LEGAL PROFESSION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for having spoken on the Bill. I would like to remind Members that, as I have said, it is the intention to refer this Bill to the Select Committee. I therefore will confine myself, in reply, to broad points and not go into the detailed drafting of the specific provisions which will be the job of the Select Committee to look into.

I have noted the comments made by the Member for MacPherson, the Member for Punggol, the Member for Chong Boon and the Member for Whampoa. With regard to the specific points that they have raised, the Member for Punggol asked whether clauses 2 and 3 raise an ambiguity, whether it refers to a period of six months or more, or whether there can be an aggregate of periods. My reading of the Bill suggests that there is no ambiguity and it refers to a period. Otherwise a different wording "period or periods in the aggregate" might have been used. But this is a point which can be looked into by the Select Committee. If there is ambiguity, it can be tightened up.

Some of the Members whilst supporting the Bill referred to the fact that perhaps it should not only be the legal profession but other professions should also be reviewed. This point is noted, although I might add that the problem has arisen with regard to the Law Society. With regard to most of the other professions, as far as I know, the appointment of the Council members is either at the nomination or approval of the Government or at least, for example, with regard to the Medical Council, the President or the Chairman is appointed by the Government. Nonetheless, I have noted the Member's suggestion that the questions of principles which arise may call for a review of the other provisions. And I take the point with regard to, for example, the provision for lay representation.

If I may turn to the views expressed by the Members for Potong Pasir and Anson. First, they have made the point that this whole Bill is connected with the Law Society's pronouncements on the amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, and therefore the Member for Anson develops his theory that there is some hidden motive. I would like to make it clear that had the Law Society not come out with any statement on the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill, this Bill would still be moved in Parliament today. Because what was never envisaged has happened. A person with a tainted record has been first elected to the Council, and the Council then has elected him as President of the Society, a high office which sets the tone and standards for the rest of the profession. Something unprecedented has happened.

Members have read the Bill. We have not made any provision in the Bill to restrict the kind of statements which the Law Society can make. Members of Parliament as well as Ministers, including the First Deputy Prime Minister, have already stated what the Government's position is, on a group of persons taking over the Law Society leadership for purposes of venturing into political pronouncements. That has already been made clear. This Bill deals with a different matter, but the fact that the Council did elect a person with such a record to the Presidency does indeed reveal their motives.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the next point which both Members from the Opposition gave a lot of emphasis was that there was no prior consultation. Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to that, let me say the following. First of all, a copy of this Bill was sent to the Law Society even before hon. Members had seen the text of the Bill. Secondly, I have mentioned ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I seek clarification?

Prof. Jayakumar: May I finish what I have to say?

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right.

Prof. Jayakumar: The Member has a propensity to interrupt when he himself is not interrupted.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I want clarification. That is all.

Prof. Jayakumar: Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has already indicated that it is the intention to send this Bill to Select Committee where the views of all concerned, and particularly the Law Society, can be made known, discussed and deliberated. I would like to make a third point. That point is this: that, in my view, the present leadership of the Law Society has forfeited its right to prior consultation.

Let me explain, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have made it a point, a practice with the previous Council, of sending them Bills on areas where they would have an interest - legal profession, administration of criminal justice, even amendments to the Constitution. I have gone out of my way to inform the Council that I would send them Bills in advance and, in fact, I have sent them Bills even before hon. Members receive them. I think there was a basis to do so. I conveyed this also to the present Council. But consultation by its very essence must be a two-way process. Sometimes the Government may have a reasonable basis to seek information from the Law Society Council.

Let me mention, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when the President of the Law Society issued a statement on the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill and, in that statement, made the claim, and I quote, "A brief survey was conducted by the Law Society which showed that the effects of the Bill would be minimal", we were very interested to know what were the findings of the survey. The Permanent Secretary (Law), on the direction of the Minister, wrote to the President of the Law Society and asked if the Council could make available to the Ministry of Law the dates, raw data and analyzed results of the brief survey which shows that the Bill would have only minimal effects. After some foot-dragging, the Council informed the Ministry of Law that it was "unable to accede to your request." The Ministry of Law (its Permanent Secretary) then wrote to the President of the Law Society and said, "What conceivable basis could there be not to cooperate and give information on a survey which the Law Society itself had made reference to in public?" The Permanent Secretary even suggested to the President of Law Society that if they were worried about confidentiality, then they could either seek the consent of whosoever had been surveyed, for disclosure, or the Law Society need not supply to the Permanent Secretary (Law) the identity of whoever was surveyed. So the confidentiality can be preserved. Back came the final reply:

'I am directed to inform you that since the relevant information was obtained on a confidential basis, the Council regrets that it is unable to accede to your request.' A survey where public reference was made. As I said, this is a Council which claims, and on whose behalf it is now claimed, that they have a right to prior consultation. I say that that Council, this present Council, by that action, has forfeited its right to prior consultation. Mr Speaker, Sir, nevertheless we sent them the Bill the moment it was published, even before hon. Members received them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was really astounded to see the Member for Potong Pasir and the Member for Anson opposing this Bill. What is the conclusion that we must draw from their total opposition to this Bill? The Member for Anson was prepared to support the lay representation part but the Member for Potong Pasir found there was no part in it at all which he could support. Both of them oppose this Bill. What is the implication of their opposition? It must be that they condone and they approve the idea that a person, who has been convicted of an offence of fraud or dishonesty, can be elected to the leadership position in the professional organization. This must be the irresistible conclusion. Both of them are in support of that idea that such a person with such tainted record can be elected to the Council of the Law Society, leave alone the No.1 post of President. What does this show of the importance that they place on integrity? Don't they attach any importance to the element of integrity? Don't they have the slightest regard for safeguarding the interests of the public? Don't they have any priority placed on responsibility, while they talk about rights of individual advocates and solicitors?

By what they have said, they are therefore placing themselves on record that they condone and approve of the Law Society electing a person, who had been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty or fraud, into office. I think that speaks for itself and therein lies the difference between the Members of the Opposition for Potong Pasir and Anson and the Government. Because the Government places highest priority to integrity. The Government places highest priority in safeguarding the interests of the public who have no choice but to use lawyers.

The Member for Anson asked: why bring this Bill suddenly? Because this situation has never happened before. That is why. And it is not just the legal profession. If the Government did not act now to make it clear that there must be this disqualification, then this disease will spread to the other professions. Perhaps the Members for Potong Pasir and Anson will applaud when it spreads even to the Legislature and persons convicted of fraud or dishonesty are elected to the Legislature. Probably they will applaud because they have not in their speeches shown any regard for honesty and integrity as a criterion, not for practice, for leadership positions in the Law Society. But the Member for Whampoa made a point which I think the Government also will have to consider. He said: should we not also consider whether such persons with such records even ought to practise? That is a very good point, and indeed it is a point which the Government will have to consider.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now like to say that the Member for Anson in his speech has clearly given a very false and misleading representation of the provisions of the present Act. First of all, he says that it is not true that the Law Society Council shares the disciplinary function with the Judges of the Supreme Court. He says everything lies in the hands of the Chief Justice. This is totally untrue and totally false. The Law Society must deal with complaints at the Inquiry Committee level before it goes to the Disciplinary Committee and thereafter to the Judges of the Supreme Court. If the Inquiry Committee finds that there is no cause for formal investigation and the Council agrees, then it cannot go on to the Disciplinary Committee and to the courts.

The second instance where he has misled is when he told us that the Chief Justice can at any time intervene if he disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Committee or disagrees with the findings of the Disciplinary Committee. This is false. The Chief Justice or a Judge of the Supreme Court, under the present Act, cannot intervene and cannot step in on his own volition. This is not allowed by the Act. He can only intervene if a formal application is made by the individual complainant. He did not tell us that. He gave us the impression when he said that the Chief Justice can at any time step in and therefore everything is in the control of the Chief Justice. It is because of that inadequacy that we are seeking to amend section 97 to provide that a finding of the Disciplinary Committee can be reviewed not only at the instance of the individual complainant but also at the instance of the Judge and, we have also added, at the instance of the Law Society.

The Member for Anson says there is no need for the Act. The public is adequately protected. Does he really expect the public to believe that? Does he expect the public to believe that their interests are adequately protected when the Council elects as its No.1 leader a man who has been disciplined on three occasions and a man whom the courts, the Chief Justice, had to say, and I quote:

'Was guilty of grossly improper conduct in discharge of duties, whose conduct was wholly deplorable, as being dishonourable of him as a man and dishonourable of his profession.' And the Member for Anson expects us and the public to believe that their interests are adequately protected.

The Member for Anson, and to some extent the Member for Potong Pasir, made the point that this has something to do with the rights of advocates and solicitors. The Member for Anson made much ado about the fact that all members enjoy the same privileges and rights. Once he has been convicted and punished, thereafter he has a right, presumably a right to be elected President. This shows a complete lack of regard to the interests of the public and a lack of regard for responsibility. Whose rights are we talking about? When the Council elects a person with such a flaw as President, is it a question of their right to elect whosoever without intervention by us? Or is it not also a question of responsibility, having in mind the interests of the public? We are not saying that such a person should never be allowed to practise his profession, although the Member for Whampoa has made a forceful point. The issue is not whether he can continue to practise, the issue is whether such persons ought to be in a leadership position of the governing body of a profession which so many members of the public resort to and must have confidence in facing. I would like to ask the Member for Potong Pasir and the Member for Anson: If there is a child molester, convicted child molester or rapist, ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: How can you compare apples and oranges?

Prof. Jayakumar: Of course, that person cannot be barred from holding any job, he has a right to employment. But would you appoint him in charge of a childcare creche? If a member, an individual, has been convicted of criminal breach of trust or corruption, would it be all right to appoint him as your Accountant-General? This is the issue, the issue of integrity and the issue of responsibility.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the point therefore is: we are talking about leadership position in a council which (a) is to regulate and police errant and delinquent members, and (b) Council members to set the tone and the standards for others to follow. How can either of these objectives be achieved when Council members who are elected are themselves as errant and delinquent as those they are supposed to police and discipline?

The Member for Anson has raised some red herrings. Apparently, the Prime Minister in 1973 had a discussion with the Law Society Council. Well, I do not know the background to it. But I have no hesitation in saying that I see no reason whatsoever why the Prime Minister of a country cannot call up the Law Society or any other professional body if he is concerned with the state of affairs. In fact, this only goes to show that the Prime Minister and the Government were concerned about this as long ago as 1973. I think his real complaint is that the Prime Minister excluded him from the consultation. Likewise, again I do not know the background, I see nothing wrong with the Prime Minister calling up a group of pilots if he, as the head of Government, feels that their action is going to bring about the downfall of an airline or going to bring about loss of confidence in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I need to spend more time on the other points. I think I have dealt with the main points. In short, this Bill is necessary not only for the legal profession but we have to act now if we want to make it clear that there must be certain standards of integrity and made essential pre-requisites for leadership positions in the Law Society; and if we want to make sure that this point is also registered with other professions.

Sir, I am much obliged.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask in clarification?

Mr Speaker: You can surely ask this in Select Committee. There is the Select Committee coming up.

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, Sir, but here, at the Second Reading, because in his speech the Minister has accused me of misleading. I would like to clarify that. And, secondly, he has just said that I have misled the House on certain sections. I have to put that right.

Mr Speaker: All right, clarify.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Firstly, it is this question about sending a copy of the Bill to the Council. My point was that before the Bill was introduced on the 25th August in this House, there was no reference of it to the Council. The Minister says I have misled. But he comes back and he says even before Members of the House saw the Bill, he had sent it to the Council. The question simply is this: did the Minister send it to the Council before the Bill was introduced in Parliament? That was the point.

I have spoken to the President this morning and he said there was no communication whatsoever to him before the Bill was introduced in Parliament. So would the Minister put this right and not try and mislead the House? He says the first communication was a letter of the 15th September from the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Law.

Secondly, the Minister accuses me of misleading. If he looks at section 94(2) of the Act, the Minister will find that if the Disciplinary Committee determines that no cause of sufficient gravity exists, the court can direct further action, notwithstanding the report of the Disciplinary Committee. This is where I said the Chief Justice has control over the whole proceedings. And I said the report of the Disciplinary Committee must also go to the Chief Justice. So he does not have to accept the report of the Disciplinary Committee, regardless of whether the Council accepts it or not.

And I do think the Minister was unfair to me in accusing me of misleading because I specifically referred to sections 96 and 97 of the Act. I said where the Inquiry Committee does not recommend a formal investigation, the applicant can still apply to the Court and the Judge can then direct that the matter be sent to the Disciplinary Committee. Similarly, I said section 97 where the Disciplinary Committee concludes that there is no case, the applicant can still go to the Court and get the Judge's ruling on it. So I would like to know where have I misled the House when I referred to all these sections.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I have the correspondence with me here. But if what the Member for Anson says is that the Law Society received the communication only on 15th September, then I think this is not quite correct although ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: I was told by the President. I do not know whether this is correct or not.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may just have a moment to look through my notes. Suffice it for me to say, Sir, that a copy of the Bill was sent to the President of the Law Society either on or before the date of introduction in this House.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Before the 25th August?

Prof. Jayakumar: Either on 25th August or before.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I must check.

Prof. Jayakumar: You can check on it. But certainly not as late as 15th September.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will check that with him because I spoke to him this morning.

Prof. Jayakumar: Yes. The other point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is what the Member for Anson said, and which I claimed he was misleading and I still stand by it, is that in his speech he maintained that if the Chief Justice disagrees with the findings of the Disciplinary Committee or the Inquiry Committee, the Chief Justice can step in at any time. His thesis was everything is within the control of the Chief Justice.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Section 94.

Prof. Jayakumar: And I pointed out that it is only when the applicant makes a formal complaint or application that the Chief Justice can step in.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What about section 94(2)?

Prof. Jayakumar: I am now talking about what the Member for Anson said. If he now corrects the position to say that the applicant ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, no. I am referring to section 94(2).

Prof. Jayakumar: I am talking about a disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Committee or the Disciplinary Committee. It is because of that inadequacy that the amendment seeks to provide additional methods of review of the findings of the Disciplinary Committee.

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Jeyaretnam: I ask for a Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Ring the Division bells.

The House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 2, Abstention, 1. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abbas Abu Amin Lee Hsien Loong Abdullah Tarmugi Lee Yock Suan Ahmad Mattar Lim Boon Heng Ang Kok Peng Ng Kah Ting Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Othman bin Haron Eusofe Chai Chong Yii Ow Chin Hock Chandra Das, S. Phua Bah Lee Chen, Bernard Sidek bin Saniff Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Tan Cheng Bok Chin Harn Tong Tan, Dixie Chng Hee Kok Tan Soo Khoon Ch'ng Jit Koon Tang Guan Seng Chua Sian Chin Teh Cheang Wan Goh Chok Tong Teo Chong Tee Ho Kah Leong Vasoo, S. Ho Tat Kin Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri Ibrahim Othman Wan Soon Bee Jayakumar, S. Wang Kai Yuen Koh Lam Son Wong Kan Seng Koh Lip Lin Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Lai Tha Chai Yatiman Yusof Lau Teik Soon Yeo Cheow Tong Lee Boon Yang Yeo Choo Kok Ayes (cont.) Noes (cont.) Yeo Toon Chia Jeyaretnam, J.B. Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Zulkifli bin Mohammed Noes Abstention Chiam See Tong Yeoh Ghim Seng

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, before we move on, can I give some information which I did not locate earlier? The relevant dates are as follows. On 25th August, Mr Hochstadt, Permanent Secretary (Law), wrote to the President of the Law Society forwarding a copy of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill and informing him that the Bill would be introduced in Parliament on the 25th. A second letter dated 15th September is a separate matter informing the Law Society of the intention to commit the Bill to Select Committee.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you.

Resolved,

That the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar].