LEGAL PROFESSION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr Speaker: Notice has been given by the Minister for Law of amendments in respect of clauses 4, 5, 11 and 12 as set out in the Order Paper Supplement. The Bill accordingly stands recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of those clauses.

Committee stage, what day, Mr Minister?

The Minister for Law (Mr E.W. Barker): Now, Sir.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clause 4 -

Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, lines 12 and 13, to leave out "subsection" and insert "subsections".

This is to correct a typographical error.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, line 19, after "election", to insert "or appointment".

Sir, this particular clause deals with the election of members and prohibits them under certain conditions from standing for election. Members of the Council of the Bar are also appointed by me. In fact, I appoint three of them. Hence, after the word "election", we have to insert "or appointment".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, line 21, after "after", to insert "a period of".

This is just to improve the English.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, line 32, to leave out "subsection (2B) within the", and insert "that subsection within a".

This is just to improve the English, Sir.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 -

Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 3, line 37, after "paragraph (a)", to insert "of subsection (1)".

This is to correct an error.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 3, after line 43, to insert -

"(b) by inserting, immediately after the words "section 55" in subsection (3), the words "or under subsection (1) of section 57"; and".

This is a tidying up process.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 4, line 3, to leave out "(2) and (3)", and insert "(1) and (2)".

This is to correct an error in numbers.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: Consequential amendments will be made:

In page 3, line 43, to lave out "and".

In page 4, line 1, to re-letter paragraph "(b)" as "(c)".

These will be done.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 -

Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 6, lines 23, 24 and 25, to leave out "persons who have been Judges of the Supreme Court or" and insert "retired judges or persons".

Sir, our proposal is to have a panel on the Disciplinary Committee, a panel of five chosen from retired Judges and from advocates and solicitors with the necessary experience. Apparently, there are very few Judges of the Supreme Court who have retired and are available. We therefore propose also to appoint retired District Judges. Hence this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 6, line 31, to leave out "service" and insert "experience".

The word "experience" seems to be more appropriate.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 6, after line 39, to insert -

"(c) by deleting the words "or subject to the limits aforesaid increase the number of the members of a Disciplinary Committee" in subsection (3); and".

Sir, under the present subsection (3) of section 91, the Chief Justice may at any time revoke the appointment of any Disciplinary Committee or remove any member of a Disciplinary Committee or fill any vacancy in a Disciplinary Committee or, subject to the limits aforesaid, increase the number of the members of a Disciplinary Committee.

Sir, under section 91(2), the present Disciplinary Committee consists of not less than three nor more than five persons, as the Chief Justice thinks fit. These numbers under the present Bill have been cut down to three. Hence these amendments to subsections (2) and (3) of section 91.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 7, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words "of the Disciplinary Committee".

Sir, these words are not needed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 7, line 13, to leave out "not being a lay person" and insert "appointed under paragraph (a) of subsection (1)".

Sir, the intention is to pay a member of a Disciplinary Committee who is not a practising advocate and solicitor and not pay those in practice. Hence this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Chairman: Consequential amendments will be made.

(1) In page 6, line 39, to leave out "and".

(2) In page 6, line 40, to re-letter existing paragraph "(c)" as "(d)".

These will be done.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 -

Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move,

In page 7, line 18, after the word "line", to insert "and substituting a full-stop".

Sir, it is necessary to replace the semicolon with the full-stop because the proviso is being deleted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

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

Sir, when the House last met on 22nd September 1986, the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill was taken through its Second Reading by the Second Minister for Law and then sent to a Select Committee. I was then away in Korea for the Asian Games.

Sir, the Select Committee has met and its proceedings have been widely reported and published. The Committee's Report has been circulated to Members.

Sir, the Committee received several representations. Those in writing are set out in Appendix II of the Report. In addition, oral representations were heard from members of the Law Society.

After considering all representations carefully, the Government has made certain changes to the Bill. The revised Bill incorporating these amendments is set out in Appendix I of the Report. It is that Bill, as further amended on Recommittal, which is now before the House.

Sir, the Council of the Law Society in making their representations generally supported the amendments to the Legal Profession Act. However, in doing so, they suggested certain changes. Where their proposals did not derogate from the basic rationale of Government in amending the Act, our response was positive and these were accepted or accepted with modifications.

We originally proposed that a practitioner member who has been struck off the roll or suspended from practice for a period of six months or more, or has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty, shall not be eligible for election as a member of the Council. The ban was to be permanent or for life. The Council was unhappy and proposed instead that the ban should be for a period of five years. We reached a compromise, namely, that after a period of five years expires, the disqualified person can once again stand for election but only with the leave of three Judges of the Supreme Court. How he should go about obtaining such leave is set out in detail in clause 4 of the revised Bill.

Sir, it was originally proposed that a layman should sit as a member of the Disciplinary Committee. The Council strongly opposed this and suggested that the layman could better serve in the Inquiry Committee. The Select Committee accepted this representation.

The Inquiry Committee will now consist of four persons:-

(a) two advocates and solicitors;

(b) a legal officer; and

(c) a layman. A casting vote, when required, will be given to the Chairman, namely, a practitioner. The Chief Justice will appoint the members of the Inquiry Committee. He will also appoint 20 laymen to be members of the Inquiry Panel.

As I said before, it was envisaged originally that a layman will be a member of the Disciplinary Committee. We have now provided that the lay person will only be an observer in the Committee with no vote in decision-making. However, he will be there to see that justice is being done. He will be there to improve the public perception of the disciplinary process and to dispel any cynicism about lawyers protecting their own kind.

The Disciplinary Committee to be appointed by the Chief Justice will consist of:

(a) a person from a panel of not more than five persons being persons who have been Judges or who have been advocates and solicitors with not less than 12 years' experience;

(b) a practising advocate and solicitor;

(c) a legal officer who has at least 10 years' service;

(d) a lay member of the Inquiry Committee.

I should explain why one member of the Disciplinary Committee should be from the small permanent panel. This is to ensure that some members of the Disciplinary Committee will handle cases regularly and make for consistency over a period of time.

Sir, the fact that much of the work of the Law Society in disciplining its members is carried out in a shroud of secrecy, has contributed much to the cynicism and distrust of the profession when disciplining its members. Accordingly, the law is amended in section 93 to require publication of the findings and determination of the disciplinary inquiry. Henceforth, copies of theseproceedings will be made available to members of the public upon payment of the prescribed fee.

Sir, another representation of the Law Society concerned an existing provision which obligated the Chief Justice himself to be a member of a court of three Judges determining the punishment to be meted out to those found guilty of disciplinary offences. It was felt that this provision will offend the rules of natural justice where the Chief Justice himself was the complainant. A change has therefore been made to section 98 by clause 16. Henceforth, a Judge who is the complainant will not be a member of the court of three Judges determining such matters.

A serious complaint made by the Attorney-General to the Select Committee concerned the undue delays in disciplinary proceedings. These have given rise to much criticism and allegations of cover-up and lack of will and determination in maintaining discipline and standards by the Law Society. Therefore, a new amendment is proposed to section 93 by clause 14. It will now be obligatory for a Disciplinary Committee to carry out its work expeditiously and, as a sanction, powers are given to the Society to apply to the Chief Justice for directions to be given to a Disciplinary Committee, if the Disciplinary Committee fails to make findings and determination within six months from the date of its appointment. This coincides with one of the recommendations of the Law Society.

Sir, we have recently seen the Law Society being drawn into politicking under the absurd guise of "assisting" the Government. We have amended section 39(1)(c) which sets out the purposes and powers of the Society as well as section 61 (1)(d) which deals with the specific powers of the Council in assisting the Government in regard to examining legislation, current or proposed. These subsections will now be amended by the insertion of the words "submitted to it" after the word "legislation". In doing so, the specific wording in both provisions have been restored to the position that obtained in the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance of 1935 where almost identical provisions are to be found. For some reason, the draftsman in 1966 had thought these words to be tautologous. The Law Society in order to function properly, having in mind its main objects to seek the advancement of its members as well as to maintain standards, should confine itself to such activities as would be germane to the profession's well -being.

Sir, I beg to move.

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

The hon. Member for Anson has indicated that he wishes to move an amendment to the Question. As the hon. Member is aware, debate on the Third Reading of a Bill shall be confined to the contents of the Bill. The hon. Member's amendment, as worded, appears to be in respect of the general merits and principle of the Bill. I therefore cannot allow the hon. Member to move his amendment.

Mr Jeyaretnam, although I have said that I would not allow you to move your amendment, do you wish to speak? You can speak on the contents of the Bill, but not on your amendment.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. That is a concession that I may speak.

Mr Barker: Privilege.

Mr Jeyaretnam: We would not quibble over words, would we?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, has referred to the representations received from the Law Society and which he said had been accepted by the Select Committee to whom the Bill was committed by this House. That is true in so far as the amendments relating to the disqualification slapped on members of the Council who have been barred or suspended for six months or more or convicted of a crime involving fraud or dishonesty. And it is also true as regards amendments made to the composition of the Disciplinary Committee and to the Inquiry Committee. But there are, quite apart from these new amendments to the Bill, three other amendments and it is about those that I wish to speak, Mr Speaker, Sir.

This was briefly referred to by the Minister in his address. The first one is the amendment to section 39(1) (c). I suppose, to avoid repetition, I could take it together with the amendment to section 61(1)(d). I do not think the Minister has said that there was any representation from the Law Society to the Select Committee on these two sections. I myself cannot find any representation from the Law Society on these two sections, although I see that there were some questions addressed to, particularly, one Mr Harry Elias on whether it was proper for the Law Society to comment on Bills. But there was certainly no representation and, as I said, I do not think the Minister has said that there was any representation.

The amendments that are proposed to be made to these two sections of the Act, Mr Speaker, Sir, are very far-reaching and they go completely outside the regulation of the members of the legal profession. Section 39 of the Act (it is section 39(1)(c)), which has been amended, at present reads as follows:

'The purposes of the Society shall be:

(c) to assist the Government and the courts in all matters affecting legislation and the administration and practice of the law in Singapore.'

There is no restriction after the word "legislation" and, if you apply a literal interpretation, it clearly includes, among the purposes of the Society, the purpose of assisting the Government and the courts in all matters affecting legislation whether they are asked to assist or not, regardless of whether the legislation is submitted to them or not. Their purpose would be to assist the Government in all matters affecting legislation. Their purpose would be to assist the courts in all matters affecting legislation regardless of whether their view is asked or not. So that is a section which takes the function of the Council of the Law Society wider or beyond its sectarian or narrow functions of regulating the members of the Society and looking after their welfare.

And again, if you look at section 61(1)(d) it reads, as it stands at the moment:

'To examine and if it thinks fit to report upon current or proposed legislation and any other legal matters.'

Again, there is no restriction at all on the power conferred on the Council by this section to examine and to report on any legislation, regardless of whether the legislation is submitted to the Council or not. The proposed amendment cuts down drastically the purpose of the Society in its service to the public, to the citizens of Singapore who they serve. The profession is a service industry. Members of the Bar are here to service the public and these two amendments cut down very severely that service aspect of the profession.

As I said a little while ago, Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot find any representation from the Law Society and it does not appear to have been discussed at the public hearings of the Select Committee which were reported. And if one looks at the Report of the Select Committee on pages D11 and D12 when the amendments were introduced - I am reading from this Report at D11, Mr Speaker, Sir - I see that it was brought up by the Minister for Law. It was read the First time, and then the Minister moved that the clause be read a Second time. And I see that this is all he had to say on this amendment to this section:

'This is to tie down the Law Society, as they made representations that they want legislation submitted to them. That is the purpose of this new clause.'

I am a little dumbfounded about the statement of the Minister that the amendment was "to tie down the Law Society as they made representations that they want legislation submitted to them." Would the Minister perhaps explain to the House where the representation is to be found, and what was the representation of the Law Society on this? There is nothing in this Report which informs the House or the members of the public, which is more to the point, why the Government has considered it necessary to introduce this amendment to section 39 to restrict drastically the powers of the Council in their servicing of the public, not just servicing themselves but a service that they render to the public.

Then if one looks at his introduction of the amendment to section 61(1)(d), again one finds that it was read the First time at the introduction of the Minister, and then there is nothing said by him in explanation when it is read a Second time. All he has said there, I quote:

'Sir, it is intended that this clause be inserted immediately after clause 3.' And you, Sir, as Chairman, responding:

'This will be done.' There is, again, a complete absence of any explanation why these two sections had to be amended. The Minister quite rightly says that these provisions take us back or revert to the position that existed in the colonial days - that in the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance of 1935, one had these words that the Bar Council in those days could only comment on any legislation submitted to it. But that was the colonial days. The colonial masters thought that the Bar Council should be kept strictly within its functions of servicing themselves and they should not be heard on any public affairs. Why, may I ask, do we in 1986, after 25 years of ruling ourselves, revert to a provision in a colonial statute which denies a professional organization the right to comment on any legislation that might affect the members of the public? It seems to me, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is a completely retrogressive measure and completely unwarranted and unjustified and, what is more, it is inimical completely to the promotion of democracy in this place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question is quite simple. Do we or do we not want democracy in this country? Do we or do we not want public participation in bills that are to be passed in this country? If we want public participation, and this Government talks about its desire ad nauseam about wanting public participation, setting up feedback units, then the answer is quite simple - we must allow every member of the public, every citizen, to comment on any legislation proposed for the country. And we must a fortiori, Mr Speaker, Sir, permit professional organizations to comment and criticize, if need be, any proposed legislation for this country. It is the professional organizations more than the ordinary laymen who will be able to contribute informed and responsible criticism or comment on any bill before Parliament. By shutting them out, we or the Government are saying, "Whilst we pay lip service to democracy in this country, we do not want anything of it. Thank you very much. We would rather decide ourselves what is good for this country and you, the electorate, will just accept it." Well, that is a negation of democracy.

So I would ask the Minister if he will be good enough to explain why the Government thinks it necessary to deny our citizens this right to make representations. As I understood the Government, they do not deny the private citizen the right. I think the First Deputy Prime Minister was quoted as saying, "Any citizen may comment on legislation but not a professional organization." As I said once before in this House, to allow or to say that a private citizen may comment but a professional organization may not is to me a non sequitur because freedom of assembly - to join together and act together is an integral part of the freedom of speech. And if the private citizen has that freedom, then the professional organization must have that freedom.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I see that Mr Harry Elias was questioned at length by the Prime Minister about whether the Law Society in England or the Bar Council took it upon themselves to make comments on bills before Parliament. And I see Mr Elias said he was not able to answer that question. Well, may I tell the Minister that not very long ago the Law Society made a very exhaustive study of a bill that was before Parliament on Police powers, and made their views public. But you do not have to go to England. Just across the Causeway, I see reported in the Sunday Times, for last Sunday, that the Bar Council of West Malaysia has passed a resolution condemning the proposed move in their Parliament to amend the Official Secrets Act. I do not know whether the bill was sent to the Bar Council for their comments. But they take it upon themselves as their duty, and so it is. And so it is, Members of the House, they take it upon themselves as their duty to comment on the legislation. And what is more, they are proposing further legislation to guarantee the participation of the electorate in the law-making process.

I was talking about the hearings before the Select Committee, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I see the Minister made brief reference about politicking in professional organizations. May I say, Sir, that is not my comment but I have heard it said that the Select Committee hearings were reminiscent of the hearings in the 1950-60s and which came to be known as the McCarthy hearings in the United States. A lot of the energy of the Committee would appear to have been taken to weeding out perceived Workers' Party sympathisers (I said "perceived") in the Council of the Law Society. But I see that the Government does not consider it at all wrong for members of a certain political party to take control of organizations and to direct their activities. I asked the Prime Minister in a press release whether he would ask all members of all professional bodies and societies and clubs to declare their allegiance to any political party. And I see he has chosen to remain silent. And I notice only the other day that the First Deputy Prime Minister has proposed that the members of the Town Council which has been hailed as another step in the growth of democracy in this country should come from the members or the activists of this political party. So this would appear to be the rule - that whilst it is all right for members of one political party ---

Mr Barker: Sir, on a point of order. Can I just ask the Member to stick to the Legal Profession Act?

Mr Speaker: Yes, he does not seem to be.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will be sticking to it very shortly, but may I comment on the Minister's statement about politicking.

The Leader of the House (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Speaker, Sir, a point of order has been made. Can we have your ruling, please?

Mr Speaker: Yes. I think you had better get on to the contents of the Bill, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: As you please, Mr Speaker, Sir. Then there is another amendment which has not been touched by the Minister in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, and that is, a new provision in the amendment to section 86 of the Legal Profession Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Bill was first introduced in this House, section 86 was proposed to be amended but it dealt with the enlargement of the Inquiry Committee under the new Bill and for the appointment of a Panel of the Inquiry Committee to inquire into any complaint without the whole of the Inquiry Committee inquiring into the complaint. The new clause goes much further than that. It takes into account the suggestion made by the Law Society, that a lay member should be included at the Inquiry Committee stage. That has been accepted and that was the representation by the Law Society, and it is a commendable one. But along with it a new provision has been added and the provision is to be found, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the proposed subsection (2A) for the section. As is proposed, the Inquiry Committee is to consist of two members of the Inquiry Panel who are advocates and solicitors, one member of the Inquiry Panel who is a lay person, which is the representation made by the Law Society and which has been accepted. And then you come to this, "a legal officer who has not less than 10 years' experience." Again, I cannot find anywhere in the representation made by the Law Society a suggestion that a legal officer should also be included at the Inquiry Committee stage. I would like the Minister to say how did this new provision find its way into the Bill. I cannot see anything in it in the public hearings before the Select Committee at which the Law Society were present. I know it was proposed by the Government. But why, and when was it proposed? Was it proposed when the Attorney -General met with the members of the Law Society who were appointed as a working committee to meet with him after the Select Committee had concluded the hearings? I would like the Minister to say whether this amendment was proposed and accepted by the members of the working committee who met with the Attorney-General? Or was it purely an amendment that was brought in by the Attorney-General? And I see in the Report of the Committee that the Minister for Law does not make any reference to this. I would want to question the need for the inclusion of a legal officer in the Inquiry Committee stage. Objection has already been taken by the Law Society to the situation where a complaint originates from the Attorney-General or a Judge of the Supreme Court to having a legal officer sitting on the Disciplinary Committee. It must apply equally to a legal officer sitting on the Inquiry Committee. I see no exception has been made for his absence from the Inquiry Committee stage where the complaint originates from the Attorney-General or from a Judge of the Supreme Court. But that is not to say that it is acceptable otherwise.

The regulation of the conduct of the members of the Bar should be left with the members of the Society, and there are ample provisions, ample safeguards, to put them right if they go wrong. As I pointed out, the Chief Justice virtually has control over all stages of these proceedings. What is the great need for bringing in a legal officer into the Inquiry Committee stage? I particularly would like to know when it was introduced and whether the working committee of the Law Society gave their assent to this?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. 12.50 pm

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendment Bill.

Sir, the amendment Bill was widely debated in the House during its Second Reading. Subsequently, in Select Committee, the Bill was further scrutinized and the views of the Law Society were taken into consideration. The Minister for Law and the Select Committee have carefully considered all views aired and have modified the original Bill to incorporate some of the views of the legal profession. This, in my mind, is concrete proof to all Singaporeans of the good intention of the Government in first proposing this Bill. It is not to muzzle anyone or any professional body but to meet a specific need that the Bill was introduced. The need is to ensure that the interest of the public is protected. The public places immense trust in the hands of the lawyer. Transactions involving millions or billions of dollars, conveyancing of property, and the advice of lawyers to construct wills and trusteeships call for a high standard of professional integrity. The lay person is heavily dependent on the advice of his lawyer to ensure that his affairs are in order both before and even after his death. Thus it is imperative that the public is protected.

While we are debating the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill, we must not forget that likewise the onus of responsibility is the same for all professions. The main aim, we must remember, is to protect the public. The Securities Industry Bill passed earlier this year serves to regulate the securities industry and give added protection to the investor.

The collapse of the Hotel New World is a good eye-opener to all of us who have for years taken for granted the work of architects, surveyors, engineers, contractors and all those involved in the construction industry.

The medical doctor and dentist have also, of late, been featured in the newspaper for improper conduct. As we strive to make Singapore a global city and centre of excellence, all Singaporeans and especially the professionals must strive to maintain high standards of professional and ethical code. But not everyone is a crook nor should one be considered guilty before being given a fair hearing. This is very important because in professional matters, views can vary greatly. Two doctors or lawyers may in good conscience disagree on what is best for the client. Thus the inclusion of a layman in the professional inquiry committee and as an observer in the disciplinary committee is a step in the right direction. The very act of opening these inquiries and their results to the public in the form of publications is a reassurance to the public.

May I conclude by urging the Government to consider implementing the principles enshrined in this Bill, ie, protection of the public and dialogue with professional bodies across the board, to all professions if and when the need arises. 12.55 pm

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to commend the Minister for Law and the Government for having made changes to the Bill after representation by the Law Society. To my mind, they have taken into account those views of the legal profession which were central to the Bill, mainly, the lifting of the permanent debarment period for lawyers to be able to be Council members - its five years now - and also the inclusion of a layman in the Inquiry Committee. But I am glad too, Sir, that the final document does not depart from its original intention of ensuring that only people of unblemished record may lead the Law Society.

In the past, Sir, the Law Society and the Government had been making regular contacts and consultation and I hope that this practice of consultation and contact between the Society and the Government will continue.

Sir, after the sittings of the Select Committee, it should not be construed to mean that all is well now and that changes to further improve the quality and effectiveness of the Society should not continue. If I may say, Sir, the Society itself should continue its self-examination; examining its role and function in the public interest. For instance, just a week ago, a constituent of mine wrote to me bringing to my notice the practice of lawyers keeping their client's interest when they act as stakeholders. If I may read the letter of my constituent:

'Re: Present unfair terms incorporated in the practices, directions and rulings, 1984, in respect of stakeholder's money held by lawyers.

Sir, I am writing to you on the above matter as I was nearly denied of my interest. Fortunately, through my own effort and initiative, I did not suffer any loss. But I think many new home owners who are ignorant would be denied of their interest which should be due to them. The present rule favours the lawyers tremendously, in the sense that if the client does not bring this matter up or notify their lawyers that they want the interest, the lawyers can keep all the interest earned. The new ignorant home buyer is losing in two ways. (1) He has to pay the bank or finance company interest on money which the bank pays to lawyers as stakeholder. (2) The interest earned is kept by lawyers. In our profession as cargo surveyors and adjusters, it is implied that interest earned on client's account should be credited to them.' He suggested, Sir, "that this rule should be changed, ie, if the client is silent, all interest due should be for client's account."

I am not suggesting that the Government should force the matter through, but as proof to my earlier suggestion just now. Perhaps the Law Society ought to look into matters of this kind, so that they could ----

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Point of clarification, Sir. There is already a ruling in the Law Society. Monies held by lawyers as stakeholders, if they know that it would be three months or more, will be put in fixed deposit to earn interest.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Sir, may I continue?

Mr Speaker: Thank you for your clarification, Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think this ruling already exists.

Mr Speaker: All right. He is not a lawyer. He does not know what is going on!

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: I am not saying that the rule does not exist. As I said, Sir, at the beginning, I quoted the letter, "Re: Present unfair terms incorporated in the practices, directions and rulings, 1984." If the Member for Potong Pasir had kept his ears open, perhaps he would not have jumped up unnecessarily.

Mr Chiam See Tong: There is a ruling.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Yes. There is a ruling and I said so. There is a ruling. But I am merely asking for the Law Society to think about it and look into it in the public interest.

Thank you very much.

Mr Speaker: I propose to take the suspension now. I 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: Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to comment on two amendments. The first one is to amend section 39(1)(c) whereby the words "submitted to it" are added after the word "legislation".

Mr Speaker, Sir, the old law, as it stands, reads like this. Section 39(1)(c) reads:

'to assist the Government and the courts in all matters affecting legislation, [with the amendment, we have got the words "submitted to it"] and the administration and practice of the law in Singapore.'

It would appear to me rather incongruous that these words should be added. In other words, we have a situation where the Law Society is asked to assist the Government and the courts only on matters which have been submitted to it, ie, the Law Society's ability or mandate to comment on any legislation has been restricted. I would say this is not a progressive legislation. In fact, it is a backward step, as has been pointed out, to the colonial days. I wonder how the PAP Members will react if they were told that their Party is now embarking on a legislation to bring them back to colonial days. I believe the PAP came to power on an anti-colonial platform. They crusaded against it. They fought the colonialists and its laws. And now, what has happened? The whole matter has gone through its full cycle, from the colonial days through to the nationalist period and various other steps. Now we are back in the colonial days. Are we having a replacement government, removing the colonial Government and in its place put a substitute one? Laws are important. Colonialism, of course, is connected to its laws. If you bring back the colonial type of laws, then inevitably the colonial type of government will also follow. I think this point has to be brought home. We are not progressing but we are retrogressing.

The other important point about this amendment is, as the Member for Anson has said, that it is inimical to the promotion of democracy in this country. I think this is relevant because we are going to undermine the very foundation of our system. Do we or do we not believe in democracy? How do we define democracy? Perhaps there is no other person who can define it better than the Prime Minister himself. I will read to you what he has said in 1977 in an interview given to Ludovic Kennedy of the BBC on 5th March 1977. This was the time when Mr Lee Kuan Yew was in the Opposition in 1955 when he first came into Parliament. This is what he said:

'We either believe in democracy or we do not.' So there are no two-ways about it. Either we believe in it or we do not believe in it. So I am asking this same question: does this Government believe in democracy, or does it not? What is the answer? If you believe in democracy, then you should not make a law which restricts democratic processes.

'If you believe that men should be free then they should have the right of free association, of free publication.'

We are not more concerned with free association today. We are more concerned with free publication, the free publication of a prestigious body, the Law Society of Singapore, which has been curbed by the legislation we are about to pass.

'No law should permit those democratic processes to be set at naught.'

These are your own leader's words, "No law should permit those democratic processes to be set at naught." What are the democratic processes? Free association, free publication. And what are we doing today? We are about to pass a law to curb those democratic processes. They are not my words. They are your own leader's words. Do you believe in what you say? You have been hounding members of the Bar Council on their veracity. What about your veracity? Your veracity is at stake today. Do you believe or do you not believe in what you say? Let us have the answer. The House is very silent, I see. There are no two-ways about the democratic process. There are no two-ways. Either you believe it or you don't. These are not my words.

Mr Chua Sian Chin (MacPherson): You misinterpret them.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is not a misinterpretation. You can have a look at it, please. All right, tell me, Member for MacPherson. I am going to sit down. Tell me where I misinterpreted it, please.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: It is so obvious.

Mr Speaker: Are you asking for a legal opinion or what?

Mr Chiam See Tong: He is unable to answer me. He said I have misinterpreted. Please, where have I misinterpreted? This is word for word, printed.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: It is so obvious.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What is so obvious? The credibility of this Govern- ment is at stake. Can we believe you? I certainly for one do not believe you. You say something and you do something else. You have said this. There are no two-ways about democracy. And you say, "No law should permit those democratic processes to be set at naught." What clearer, more clear-cut words than these have been put here? And yet we are embarking on a law which will restrict the free publication of the Law Society of Singapore. If you are curbing their free publication, according to what the Prime Minister has said in 1977, you are curbing the democratic processes. We are undermining the very foundation of our society. This is the reason why I am in politics. I was worried, as far back as 1976, about the direction this Government is going. And it has not changed. It is still going on course, going against the democratic processes.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): And yet you are here.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course, I am here, in the Opposition. I hope my learned friend from Whampoa will say something on what the Prime Minister has said.

Dr Augustine Tan: Oh, yes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course, the reason given by the Prime Minister was, "Circumstances have changed. I am a realist." In other words, the PAP can say anything they like. They can never be bound by their words. It is very easy. When they want to go back on their words, they say, "Circumstances have changed. I am a realist." Who would dare to do business with such a man? After undergoing a contract, he says, "Oh, circumstances have changed. I am not bound by it." The credibility is very important. But, of course, the Prime Minister has said, "Yes, of course, I still believe in them." These are his words. If he still believes in what he said in 1977, then he should be here opposing this Bill. Because there are no two ways about democracy. Either you have it, or you do not have it. He should be here opposing this Bill, and not fighting so hard for the last two days, on television. As far as the television screening of it is concerned, I think we can learn three lessons from it. Firstly, I think it has not really shownany compelling reasons. There are no justifiable reasons why the Legal Profession Act should be amended. The number of complaints that were brought to the Disciplinary Committee by the Supreme Court, by the Attorney-General, has dropped over the years. There is nothing alarming about it going up. It is going down. In fact, for 1985 there was a clean record. Even complaints from members of the public have decreased. So what is the urgency? All the evidence produced has not brought out one iota of compelling reason to have this Legal Profession Act amended.

The other reason is that this Government does not believe in any organization or body of persons opposing it. It does not mind individuals. But whenever it sees an organization opposing it, it gets frightened. It must be neutralized. So that is what it has done, trying to neutralize the Law Society and at the moment, of course, the rallying force is the President. With this amendment, of course, the President would not stay very long. Individuals are okay. Individuals can criticize but not an organization. This is what the British do. They knew about it. That is why they have this colonial type of legislation. They do not want organized people to oppose it.

The third reason for all this publicity is for the Prime Minister to give a lesson to all the new Ministers on how to deal with your opponents. Crush them, annihilate them. I think this is a lesson he is trying to teach to the new Ministers. That is what I can see. Because there is really no need for it. I mean, you do not have to crush your opponents to a pulp, using a sledgehammer, so to say, to kill a fly. Or, as has been said by the President of the Law Society, using a steamroller to crush a nut. I think this Government always over -reacts.

May I comment on the other amendment. In fact, I have already commented on this and pointed out to the Member for Chong Boon - I see he is not here - that the words in this amendment are disjunctive. These are the reasons or grounds in which members or practitioners can be barred from being voted to the local Bar Council if he is struck off the roll or suspended from practising as an advocate and solicitor for a period of six months or more, or has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. Well, if a member of the Bar has been convicted of fraud or dishonesty, that is fair enough if he is struck off. But what about this solicitor who has been suspended for a period of six months or more? No reasons were given. He could be suspended for technical reasons. I have already commented that the Ambassador to France, Mr David Marshall, had been suspended for six months and yet this Government deemed it fit to appoint him as Ambassador to France. I think the Senior Minister who is laughing there knows it personally. According to Mr David Marshall, he was called to the Senior Minister's office and for a moment he thought he was required to make out a will for him.

The Senior Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr S. Rajaratnam): On a point of information, he was not suspended for fraud.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Correct. I have been trying to point out to the Member for Chong Boon that the word "or" is disjunctive. Perhaps you still have not understood what I was trying to tell the Member for Chong Boon. Perhaps the Second Minister for Law will explain it. As long as this solicitor is suspended for six months or more, irregardless of the reasons.

Mr Dhanabalan: Regardless?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Irregardless.[Laughter.] Or regardless. [More laughter]. I will ask the question again. Which is more important: a post as Ambassador of this country or to be a member of the Bar Council? I should like that question answered. Perhaps the Minister for Law or Second Minister for Law could tell us which is the more important post: to be a member of the Bar Council or to be appointed an Ambassador of our country? Can I wait for an answer?

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan rose -

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have not finished. Do not jump the queue.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: You sat down.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Chairman, Sir, I think we are on serious business here. This is not a fun and game. This is not a tea-party.

Mr Speaker: We are not in Committee at the moment.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am waiting for an answer. The last time I asked a question I did not get an answer, I was accused of being rhetorical. I want an answer now. I am asking them which is ---

Mr Dhanabalan: You finish your speech first.

Mr Chiam See Tong: All right, we will wait for an answer.

Mr Dhanabalan: It is irrelevant.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course, it is relevant. We are talking about members of the Bar Council who should not be flawed and should not be seen walking with girl friends along High Street. Impeccable character, that is what we want. Somebody has said, you will only find that type of people in heaven. Of course, I am not wanting people from heaven but I am just asking for the standards which you have set. You are going to set a standard for the members of the Bar Council. Should this standard be higher than a standard for appointing Ambassadors? That is the question I want to ask.

As far as I know there are no complaints from foreign multi-national companies and foreign banks who are here against any one of our lawyers. Then why should we be having such high standards? A standard which is even higher than for the appointment of an Ambassador of a country. That is what it is here. This is the standard you are setting for members to be elected to the Bar Council.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Why not?

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is up to the Minister to answer, is it not? You are not the Minister. You are out already.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Why not? Why don't you answer that question?

Mr Chiam See Tong: So this is the point I am trying to make, ie, the standard for appointment to the Bar Council. If the Members here feel that we should not have such a high standard, then this section also would have to be amended.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill and I have taken note of some of the points raised by some Members of this House. In the first place, the Member for Anson complained that on some sections of the Bill no representations were made by the Law Society and therefore the amendments do not represent their opinion. Sir, we should be mindful that it was the Government who initiated this Bill. It was not the Law Society's Bill or anybody else's Bill. And let us not forget the primary purpose of this amendment. It is this - to protect the best interests of the public by regulating and maintaining the standards of the legal profession.

Sir, we know that law firms regularly hold large sums of money in their clients' accounts. I wish there was some way to get out this information for the public but I am told that it is money in the millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars. This represents money held by lawyers on behalf of their clients for purchasing and selling properties, in respect of estates which are tied up in legal disputes, estates under probate, and so on and so forth. And we do know that from time to time we get lawyers who embezzle their clients' money.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order.

Mr Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr Jeyaretnam: This is the Third Reading of a Bill and, as I understand the Standing Orders, the debate on the Third Reading must be confined to the contents of the Bill. I spoke on two sections and a third section, and I thought the Member for Whampoa was going to reply to my speech on the two sections.

Dr Augustine Tan: I will.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Now he is meandering, in his usual way, quite outside the ambit of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, would you please get down to your speech?

Dr Augustine Tan: Yes, Sir. I have a very short preamble to my speech, unlike the Member for Anson.

Reference was made to democracy by the Member for Potong Pasir and other matters were raised by the Member for Anson. So I do not see why I should not introduce by way of ---

Mr Speaker: Please forget their bad habit. Just carry on with what you are going to say.

Dr Augustine Tan: Thank you, Sir. But the question of ethics of lawyers was raised in this House and I was told that in the 1950s there was an Indian lawyer who absconded to India with $200,000 of his client's money.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What has that got to do with this Bill?

Dr Augustine Tan: At that time, that was a big sum of money. I am also told there are some lawyers in town who will get money from their clients for criminal offences and then advise ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, you have ruled and I see that the Member for Whampoa refuses to abide by your ruling.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, I think you have made the point. Please carry on and confine yourself to the contents of the Bill.

Dr Augustine Tan: Yes. May I just finish what I was saying?

Mr Speaker: No. Just get on to the contents of the Bill, Dr Tan.

Mr Jeyaretnam: There is a ruling.

Dr Augustine Tan: All right. May I refer to clause 4 (section 51(2B)). Sir, as originally proposed, lawyers are disqualified from standing for election to the Law Society Council if they have been convicted of fraud or suspended for more than six months or struck off the roll. Now, Sir, as a concession to the Law Society, this permanent ban is now changed to a five-year ban with leave from three Judges of the Supreme Court. Sir, this raises a question to my mind and to the general public. There are 1,335 lawyers. Do not tell me that we cannot find sufficient people among them without some past adverse record? Why are we so lenient on these lawyers? I can understand if they are re-admitted to practise after some time, but to sit on a Council that sets standards for the legal profession would surely require people with unblemished record. To me, Sir, it is a sad commentary on the standards that lawyers have set themselves when they are willing not only to advocate this in this House but also to actually elect people with such past adverse records. I have here in my pocket, Sir, a case of one of my voters who went to see the Member for Potong Pasir. He was charged $200 for writing a useless letter to a Minister - a case which I had taken up with the Minister, got a negative reply - and here he was charging my voter $200. What is this standard of ethics?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Whampoa has belaboured this point more than once. If he wants to have a showdown, I will give him a showdown. Let me have a look at the letter. I will explain it.

Dr Augustine Tan: There is a Mr Ng Geok Meng of Block 74, #11-332, Whampoa Drive. He is a taxi driver. Did you or did you not write a letter to the Minister for Communications and Information seeking to restore his taxi licence, knowing full well that I had already taken up the case and failed, and then charged him $200 for it? Mr Speaker, Sir, if he had done it for free, I would have thanked him for doing a service to my voter but he charged him $200.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, we have amended the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act to prevent members from ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, may I say something? I presume this particular person went to see you in your office as a client?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I do not know. I have to check this out. The facts have to be checked out.

Mr Speaker: Check first and then let us know. All right, Dr Tan.

Dr Augustine Tan: May I continue my ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: I will check it out. If the Member for Whampoa wants to take this to the finish, all right, we will do it. He will receive a letter from me.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, please carry on to another point.

Dr Augustine Tan: Thank you. I was talking about clause 4 (section 51(2B)).

Mr Chiam See Tong: May I just clarify one point?

Dr Augustine Tan: No, Sir, I want to continue my speech.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Please be a man. I do not have to include Mr Jeyaretnam in my defamatory action. Please tell us whether ---

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, may I continue? I have already given the name. I do not have to answer that question.

The Member for Potong Pasir said that there is no need to do anything about the legal profession because the number of complaints against lawyers has gone down. Sir, we know very well that it is virtually useless to complain to the Law Society. First of all, they take ages to consider cases and (b) for every lawyer that is brought to book, many have probably been let off the hook. And for every small complaint that has been brought to book, many have gone unanswered. It is not a question that the standards of the profession are already high. There is provision under clause 11(c)(6), Sir, for a Disciplinary Committee. I think this is a good thing, especially in shortening the time to within six months for complaints to be dealt with. We certainly support this amendment. But I was surprised to see that the provision of a lay person, which was included in the original Bill, has now been amended in such a way that this lay person cannot vote on the Disciplinary Committee and he need not be present at all times. I would have thought at least his presence would be required and I certainly would give him a vote. I do not see why a lay person should not vote. I can see a crook when I see one.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It takes a crook to see a crook.

Mr Speaker: Come on, Dr Tan. Carry on, please.

Dr Augustine Tan: The other point in regard to the Disciplinary Committee and the Inquiry Panel is this, Sir. There are no qualifications in respect of the advocates and lawyers who are put on the Inquiry Panel and Disciplinary Committee. In other words, even those with previous adverse records can sit on these committees. I know that it is the Chief Justice who has the discretion in these matters. And as long as we have a good Chief Justice, we can be sure that these people would be people of good character. But we cannot always be sure that this will be the case. So why do we not put in the relevant provisions to ensure that only people of impeccable behaviour sit on these committees?

Sir, reference was made by both Members of the Opposition to clauses 3 and 6 which sought to amend sections 39(1)(c) and 61(1)(d). If there is any complaint to be made in respect of the amendment, it is this - that the words which are added after the word "legislation", namely, "submitted to it" really should have been put right after each sentence. If I may read the relevant sentences. Section 39(1)(c) says:

'to assist the Government and the courts in all matters affecting legislation, and the administration and practice of the law in Singapore;' And now we are putting in the words "submitted to it" after "legislation". This means that lawyers are still free to assist the Government in the administration and practice of the law in Singapore. And that would mean the ability to comment on laws which have been passed by this Chamber and after some years of practice should they be found wanting or deficient, the legal profession can then suggest amendments accordingly. To me, Sir, there is ample latitude in this provision even after amendment.

And then section 61(1)(d) reads:

'to examine and if it thinks fit to report upon current or proposed legislation submitted to it and any other legal matters;' If the words "submitted to it" had been appended after the words "legal matters", that would have been very inclusive. But the words come after the word "legislation". So any other legal matters are then open to purview by the Law Society. To me, Sir, we are giving ample room for the legal profession to make their contributions. The question is not whether we are going backwards or forwards but whether we are doing the proper thing. We do not want a situation where there is an improper usurpation of powers.

Now, Sir, both gentlemen - I hope they are gentlemen - from the Opposition Bench have stood up in this Parliament and proclaimed that this Parliament is the supreme body in this land. It is this Parliament that makes the laws in this land. If this is the case, why are they passing this responsibility to the Law Society? We should be jealous of the prerogative, of the privilege of this Chamber and to uphold the privilege of this Chamber. We have ample people here, lawyers and non-lawyers, to debate all legislation that comes before this Parliament. And, Sir, imagine what would happen if every society took upon itself the right to assist the Government in all legislation that comes before this House.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Why not?

Dr Augustine Tan: Can you imagine the Economic Society of Singapore insisting that no economic policies shall be implemented by the Government without prior consultation with the Economic Society of Singapore? There has never been any such suggestion.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You never ask for suggestion.

Dr Augustine Tan: So why should the legal profession take upon itself a role which is not accorded to it by law? I have pointed out the last time we met, Sir, on this Bill that already we are treating the legal profession very specially compared to other professions in Singapore. They have a legislation all to themselves. They do not have to come under the more restrictive Societies Act to which all other societies in Singapore have to report to and under which they have to work.

Sir, I think we should bear in mind all these qualifications which I have brought forward and I think that the Bill, as amended, amply satisfies the needs of all parties concerned and I hope that hence- forth we see better standards of conduct from the members of the legal profession, both outside and inside this House.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will first deal with Mr Chiam's question, comparison of Mr Marshall being appointed Ambassador. Let me first say that I have the greatest respect for Mr Marshall. He was unfortunately suspended some years ago but that was years ago. But he was not suspended for fraud. The Minister for Foreign Affairs thought he was a fit and proper person to be made an Ambassador, and he has done and is doing a very good job for us in France. To Mr Chiam's question again, can I refer to the Report of the Committee, pages B29 and B30. And I proceed to quote at the bottom of the page, B29, Prime Minister asked Mr Harry Elias:

'Suppose you accept my standards, not moral turpitude but moral rectitude, that any man sitting on the Council which is to decide whether a member has been errant and must be disciplined must have clean hands?'

Reply from Mr Elias:

'You have got to be uniform, Mr Prime Minister. Forgive me. We have to be uniform. Members of Parliament have a chance. Ambassadors have a chance. Why can't we have an equal chance?'

And the Prime Minister:

'Ambassadors don't sit in judgment over members of a profession whose relationships with their clients are often of the utmost confidence. Members of Parliament do not hold themselves out to lay members of the public as intermediaries to negotiate with the Government. They cannot sell their services. A member of the Council is allowed to sell his services like every other member of the Bar. But when he is on the Council, he is sitting indiscipline, jealously guarding standards. It is different, isn't it? That is the Prime Minister's reply.

Mr Chiam See Tong: No answer.

Mr Barker: Well, that is a matter of opinion. The Member for Anson in criticising some of these amendments said the Bar made no representations and nothing was done or heard about in Select Committee. Can I refer the Member to page B46?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have mentioned it. There were some questions put in to Elias.

Mr Barker: Oh, you did.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That's all.

Mr Barker: There is some more. I take you to page B88, Question No. 633. The Prime Minister with Mr Francis Seow:

'Thank you. Now, you therefore would not mind if we went back to the old wording of section 39(1)?'

'The old Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance, which says "of matters submitted to it"?'

Answer from Mr Francis Seow:

'I am afraid I am not familiar with the particular section. Where is it? Is it section 39(1)(c)?'

Prime Minister:

'Section 39(1)(c) with the words "submitted to it"? --- "To assist the Government and the Courts in all matters affecting legislation"...' So it was referred.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Did Mr Francis Seow agree?

Mr Barker: No, no, no. He never agreed. I did not say he agreed. But you attempted to say that we never raised it in Select Committee; out of the blue, we stuck it in. Let me be frank. This is not a Bill proposed by the legal profession. This is a Bill initiated by the Government.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why wasn't it in the original bill?

Mr Barker: Why should it be? Why should it be? We chop and we change. We go to Select Committee. We hear views.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Chop and change.

Mr Barker: Yes. And if we think fit, we stick it in. But it is not your Bill. It is not the Bar's Bill. It is our Bill. It is our Bill. But you said we sneaked it in and we made no reference. There you are, those are the references.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why wasn't it in the original Bill?

Mr Barker: Why should it be? Why should it be?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Who put it in? Through the backdoor?

Mr Barker: In Select Committee, in this House - through the backdoor? Right in front of you?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Was it in Select Committee?

Mr Barker: It need not be. We can change. It is our Bill. We have changed. We made certain proposals. The Bar made certain proposals. We never accepted all, the layman originally on the disciplinary committee. They suggested Inquiry Committee. We accepted that. We proposed a permanent ban. They said five years. We said, "Okay, five years but apply to court to check the track record of the person involved." It does not mean to say you cannot put things in that you want to or change it. We have changed it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Secretly.

Mr Barker: What secretly? Right in front of television cameras. Secretly?

Mr Jeyaretnam: You put it in there.

Mr Barker: Then the Member said that we were weeding out "perceived Workers' Party sympathisers from the Law Society." There is nothing wrong with lawyers being members of the Workers' Party or the PAP. But what we are against is really using the Law Society for politicking and concealing their true colours. You say there are PAP men in other organizations. Of course, there are. Trade unions, for instance. Nothing wrong with it. But they are there publicly and openly, not in a clandestine manner.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Are there members of the PAP in the Bar Council?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Nobody knows!

Mr Barker: I do not know.

Mr Jeyaretnam: They do not have anybody there! Only Workers' Party.

Mr Barker: I do not think so.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You do not think so?

Mr Barker: I do not know. I would not care.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are frightened about the hammer. That's the trouble.

Mr Barker: We are talking of the Legal Profession Act. You talk of democracy, the end of democracy. You say the Select Committee meetings remind you or bring back memories of the McCarthy trial. Let me put it this way. Again, I speak frankly to you. We passed what was the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill. Big noise and hoo-ha because the Law Society came in and made its recommendations. Then there was a guy called One-legged Chicken who wrote several letters. [Laughter]Anyway, the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act has been enacted. But on the day that the Second Minister for Law took the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill through its Second Reading, that was the very day when the members of the Law Society held a big meeting. I do not know the exact number but about 400 of them passed very strong resolutions condemning the Government, condemning this Bill.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What's wrong with that?

Mr Barker: I am not saying it's wrong. I am not telling you stories. I am relating. So they decided to take us on. When we went into Select Committee, the first day and the later part of the second day, there was confrontation between the Committee and the lawyers. But fortunately at the end of the day, that confrontation ended, and the Committee completed its hearings that day on a very amicable note with the members of the Council of the Bar. They did not promise cooperation but they said they would help. And this is what we needed from them.

At the last meeting of the Select Committee when we went through the Bill clause by clause, the amendments which I moved were prepared by the Attorney-General with the assistance of four or five draftsmen from the practising profession. They sat for one and a half days and helped the Attorney-General to draft those amendments.

The Member for Anson asked me whether they accepted this proposal or that proposal, I do not know. I gave no directions to the Attorney-General. He drafted the provisions with their help, and that is good.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You should have asked him. You should know what the members of the Law Society said.

Mr Barker: I would not know. Why don't you ask them? I don't know.

Sir, to put things in a nutshell, it is the legal profession amongst all the professions that help in the administration of Singapore. Doctors help to cure you of diseases. Architects draw, engineers build, but it is people like Mr Chiam and Mr Jeyaretnam in their practice who deal with the human problems of their clients. From the day a child is born, he may need legal help; questions as to whether he is legitimate, illegitimate. When he grows up into adulthood and buys landed property, he needs your help. When he has a fight with his neighbour or is knocked down on the road, he needs your help. When he dies, he still needs your help! His estate, you look after his estate. So the legal profession - I am not running down the others - the legal profession helps this Government to run the place. Now, that being the case, the public needs protection. As the Member for Whampoa pointed out, some of the larger law firms have vast sums of money in their clients' accounts. I am not suggesting that they run away with it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Name them.

Mr Barker: I am not here to name anybody. I am talking generally.

So this Bill is a tightening up Act. I hope it works. If it does not, we will have to come back again to this House. But the proposals are not so devastating for the lawyers. In the Inquiry Committee, lawyers have a majority. In the Disciplinary Committee, they still have a majority and they will still be ruled by their peers. Why not?

Mr Jeyaretnam: There is a member of the panel, one advocate and solicitor and one legal officer. Only three.

Mr Barker: Right.

Mr Jeyaretnam: So where do the lawyers have a majority?

Mr Barker: Aren't you all lawyers? Some members of the Legal Service go out. You are one outstanding example.

Mr Jeyaretnam: One is from the panel of retired Judges. The other is a lawyer and another one is a legal officer.

Mr Barker: Yes. Are you so afraid of the other two?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am talking about advocates and solicitors or members of the profession.

Mr Barker: Sir, I think I will let Mr Jeyaretnam have the last word, and close it up. Thank you.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will accept that invitation. I hope the Minister will be good enough to reply to my question as to what was the urgent need to make the amendments to sections 39 and 61(1)(d). He says, "Government has the prerogative to chop and change." Can he explain a little bit? Why did the Government think it necessary, after the Bill was introduced in this House, to change sections 39 and 61(1)(d)?

Mr Barker: I heard you loud and clear and I will be frank with you. I have to go back, not to the one-legged chicken but on the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill. There was a lot of controversy as to whether the Council of the Bar should confine itself to pure legislation or was free to comment on matters which are not really part of the legal profession. I do not want to go into that controversy. All I am telling you is that we amended the Bill to make it loud and clear that we only want their assistance on matters which we submit to them.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the Minister has promised to give me an answer as regards which post needs a higher standard, an Ambassador of a country or a member of the Bar Council. He has not given me an answer. Please, it was the Prime Minister he quoted. The Prime Minister is not here to answer any questions that may be put to him. But we have not got an answer from the Minister yet.

Mr Barker: I am not the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I am not the Prime Minister. If you want a better answer, I merely quoted to you what the Prime Minister said in Select Committee. But if you are so very interested, there will be plenty of time for you to file a Question for Oral Answer and if the Speaker rules it relevant, you will get a good answer from the Prime Minister.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have been promised an answer, Mr Speaker.

Mr Barker: Promised by whom? Me?

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

Mr Jeyaretnam: I call for a Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Will you consider two Nays and the rest as Ayes?

An hon. Member: One Nay.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Two Nays.

Mr Speaker: Two Nays and all the rest Ayes?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Those two amendments are of fundamental importance, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If you really want a Division, by all means have a Division. Ring the Division bells.

The House divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 2; Abstention, 1. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abbas Abu Amin Sia Khoon Seong Abdullah Tarmugi Sidek bin Saniff Ahmad Mattar Tan Cheng Bock Ang Kok Peng Tan, Augustine H.H. Barker, E.W. Tan Soo Khoon Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Tan Tee Yong, Philip Chai Chong Yii Tang Guan Seng Chin Harn Tong Tang See Chim Ch'ng Jit Koon Tay Eng Soon Chua Sian Chin Teh Cheang Wan Dhanabalan, S. Teo Chong Tee Goh Chee Wee Vasoo, S. Goh Chok Tong Wang Kai Yuen Goh Choon Kang Wong Kan Seng Heng Chiang Meng Wong Kwei Cheong Ho Kah Leong Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Ho Tat Kin Yatiman Yusof Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Yeo Choo Kok Ibrahim Othman Yeo Ning Hong Jayakumar, S. Zulkifli bin Mohammed Koh Lam Son Koh Lip Lin Lau Ping Sum Noes Lee Boon Yang Lee Hsien Loong Chiam See Tong Lee Yiok Seng Jeyaretnam, J.B. Leong Horn Kee Lim Chee Onn Ng Kah Ting Abstention Ong Teng Cheong Othman bin Haron Eusofe Yeoh Ghim Seng Phua Bah Lee Rajaratnam, S.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.