The following is an extract from the remarks made in Parliament by Senior Minister of State for Law, Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, during the Committee of Supply Debate 2003 (Ministry of Law), on Thursday, 13 March 2003.

Committee of Supply Debate (II)

Legal Aid

Mr Arthur Fong has asked us to raise the means test. We have heeded these calls before — we have looked at the test before and revised it. The last time we raised it was in April 2001. The current test is more generous and many more applicants have been granted aid. In 2001, the disposable income limit was increased from $7,000 to $10,000 per annum and the allowance deductions for calculating the disposable income was increased to $3,000 for the applicant and $2,000 for each dependant. Under this more generous means test, a family of, say, four, comprising two parents and two dependent children where only the husband works, would qualify for legal aid, if the father’s gross monthly income is about $1,850 (after making deductions for himself, CPF and the dependants), provided the husband’s disposable capital limit comes within $7,000.

Now of course people are asking for an increase in the means test. But whatever limit you prescribe, some will not meet it. But we do monitor the test and raise it periodically. Since the revision in April 2001, the number of persons granted legal aid has increased substantially. The increase was 40%. There was also a substantial increase in the percentage of applicants who successfully qualified for legal aid, increasing from 66% of applicants in FY 1999 to 81.2% in FY 2001. In other words, more were helped and less applicants were turned away in FY 2001. We expect that by the end of FY 2002, the number of persons who qualify for legal aid for FY 2002 will be around 4527 representing a 6% increase over FY 2001. We also expect that for FY 2002, the percentage of applicants who did not qualify for legal aid will fall to about 12% as compared to FY 2001 when it was 19%. Hence, not only are more persons qualifying for legal aid but also less persons are being turned away for not qualifying under the means test.

On whether the State should provide legal aid for criminal cases, as argued for by Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chandra Mohan, we have debated this issue extensively before in this House. The essential difference between providing legal aid for criminal and legal cases is this. The State spends a lot of resources in maintaining, as best as possible, a top-rate law enforcement machinery and an excellent legal service, including deputy public prosecutors to ensure Singaporeans’ safety and security. It is incongruous and inconsistent that public funds should be used to defend an accused person which the State, in the public interest, has decided ought to be charged in court and would do its best to secure a conviction, and at the same time, use public funds to get him off. If you think about it, it is incongruous. The exception is where life is involved so that for capital cases, counsel is assigned.

However, the poor are not left high and dry for non-capital criminal cases. For legal assistance in criminal cases, the Law Society runs a wonderful scheme or CLAS. Started in 1985, this scheme has received the strong support of lawyers, especially the younger ones, who do pro bono work. Indeed, in the Legal Census just conducted, many respondents felt that lawyers should do more community service. The CLAS scheme provides an excellent avenue for our young lawyers to contribute to the less fortunate in society. CLAS has a total of 400 volunteer lawyers on its panel and a sub-committee has been set up by CLAS to study the feasibility of including in its coverage, cases where the accused persons plead guilty, when there are exceptional circumstances. It is a win-win situation. What should the State do? The State should not directly fund this but the Minister for Law and I have actively supported CLAS’ fund-raising projects. The Minister has raised funds for CLAS before at golf tournaments. I take this opportunity to commend CLAS for its good work.

Sentencing

Mr Ravindran has asked us to consider whether sentencing policies have fulfilled their intended purposes, what have been the collateral costs and whether the approach currently taken can be improved. He has voiced the concern that mandatory minimums and rigid sentencing tariffs make it more difficult for the Subordinate Courts to meet the ends of justice in individual cases.

The outcome of our sentencing policy is an interplay between Parliament and the courts. Both have their respective roles to play. As Members are aware, Parliament sets, for offences, a sentencing range eg imprisonment of up to five years or a fine or both and leaves it to the courts to determine the appropriate sentence in each case. The courts have their own sentencing guidelines, so as to ensure that similar sentences are given by different judges for similar offences.

Mr Ravindran has mentioned mandatory minimum sentences. We are not the only country that has mandatory sentences. Many countries including the US, UK, Australia and Canada also have mandatory sentences. Before mandatory sentences are imposed, it is carefully considered whether we should do so. We do so sparingly. There are less than 100 offences on our statute books which carry mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment and in most cases, the minimum is for one year or less. When Parliament prescribes the penalties for particular offences, the penalty would depend on the seriousness and prevalence of the offence eg two or three years ago, we changed the way the penalty provision would work for maid abusers. When we impose mandatory minimum sentences, we are sending a strong deterrent message to would-be offenders that these are serious offences and they should not be trifled with. A good example would be robbery for example in a lift, which is a serious offence. Other serious offences that carry mandatory sentences include aggravated molest and armed offences, in addition, the harbouring of illegal immigrants, because of the dire consequences resulting from such an act.

Deterrence remains a key plank in our penal philosophy. We need not be apologetic about our tough stand against crime, which has resulted in Singapore being a very safe place for people to live in. The Mercer Report in the UK ranks Singapore top in this part of the world for safety.

But increasingly, even as we retain deterrence as a key plank in our penal philosophy, we have moved over the past years to introduce more rehabilitation programmes. Doing both is not inconsistent. We can remain tough on crime but rehabilitate offenders especially first offenders eg MHA’s home detention scheme. But we must be tough on those who commit serious crimes.

Farming Out of International Law Work

Mr Chandra Mohan feels that the Attorney General’s Chambers (‘AGC’) and government agencies should involve more private practitioners in their international law work. AGC has tapped the expertise of the private sector eg for advice in relation to our Free Trade Agreements. But international law is a very specialised area of the law. Generally, there is a lack of expertise in this area amongst our lawyers.

Government can try and open doors for private practitioners. For example, IE Singapore organised a professional services mission to Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou from 25 March to 3 April 2002. The mission delegation was led by the Solicitor General, and comprised government representatives from AGC, MinLaw and IE Singapore and partners of five large local law firms. I was in Beijing in September last year to attend a WTO Conference. Whilst there, I met the PRC Minister for Justice and several key PRC private lawyers such as the President of the All China Lawyers Association. I also met up with a few Singapore lawyers working in China and helped them with their networking. However, our lawyers, on their part, must be prepared to make the necessary adjustments in order to secure an active practice in international law; for example, they must be prepared to be based overseas, at least for short stints, or fly in and out of say, China or India, at short notice and with some regularity.

Foreign law firms

Mr Chandra Mohan has asked us about the foreign lawyers and foreign law firms in Singapore. At present, we have 64 foreign law firms from 15 jurisdictions. There are 549 registered foreign lawyers. These lawyers and law firms can only practice foreign law.

Joint law ventures and formal law alliances

There are currently six joint law ventures (‘JLVs’) and two formal law alliances (‘FLAs’) between local and foreign law firms.

There are clear benefits to Singapore in allowing JLVs and FLAs into our legal profession. Training of Singapore lawyers in international financial work has clearly been achieved by the majority of the JLVs in terms of frequency and numbers who are trained. This will enhance significantly the pool of legal expertise that Singapore lawyers can provide in the future to domestic as well as international legal services. These lawyers are also likely to benefit from their potential usefulness to the global law firms operating in other financial centres in the region and even in US and Europe. They will also be able to build up a network of professional contacts over time.

We will continue to monitor the JLV and FLA schemes and will only make changes, if necessary, after about five years.