprimanded once and suspended on two occasions, for one year and six months respectively. This act, Mr Speaker, Sir, has clearly demonstrated the utter disregard and unconcern for maintaining the good public impression of the profession on the part of those responsible.

At the same time, a minority group of activists has also chosen to take on the Government by calling an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Law Society to pass fierce resolutions against the Government. This group comprised only 62 members. Perhaps quite a number of them are members supporting the Member for Anson or the Member for Potong Pasir.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What's wrong with that?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: It is 62 members out of a total of 1,335 practising lawyers. This has brought about a situation which no responsible government can let it pass in the public interest.

The Government has good reasons to deal with this situation firmly. In fact, the present amendments have only made a small inroad in self-regulation. The main structure of the Legal Profession Act has not been touched. In fact, the Law Society and the legal profession as a whole should know that it is being given a second chance to show that it can regulate itself and deal with the errant members adequately, efficiently and expeditiously. I am confident, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the vast majority of the lawyers who have chosen to remain silent will generally support the principles behind the amendments to the Act.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Point of clarification, Mr Speaker. The Member for MacPherson is a member of the Bar. He says that there was a complaint in 1982 involving a magistrate; it went before the Disciplinary Committee and probably no report has been made. He is a member of the Bar and I want to ask him: what has he done about it himself? Or has he just come to this House to air his Party's point of view? Now, as a member of the Bar, I am asking him what has he done? And he says there are a few activists "taking the Government on." These are very strong words talking about his own members in the Law Society. Again, I ask him: if he is really that concerned, has he reported this matter to the Bar Council?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not for me to report to the Law Society Council.

Mr Chiam See Tong: You are a member.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: These matters have already been reported and no action has been taken. That is the reason why I have mentioned it. I believe the Member for Potong Pasir is rather naive as not to have understood what I said.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, by way of clarification again. Is the Member not aware that if the Disciplinary Committee drags its feet over anything, he can write to the Chief Justice who can command the Disciplinary Committee to report immediately what progress it has made? That is the whole point of the Member for Potong Pasir's question. Here is a Member who says he is concerned about it. He has been, by now, 20 months a member of the profession. What has he done?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, my concern is not for individual lawyers.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You mentioned one case.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: But my concern is that the Law Society, the leaders of the Law Society, have not acted the way they should. That is my point.

Mr Chiam See Tong: You are a member. What have you done?

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think in answer to the last query ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: The Member for MacPherson is capable of answering.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Yes, this is all explained very carefully in the Explanatory Statement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I wish to say is, I totally disagree with the Member for Anson's views. He insinuated that there is a political motive behind this Amendment Bill. He does so by way of asking an innocuous question that the Hon. Minister should, and I quote him, "explain the real motives for this Bill and not hide behind platitudes." Sir, then he asserts that it is quite plain to everyone, his words. And he goes on further to make a preposterous suggestion that this Bill is, again I quote him, "prompted for one reason only." And it is because, again I quote him, "the Law Society has done the unforgivable thing in Singapore" to criticize openly the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill. Therefore, again he said, "the Government took umbrage" over the criticism. This is absolutely untrue because one needs only to take a look at the Amendment Bill before the House. It lists in page 6 all the reasons, whys and wherefores, from (a) to (i) inclusive.

Mr Speaker, Sir, therefore, in the course of my contribution, I shall be making reference to these. In some ways also I shall be at the same time making rebuttals on the points made by the Member for Potong Pasir.

Sir, I fully support the move to have this Bill referred to a Select Committee after its Second Reading. In my view, it is primarily because a certain amount of adverse reaction is foreseen, that the Government, by referring this Amendment Bill to a Select Committee, would give ample opportunity to the public, and most certainly, Sir, to the legal profession, to come forward and air their views be they suggestions or criticisms. Let it not be said that this Government introduces changes in a high-handed manner without consulting the people or that the Government sweeps things under the carpet. Let us be open about this and have a free exchange of views. Notice, Sir, I used the word "exchange".

From experience, I have noticed that it is the dissenters who are the ones to come forward to strongly express their dissent and, to some extent, try to impose their views on others which form the majority. Such people who voice their dissent are normally in the minority. As can best be illustrated by the statement from my learned Friend, the Member for MacPherson ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Your learned Friend?

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Yes, he is a lawyer. I call him my learned Friend, what's wrong with that?

Now, Sir, what about the silent majority, those who are in full support? I would urge them to come forward to express their agreement so as to reflect a more realistic and fair response. If the majority choose to remain silent, then only the dissenters will be heard and the result is that an erroneous impression will be created.

To this end, that is, to allow exchange of views, may I suggest to the Hon. Minister that a comprehensive explanation presenting a complete picture of the necessity for this Amendment Bill be given through the mass media when referring the Bill to a Select Committee, so that everyone, including the man-in-the-street, may understand and participate in the exchange.

Sir, suffice to say, I give my support for this particular amendment as being very necessary, namely, the disqualification of members of the Council of the Law Society.

Let me explain. Professional integrity is vital to Singapore's development as a Centre of Excellence in the field of communications, business, finance, trade and professional services. There must be no doubt whatsoever in anybody's mind, whether that of an investor, amulti-national corporation, our trade partners or our neighbours, that we Singaporeans can render clean, honest and competent services here.

Since honesty and integrity cannot be enforced on individual professionals in the course of their work, surely we can at least require that their representatives should not have a conviction of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty as it would put a question mark against the good name of their profession. It does not speak well of a professional body to be represented by persons whose honesty and integrity have been proved to be not beyond question.

Granted there are bound to be a few delinquents, recalcitrants or black sheep in any profession. But the vast majority can safely say that their professional integrity has never been questioned before or has never been undermined by a conviction of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. It follows then that representatives of that profession can be chosen from amongst this vast majority. This must be the case, is it not?

Sir, I cannot think how the overall interests of Singapore can be best served if professional bodies are led, managed and represented by members whose professional integrity has been called to question. Here, I am speaking generally; I am not speaking of any professional body in particular. In this respect, I would like to suggest to the Hon. Minister again that similar criteria be extended to all professional bodies in order that we are not seen to suggest that it is only the legal profession that we are more concerned with.

Is it not about time that the Government conduct a comprehensive review of all professional bodies in line with this year's motto "Together - Excellence for Singapore" and also looking ahead to the Vision of 1999?

Let us now look at the amendments objectively with the national interests uppermost in our minds. I do not think it is too much to require members of the Council of the Law Society to be persons whose good name and professional honesty and integrity have never been besmirched by a conviction of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. I have always held the view that the legal profession is a very noble profession among others. It has its own very commendable and strict code of conduct and etiquette. Since the members of the legal profession are already bound by their own code of conduct and etiquette, this Bill does not impose new values on them. This Bill merely ensures that the Council of the Law Society comprises members who have not breached their own code of conduct and etiquette.

Finally, Sir, I would categorize the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill as introducing changes mainly in three ways:

(1) by adding a new disqualification for those members of the legal profession who hold or who wish to hold office as a member of the Council of the Law Society;

(2) by expediting the disciplinary process at the Inquiry Committee stage; and

(3) by making various technical improvements upon the present system, in particular to fill the lacuna recently brought to light in the case of James Chia versus the Law Society of Singapore, as contained in (g) of the Explanatory Statement in the Amendment Bill.

Sir, I shall not concern myself with the second and third changes as I feel that there are others more qualified than I who could offer their views on them. Therefore, I shall confine my remarks to the first area of change which concerns the disqualification of members from holding office in the Council of the Law Society who have been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. This I foresee will create more than a few ripples in certain quarters of the legal profession.

Here, may I seek further clarification from the Hon. Minister on clauses 2 and 3 of the amendment Bill. To me, Sir, it is not clear enough. Does it mean that the period of 6 months is at any one time or an aggregate of suspension that was imposed previously? Because reading clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill together with sections 51 and 59(1)(a) of the Act, I get the impression that the period of 6 months is still ambiguous.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, whilst I give this Bill my full support, I also hope that the public in general and those interested in particular, would make their contributions so that the Select Committee, in their deliberations, will benefit from them before they finally present their Report to Parliament for the Third Reading of the Bill.

Thank you, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: What is your point of clarification?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Member talked about delay in the Inquiry Committee proceedings. Is he not aware that in the Act, the Inquiry Committee must report within two months?

Mr Speaker: Mr Chandra Das.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Firstly, I would like to commend the Second Minister for Law for committing the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill to a Select Committee after today's Second Reading. Sir, it is important that the proposed amendments in the Bill are fully discussed and debated by all interested parties and that they be given this opportunity to express their views and make appropriate recommendations. This will also give the legal fraternity another opportunity apart from the Extraordinary General Meeting scheduled for tonight.

Mr Speaker, Sir, apart from the legal fraternity, there have also been discussions on this subject by other professional groups. So it is my hope that many people will come forth and make their views known. Notwithstanding the commitment of this Bill to a Select Committee, I would like to make my comments on two issues.

The first point refers to what the Society in Singapore in general expects from our professionals. And secondly what I believe our professionals owe to Society. As we all know, professionals are well respected and trusted by society at large because of their training, competence and, most of all, their integrity. Professional bodies are set up, among other things, to ensure that this trust and respect is maintained at all times. This applies to all whether they are lawyers, architects, accountants or engineers. If professional bodies are to supervise the conduct of its members, Mr Speaker, Sir, I firmly believe that it is necessary for such bodies to be led by men who are above the slightest possible reproach. This, I believe, is an accepted norm in any society and I do not think any rational man can quarrel with this accepted standard.

This amendment, Sir, only disqualifies a member from holding office in the Law Society if he has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. Sir, I repeat, it only disqualifies anyone convicted of fraud or dishonesty. The question to ask is: Do we want our professional societies to be led by men who have been convicted of fraud or dishonesty? Sir, if the answer is yes, then something is gravely wrong. Surely, if one is convicted of fraud or dishonesty and subsequently allowed to practise his profession, does this then become a testimonial for holding high office in the professional body?

Sir, I believe a distinction must be made between allowing a person to practise one's profession after conviction to earn a livelihood and that of becoming a leader-man of the professional body. The Member for Potong Pasir, I think it was reported in the newspapers, had accused the Government of applying double standards as regards Mr David Marshall. I think the Member for Potong Pasir has done a great disservice to Mr Marshall who retired as an eminent member of the Bar.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an important point. It should be clarified. Could the Member please look at the amendment under clause 2? It says:

'A member who has been struck off the roll or suspended from practice for a period of 6 months or more or has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty ...'. "Or", that is disjunctive. Please read it carefully before you make your accusations.

Mr Chandra Das: I am not accusing. I am just saying that you have done Mr David Marshall a great disservice. That is all I said.

Mr Chiam See Tong: No. This amendment here says "6 months ...".

Mr Chandra Das: I am not denying. I am just repeating what you said as reported in the newspapers.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Is it not a fact or a justification?

Mr Chandra Das: Let me finish and then you can have your chance. Sir, I still think the Member for Potong Pasir has done Mr David Marshall a great disservice.

Mr Chiam See Tong: A point of order.

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, I am not giving way.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have every right to say that and he is saying that I was wrong. I challenge him. The amendment says, "6 months or ...". It is disjunctive there. Read it carefully, please.

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, can I carry on? Mr David Marshall now has the distinction of serving as our Ambassador to France.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course, we know that.

Mr Chandra Das: Mr Marshall was barred from practice for a period of time.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Six months.

Mr Chandra Das: Six months, all right. And I think it is not for defrauding clients. After his debarment, he came back to continue his practice and he did not seek office in the Law Society.

Mr Chiam See Tong: You understand the word "disjunctive"?

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, I am not giving way.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, you should pull him to order. He is saying something which ---

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, I am not giving way.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What I said was truthful and he is implying that what I said was ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, was Mr Marshall in the Council of the Law Society?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No. I was comparing the appointments. Which was more important - to be an Ambassador of Singapore or appointed to the Law Society?

Mr Chandra Das: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I carry on?

Mr Speaker: He was talking about a member of the Council of the Law Society.

Mr Chiam See Tong: But please. I think there should be a point of order. Bring him to it.

Mr Chandra Das: There is no point of order.

Mr Chiam See Tong: He is saying that I said something wrong against Mr David Marshall and that I should apologize.

Mr Chandra Das: Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not say that. I was just stating what he said as reported in the newspapers.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. Is that not correct?

Mr Chandra Das: I am just repeating what you said.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am asking you a question.

Mr Chandra Das: No, I do not have to answer you.

Mr Speaker: All right, sit down, Mr Chiam.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. If the Member for Potong Pasir has a point in reply to the Member for Chong Boon, he can have his say later.

Mr Chiam See Tong: But this is an important point.

Mr Chandra Das: Mr Speaker, Sir, all I am saying is that Mr David Marshall can continue to serve Singapore in other areas. He did not seek office in the Law Society. That is the only point I am trying to make.

Sir, this reminds me of the case of a British Cabinet Minister who had to resign from his Defence portfolio because he lied in Parliament. He resigned and he never contested any elections. And instead, he spent all his energies on social work. I think it was a couple of years ago that the Queen found it necessary to bestow an honour on this particular former Minister for his public service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point refers to the provision for a wider representation in the Disciplinary Committee. I welcome this move to bring in other professionals such as accountants, engineers and doctors to the Disciplinary Committee. While self-regulation may have served us well in the past, I think the time has come for us to change it. The Singapore Stock Exchange, as was previously alluded to, is a case in point where self-regulation led to a number of problems and adequate measures had to be taken to put this right. I am also told that the accounting profession in the United Kingdom has "lay observers" in its Investigating Committee as well as in its Disciplinary Committee. And by having such lay observers or laymen, not totally members of the legal profession, this will allay any public fears of trying to hide things under the carpet.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the work of professionals involve most sectors of our society and it is only reasonable that disciplinary proceedings of professionals must not only be fair but also be transparent. This transparency, I believe, Sir, will be provided with the appointment of non-legal members on the Disciplinary Committee.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also appeal to the Front Bench that while these amendments are meant for the legal profession, I think similar provisions should be looked into for other professional bodies. 3.27 pm

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to give my support to this Bill and to offer some comments as a layman who might be hurt by unscrupulous lawyers.

Sir, from the representatives of the legal profession in this House, one can evidently see a wide spectrum, from people of very base quality to people who are brilliant and have great integrity. I do not need to mention names. I think Members know well who I am referring to.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What are you afraid of?

Dr Augustine Tan: The two Members of the Opposition as usual put the worst possible construction on the motives behind the Bill as on other Bills. And as usual, they try to confuse the public. In this case, they are trying to confuse the public as between two issues. One is the political role of professional bodies and the other is the standards that should govern the legal profession.

Sir, I have written to the press on the matter of political role of professional bodies, particularly the legal profession. And my view is very simply that professional bodies have a responsibility, a duty, to maintain high professional standards. Their job is to defend the interests of their bodies in order to function properly as professionals. But if they want to use these bodies which are constituted for profes- sional reasons, use them or misuse them for political reasons, then they should register as political parties. Or else they can speak out as private individuals.

So far as the Law Society is concerned, I think hon. Members who are non-lawyers, like myself, may be wondering why should these people called lawyers be given a special privilege. Why should they be entitled to special legislation on their behalf? Why can they not be registered like other professional bodies under the Societies Act which, I understand, is much more stringent? If one wants to talk of control, this Societies Act has very stringent controls on who may hold office in various societies which are so registered. So I want to make this point very clear, Sir. That it is because the contributions of the legal profession are acknowledged, recognized, by the Government, that the Legal Profession Act was brought into force to give this special body of professionals a special recognized standing in society, a position of honour that must not be abused.

Sir, my PAP colleagues who spoke earlier have mentioned that Singapore is a society that is based upon the rule of law. That is something that we should always bear in mind. Law governs the society. The way the society is run, the way contracts are drawn up, the way rights and responsibilities are balanced in this society, and one would expect that the members of the legal profession, particularly the practitioners of law, should themselves be law abiding. And, Sir, I am somewhat surprised when the Member for Anson made the allegation that this particular amendment seeks to humiliate members of the legal profession. I would have thought, Sir, that people who have been convicted of fraud or criminal offences or else been suspended from their professional activity for some time would already have felt the humiliation. If I were a lawyer and if I were convicted of fraud or dishonesty, CBT or whatever, or some criminal act, I would not know where to hide my face. I would not want to stand for election in the Law Society as a President of the Law Society and make pretentious pronouncements on policies in Singapore and hoping that people would look to him as a potential leader.

An hon. Member: Thick skin.

Dr Augustine Tan: Yes, that is a correct word. He has an epidermis which is thicker than normal. Humiliation. There should be humility on the part of these people.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You have got a lot of humility.

Dr Augustine Tan: Praise the Lord, again, yes, for his grace.

The humiliation, if any, is self-inflicted. And if they choose to expose themselves in public positions, then all their past must be exposed to public scrutiny.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What about your past?

Dr Augustine Tan: I am glad that this Bill will screen potential candidates for the Law Society Council in future. The Member for Anson brought out some statistics on the percentage of crooks in the legal profession. I wonder how comprehensive his statistics are and I wonder whether any Members in this House are included therein. What would be of interest to this House and to members of the public is this, Sir. What is the percentage of crooks in the legal profession compared with the accountancy profession, compared with doctors and other professions? That will be an interesting statistic to get, and I think somebody should produce these statistics. I think it will be of interest to us because if it is shown up that the legal profession has the highest percentage of crooks, then we are all in trouble in Singapore. I think we ought to do something.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Dr Augustine Tan: I am not giving way, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think he cannot make insinuations against the legal profession.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, he was not referring to you.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will allow him to clarify if he feels guilty.

Mr Chiam See Tong: He cannot insinuate against the legal profession.

Mr Speaker: Carry on, Dr Tan.

Dr Augustine Tan: So I assume he is guilty. I have some other questions, Sir.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Let us have your past, come on.

Dr Augustine Tan: I have nothing to be ashamed of. You talk about insinuation. Will you please say what is in my past, and off the record or without privilege or immunity? Come on. I challenge you to say anything against me.

Mr Speaker: Order. Carry on, Dr Tan.

Mr Chiam See Tong: In the first place I am not making such insinuations.

Dr Augustine Tan: Well, I am asking you to speak up, without cowardly hiding behind immunity of the House.

Mr Speaker: All right. Let us have order.

Dr Augustine Tan: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Some people interpret immunity as impunity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may refer to clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill. What surprises me, Sir, is that, first of all, members of the legal profession are still allowed to practise in spite of convictions and suspension in the past. I think there should be a list drawn up of all lawyers who have had previous convictions and suspension so that the public knows who to avoid in future. They should not be allowed to make money at all. Secondly, why do we only exclude those who have been suspended in practice for more than six months? To me, if any member has been suspended for any length of time, even one day, it speaks of standards which are not befitting the profession. I would not allow them to practise at all, let alone stand for election as a member of the Council of the Law Society. I would like to add another category to the list for the hon. Minister. I would like to add that people who are expelled from Parliament, suspended from Parliament, or thrown into jail by the Speaker, should also be prohibited from practising law and from standing for election to the Council of the Law Society.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I in clarification say that when I talked about the humiliation of the members of the Law Society, I was referring to the introduction of the Bill in Parliament without any consultation or discussion with the members. That is the humiliation I was talking about. I know it will be referred to a Select Committee, but that is completely a different thing. There was no consultation with the members before the Bill was introduced. That is the humiliation.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, in reply I would only say that only those who are proud and exalt themselves will feel humiliated if they are not consulted.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Irrelevant.