Legal Aid and Advice (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, access to justice is an important cornerstone of our society. The Government has strengthened our systems over the years to enhance access to justice for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents. This includes working with the Judiciary to enhance and improve court processes to save time and costs; and enhancing frameworks to enable Singaporeans to resolve their disputes quickly in a cost effective manner, such as through the use of mediation.

Even with various Government-driven initiatives to reduce the costs of dispute resolution, we recognise that some in our society may still be unable to afford their own lawyers for basic legal services. Providing access to justice to persons of limited means underpins the Legal Aid and Advice Act, and the establishment of the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB).

To ensure that public funds are properly allocated to the most vulnerable persons who have reasonable grounds for legal proceedings they wish to pursue, the Act currently has a two-fold test for legal aid. First, applicants must satisfy the means criteria based on the applicants’ disposable income and disposable capital. Second, applicants must then pass a merits test.

The Government regularly reviews the Act to ensure that the Act remains able to meet the objectives that I have just set out. This Bill arises from our latest review.

The Bill does three things: first, it provides for the means criteria to be set out in subsidiary legislation; second, it provides for greater flexibility for aid to be given to those who might fail the means criteria; and third, it improves the administration of legal aid.

A significant clause of the Bill is clause 7(a), which provides for means criteria to be set out in subsidiary legislation instead of the Act. This facilitates the modification and simplification of the means criteria.

Currently, the means criteria involve an assessment of disposable income and disposable capital. Disposable income is calculated by taking the total income of the applicant and his or her spouse, and deducting various permitted deductibles such as living allowances and Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions. Disposable capital is calculated by taking the value of the property which an applicant possesses or is entitled to, and deducting various permitted deductibles such as an HDB flat owned and used by the applicant and his family as their home.

These criteria have worked well to identify those who have a real need for legal aid. Nevertheless, some changes to the means criteria may better serve the most vulnerable in the future.

The Bill will allow us to provide for means criteria to be set out in subsidiary legislation, and we intend to simplify the means criteria, without compromising on its effectiveness at identifying the truly needy.

The revised means criteria will be aligned with those more commonly used by current social support schemes, and reference indicators such as: a) the Per Capita Household Income (PCHI), and b) the Annual Value (AV) of the applicant’s place of residence, and his savings and investments.

The new means criteria will involve assessing the applicant’s gross income and assets, instead of his disposable income and disposable capital. This also simplifies the application process for legal aid. Applicants will no longer need to provide various documentary proof of deductibles, and in setting the new PCHI limits, we intend to incorporate most of the permitted deductibles within the current means criteria to minimise the risk that applicants could be disadvantaged by the switch over from disposable income to gross income.

We will set out the qualifying limits for the new means criteria in subsidiary legislation next year, to account for the 2018 – the latest – income data. The new means criteria will be set such that there will be no material impact on the number of households who will remain eligible for legal aid.

We will continue to regularly monitor and review the new means criteria after implementation, to ensure that legal aid remains available to persons of limited means.

Other than simplifying the means criteria, the Bill also provides greater flexibility for legal aid to be given where it is just and proper to do so, for example, to those who may find themselves in extenuating circumstances. This can be found in clause 7(b) of the Bill.

Currently, the Act only allows for a limited deviation from the means criteria. To illustrate, the Director of Legal Aid may disregard certain matters in determining the disposable income and disposable capital of an applicant in four specific circumstances defined in the Second Schedule. Those circumstances can broadly be summarised as follows:

a) One, where the applicant lives apart from his or her spouse.

b) Two, where the applicant has a sudden physical or mental disability.

c) Three, where the applicant has a sudden loss of income.

d) And four, where the applicant is involved in certain family proceedings involving children, or protection orders between spouses or ex-spouses.

In computing the applicant’s disposable income or disposable capital, the Director may:

a) Grant such applicants additional deductibles; or

b) Exclude the income of the applicant’s spouse.

However, the Act restricts how much the Director can do in these situations. It also does not allow the means criteria to be adjusted for other applicants who might otherwise fail the means criteria but do not fall within any of those four categories.

We understand that applicants may sometimes need more help. Applicants with other circumstances not currently prescribed in the Act may also face other strains on their financial resources, and they may not be able to afford legal fees.

For example, LAB currently is unable to help an applicant who fails the means criteria but cannot afford legal services because he has a sudden serious illness and has to pay for major medical procedures.

The Bill will provide greater flexibility for LAB to assist these applicants. Clause 7(b) allows the Minister to direct the Director to issue a Grant of Aid to an applicant who does not satisfy the means criteria, if the Minister is of the opinion that it is just and proper that legal aid be granted to this applicant. The Minister may also authorise any person, including a panel of persons, to exercise this power.

The remainder of the Bill makes general improvements to the administration of legal aid, and I will run through a few of the more significant provisions.

Clause 3 empowers the Director to appoint public officers to assist the Director, the Deputy Director or the Assistant Director of Legal Aid. Some of the appointed public officers will be specially-trained Legal Executives. These “Specialist Legal Executives” will be authorised to provide legal advice to applicants, and may also appear in court for certain matters such as uncontested divorces. They will first undergo rigorous and specialised training for this purpose.

Clause 7(a) also empowers the Director to decide on the merits test in certain proceedings, instead of referring the matter to a board (which comprises the Director and no fewer than two solicitors). This is to streamline the merits test process for what could be straightforward cases, such as uncontested divorce cases where the parties have agreed on all related or ancillary matters.

Clause 10 amends the Act to allow aided persons to obtain additional court documents free of charge. Currently, they may only obtain a copy of the judge’s Notes of Evidence free of charge. The additional documents, such as Grounds of Decision or certified transcripts in relation to proceedings for which legal aid is granted, will be set out in the subsidiary legislation.

Clause 17 re-enacts the existing section 9 as a new section 22A, to clarify that the Director has the power to require contributions for legal advice cases. At present, it is envisaged that contributions may have to be paid where legal advice and assistance in preparing certain legal documents is requested. We do not intend to charge a contribution for applicants who have received only oral legal advice, as is the current practice.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the Bill builds on the good work of the LAB, supported by the legal fraternity and our key partner agencies, to continue enhancing access to justice. It facilitates the simplification of the means criteria for applicants, provides more flexibility for legal aid to be granted where just and proper, and overall improves on the administration of legal aid.

The Bill reaffirms the Government’s commitment to ensure access to justice for the most vulnerable, and I trust these changes will also enhance LAB’s ability to do its work in the many years to come. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.42 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, this Bill strengthens access to justice in Singapore. Often times, a person may feel daunted by the prospect of needing to navigate the legal process on one’s own. Some knowledge of the law may be needed to make legal arguments in court. Some may not be able to afford court fees let alone hire legal assistance, aid or representation. For justice to be administered, the best institutional and legal infrastructure is necessary but insufficient – access to them is also important. At this juncture, I should declare that I am a lawyer in private practice.

Access to justice is important, not just for justice between relevant parties, but is also critical for society – a rule of law society – a society where people obey the law and are guided by the law.

As an example, if an employer knew that he or she can get away with not paying the employee’s wages agreed upon in the contract because the employee is unable to bring a claim against him or her, it would be much easier for an employer to unlawfully withhold wages. But this would not be the case if the employer knew the employee has access to justice. Therefore, by knowing that there is a possibility that the court system may be utilised to enforce the claim, there will be greater incentive to obey the law. In this way, access to justice promotes the rule of law, even before something goes wrong.

Furthermore, in certain circumstances, when something goes wrong, access to justice is important for people to not feel that they need to take things into their own hands by resorting to violence, for instance. A tangible example of this is personal protection orders – one of the many things that Legal Aid Bureau helps its clients with.

Through this Bill, the LAB will be even more effective in its mission of advancing access to justice and the rule of law. I should also state that many members of the Singapore Bar already provide hours upon hours of pro bono services to clients who cannot afford legal fees and so, these amendments in this Bill should be viewed as complementing the already selfless effort of many members of the litigation Bar.

Coming back to the Bill, clauses 7 and 21 remove the current means test in the Second Schedule of the current Act. Currently, the merit test comprises of disposable income test and disposable capital test. The amendment allows the means test to be brought in line with what is currently used among other agencies and welfare services. This simplifies the process and makes it easier for applicants who need various forms of help to use the same supporting documents to apply for the different kinds of help. Related to this, would the Senior Minister of State elaborate on how the qualifying limit will be set?

On a related note, there is an increased discretion for the Minister to direct the Director to accept deserving cases should the applicant not meet the rigid means test. The broadened discretion expands the discretion beyond just loss of income or loss of earning capacity, to, for instance, a person who cannot afford legal services because he needs to pay for major medical procedures due to a serious illness. As difficulties in life that may reduce one’s ability to afford legal assistance are very varied, it is good that there is greater discretion. Would the Minister elaborate on how this discretion is to be exercised? Is the aim to help those with around the same needs profile as those under the strict means test even though the need may arise from different circumstances?

This Bill also enables the Legal Aid Bureau to better manage their resources. Under clause 3, the Director may appoint someone who is not a qualified person under the he Legal Profession Act to appear and plead in court for an aided person. Would the Minister elaborate on the rigorous training that these public officers will undergo so that the Legal Aid Bureau will continue to be known for its high quality legal services and so Legal Aid Bureau’s clients’ interests can continue to be effectively represented?

Notwithstanding the ability to appoint public officers to represent clients, Assigned Solicitors continue to play an important role in the Legal Aid Bureau’s work. For instance, they still seem necessary for specialised cases involving medical negligence, Syariah Court cases, or where both parties applied for legal aid. Under clause 4, Assigned Solicitors serve for terms of approximately three years.

The scope of legal assistance is expanded under clause 10 where other relevant court documents besides judge’s notes of evidence may be provided without fees. This is a welcome move, especially because other court documents may be necessary in the civil process. For example, the record of proceedings in a notice of appeal includes a certified copy of the grounds of judgement or order, if any, and a copy of the certified transcript of the official record of the hearing.

In conclusion, Sir, this Bill strengthens access to justice in Singapore by enabling better management of resources, expanding the scope of assistance, and making the application process more straightforward and less rigid. In strengthening access to justice, this Bill also advances the rule of law in Singapore. Therefore, I support it.

3.48 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

The update and simplification of the means criteria for legal aid to align them with means criteria used in current social support schemes have been long-awaited. The current means test criteria, which take into account the applicant’s disposable income and disposable capital, have been in place since 1958.

To apply for legal aid today, applicants have to furnish documentary proof of their disposable income and disposable capital as part of the legal aid application. Even with such stringent means test criteria, there has consistently been a high percentage of applications, at around 90%, which passed the preliminary means test for legal aid over the past five years. The incidence of abuse is low and the large majority of applicants meet the qualifying criteria.

In 2016, 57% of the legal aid applicants had only secondary educational qualifications or lower. The challenges that this group face in accessing justice are multi-fold.

First, with lower educational levels, they will meet with more challenges in understanding their legal rights, seeking available recourse and comprehending legal processes.

Second, with limited financial means, there are significant financial challenges in seeking legal recourse.

Third, the inability or difficulty faced in seeking legal recourse can exacerbate existing challenges in their lives due to higher levels of stress arising from the inability to resolve the legal issue at hand.

Over the past five years, about 50% of applicants sought legal aid for matrimonial cases, 10% for monetary claims and 7% for probate matters.

When divorce is on the cards, there would inevitably be strain in the household. The parties involved and their family and children bear the emotional cost of the dragging out of a failing relationship. The ability to seek legal recourse, especially in cases where violence is perpetuated, must be available in the legal system and accessible.

There must also be urgency in helping lower-income claimants recover monies owing to them and assistance for lower-income families who have lost a loved one to unlock assets of the deceased, especially where the deceased was the breadwinner. While the Public Trustee administers estates of deceased persons where the value of the estate does not exceed $50,000, the Public Trustee is unable to administer the estate where the deceased was the sole lessee of a HDB flat and a child is eligible to inherit the whole or part of the flat.

The mission of the Legal Aid Bureau is about “Advancing access to justice, the rule of law, the economy and society through policy, law and services.” The amendments proposed under this Bill, indeed, further this mission.

It is also timely at this juncture to consider a more integrated approach to provide more holistic support to families who are in need. Legal issues are not merely disputes between litigant and defendant; they can have extenuating and longer-term impact on the family.

To help families to manage stress arising from the legal dispute and any potential fallout, they can be directed to counselling support. Households in need can be directed to social assistance schemes and employment facilitation services.

At the close of the claim, a review should also be conducted to educate vulnerable claimants on how to better protect their legal rights in future. With this, I support the Bill.

3.52 pm

Mr Mohamed Irshad (Nominated Member): Hon Deputy Speaker and hon Members, Singaporeans may not often talk about justice, but few will doubt how important it is to have recourse to the law to affirm one’s rights; or to receive proper compensation for one’s work; or to protect one’s property; or to receive a fair arrangement at the end of a marriage; or to obtain protection from abuse. In our pledge, we refer to ourselves as a society based on justice and equality.

To realise that pledge, I believe that justice may be accessible to anyone who seeks it or who requires it. That is why I support this Bill as it is a great step towards strengthening access to justice for Singaporeans who may not ordinarily be able to afford lawyers or seek legal help. Allow me to zoom in on two areas: Public Awareness of Legal Aid and Expanding Services.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the move to simplify the means criteria for low-income Singaporeans in their applications for legal aid. The adoption of Per Capita Household Income (PCHI) and the Annual Value (AV) of the applicant’s place of residence, savings and investments to replace the current arrangement, which is based on disposable income and disposable capital, is simpler and clearer. It will also align the means criteria to what is commonly used in other social support schemes.

I also support the move for greater discretion in the granting of legal aid. There are many applicants that are truly needy and deserving but find themselves unable to meet the means criteria for whatever reasons. A closer scrutiny to these cases and an inclusive approach, I think, are welcome.

The recent announcement of a website revamp at the Legal Aid Bureau’s 60th anniversary dinner is another step in the right direction. I support the digitisation of the registration and document submission process as it will help speed up the process to match assigned solicitors to those who are seeking legal aid.

But based on my interactions with Singaporeans through my outreach work with Roses of Peace, it seems that there are still Singaporeans who may not be aware of the available avenues for legal assistance like the Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) or the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS), despite efforts by the Ministry as well as legal awareness campaigns by the Law Society of Singapore. I would like to ask the Minister if there are any more steps that can be taken to educate the public, especially those who require legal assistance but are unable to afford it, about the legal help that is available to the public.

Perhaps our civil society and our social service organisations can play a part to help spread the word on the avenues available for legal help.

I note that Singaporeans who are receiving financial assistance from our various social support system may also often require access to legal aid. However, not all the frontline officers providing assistance to these individuals and their families may be equipped with the right knowledge of our legal aid services.

Perhaps, we can have a Legal Aid Conference to inform and equip these frontline officers from the social sector with basic legal knowledge and information on legal aid so that they can help their beneficiaries. It will also be of great benefit to have a legal aid playbook or an online resource guide that can be accessed by the public.

It is commendable to witness the progress of the Legal Aid Bureau since 1958. I understand that, to-date, it has received about 400,000 applications for legal aid and, in 2017 alone, it received about 9,000 applications; most were for matrimonial, claims and probate matters.

I also support the increased funding and support for the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme over the past years.

These are important institutions in the provision of legal aid and access to justice. But the public often turn to the Legal Aid Bureau when it is too late, when issues have come to a head or a problem has arisen. Perhaps, there is a role that can be played in promoting awareness of the law and to equip the public with enough legal knowledge in order to prevent legal issues from occurring.

For example, in the area of promoting micro enterprises among low-income families, the Legal Aid Bureau or the Law Society of Singapore’s Pro Bono Services Office can explore working with community organisations, such as Casa Raudha, PPIS and Daughters of Tomorrow (DOT), or our trade associations and chambers of commerce, and even SME Centres, to equip them with legal resources that can help micro enterprises.

In the example of Daughters of Tomorrow, it is a registered charity that aims to facilitate livelihood opportunities for underprivileged women to build and sustain financially independent and resilient families. Since its inception in 2014, DOT has enabled 150 women to find jobs and start business projects. Some 40% of these beneficiaries are single mothers with low education – Secondary school and below. They have to juggle between caring for their children and making ends meet through their micro enterprises.

Equipping organisations such as Daughters of Tomorrow, with the right legal resources, such as business contract templates and other relevant knowledge, will go a long way to assist these women and, hopefully, prevent legal issues from occurring; thus, reducing the need for legal aid in a small but important and significant manner.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this move to ensure that any Singaporean who seeks justice may obtain it. It is a sign of a compassionate society when we ensure that even those who lack financial means may still be able to afford the ability to protect his or her rights. Access to justice provides all Singaporeans with the same dignity and the same fundamental right to fairness. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill.

4.00 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. Many Members, myself included, have asked for the Director of Legal Aid to be given broader discretion to extend legal aid to those who do not qualify under the means test. I am heartened to see that the Ministry has taken on board our suggestions in allowing the Director general discretion to grant aid if it is just and proper to do so.

It was announced just last week that, from next year, a new system set up by the Legal Aid Bureau will help applicants access legal aid more quickly by allowing lawyers to browse and select cases, and legal aid applicants to check the status of their applications.

These legislative amendments, coupled with improvements in implementation, are progressive moves towards improving access to justice for the most vulnerable and becoming a more compassionate society.

Sir, I have three clarifications.

Firstly, the Ministry has stated that the qualifying limit for the new means criteria to be set in subsidiary legislation will take into account the latest income data to maintain the number of eligible households. However, if legal costs have increased, access to lawyers may be beyond the reach to a larger number of households. If that is the case, rather than holding the number of eligible households constant, legal aid may need to be extended to a larger number of households.

When the Act was amended in 2013, the criteria was relaxed to increase the percentage of qualifying citizens and permanent residents from 17% to 25%. The last large-scale study of legal costs in Singapore was the 2001 Census of The Legal Industry And Profession. The census had suggested that the billable rate of law firms had steadily increased between 1998 and 2000. Is the Ministry tracking the trends in legal costs and the proportion of households for whom legal representation remains inaccessible? Will the Ministry consider increasing the percentage of qualifying citizens and permanent residents?

Next, currently, an aided person who wishes to appeal a decision must make a new application for legal aid. In the Assigned Solicitor's Guide, the solicitor is advised that they cannot act for an aided person who is looking to appeal a court judgement. There are strict timelines that must be adhered to in an appeal. This is acknowledged in the Assigned Solicitor's Guide, which advises the aided person to file a Notice of Appeal on their own before making a new application for legal aid. However, whether the aided person decides to appeal is likely to depend on whether they are able to obtain further legal aid. In this situation, it is left to the Assigned Solicitor to decide on their own initiative whether to assist the aided person in filing the Notice of Appeal.

Could the Minister clarify the rationale for subjecting the aided person to another round of means and merits testing to obtain legal aid for the appeal? The means of the aided person might have changed, but I doubt it would have changed significantly for most persons. Admittedly, the merits of the case may need to be considered afresh if it is going to an appeal. An unfavourable decision may cast new light on the merits of the claim. In a favourable decision where the aided person is appealing against the amount awarded, it should be considered whether the sum awarded truly is so unsatisfactory as to warrant an appeal and whether this should be supported with legal aid.

However, given that the claim has gone through an initial round of merits testing, it may not need the in-depth assessment given to a new claim. Again, considering the strict timelines that must be adhered to in an appeal, would the Minister consider an expedited process for assessing whether to extend legal aid to an aided person who wishes to file an appeal?

Similarly, a new application for legal aid must be made for an aided person to enforce the judgement.

Could the Minister also clarify the rationale for subjecting the aided person to another full round of means and merits testing to obtain legal aid in enforcing the judgement? The means of an aided person would similarly not have changed much after obtaining the paper judgement from the court. The merits of the case would be further reinforced by the favourable judgement given by the court.

Having supported an aided person all the way to the point of obtaining a paper judgement, surely, it would be logical for Legal Aid to see the claim all the way through until the aided person obtains the sum claimed which is the entire objective of filing a claim in the first place.

Would the Minister consider allowing an initial Grant of Aid to extend to enforcement processes that an aided person may need to undertake?

Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

4.04 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the amendments will certainly simplify the criteria for legal aid applications substantially. Instead of considering several components of disposable income and capital, focusing on the main categories of the applicant's per capita income, home annual value, savings and investments will help to expedite the assessment process.

However, the new set of criteria still leaves certain applicants at a disadvantage. For example, an applicant may need to support parents, siblings or other vulnerable family members who do not stay with him under the same roof and thus are not considered during the computation of per capita income. I hope the Ministry will be able to exercise some flexibility for such applicants on a case-by-case basis.

I would like to seek clarifications about the role of Central Provident Fund contributions under the new criteria. Will it be considered a component of savings and investments? If so, can it be excluded since the payouts from CPF are not immediate? In addition, if an applicant has a negative net worth, that means his personal liabilities exceed his personal assets, can this be taken into consideration for his application?

May I ask the Minister how many applications were received in the last 10 years and how many were unsuccessful? What were the main reasons for the unsuccessful applications? Can the Ministry provide details of the various categories?

Lastly, for applicants rejected for legal aid, can the Ministry consider alternative assistance for them? For example, a deferment payment scheme for legal fees may be useful for those who are cash-strapped or who are asset-rich but cash-poor.

With that, I conclude with my support for the Bill.

4.06 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest as a practising lawyer and an assigned solicitor with the Legal Aid Bureau.

I welcome these landmark amendments proposed to the Legal Aid and Advice Act which comes 62 years after the enactment of the original Bill.

The raison d’etre behind the Bill when it was moved by the then Minister for Labour, Mr Lim Yew Hock, in 1956 remains the same. This point was put across eloquently by the hon Minister Ms Indranee Rajah in this House in 2013 when she said,

"Access to justice is one of the cornerstones of our society. We may have the best laws, the best courts and the best system, but all that would be lost if they cannot be accessed by persons in need. Like all things, there is a cost to legal services and not everyone can afford such services. It was with this in mind that the Legal Aid and Advice Act was originally enacted in 1956 to ensure access to justice. That objective remains as relevant today as it was then".

We have just heard the Senior Minister of State, Mr Edwin Tong, subscribing fully to this statement and the hon Member Mr Abbas Ali also echoed a similar point.

When the Legal Aid Bureau was established pursuant to the Act on 1 July 1958, Singapore became the first country in Southeast Asia to have such a legal aid scheme.

Currently, the Legal Aid Bureau, sees over 9,000 applications for legal aid annually. It celebrates its 60th anniversary this year. It is timely that we review our legal aid scheme to ensure that we keep abreast with changes to our society.

A key reform in the Bill is the changes to the means test to be used to assess eligibility for legal aid. I recognise that it is not easy to fix a fair and equitable means test that is totally immune to criticism. The new means criteria of Per Capita Household Income is commendable, as it allows more flexibility in the assessment of means, to take into account the overall income situation of the household and not the applicant's individual situation, which may not be reflective of his/her situation.

Let me give you an example. Last month, I filed a Parliamentary Question arising from a case. It concerned a legal aid application made by a father, seeking assistance to be appointed as a deputy of his mentally disabled son. I asked why is it that the father was treated as the applicant as opposed to the son. Ordinarily, his son would have been eligible for legal aid but he cannot apply because he is not mentally capable. The application for deputyship and legal aid was made by the father. The application, afterall, was for the benefit of the son and it was meant to facilitate the care and management of his son. Unfortunately, the father was deemed not eligible for legal aid, as the current means test only looks at his circumstances as an individual and not that of his son.

Under the Act, the Director of Legal Aid may exercise discretion to exclude up to $30,000 to determine the disposable capital of the applicant if the applicant is suffering from mental disability, a point that the learned Senior Minister of State just made. But here, this ground cannot be raised because, as far as the Legal Aid Bureau is concerned, the applicant is the father, who is mentally sound.

So, one wonders when this proviso can apply because, ordinarily, one assumes that applicants must be compos mentis.

In his reply, the Minister for Law stated as follows:

"It is not possible for legal aid applications to be made for, or on behalf of, the mentally incapacitated person, and then use that person's means to support the legal aid application".

In my respectful view, such an approach may operate unfairly against the family as it did not adequately take into account the circumstances surrounding the mentally incapacitated son and the reason for the application in court in the first place.

I am glad to note, however, that if this Bill is passed, then this issue will be taken care of because the PCHI will be adopted as the means test, both the income of the father and his son will be taken into account to assess the father's means more holistically. The Legal Aid Bureau will also be vested with powers to exercise greater flexibility to provide targeted help to applicants in extenuating circumstances.

The means test must be flexible enough to remain relevant even when there are ups and downs in Singapore's economic growth. In terms of the qualifying limit for the new PCHI means criteria, which I understand will be set later in subsidiary legislation after taking into account the latest income data, could the hon Senior Minister of State please elaborate what are the considerations that will be inputted in relation to setting the limit? For example, would it be based on the 20th percentile of the PCHI?

Would the income limit exclude CPF contributions, a point that that the hon Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh mentioned? This should be the case, in my respectful view, because it should take into account actual disposable income.

How about circumstances where families are put into significant expense? I believe that the Senior Minister of State mentioned that this would be taken into account. What will be the principles governing such assessment?

Apart from the new means test, the Bill now provides that the Minister may direct the Director of Legal Aid to issue a Grant of Aid even though the Director is of the opinion that the applicant does not satisfy the prescribed means criteria, if the Minister is of the opinion that it is just and proper for legal aid to be granted. May I clarify: does this operate as an appeal to the Minister by the applicant who has been refused a Grant of Aid by the Director? This is presumably so, because the Director would have already made an assessment of eligibility at the first instance.

If so, would the Minister require the Director to provide grounds for his decision and would such grounds be provided to the applicant so that the applicant can comment on it in its appeal to the Minister?

And what are circumstances that are contemplated where it would be "just and proper" for the Minister to grant legal aid?

May I also please ask what is the outcome of the suggestion that was made in this House by the hon former Member Mr Hri Kumar when the Act was last amended in 2013 when he suggested to Minister Indranee Rajah that the Government, through this Act, introduce a Public Defender scheme, drawing from the private sector, to help indigent citizens who face criminal proceedings? At that point in time, I read the Hansard and it was indicated that the Ministry would consider the suggestion. I would be grateful for an update, please.

Finally, the explanatory notes of the Bill state that the Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. I would be grateful for a clarification on the statement. I note that MINLAW has stated that the qualifying limit for the PCHI test will be set such that there will be no material impact on the number of households who are eligible for legal aid. However, there would presumably be some increase in eligible cases given the shift from individual-based criteria to household-based criteria. Would there not be a need for additional resources to be provided to the Legal Aid Bureau to deal with this?

I would now conclude. Over 60 years, the views expressed in this House is consistently that justice must be accessible to all. The Act has been reviewed regularly over the years to ensure this goal. I support the amendment Bill for its progressive changes made in the way that we assess means eligibility for legal aid to ensure that justice remains accessible by all.

4.15 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare that I am a lawyer in private practice. Allow me to begin my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] One of the key principles of our legal framework in Singapore is access to justice. This means that one should have the right to obtain legal advice and present one’s case in Court regardless of social standing or financial ability. This right should not be hampered by high legal costs or complex administrative processes. Therefore, efforts must always be made to ensure that support is available to those who require legal aid.

In Singapore, we have legal clinics, where the public can access general legal aid for free. We have the Legal Aid Bureau that can provide assistance for civil cases like divorce cases and there is also the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme for criminal cases. I also know of lawyers who sometimes would do pro bono or low bono work to help their clients who may have difficulties in paying the full legal costs.

The types of assistance I mentioned earlier have more or less helped to address concerns about the issue of access to legal aid. However, there are existing challenges that deserve some attention. Today, we are debating specifically on the Bill for legal aid and advice that will form an administrative guide for the Legal Aid Bureau, which handles legal aid for civil cases.

One of the concerns often raised is the process of means-testing someone before legal aid can be provided by the Legal Aid Bureau. Currently, when applying for legal aid, there are numerous details that must be provided and documents to prepare. This process can be daunting. It also takes time and causes the means testing process to be further delayed. In the Bill currently before us, there are proposals to establish new means criteria, that has been updated and will simplify the application for legal aid. I support the proposal. It is hoped that with this new criteria, the application process can be shortened. I also hope that the criteria that will be established can be scrutinised so that more people can be helped.

On this note, another matter that is often raised is the eligibility for legal aid. Having legal troubles is not something one often plans for or expects. So, when one needs to commence action or defend a case in Court, he or she may face difficulties financing the legal costs, even though he or she may be earning a decent income. At the moment, the Legal Aid Bureau is constrained by the Act in its present form and can only provide assistance to those who can fulfil the prescribed criteria. I am, therefore, grateful that amendments have been proposed to allow discretion in granting legal aid to those who may not completely fulfil the prescribed criteria, but nonetheless still require help. Certainly, there should be guidelines for the proper exercise of this discretion. I am hopeful that this discretion will be used judiciously and can benefit more people who may be going through a difficult time in their lives.

(In English): Access to justice, regardless of social standing or financial ability, is a cornerstone of our legal framework in Singapore. Efforts must be made to overcome issues of cost, delay or complexities of the legal system that may hinder access to legal advice or the ability to present one’s case in Court. In Singapore, we have legal clinics, the Legal Aid Bureau and the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme to partly address the need for access to justice. I also know of lawyers who would do pro bono or low bono work to assist clients who may not be able to afford legal costs.

However, there are existing challenges within the current framework in the provision of legal aid and advice. Therefore, this Bill is a welcome move and the opportunity to discuss this matter today is much appreciated.

One of the issues often raised is the means-testing process that is currently in place. The assessment process calls for much information and numerous documents to be provided. This can be overwhelming and daunting for the applicant. At a time when they most need help and are most likely preoccupied with significant matters happening in their lives, the requirement to prepare copious documents before they can get help, adds to the stress. This requirement also often delays the process because the applicant would need to set aside time to look for and prepare the documents. I am, therefore, very pleased to note that the Bill proposes to give the Ministry the flexibility to establish new means criteria to be set out in the subsidiary legislation. I note the Ministry’s efforts in reviewing the means criteria; to update and simplify the criteria. I also note that the plan is to align the means criteria to those commonly used in current social support schemes.

While I understand the need for alignment, there are already concerns with the existing means criteria. For example, in determining Per Capita Household Income (PCHI), we have heard some grievances of those who have children or relations living in the same address but not contributing to the household income. Also, in considering the Annual Value (AV) of a property, it would be pertinent to note that there may be people who are residing in a private property not as a luxury but because of their circumstances. These grievances may be adopted if we take the PCHI and AV assessment methods wholesale. Would there be some way of addressing some of these issues head-on and provide for appropriate deductions or exceptions at the outset? I am not suggesting that the assessments are made less rigorous. I believe it is important to check properly and only grant aid to those who truly deserve it. However, if we already know that the applicant may be facing some difficulties, perhaps we could account for these situations, subject to the provision of some basic evidence.

The other issue that is often raised as a pain-point is the eligibility for legal aid. Could there be adjustments to the limits of the prescribed means test to allow for more to qualify for legal aid? Having legal troubles is not something one often plans for or expects. It is not a habit to set aside savings for legal costs. So, when there is a need to commence an action or defend a case in Court, it is common to hear of situations where the individual is financially stretched and have difficulties financing their legal costs, even though he or she may be earning a decent income. In recent times, there have been calls for more legal assistance to be given to the "sandwich class". I appreciate that a line has to be drawn somewhere and we will not be able to help everyone. However, we should endeavour to help as many as possible and we need to look at some measures to be able to address this gap.

I am, therefore, grateful that there are provisions in this Bill to give the Minister discretion to grant legal aid if it is deemed just and proper. I believe there will be guidelines for the proper exercise of this discretion. I am hopeful that this discretion would allow for more deserving applicants to receive help even though they may not meet all the prescribed means requirements.

On a separate note, in the effort to enhance access to justice and close the gaps, I believe one strategy is to encourage and incentivise low bono efforts by lawyers. We have already many lawyers doing pro bono work, but this often comes at a cost to the lawyer’s earnings. I know people joke about how much a lawyer earns but the truth is not all lawyers are mercenary and not all lawyers earn big profits. A law practice is also a business and would have overheads and operational costs, just like a medical practice or other professional services. In fact, the legal fraternity also has to go through industry transformation like other industries in Singapore.

Bearing this in mind, and considering the need to close some gaps, we may, therefore, want to cast our sights on a more sustainable solution which could be a win-win solution for all. At the Opening of the Legal Year this year, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, proposed a family law assistance scheme. The idea is to develop a low-bono model to increase access to legal services for those in the sandwich class who are embroiled in family disputes. This is a meaningful suggestion which is being looked into. There may also be a further need to incentivise lawyers with Continuing Professional Development (or CPD) points to recognise them for efforts in pro bono as well as low bono work. I hope there would be more support in thinking about and developing such low bono models that could allow for more to benefit from getting proper legal advice and aid, but which could also support the legal sector.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe this Bill is a step in the right direction. I stand in support of the Bill.

4.24 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Amendment Bill. I would like MinLaw to clarify about four points.

First, clause 3A states empowering the Director of Legal Aid to appoint "suitable and experienced" public officers who are not qualified persons under the Legal Professional Act. Can I understand more about how Legal Aid will determine what kind of processes or cases will merit public officers rather than qualified persons? And will it compromise the interest of the aided person in representing his case?

Second, clause 5. I note that legal aid is provided to both Singaporeans and PRs. Are all PRs given the same rights as Singapore citizens with regard to legal aid? Or is there another set of tighter criteria necessary for PRs to qualify, such as closer ties to Singaporeans?

Third, clause 7(a) allows the Director to exercise this new power instead of a board. Can MinLaw share the rationale of this change? How can we balance achieving this potential increased efficiency with the downside of having the Director being a bottleneck or a single point of failure?

Last of all, can MinLaw share about how the LAB assesses financial criteria on who to help, especially on the grounds for discretion? For example, there are some families with higher income than the threshold, but the family relationship may have been strained and money is not allowed, or the family have significant medical expenses or debts.

Another point we could look at is the cost of the legal aid to be provided. I mean, say, for example, the sandwiched class. They are two different matters. One is to get the LAB to handle something that costs thousands of dollars of legal fees. It is another thing to ask the sandwiched class to take on a very serious law suit which can go on to tens of thousands of dollars. So, will the cost of the legal aid that is being provided be considered in the discretionary framework?

Notwithstanding my queries, I support the Amendment Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker : Senior Minister of State, Mr Edwin Tong.

4.26 pm

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Members for contributing to this Debate, and also for sharing in our vision that access to justice must be a cornerstone of our legal system, and I also thank the very many volunteer lawyers, pro bono lawyers like Mr Murali who is an Assigned Solicitor for LAB, because these people, apart from the rules and regulations that we make, these lawyers, with their pro bono work, contribute to the richness of making justice accessible to even the most disadvantaged in Singapore.

Now, there are several queries on the Bill and I would like to jump straight into addressing them.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the number of legal aid applications. In the past 10 years, LAB had received a total of 97,100 applications approximately. Of these, 88,800, or more than 90%, passed the preliminary means test.

In general, applicants who were unsuccessful had failed the eligibility criteria because they exceeded the disposable income or capital assets limit. Around half of LAB’s cases concern matrimonial matters. Other common cases concern the enforcement of court orders, monetary disputes, and also probate.

Let me next address the questions about the new means criteria and limits. Mr Henry Kwek asked about the assessment, while Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Murali asked about the qualifying limits and how they would be set. Mr Gan asked whether CPF moneys would be included in the assessment of the applicant’s savings and investment, and Mr Murali also asked whether CPF contributions would be included in the assessment of the applicant’s income. Finally, Mr Murali asked if there is a need for additional resources to be provided to MinLaw to administer the new means criteria.

MinLaw will adopt the Per Capita Household Income (PCHI) and the Annual Value (AV) of the applicant’s place of residence, savings and investments as the new criteria to replace the current disposable income and disposable capital criteria. The new criteria are simpler and much more aligned with what are commonly used in current social support schemes.

The new means criteria consider the applicant's gross income and assets, instead of his disposable income and disposable capital. We will incorporate most of the permitted deductibles within the current means criteria, such as CPF contributions, when setting the new income limits in the new assessment criteria to minimise the risk that those applicants who were previously eligible would no longer be eligible when we move from disposable income to gross income.

We will not include the applicant's CPF moneys in the computation of the applicant’s savings and investment. This is also consistent with our existing means test.

The qualifying limit for the new means criteria will be set later in subsidiary legislation, as I said earlier, to take into account the 2018 income data. But it will be set at a level where there will be no material impact on the number of households who will remain eligible for legal aid, and it will be set at a level which would ensure that a similar level of households at present, which is approximately 25%, will be maintained.

Next, we do not anticipate at this point in time a significant spike in the number of cases that come forward, and, hence, my point earlier about the allocation of Government resources. So, it will be managed. My Ministry will allocate the appropriate resources to deal with any increased case load as they arise. But bear in mind also that the amendments do provide for Specialist Legal Executives to come on board to lend support to the giving of advice and also to appear in court for some of these cases. So, that will also ease the load on the LAB.

Mr Gan asked if the use of household income would disadvantage applicants who need to support family members staying in a different household. In other words, what Mr Gan is saying is if I look at only the household income of this individual, it may not give me a full picture because he may be supporting a family member residing in a different household.

We do not consider family members living in a different household in calculating the PCHI because family relationships can be complex and diverse. The situation that Mr Gan cited could well work the other way – where an applicant could be supported by a family member not living in the same household. In other words, he is coming to apply, and based on his PCHI he would qualify, but yet, he is also being supported by a family member living outside of his household. The Government is not privy to the family dynamics in each situation and so, it is best at this stage to use the household income as the best proxy for family support.

Furthermore, this will also be more convenient for applicants, as they will not have to provide information on family members who may not live with them, the extent of their support and the extent of their familial relationship, and why that may be.. So, at present, we will keep to using the per capita household income.

Given these, we will adopt per capita household income as I said, although I would stress that in appropriate cases, we would also be able to consider the scenario that Mr Gan mentioned, where it is just and proper to do so. That is precisely the reason for the framework that we are building into the new amendments, where if it is just and proper, then the Minister may have the discretion to allow aid to be granted. To take the example a bit further, if the applicant is the sole source of support for that family member, and the family member is not a beneficiary of other Government schemes, those are factors that can be taken into account.

Mr Louis Ng had asked whether the Ministry is tracking the legal costs and the proportion of households for whom legal representation remains accessible and whether we would consider increasing the coverage for civil legal aid. Ms Rahayu also asked if there could be adjustments to the limits to allow for more to qualify for legal aid.

I would assure Members that MinLaw regularly reviews the means test for civil legal aid, taking into account legal costs, the cost of living and other factors, to ensure that legal aid remains accessible to Singapore Citizens and also Permanent Residents of limited means who cannot afford their own lawyers.

Legal aid is targeted and given only to those with limited means, as it has to be, because we have limited resources and we need to be prudent about how we allocate them. In the most recent review leading up to this Bill, we had taken into account these factors in deciding to retain the coverage at the present levels. And as I mentioned earlier, at this level, approximately 25% of households are covered.

Mr Gan asked if we could consider negative net worth as part of the means assessment, if the applicant's debt liabilities exceed his assets. Mr Murali also asked on a related note if we would consider circumstances where families are put into significant expense as a result of intervening events. We do not generally exclude liabilities such as debts when we assess an applicant's means. I think what Mr Gan has in mind is if you are servicing or have taken out a loan which may be secured and where the security value may be below the value of the loan that has been taken, whether that can be taken into account. The reason we do not do that is because the applicant may have secured debt liabilities, for example, a mortgage or a car loan, which is quite common, but may still possess savings or income above the means limits. This may then allow him to afford legal fees. He would not be considered, in that situation, a person of limited means.

However, if that person or the applicant has liquidated his savings and investments to pay off the debts and thereafter, remains in a financial situation as would allow him to come within the means criteria, then yes, that person will be considered for assistance.

We will also consider an indebted individual with extenuating circumstances on a case-by-case basis, and may grant aid where it is just and proper to do so. For example, if the debt was incurred due to a significant expense as a result of an intervening event, as Mr Murali puts it, for example, a serious acute medical condition, then yes, those are circumstances that will be taken into account as well in the assessment.

At the same time, whilst we are not expanding the coverage or considering the negative net worth and family members living in a different household when assessing means, the Bill, as I said earlier, does provide for greater flexibility and discretion for aid to be granted to deserving applicants. And this will allow us to provide aid in a more targeted manner, which would also achieve greater equity.

This brings me to the questions from Mr de Souza, Mr Henry Kwek and Mr Murali, who asked how this flexibility could be exercised. Mr Murali asked, in particular, what are the circumstances where it would be “just and proper” to grant aid. I think I have given a sense of what that might be in my earlier paragraph. Ms Rahayu also asked if we can consider extenuating circumstances, for example children or relatives staying in the same household but not contributing to the household income, or applicants who stay in private properties due to their circumstances, in our computation of the PCHI or Annual Value.

The intention behind the amendments and the regime that has been set in place with the amendments in this Bill is, of course, to allow for a more flexible assessment to be made in order that aid can be granted if the Minister is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to do so. The key words being "just and proper". We want to retain that flexibility on a case-by-case basis, because each case will be different; the circumstances that present for each applicant will be different and we want to have the flexibility to be able to assess these factors on a case-by-case basis. When such cases arise, the Minister may authorise any person, and that includes a panel of persons, suitably qualified, to make that assessment.

In exercising the discretion, we may consider granting aid to an applicant who might otherwise fail the means criteria but still not be able to afford legal services due to extenuating circumstances – those that Members had mentioned. Mr Murali gave some examples and Ms Rahayu as well. We will also consider if family members staying in the same household cannot contribute to the individual’s legal costs. Children are one example; the other would be where the family members living in the same household may be estranged from each other. I just do not want to be taken in my answer to be limiting the circumstances which we consider, so I do stress that it is on a case-by-case basis and looking at the particular facts of each case.

Applicants who fail the means criteria will be informed of the reason. Applicants who may then have extenuating circumstances can bring this up to the Minister, under the procedure. It is not a statutory appeal. At this point in time, we are working out the operational details and also the procedural steps necessary for this to be highlighted, but it will not be treated as a statutory appeal.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked if the Ministry can consider alternative sources of assistance to applicants who do not qualify for legal aid. In other words, persons who fail the means test, and the example Mr Gan gave was to ask solicitors to grant a deferred payment scheme for legal fees.

Government assistance is generally given to those most vulnerable and those most in need of assistance. And that is what the current regime for means criteria seeks to achieve.

If an applicant satisfies this criteria, plus the merits test, he will be given legal aid. But if the applicant does not satisfy the criteria, but goes on, nonetheless, to engage a lawyer, we will be unable to mandate that there be a deferred payment scheme for such services, which are really between the individual as the client, and his solicitor. But this, not being able to do it by legislation, does not stop a client from requesting his lawyers to consider either an instalment scheme or a deferred payment scheme as may be appropriate.

Next, we will also be making various improvements to the administration of legal aid.

Mr de Souza asked for an elaboration of the rigorous training that public officers who are not qualified persons under the Legal Profession Act will undergo in order to appear and plead in Court for an aided person. Mr Henry Kwek asked if MinLaw would decide what cases these public officers would take on and whether this would compromise the interest of aided persons.

LAB will ensure the thorough and proper training of such persons and will ensure that no aided person’s interest will be compromised as a result of the use of such public officers. LAB's Legal Executives are well-trained and they complement the work of Legal Officers.

Currently, Legal Executives already perform a significant amount of work at LAB and this includes the taking of instructions and preparing drafts of certain documents. We feel that many of them are capable of doing more and can be made to do more.

So, we will allow our best Legal Executives to be appointed by the Director to provide legal advice and also represent applicants in court proceedings and at mediation. All appointed Specialist Legal Executives will have to attend legal knowledge courses on relevant subject areas to the kind of work that they do. So, it would be in areas of divorce, mediation, the Singapore Legal System, professional skills, and, of course, legal writing. These courses will be provided by both external providers, as well as through the in-house legal expertise which already exists at LAB.

They will have to go through a practical training programme, which will cover skills such as drafting, client-management, client-facing work, court etiquette and so on. They will be accompanied and receive in-house supervision by experienced legal officers and have assessments made, before they are allowed to attend court and represent clients.

This training will ensure that the Specialist Legal Executives will be well-equipped to handle the expanded scope of work so that LAB’s clients’ interests will be effectively represented. Even then, for a start, we intend to limit the cases where such officers will take up to simpler uncontested divorce proceedings where the matrimonial assets are $1 million or less, as a starting point.

If the matters that these officers are handling become subsequently contested or more challenging, they will be handed over to a lawyer, who will take over the matter. We will continually review the role of the Specialist Legal Executive to consider what more they can do. This will, no doubt, ease the burden and bring down costs overall as well as allow for cases to be managed more expeditiously, as I mentioned earlier.

Mr Henry Kwek asked about the rationale for allowing the Director, instead of the Legal Aid Board, to grant aid for straightforward matters. Mr Kwek asked if we could avoid the Director being a “bottleneck”.

Currently, at this point in time, the merits of all applications are assessed by the Legal Aid Board which comprises the Director of Legal Aid and not fewer than two solicitors from a panel of solicitors maintained under the Act. The Board meets once, fortnightly. This means that after LAB has prepared a legal opinion for an applicant, the applicant may have to wait for up to two weeks before aid is granted, or deferred, or refused.

Allowing the Director in such cases to grant aid for straightforward matters will help, and not hinder, the applicant’s case by up to two weeks, as the Director can now immediately determine whether in that case aid should be granted or not, assuming the means criteria is satisfied, without waiting for the Board to convene.

The discretion, however, will only be exercised in straightforward matters, such as uncontested matters relating to Probate, Letters of Administration and Guardianship matters where the Defendants consent to the proceedings. Any application for which aid may be refused will still go through the Legal Aid Board.

Let me just wrap up with a few of the other clarifications that Members have raised.

Mr Henry Kwek asked whether Permanent Residents would be subject to a more stringent set of criteria in our assessment on whether they qualify for civil legal aid. The criteria will be the same, but Permanent Residents will generally be charged a higher contribution towards the costs incurred for their case, if they are granted legal aid.

Mr Louis Ng asked why aided persons have to go through a fresh means test when appealing a decision for a case in which aid was previously granted and for a case where the aided person subsequently wishes to enforce the judgment. Mr Ng also asked whether the Minister would consider an expedited process for assessing whether to extend aid to an aided person who wishes to file an appeal, given that strict timelines do apply in the context of when an appeal is brought.

We require aided persons to go through a fresh means and merits test because considerable time may have elapsed between the time that the person first applied for legal aid and it was granted, and the completion of his initial matter. The means may have changed during this period of time. And, as Mr Ng also acknowledged, the merits may also have changed given that the proceedings have taken place, evidence may have been led and a judgment may have been issued on the case. So, a fresh merits test is also necessary to ensure that we continue to grant aid only to those most deserving and this includes those who are applying for or seeking a meritorious outcome, and this includes for an appeal.

No doubt when a second merits test is involved, where one is making an assessment on the same matter after some time has elapsed, the time taken for that assessment will be quicker. Circumstances in such a case, however, which may affect the merits of bringing or resisting an appeal, or in enforcing a judgment, may have changed, and it would be useful to have regard to this in the fresh merits evaluation to ensure that the grant of aid still remains appropriate.

I would also like to assure the Member that where an applicant requires aid as a matter of urgency, for example, when an appeal is due to be filed, the Director may issue a Grant of Aid on a provisional basis, if the Director is of the view that the applicant is likely to satisfy the means test and is likely to have a reasonable ground for appealing against the decision.

This Grant is typically valid for a period of three months and can be further extended if necessary. Under the Provisional Grant of Aid, the Bureau may assist the aided person with the filing of the Notice of Appeal. In addition, the Director can also issue a notification under section 17 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act to stay the proceedings for a period of 14 days, whilst this is being done.

Mr Murali asked if the Ministry has considered Mr Hri Kumar's suggestion back in 2013 for the Government to introduce a Public Defender scheme to help indigent citizens who face criminal proceedings.

Since 2015, the Government has provided close to $6 million of funding support to the Law Society’s Pro Bono Services Office which run the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS). CLAS in turn assigns lawyers to accused persons who have been charged with a crime and who cannot afford hiring a lawyer.

So, in this way, this has resulted in expanded assistance to criminal defence cases, as CLAS has been able to assist almost four times as many applicants in 2017, compared to pre-2015 before the funding was made available.

Mr Mohamed Irshad asked if we can equip micro enterprises with legal resources such as business contract templates. This would, no doubt, simplify process and the way in which legal services may be delivered on simple matters, but it is probably more appropriate for the Law Society to take this on and we will consult with the Law Society’s Pro Bono Service Office and other volunteer groups to consider if they can provide the micro enterprises with such assistance.

I will end off by highlighting the holistic help – some Members have asked about it, in particular Mr Patrick Tay – that LAB and its partners have been giving to legal aid recipients who have more than just legal needs. This addresses Mr Patrick Tay's question about giving such help to families in need, and also Mr Irshad's question on public education and what more can be done to bring awareness of these schemes to the public's attention.

Members would know that the Ministry works with partners such as the Law Society and the Community Justice Centre to raise awareness of the law and avenues of legal help, for example, through pamphlets that are produced and also the annual Law Awareness Weeks. The Law Awareness Weeks which just took place a few weeks ago, has expanded from one which lasts just one afternoon on one weekend, to one that lasts six weeks and is held at various locations across Singapore. This helps to bring awareness of the offerings that pro bono lawyers working with Law Society can offer to the community.

Since 2016, LAB has also established referral protocols for family violence victims with PAVE, and with MSF, for those with social service needs, such as housing problems, family dysfunction and also addiction issues. LAB is working with other agencies, such as Biglove and Hearts @ Feiyue for applicants with child protection issues. The referral protocols allow LAB to refer applicants who require other social services to these agencies for help. Conversely, the agencies may refer applicants who require legal services to LAB for legal help as well. So, it works both ways. The referrals have helped a number of individuals and I would just like to highlight a few examples.

For one such referral, the applicant had applied for aid for his divorce proceedings. His wife was verbally and physically abusive to the family on a daily basis, which had a negative impact on the children. LAB, when they came to know about this, referred the case to PAVE and worked with PAVE to make arrangements to assign a social worker to the applicant, and also to give counselling to him and his family.

In another case, an 80-year-old applicant had a Personal Protection Order (PPO) and partial Domestic Exclusion Order against his adult son who was violent to him; and this allowed the son to occupy only one room of the flat. However, his son continued to use violence against him and during one quarrel, his son pushed him on his chest, causing him to hit his back and fracture his rib. LAB was aware of this and immediately referred him to PAVE, a family violence specialist agency. PAVE worked with the Senior Activity Centre near the applicant's flat to set up a community watch for this individual. PAVE then subsequently also worked with LAB to support the applicant throughout the court process. LAB eventually successfully obtained the full Domestic Exclusion Order for the applicant.

Where relevant, LAB also proactively assists vulnerable victims and applicants to protect their legal rights. For example, if an applicant applies only for assistance in divorce proceedings, but when they come to LAB and LAB officers detect that there might also be family violence involved, then LAB will consider if it would be appropriate for him or her to also commence PPO proceedings or other such measures, and assist with those applications. If the order involves the maintenance of wife and children, we will also inform the applicant how he or she can enforce the order if the other party does not comply with the order.

Sir, I hope I have dealt with all the queries that have been raised. I would just like to make a few remarks in conclusion. First, to thank the Members' support for the Bill. The Bill will allow the LAB to continue its good work. As you know, it is in its 60th year this year

LAB's work is simplified by: first, simplifying the means criteria, which makes the process quicker, easier, and also fairer. Second, providing for more flexibility for aid to be given to those who might fail the means criteria, but nonetheless still cannot afford legal services for a number of reasons. And finally, improving the overall the administration of legal aid.

This is part and parcel of MinLaw's efforts to ensure that legal representation remains accessible for the general public, and in particular, the most vulnerable of persons.

Beyond legal aid, MinLaw is also committed to ensuring that the legal process is made simple and that access to justice in other forms will be enhanced. So, we enhance the family justice system, which centres on the welfare of the child and the family, through the Family Justice Review Committee established with MSF and the Courts.

Second, we are also looking at substantive reforms in civil law to keep legal costs affordable, to reduce the complexity of civil proceedings and to strengthen the enforcement of civil judgments. Finally, we also enhanced frameworks that enable Singaporeans to resolve their disputes quickly and cost-effectively, and where possible, as amicably as they possibly can in the circumstances. So, we have built up the infrastructure for mediation to take place; community mediation has been happening for a while. And we have also raised the claims limit recently for the Small Claims Tribunal from $10,000 to $20,000, so as to allow more to benefit from this quick and relatively inexpensive forum.

Finally, as I said at the outset and I reiterate, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the various contributions from so many community partners and the legal fraternity, including the assigned lawyers and volunteer lawyers, all of whom have made LAB's work more rich and more satisfying in the last 60 years.

We thank them for their continued support, and we will continue to work closely with the legal fraternity to provide access to justice to persons with limited means through pro bono efforts or low bono efforts, and assess how we may better recognise lawyers for these efforts, as Ms Rahayu had suggested. Sir, I beg to move.

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. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai].

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