CLASS of ‘85

Extracts from the speech delivered by the President at the Law Society’s annual Dinner and Dance on 3 September 2005, which this year, was held in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the Society’s Criminal Legal Aid Scheme. The Dinner raised $78,901.14 for CLAS.

Twenty-five years ago, Stanley Yeo had just become a law lecturer at the then University of Singapore. He wanted to investigate how accused persons who were unrepresented fared in the criminal justice system. He asked Low Wee Ping, the then Registrar of the Subordinate Courts of Singapore, to let him look at the court files. Unsurprisingly, the study showed that accused persons with legal representation in criminal trials were much more likely to be acquitted than those who were unrepresented. The study also suggested that defendants who were legally represented received lower sentences than those who had not engaged legal counsel.

This did not of course mean that the courts were not doing their best to hear what an accused in person had to say. What it meant was that lawyers were much better at discovering and bringing to the court’s attention facts which were favourable to their client’s defence, much better than an accused person – who often has little education and no experience of the 
court room.

This study prompted a group of Singaporean criminal legal practitioners to meet to think of a way of commencing a scheme of voluntary criminal legal aid. The Law Society worked hard to put together a viable administrative structure, and actively promoted the idea among members of the Criminal Bar. Patrick Nathan, then executive secretary of the Law Society, met up with the late Wee Chong Jin, then Chief Justice, and he helped to secure for CLAS office space on the fifth floor of the Subordinate 
Courts Complex.   

Mr Harry Elias chaired the first CLAS Committee. He also undertook the first case of free legal representation by CLAS. Harry represented a woman who had allegedly stolen milk for her infant, and managed to have the charge withdrawn. 

Patrick Nathan meanwhile sent out a circular to inform all members of the Bar about the aims and objectives of CLAS. In typical Patrick attention to detail, he felt he needed a colour to distinguish the circular from the reams of paper that arrived on members’ desks each day, and chose Pink. The response was fantastic. One phone call he remembers vividly. Patrick received a call from a senior member of the Bar. This gentleman said that this was really clas. Patrick said yes, CLAS, c-l-a-s, the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme. The senior practitioner said no it was c-l-a-s-s, Class. The senior practitioner was none other than our Attorney-General Mr Chan Sek Keong who was then with the firm of Shook Lin & Bok. He was right of course, and the Society has carried forward this demonstration of class for twenty years.  

I am pleased to report that we have this year revised the means test upwards, and have strengthened arrangements with the Subordinate Courts for referral of unrepresented accused 
to CLAS.

As one of the founders of CLAS, Tang Fong Har, one of Singapore’s dreamers – yes, we do need more dreamers –  told me by e-mail, ‘Then as now, it’s a way for lawyers to serve the community by helping the impecunious’. She also expressed her pleasure that ‘in the midst of bread and butter issues, our fellow lawyers have been giving their time and expertise pro bono to the more disadvantaged in our society’.

There is much to be proud of during these past twenty years. Acquittals obtained, charges reduced or withdrawn. Without the CLAS scheme enabling poorer accused persons to be represented, public confidence in our legal system would be lower than it is today. Access to justice can only exist if persons coming before the courts are able to avail themselves of the expert assistance of lawyers.

The Society is extremely grateful to Prof Jayakumar for his unwavering support for CLAS over the years. It was he who suggested the golf tournament that is the main fund-raising event for CLAS every year. He’s always there, not just him but his kakis too. Thank you.

While we can be proud of our efforts, we have to recognise that CLAS does not reach all who need free legal representation. It relies purely on volunteers, lawyers prepared to put in a week’s work and sometimes more, free of charge. The major expense of the scheme is administration – staffing required in order to administer the means test within the timelines set by the Subordinate Courts. A much smaller expense – but a real one nonetheless – is on expert evidence, for example, a psychologist or psychiatrist. Even to meet these expenses is a yearly struggle. When I talk to potential donors, the first question is, ‘Why should I donate money for criminals?’ When I’ve finished trying to explain the presumption of innocence, they look at me sceptically and then respond – ‘lawyers are so rich, they should pay for the scheme themselves’.

We have done our best, but we have to admit to being amateurs – not amateurish, the two words mean very different things – both at fund-raising and at public relations. Looking forward, the whole question of legal aid – criminal and civil – requires renewed consideration. Too many litigants appear unrepresented. This is good neither for justice nor for efficiency. CLAS has achieved much, but its reach is not great enough. It is hard to see how any greater burden can be placed on the small pool of criminal practitioners. Many of our volunteers are from small firms, and to give up a week for a trial free of charge is quite an imposition. I believe the way forward is a PPP, a public private partnership. But serious thought about the future is for another occasion. Tonight is a night for celebration.

Philip Jeyaretnam, SC

President

The Law Society of Singapore