LEGAL PROFESSION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.42 pm

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

Sir, this Bill amends the Legal Profession Act to improve and fine-tune the operation of the Act in several respects. These include the disciplinary proceedings for lawyers, the qualifications for practice of law in Singapore, and the general operation of the Law Society of Singapore. The amendments have been finalised after extensive consultation with the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore.

Disciplinary Proceedings

I will first deal with the disciplinary proceedings for lawyers. The first amendment creates a new machinery known as the Review Committee. Section 85 of the main Act requires all complaints against lawyers to be made to the Law Society. The Council or the Society is to forward every complaint to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel for him to form an Inquiry Committee to look into the complaint.

Prior to 1986, the Council could only refer to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel those complaints relating to the conduct of a lawyer in his professional capacity. The Council therefore weeded out those complaints which did not relate to a lawyer's professional conduct. In 1986, the Act was amended to allow any complaints relating to any conduct of a lawyer, not just conduct in his professional capacity. This was because, sometimes, misconduct by a lawyer, even in his private capacity, may be sufficient to render him unfit to continue being a member of the honourable profession. The Council thereafter acted on the assumption that they should continue to play a sifting role in the post-1986 regime. However, the Court of Appeal ruled earlier this year that the Council should not be performing such a sifting function, but should simply forward all complaints to be dealt with by the Inquiry Committees.

Sir, this is not practical and has resulted in some difficulties. The Law Society receives more than 100 complaints a year. More than half of them are without substance and are sifted out by the Council, while the remainder goes to an Inquiry Committee for a full inquiry. If the Council is not to sift, the caseload on the Inquiry Committees will more than double. Each Inquiry Committee is made up of two lawyers of at least 12 years' standing, a Legal Service Officer of at least 10 years' experience as well as a lay person. Doubling the caseload of the Inquiry Committees will create a serious strain on scarce resources and slow down the disciplinary process. Therefore a new machinery known as the Review Committee will be set up to act as a sifting mechanism.

This Review Committee will have two members. One will be a lawyer of at least 12 years' standing. The other will be a Legal Officer of at least 10 years' experience. Under the new arrangement, the Council will forward every complaint to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel who will convene a Review Committee. The Review Committee will have two weeks to decide whether there is sufficient substance in the complaint to warrant an inquiry by an Inquiry Committee. The Review Committee does not have a blank cheque to dismiss any case. Its mandate is limited. It can only dismiss a case if both members of the Committee agree that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance. If either one of the Committee members feels that there is some substance to the complaint, the case must proceed to an Inquiry Committee. This new arrangement seeks to carefully balance the need to have an efficient disciplinary process and the need to ensure that every complaint is looked into as thoroughly as possible.

Next, clause 16 removes the cap on the number of lawyers and lay persons which can be appointed to the Inquiry Panel. This is the panel from which members of the Inquiry Committees and the Disciplinary Committees are chosen. Currently, there is a maximum of 40 lawyers and 40 lay persons. Experience has shown that this number can sometimes be insufficient. To ensure that the disciplinary system retains sufficient flexibility to deal with changing caseload in a timely manner, it is proposed that the Chief Justice be given the flexibility to appoint as many lawyers and lay persons to the Inquiry Panel as may be necessary.

Similarly, section 90 of the Act says that the Chairman of a Disciplinary Committee is to be appointed from a pool of not more than five senior lawyers. This means that we can only have five Disciplinary Committees functioning concurrently at any one time. Clause 19 removes this cap, for the same reasons of flexibility.

Clause 21, Sir, amends section 93 of the Act to allow a Disciplinary Committee to recommend that a lawyer be ordered to pay a monetary penalty. This is really to correct an anomaly in the current process. At present, after an Inquiry Committee makes a report to the Council, the Council can make one of four recommendations - (1) to send the matter to a Disciplinary Committee for a formal investigation, (2) dismiss the complaint, (3) dispose of the complaint by reprimanding the lawyer, or (4) dispose of the complaint by ordering the lawyer to pay a monetary penalty. That is the Inquiry Committee stage. But at the end of the Disciplinary Committee process, the Council can only (1) make an application to the court to strike off or suspend the lawyer, (2) dismiss the complaint, or (3) dispose of the complaint by reprimanding the lawyer. The option of monetary penalty which is available at the Inquiry Committee stage is now being made available at the Disciplinary Committee stage.

On a related amendment, Sir, all penalties which lawyers are ordered by the Council to pay as a result of disciplinary proceedings go to the Consolidated Fund. The Law Society has recently asked the Government to allow the Law Society to retain the penalties paid by lawyers, in order that the Law Society can use these moneys for worthy causes, such as promoting law awareness, providing legal aid or assistance. They have pointed out that other professional bodies, such as accountants, architects and engineers are similarly allowed to retain the penalties paid by their members pursuant to disciplinary proceedings. The Government has considered this and agreed to the request, and clause 23 therefore amends section 95 for this purpose.

Sir, amendments have also been made to provide for more transparency to the disciplinary process. Clause 21 amends section 93 to require the findings of all Disciplinary Committees to be published either in the Singapore Law Gazette or in such other medium as would adequately inform the public of the findings of the Committees. Clause 18 amends section 88 to require the publication in the Government Gazette of all orders by the Council to a lawyer to pay penalty. Currently, only orders to pay penalties exceeding $1,000 have to be published in the Government Gazette.

Legal Education

I now turn to some amendments concerning the Board of Legal Education and the qualifications for practising law in Singapore.

Clause 2 amends section 5 to allow the Board of Legal Education to make rules requiring pupils to keep dining terms before they can be admitted to the Bar. The keeping of dining terms will provide an additional avenue for imparting the values and tradition of the legal profession through social interaction with senior members of the Bar and also, through interaction, to pick up relevant social skills needed for a successful legal practice.

Clause 3 amends section 7 to widen the Board's discretion to recognise as qualified persons lawyers who, although not graduates from universities recognised for the purposes of admission to the Singapore Bar, nevertheless possess such qualifications or expertise as would contribute to, promote or enhance the quality of legal services in Singapore or the economic and technological development of Singapore. This amendment is to give effect to a recommendation of the Second Committee on Supply of Lawyers that we should empower the Board to admit persons who possess such skills and expertise as the Singapore legal profession needs. The Second Committee felt that the current wording of section 7 was overly tight, resulting in only a small handful qualifying under it in the last five years. While the new section 7 will allow more to qualify, I wish to stress, Sir, that this is not meant to be used as a backdoor to enter the Singapore legal profession. The Board will be vigilant in ensuring that the quality of entrants to the legal profession is at the high standard.

Together with the widened discretion in section 7, the Second Committee on Supply of Lawyers also recommended allowing the Board wider powers to grant exemption from pupillage. Currently, the Board can only grant exemption for up to three months' pupillage. The wider exemption powers will allow the Board to better take into account the varying levels of experience of persons seeking admission to the Singapore Bar.

With these increased roles being given to the Board, two amendments touching on the administration of the Board are also being proposed. First, clause 4 amends section 8 to make the President of the Law Society an ex-officio member of the Board of Legal Education. The Attorney-General and the Dean of the Law Faculty, NUS, are already ex-officio members. Sir, the President of the Law Society has also traditionally always been appointed to the Board. Putting it into law that the President is an ex-officio member would signify a formal recognition of the important role played by the Law Society in its work of the Board. Second, section 5 is amended to increase the Board's powers to invest its funds, including allowing the Board to lend money to law firms to pursue projects which the Board finds worthy of its support. Limited Purpose Practising Certificates

The next group of amendments, Sir, deals with special categories of persons who can be issued with limited purpose practising certificates notwithstanding that they are not actually practising law as a member of a law firm. Clause 7 amends section 26 of the Act to allow the Attorney-General to issue limited purpose practising certificates to a legal officer of a foreign government to appear in our courts to represent their governments on certain matters. Sir, let me explain that this amendment is mainly meant for cases like extradition cases and proceedings for taking of evidence in our courts under the schemes for mutual legal assistance. Allowing legal officers of foreign governments to participate directly in appropriate cases can indeed speed up proceedings and free up our prosecutors to handle other work.

Section 26 is also amended to enable law lecturers from NUS and other institutions of higher learning in Singapore (who are advocates and solicitors) to appear in court, if they have a certificate from the Attorney-General for this purpose. This amendment, Sir, is intended mainly to cater to cases where the law lecturer has been instructed by a practising lawyer, or where the law lecturer is invited by the court to assist on a particular issue. The Attorney-General's certificate will only be issued to those who have been employed as a member of the academic staff by the law department of any institution of higher learning in Singapore for at least three continuous years (unless the Attorney-General shortens the period). Sir, this proposal would allow the law lecturers to enhance their skills which in turn would benefit their students.

For consistency, section 34(h) of the Act, which presently applies only to a law lecturer of the Law Faculty of the NUS, is amended by clause 10 of the Bill to extend to all law lecturers of institutions of higher learning in Singapore. This would enable them to render any legal opinion or act in an advisory capacity. Again, this is intended to be limited to only matters in which the law lecturer has been instructed by an advocate and solicitor. Amendments Concerning Law Society's Operations

Sir, the final group of amendments consists mainly of housekeeping amendments to improve the administration of the Law Society. Clause 15 amends section 51 to make provision for electronic voting in Council elections, to exempt the Law Society members who are overseas from having to comply with the compulsory voting requirements. Clause 13 amends section 48 to allow the Council to co-opt more members into the Council. The Law Society requested this because many lawyers are willing and prepared to volunteer their time to help out with the work of the Council but they are unwilling to campaign for election into the Council. Clause 12 provides for the Law Society to take in as non-practitioner members foreign lawyers working in offshore firms in Singapore. Clause 28 allows the Law Society to intervene in a lawyer's practice in two additional instances to protect the public. These two instances are where the Council is satisfied that a sole solicitor has abandoned his practice, and where the Council is satisfied that a solicitor is practising without a practising certificate.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of this Bill. This Bill provides for several important changes to the conduct and regulation of the legal profession. The legal profession, together with other professions in Singapore, is going through a period of necessary change, both in the way it works and in the way it seeks to upgrade itself to meet the challenges of the so-called New Economy.

I refer, first, to clause 3 that seeks to broaden the discretion of the Board to certify persons who are not qualified persons to be so, if they possess "such qualification or expertise as would contribute to, promote or enhance the quality of legal services in Singapore or the economic or technological development of Singapore". This is wider in at least two respects from the original provision which requires the Board to act only in exceptional cases and where the person's qualification or expertise would enhance the quality of legal services. Under the new provision, once an applicant can contribute to the quality of legal services or economic or technological development of Singapore, he can be certified. This is really open-ended and there may be difficulty for the Board to exercise this discretion in a focused way. It may open the door for judicial review of the Board's decisions. I should also like to ask the Minister what is intended in this broader provision and what type of legal professionals would therefore be expected to gain entry through this route? My concern is that such persons may be admitted to fill certain needs of the time but, subsequently, may not be so useful. Would these individuals still be welcomed to general practice in Singapore? After admitting them to the profession, it may not be so easy to tell them to leave.

Secondly, I would like to turn to clause 7, which contains disqualifications for practising certificates. In the new provision, it is envisaged that the Attorney-General can, through his certificate, allow certain types of solicitors, such as those working in the university, to get a practising certificate. I would just like to ask the Minister to confirm that this is the new procedure that the Attorney-General's certificate is required for solicitors who are working for statutory bodies or for universities before they can apply for a practising certificate. If so, could the Minister explain why there is a need for disqualifications?

Thirdly, I welcome the new complaints provisions set out in the Bill and, especially, in clause 17. In particular, I note that the Council is obliged to inform the complainant and the advocate concerned if the complaint is dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance. This is certainly most welcome. Anecdotal evidence in the past suggests that complainants do not really know why the complaints are dismissed without further action. However, I would like to ask the Minister whether some more public-friendly mechanism can be found to inform those who wish to complain about legal services. Is there sufficient information given to those who wish to complain? Can the complaints mechanism be made simpler for the public? Many Members in this House must have come across cases where a member of the public informs them of some alleged mishandling of legal matters and professes a lack of knowledge as to what to do. The other problem is that they fear the lawyers and do not expect a satisfactory outcome in most cases. I hope the Minister can look into ways on how members of the public can be informed of their rights concerning allegations of mishandling of cases by their solicitors.

With the above comments, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Chandra Mohan Nair: Sir, I rise to support this Bill.

As regards the amendment to section 5 regarding the Board of Legal Education's powers to invest its monies, my comment is: what is the effect of this amendment on the finances of the Board of Legal Education? These are trust monies, and the persons in charge should be careful in venturing into perhaps speculative forms of investment. It may be prudent to remain conservative and obtain modest returns instead of being too active in wanting to get higher returns. The Trustees Act must be observed by the custodians of funds belonging to the Board of Legal Education. No doubt there are responsible persons in charge of these matters, but it would be prudent to be careful. I would suggest that the experiences of other similar organisations, including the Singapore Academy of Law - and the Board of Legal Education is, in a way, part and parcel of the Singapore Academy of Law - the Law Society of Singapore and other professional groups, such as those of accountants, doctors and engineers, be studied closely before embarking on any speculative investments.

As the Board of Legal Education is part of the Academy of Law, I would also suggest that the members of the Singapore Academy of Law, which include both practitioners, legal officers, the judiciary and the Law Faculty members, be consulted as they are the equivalent of shareholders, and the Board of Directors should give the members a chance to give their inputs on this matter. And it may be a point to note to see whether even the Academy of Law should have an annual general meeting where these matters could be reviewed by all the members of the Academy of Law.

There is also a provision which provides for the Board of Legal Education to be allowed to invest in other business or professional bodies. Perhaps, there could be some clarification of the ambit within which we would include business or professional bodies.

As regards the provisions regarding dining terms, Sir, this is an English concept that we have. I hope, in introducing the concept of dining terms, that it will be done professionally so that the young graduates do benefit from it, and the senior members of the Bar, the judiciary and the legal fraternity would participate so that it will come to fruition where there would be dissemination of experiences of senior members and the professional standards as a whole would be increased. The ethical standards could be imbibed into younger members through the concept of dining terms, provided it is done properly.

As Prof Chin has indicated, in new section 7, there is the removal of the term "exceptional cases", and there seems to be a more liberal approach even to allowing non-qualified persons to be qualified persons because, under the Legal Profession Act, the term "qualified persons" is defined, and I would think that, through these amendments, it is given a wider scope now. And what exactly would it mean by "or the economic or technological developments of Singapore"? In a way, it is progressive but, as indicated, it could have some negative effect, if there are too many of them coming in a little too easily.

I would welcome the amendments in section 48 where there is provision for the co-option of new members into the Council of the Law Society. This is a welcome provision because, as indicated, there may be some persons who may not be willing to stand for elections but who are capable and can contribute to the Council of the Law Society, including lady members. Now we have a legal profession where women make up at least half its membership, and they could be of much benefit to the efficacy of the running of the Law Society.

In sections 93, 94 and 97, the further amendments empowering the disciplinary committee and courts with greater powers and a variety of punishments are also welcome where there is more discretion given to these bodies to impose punishment instead of having stricter rules before.

I would also welcome the monies that are paid in the form of penalty to be used by the Law Society for public service, eg, criminal legal aid and law awareness, instead of passing it on to the Consolidated Fund. That is a welcome sign.

With that, I support the Bill, Sir.

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am deeply obliged to you for allowing me this opportunity to speak. I rise to support the Bill and, before I do that, I would like to declare that I am a Member of the Nanyang Technological University's Law Department in the Nanyang Business School. But the topic I raise will not have any effect on me.

Sir, firstly, I would like to mention that I support the Bill because, as the Minister has said, where clauses 7 and 10 are concerned, these are amendments to allow law lecturers to enhance their skills. In the past, the Legal Profession Act only allowed the law lecturers from the Faculty of Law to have these privileges. I would like to applaud the Minister for extending this now to law lecturers in all the law departments of the other institutes of higher learning and other law departments of the National University of Singapore. This is because I have always believed that law lecturers, whoever they may be, wherever they may be, should have practical experience. They should stay in touch with business realities, and what they teach ought to have relevance to the students. Therefore, these opportunities to appear before the courts and to give legal opinions without breaching any provision of the Legal Profession Act are much to be welcome.

I see this also as a fulfilment of the Minister's promise, in response to what Prof. Walter Woon said in this House in 1996, when the Minister introduced, for the first time, amendments in sections 75C and 75D. These new amendments recognise the fact that, since 1996, there have been many law departments filled and there are now new universities which have staff who are every bit as good, if not better than, the staff from the National University of Singapore.

In particular, I want to ask the Minister to consider if there could be further amendments on the lines of section 75D. I know Prof. Walter Woon mentioned these points in 1996, but let me assure the Minister I am not retreading the same ground. Prof. Woon wanted to see that sections 75C and 75D be extended to law lecturers who have no experience, perhaps very young and inexperienced law lecturers. My purpose, Sir, is to urge the Minister, perhaps in the next amendment of the Legal Profession Act, to consider this point, that there is in section 75D this entitlement to be called a "consultant", to practise as a consultant. When the Minister introduced this section in 1996, he mentioned in this House that it was important - this was in relation to a request from the Law Society, and maybe Mr Chandra Mohan was there then - and it was a request that we should not allow just any person to hang up a signplate that says he is a consultant. And I agree that anyone who calls himself a consultant has to have the experience and the expertise.

I would like to raise to the notice of this House and to the Minister that with the universities we have now, eg, in the Singapore Management University, our foremost expert on contract in Singapore and Malaysia, Dr Andrew Pang, is there. Under section 75D, as it stands currently and there is no amendment today in this House, it would mean that the years that he spends in SMU are useless to him. He cannot count those years towards being called a consultant. There are others: Dr Low Kee Yang, who is an expert in guarantees, also in SMU; in NTU itself, we have several doctorates in law who are experts in Internet law, intellectual property rights and e-commerce; in the National University of Singapore, outside the Law Faculty, there are experts on land law. I say these are experts, not because I say so, Sir, but these are recognised experts in the profession because they have been asked to write volumes in the Singapore edition of the Halsbury's Laws of Singapore, and they are also well-known authors of different books on different areas of law.

Sir, if these experts - and I believe they should be qualified persons also, with more than 10 years' experience - if the Minister feels that should be so, I think these are experts that we ought to recognise. And if they want to go out and hang up a signplate that says they are consultants, we should not stop them from doing so. Otherwise, it is rather anomalous. We allow them to appear before the courts, we allow them to advise lawyers, but, for a lesser privilege such as a title, we say no to them.

I think this would be relevant, Sir, when, for example, one day, after many years of teaching, they decide to come out, but they do not want to be a partner and, of course, they are too senior to be a legal assistant in a law firm. I think these are times when they would want to be called consultants. There are also serving staff of the different universities who would want to take up a full practising certificate because they are qualified persons and their employers allow them to do so, but because they are too senior to be legal assistants and they do not want to be employees of any law firm in Singapore, it would not be right for them to take up a practising certificate as a legal assistant or even as a partner. So, this is when, again, a title like "consultant" would be useful to them.

Perhaps, it is also anomalous that after 10-15 years as a law lecturer in the Law Faculty you can come out and practise as a law consultant but nobody else can do so even though he may be an expert, say, Dr Andrew Pang. I think this is a reasonable request to make. I hope the Minister would consider this. As I have said, I would like to reiterate that these points are not relevant to me because I hold a practising certificate and by the time my practising certificate expires, I have the number of years needed in practice to be called a consultant.

With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members who have spoken in support of the Bill and I would touch on the points that they have raised.

Prof. Chin asked about the broader wordings for section 7, whether it would pose some difficulties and wanted some idea on what sort of legal professionals we expect to be making an entry through this route. Let me say that previously, the applicant must be an exceptional one in that his qualifications and expertise must be such that it would enhance the quality of legal service in Singapore. Out of the many applications we received under section 7 over the past six years, the Board could only grant approval for four cases.

The new wordings will provide the Board with a little bit more flexibility because it emphasises more on the economic contribution that an applicant can make to Singapore in such areas of economic activities where there is presently a lack of expertise both qualitatively as well as in numbers. It would allow the Board to take into consideration whether the expertise or experience of the applicant is required or desirable for Singapore generally. This would allow successful applicants to contribute to an emerging range of new economic activities in which there is insufficient legal expertise. As Prof. Chin has said and Mr Chandra Mohan also commented, the world of legal practice is changing rapidly. And for Singapore, the legal service is an important supporting pillar for our effort to maintain our competitiveness. This means not just the traditional role of a lawyer, as understood by most laymen, it means getting into the cutting edge where there is an interplay between intellectual properties, genetics, patent law and so forth, where you need to have some experts knowledgeable about the law and, at the same time, knowledgeable about other areas. For example, a law graduate with multiple skills and experiences may apply for certification under this provision. Another example would be an IP lawyer with science or engineering background. So really, it does not mean that by this amendment, we are going to have a deluge of applications. It is that the previous criterion was very rigid for this purpose.

Let me also say that the amendment does not mean that the Board has to approve every case. The Board is given the discretion, and I am sure that it would exercise its discretion judiciously. I think it has to be very selective in its use of powers under this new provision to ensure that high quality persons are admitted under this route, and it will not be a backdoor entry to get to the Singapore Bar. Of course, the Board will have to establish its own guidelines, and the broader wordings of this new section would enable the Board to have the flexibility to adjust its internal guidelines to suit changing needs and circumstances.

Prof. Chin posed the question whether Singapore's needs may be changing and people who are admitted to fulfill the needs of certain times, may not be useful later. We are really talking about outstanding people and I hope he does not mind if I were to mention that many years ago, when I was the Dean of the Faculty, I had interviewed a young, promising lawyer from Sabah for the Law Faculty. I was impressed with him and he was thinking of just a three-year contract with the Law Faculty. But he stayed on, became a PR and he is none other than Prof. Chin. But at that time, how could we say that this outstanding graduate was just going to meet the demands of the Law Faculty at that time and would not be useful later? So, we are talking about other outstanding people like Prof. Chin. I think it would be a provision that would be used judiciously.

As to clause 7, let me say that it does not impose any new limitations but actually it creates exceptions to limitations which are already found in section 26(1) of the Legal Profession Act. Because section 26(1) says that no one can be issued with a practising certificate unless he intends to practise law as a sole proprietor, in partnership or as an employee of a law firm or law corporation or as a director of a law corporation. This naturally means that lawyers working in statutory boards and universities are disqualified from holding practising certificates. The existing section 26(3) created an exception for lawyers working in statutory boards, subject to certification by the Attorney-General. What clause 7 does is to widen the exception to include also law lecturers.

Let me say that this creation of a new exception for law lecturers would create greater opportunities for law lecturers to sharpen their legal skills which will in turn benefit their students. The requirement for certification by the Attorney-General would allow the Attorney-General to impose conditions and controls over situations in which the law lecturers can make use of the practising certificate. As I have said in my speech, it is not the intention to allow law lecturers to set up a full-fledged legal practice. It is really intended to cater mainly for cases where a law lecturer has been instructed by a practising lawyer, or where the law lecturer is invited by the court to assist in a particular case.

Prof. Chin also made the point about the need for the Law Society to print and disseminate information about how it deals with complaints. This is a suggestion which I would certainly take up with the Law Society. But, in fairness, let me say that the Law Society does publish and distribute pamphlets explaining to the public the procedure for making complaints about lawyers and the pamphlets are also available on the Internet. For Members of the House who previously had difficulties explaining the procedure to their constituents, I can also get my officials to forward the relevant website address to the constituency secretariats so that MPs can advise their constituents.

Mr Chandra Mohan was particularly concerned with two points. One was on the Board's investment powers. It is true that these amendments have given a new flexibility to the Board. But one should not conclude that this means that the Board is going to be speculative and engage in questionable investments. This new provision on the Board's investment powers is actually similar to those on investment powers of many other statutory bodies in Singapore. So it is not unprecedented. The idea is really to give the Board greater flexibility to invest its funds to better meet its objectives. I believe that the Attorney-General hopes that this flexibility would allow the Board, on suitable occasions, for example, to selectively grant loans to law firms to assist with operations on worthwhile projects.

It is also hoped that this would allow the Board and firms to engage in win-win partnerships for the benefit of the legal profession as a whole. I myself do not fear that this would lead to imprudent and unwise investments because the control over these investments rests with members of the Board, which is chaired by the Attorney-General and includes the Dean of the Law Faculty, as well as the President of the Law Society, all of whom, I am sure, would make it a point to ensure that the investments are defensible and on good grounds.

On his point about dining terms, let me say the Board of Legal Education has been trying out this idea informally for the past two years. But unlike the way dining terms are kept in England, the arrangement here would have considerable educational flavour or component and I understand that the intention is to invite prominent speakers for such dining sessions, and the pupils would be seated with practitioners. I think this idea should be encouraged as it would add a further dimension to education of our younger budding lawyers and hopefully, it would enable them to absorb the values and traditions of the Bar by interacting with more senior practitioners.

I have taken note of what Prof. Toh See Kiat has said. First, I want to make it clear that I do not underestimate the expertise and competence of the law teachers who are teaching law outside the NUS Law Faculty. But in response to his points, let me say that there is a difference between teaching law full-time to law students in the Law Faculty and teaching law to engineering, accountancy or business students. The Member may or may not agree with me. The lecturers in the Law Faculty are training future practitioners of law and they have to constantly keep up with the legal skills and knowledge, well-honed, up-to-date and even a cutting edge. It is for that reason that Parliament saw it fit to regard each year spent teaching law in the NUS Law Faculty as equivalent to one year's legal practice experience for the purposes of qualification used in the term "consultant".

Without appearing to underestimate those teaching law outside the Law Faculty, I should say that, relatively speaking, the demands on a law lecturer teaching non-law students may not be as intense as the Law Faculty because the Law Faculty lecturers are in a total law environment and they interact with some 40 to 50 other colleagues who are specialists in their law disciplines. I am not sure that the other departments outside the NUS Law Faculty have this total interactive environment which is not unlike a leading law firm in town.

While this Bill has opened up certain NUS law lecturers' privileges to also non-law faculty lecturers and other institutions, they do not make the conferment of such privileges automatic. For example, the issuance of a practising certificate is subject to the Attorney-General's approval and the Attorney-General can impose conditions. This would allow the Attorney-General to exercise some control. My response may not satisfy Prof. Toh See Kiat because he would favour a result where all law lecturers are conferred the benefit which is given to the NUS Law Faculty. Let us take matters one step at a time. I would not completely rule it out. But as Prof. Toh See Kiat knows, my approach is not to rule it out. Let us try this first, see how it works, and he, or other colleagues who feel the same way, can take it up to try and persuade me or the future Minister for Law on another occasion.

Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: A point of clarification, Sir. When the Minister mentioned that law lecturers in the Law Faculty have got more intensive experience, I do agree. But has he taken note that nowadays, in the other universities, when the law lecturers fight for their promotions, they have to be compared with their peers in the law faculty and their research papers have got to be the same class, or else they do not make it?

Prof. Jayakumar: I am very glad to hear that, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

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