Singapore's Justice System

6.01 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I beg to move*,

"That this House affirms that fairness,

access and independence are cornerstones of Singapore's justice system

and calls on the Government to recognise and remedy its shortcomings

in order to enhance justice for all, regardless of means or social status,

including facilitating a review of the justice system."

*The Motion also stood in the name of Ms He Ting Ru.

Sir, the Workers' Party has filed this Motion in order to be assured of Parliament time to contribute to this important debate on justice. Though this Motion was triggered by Ms Parti Liyani's case, our contributions will not be limited to issues from that case, but will include broader issues surrounding the justice system.

We urge the Government to recognise that the current system, despite its strengths, does have shortcomings which need attention. We call on the Government to take a two-pronged approach.

The first prong would be to tackle the low-hanging fruit. In our opinion, some of the shortcomings can be addressed by the Executive Government directly, if it is willing to do so.

The second prong will be to commission an external review of the more complex matters concerning our justice system. These other matters involve other Organs of State and touch on constitutional matters. On these matters, we offer our perspective for consideration and suggest the setting up of a Constitutional Commission led by a Supreme Court Judge.

My speech and those of other Workers' Party's Members of Parliament or MPs will cover issues on both the low-hanging fruit as well as the more complex matters.

Before I go further, I should declare for the record that I am a lawyer at the firm that has been appointed to represent Ms Parti Liyani in her complaint against the Prosecutors under Legal Profession Act. That said, I am not personally involved in handling the matter. Furthermore, the Workers' Party is mindful that the disciplinary proceedings are pending. We will, therefore, not be touching on the conduct of the DPPs especially with regard to the DVD player.

Before I get to the issues with our justice system, let me set the context. Ms Parti Liyani's case has attracted significant public reaction and we need to ask why. Is it because Singaporeans enjoy the spectacle of powerful people being taken down, or are we energised by the triumph of a domestic worker against the odds?

Captivating as these themes are, the Workers' Party is more concerned about the issues that the case represents. How far does our system of justice put everyone on equal footing, whether CEO or domestic worker? Have there been domestic helpers, work permit holders and even poorer Singaporeans who believed that they were innocent but have pled guilty to charges because they did not know their rights or could not afford to fight their cases? If we are being honest, we should not ask whether there have been such persons but rather how many there have been.

The critical question that Ms Parti Liyani's case has raised is this: how do persons who are disadvantaged navigate the justice system? This is a critical question to ask, as Article 12 of the Constitution provides that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

The Government has often cited Singapore's high international rankings of our justice system and, indeed, we agree that it has significant strengths. In the 2020 Rule of Law Index compiled by the World Justice Project, Singapore ranks 12 out of 128 countries. The Minister emphasised Singapore's rankings earlier.

While the overall ranking over the eight factors assessed is commendable, we should note that Singapore is not ranked so well in a few factors and sub-factors. For instance, on the important factor of constraints on Government powers, Singapore scores have fallen every year from 2015 to 2020. Singapore is below average as well in two sub-factors here. Singapore was found to be below average in having effective checks by non-government entities such as media and civil society, and below average in having effective checks by Parliament.

Under the factor of open government, the Rule of Law Index ranks Singapore 28 out of 37 high-income countries on the question of whether there are effective complaint mechanisms for citizens. Singapore is also below average on civic participation which includes the protection of the freedoms of opinion and expression, assembly and association.

On the factor of criminal justice, the Singapore system has done very well in sub-factors such as the effectiveness of criminal investigation and being free of corruption. These are certainly vital. However, on the critical sub-factor of whether the criminal system is free of improper government influence, the Singapore system is ranked poorly among high-income countries at 30th out of 37th and globally at 47th. The picture for Singapore is thus more mixed than the overall ranking suggests.

Mr Speaker, I cite these rankings not as gospel truth, but to emphasise that there are many aspects in assessing a justice system. We do not take Singapore's achievements for granted. Singapore is a safe place to raise children and the justice system has been instrumental in achieving that. There are also many public-spirited professionals working in law enforcement, prosecutions and the Courts who take their mission seriously.

Over recent years, the Government has also taken some progressive steps in the right direction. These include introducing a statutory framework for disclosure of evidence before trial and enabling video recording of suspect statements in certain situations.

By filing this Motion, the Workers' Party is not saying that the system is broken or ineffective, but we believe we should strive to do even better. There is room for improvement in any system. We believe that more attention should be paid to certain shortcomings in fairness, access and independence which need to be addressed.

In this debate, several Workers' Party's MPs will speak. We will cover the plight of the poor and disadvantaged and offer suggestions on how fairness and access to justice could be improved. We will review the role, culture and practices of law enforcement agencies, the Courts and the Attorney-General's Chambers. We will examine whether there are any gaps in seeking recourse when things have gone wrong. We will also argue that enhancing the system in these areas is in the broader national interest.

Sir, for my part, I will speak on three main areas. First, the plight of the poor in obtaining justice; second, concerns relating to law enforcement agencies; and, third, justice for crime victims.

First, the plight of the poor in getting justice. Our criminal justice system inherited from the British is adversarial. It involves a contest between competing parties with the judge playing a relatively passive role of evaluating whether each side has satisfied its respective burdens of proof. This is unlike certain justice systems in Europe where judges play an active inquisitorial role and direct parties to investigate before judgments are made. Our adversarial system requires battle and resources count.

As a law student in the 1980s, I did empirical research on our system. I sat at the public gallery of the busiest Court handling crash criminal cases. The presiding judge handled several hundred cases valiantly with just a minute or two to decide on questions such as whether to grant bail and what amount of bail to set; whether to permit detention of the suspect for investigations and so on. Given the marketplace vibe of the Court, it would be easy to forget that each case involved the rights of persons enshrined in the Constitution. In the cases where the suspect had a lawyer, the Court was given more information to make its decision. Where the accused was unrepresented, the Court only had the Prosecution's arguments to go on, as the suspect often said nothing.

Today, we still see unrepresented accused persons in front of judges, facing a prosecutor who is state-funded and with deep resources. It is unclear what proportion of persons go through the criminal justice system unrepresented. These unrepresented persons do not know what to do when prosecutors submit bundles of legal authorities to persuade judges to convict or to fix a sentence. Because of their lack of legal knowledge, some of them inadvertently irritate judges because they say things which are not legally relevant or come across as disrespectful or even under-dressed.

Let me now touch on what I see are structural impediments facing the poor. In 2007, I filed a Parliamentary Question or PQ about the demographic profile of the prison inmate population. Although MHA declined to give certain information, it did provide the educational profile of the prison population when compared with the general population. It showed that in 2006, the percentage of the general population having Secondary education or less was 61%, but this was the profile of nearly 90% of the prison population. Conversely, the higher educated with more than Secondary education made up nearly 40% of the general population, but only 10% of the prison population.

As those with less education tend to have lower incomes, one can conclude that the proportion of poorer persons in prison is higher than in the general population. It is widely acknowledged that the poor tend to be over-represented in criminal cases globally. So, this phenomenon is not unique to Singapore. But why is it that the poor have more difficulties with the criminal law?

First, the poor are more likely to fall foul of the law because of their circumstances. As the French poet Anatole France famously put it in 1894, and I quote, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread". I am not saying that the law was purposely enacted to favour the rich but the law does have unintended discriminatory effects on the poor.

Second, when someone is faced with an investigation, there are economic hurdles. Engaging counsel requires resources. There is some legal aid available, provided you satisfy a test of means and qualify for the schemes.

Another major concern is, how does one remain free while the case is pending? On this issue of pre-trial liberty, there has been some research done in Singapore. In a 2005 study by an Assistant Registrar of the Supreme Court, she found that in 2004, out of all accused persons offered bail by the Subordinate Courts, only 42.7% were bailed out. In other words, the majority of persons considered suitable for release before trial remained locked up. Ms Parti Liyani was fortunate that the NGO Home helped her find a bailor, but many accused persons cannot find bailors of sufficient means.

If one is incarcerated, there is disruption to family income and education, and decreased job prospects. There is stigmatisation. The whole household is affected. It is also much harder to consult with any lawyer or witness to prepare one's defence.

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the Police and the Courts can release a suspect either on bail or on his personal bond, that is, on his own promise to attend Court. The majority of suspects are offered money bail and need to find a bailor. The law states that the amount of bail should be "fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case as sufficient to secure the attendance of the person arrested or charged".

The heavy reliance on money bail has disproportionate effects on the poor. I have come across residents living in HDB rental flats who had bail set at above $10,000 for numerous charges of non-violent, regulatory offences like parking and ERP violations. This may sound surprising, as many of us consider such offence notices as easily settled through prompt payment of composition fines. But this is not so for those who have insufficient means to pay and have to attend Court. The entire household can be derailed by such problems.

Still on the issue of bail, I filed a Parliamentary Question in 2008 on the Bail Court. A Bail Court had been established in 2007 with the aim of achieving consistency in bail decisions and, where possible, to reduce bail amounts, reduce time spent in remand and ensure that review applications were dealt with expeditiously. One year on, I asked what outcomes had been achieved. In his reply in 2008, the Minister said that the Bail Court had reduced or varied the terms of bail in 30% of the cases referred to it.

Today, it seems that the Bail Court is not heard of. Has it been discontinued and if so, why?

It also appears from past Parliamentary Questions filed by Members of Parliament, including myself, that statistics on bail are not readily tracked by the Government.

If poorer Singaporeans face significant hurdles, work permit holders such as Ms Parti Liyani face even more. Work permits can be cancelled any time at the discretion of employers or MOM. This puts tremendous pressure on work permit holders to cooperate with the authorities and their employers even when unreasonable and legally questionable demands are made.

For instance, in 2008, the Police investigated a case of sexual assault on a University student at Clementi Woods Park. In a questionable exercise of power, blood samples were taken from 200 foreign workers at nearby construction sites. When I filed the Parliamentary Question on the legal basis for such action, the Minister stated that it was permitted because, "the workers had voluntarily given their consent."

I assumed the workers might have signed consent forms but what is the quality of that consent?

More importantly, what signal is being sent about institutional attitudes? Why did the Police not ask nearby homeowners to voluntarily give blood samples too? Just imagine if that had been done.

The disadvantage of the poor has to be juxtaposed with the formidable powers of the state. Law enforcement agencies are given wide powers of investigation. The defence does not have similar powers to seize evidence or to compel statements from witnesses. In recent judgments, the Court of Appeal has recognised the disadvantages faced by the defence. If we are not careful, the system could become oppressive for the poor and disadvantaged. My other colleagues will elaborate further.

Sir, please let me now make a few suggestions on redressing some of the pain points faced by the poor.

First, on composition fines. For less serious offences, paying a composition fine enables the offender to settle the matter quickly out of Court. If the composition fine is not paid by a deadline, the offender faces a higher penalty in Court.

Lately, I have noticed that some agencies have started issuing composition notices with two deadlines – one offering the usual composition amount and a second deadline offering a composition amount that is higher by about $20. This gives a second chance for composition before sending the case to Court. Some agencies now allow the offender to apply online to extend the payment deadline. All these are good moves which we support.

Nevertheless, with composition fines going up, it would be ideal if the agencies could consider allowing instalment payments of fines. Such instalments can be automatically tracked. The State Courts already has a successful auto-tracking system for instalment payment of Court fines, with AXS kiosks showing the due dates for instalments.

For composition fines, the options can be kept simple. For example, a maximum of three instalments with further action if default occurs. Such instalment payments will help poorer families cope and prevent cases from snowballing into bigger Court fines, defaults and warrants of arrest.

Next, pre-trial release and bail. I earlier touched on the difficulties of the poor in raising money bail. We need to understand the issue in more depth. I mentioned that the Government had given answers in the Parliament that it does not collate statistics on the proportion of persons offered bail who do get bailed out. There is a need to regularly collate and publish such statistics, and I ask the Government to do so.

In addition, there is already provision to release a person on his own bond. Could this provision be used more often? If a personal bond is deemed inadequate, alternatives to money bail should be actively considered. Some of the non-monetary methods could include requiring the accused to maintain employment, abide by restrictions on personal associations, residence or travel, to report regularly to a designated agency, comply with a curfew and so on.

To get the Police and the Courts to consider such options, the Government could consider amending the Criminal Procedure Code to explicitly require consideration of such non-monetary conditions.

That brings me to the end of my first point on the plight of the poor.

Let me move to my second point – concerns relating to law enforcement agencies.

In Singapore, whenever questions about criminal justice are raised, public surveys are cited about the high public confidence in law enforcement agencies. These are encouraging. I wonder, however, whether persons who have actually experienced the law enforcement process have been surveyed. It would be useful to know the satisfaction levels of crime victims, witnesses and suspects.

The Minister has shared the findings on the Police investigations into the Parti Liyani case, together with MHA's initial assessment of what needs to be done. I have some further suggestions on what could be done to raise the bar at law enforcement agencies.

First, decisions on charges. I hope that law enforcement agencies do not have a culture of preferring the most serious possible charge against accused persons to leave room for plea bargaining. If the accused person is unrepresented, there may well be no bargaining. This will increase the chances that unrepresented accused will receive harsh outcomes.

From my past experience, I also observed that some officers believe that showing moderation in the selection of charges might open them up to allegations of corruption. If such defensive behaviour exists today, it will lead to injustice. It must be strongly discouraged.

Second, recording of the accused's statements. As Ms Parti Liyani's case illustrates, problems can arise with interpretation of statements recorded in English. In the past few years, I have come across Chinese-educated residents facing police investigations. They told me that they did not have the competence to check the accuracy of statements recorded in English and had to rely on what the interpreter told them while trying to focus under very stressful circumstances. When I read their statements and asked them about the incriminating parts, they claimed that they did not utter those words. When asked why they signed the statements, they said they were unable to check the statements and wanted to complete the stressful process as soon as possible. Lawyers sometimes see statements with contents that contradict each other.

Sir, statements from suspects must be 100% accurate since a confession alone is enough to convict a person under our law, even if there is no other evidence. When statements are challenged in Court, public time and expenses are incurred. To save time and expense at the trial, law enforcement agencies should facilitate the recording of statements in the suspect's language of choice. In other words, the text of their statement should be written in the person's first language.

I appreciate that this will involve more administrative effort but the statements will be more reliable. At the very least, I suggest that the recording of statements should be facilitated in our other official languages of Malay, Chinese and Tamil.

In addition, the use of video recording or audio recording of statements should be expanded to more cases than the current practice of using them for serious sexual crime only and other limited cases. Such recordings would significantly strengthen the process.

Third, law enforcement training. It would be useful to know how much attention is paid to training officers in the skills required to be fair and seen to be fair. To be an agency accepted by persons of all cultures and socio-economic classes, law enforcement officers need to understand multi-culturalism and guard against inadvertent discrimination. Are officers sensitised to ensure that they are seen to treat the rich and poor equally?

The final point I would make on law enforcement is on the oversight of law enforcement investigations. The Attorney-General's Chambers or AGC may be consulted from time to time during an investigation, as the Minister described earlier. The AGC is thus an important check on investigation standards. In cases where the prosecution's case collapses or is found wanting, it would not be fair to place blame exclusively on the law enforcement agencies. As far as Ms Parti Liyani's case is concerned, I hope that the police investigator does not become a convenient scape-goat to pin all the case's shortcomings on.

That brings me to the end of my second point concerning law enforcement agencies.

Now, let me move to my third area – justice for crime victims.

This was not an issue in Ms Parti Liyani's case. Nevertheless, the issue of justice for crime victims should be highlighted in any review of the system as crime victims are stakeholders that tend to be sidelined. Let me explain.

I have spoken on the issue of justice for crime victims in this House over the years, so let me briefly recap. Though one of the aims of criminal justice is to pursue justice for victims, the reality is that crime victims have no say in how criminal cases are conducted. Criminal prosecutions are decided by the public prosecutor or PP, who is the AG. Thus, for instance, the PP will decide which charge to prefer against the offender and may even decide not to press charges at all. There is nothing the victim can do to stop that.

Victims may even suffer damage by the criminal justice process, such as if they are disbelieved by law enforcement or subject to ridicule by lawyers during cross-examination in Court. This additional damage inflicted by the system on victims is called secondary victimisation.

Sir, the international community has increasingly recognised that crime victims have rights and needs. Thirty-five years ago, in 1985, the United Nations General Assembly issued a Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. In the Declaration, governments were urged to ensure that crime victims were informed of their role and the progress of their cases, that their views be considered at appropriate stages of the case, that they overall be treated fairly and that there be appropriate mechanisms for them to obtain compensation in criminal cases. Countries such as the UK, New Zealand and Australia have legislation protecting the rights of victims as they go through the criminal justice system. Japan is an active contributor to the field of victimology.

To be fair, there has been some limited progress in Singapore in justice for crime victims. For many years, the Police have presented victim impact statements in Court to enable judges to hear from victims before sentence is passed on offenders. However, I believe this is limited to a small category of offences such as sexual crimes. Our laws have also been amended to require judges to consider making compensation orders at the sentencing stage, recognising that the victims may have suffered loss and expense.

However, I believe more needs to be done to give crime victims confidence that they will be fairly treated by the system.

When victims report cases to agencies, they need to incur time, expense and emotional stress, but they report, expecting that somehow, justice will come out of it. Unfortunately, some were shocked and disappointed at how their cases ended up. Let me cite two recent examples I came across.

In one case, a resident was knocked down by a car while crossing the road at a junction with the green man sign in her favour. This would have meant that the driver must have violated some traffic signal. The incident was reported to the Police and she and her family assisted in investigations. Today, she continues to suffer from the incident not just physically but by having flashbacks and post-traumatic stress disorder.

After investigations were concluded, she was shocked to receive a letter from the Police telling her that the driver had been charged with careless driving. The family was also told that he had been fined $2,000 and suspended from driving for a few months. Her husband saw me and asked why the charge was so light and what they could do about it.

In a separate case, a lady contacted me to share her experience when she reported an offence of rape. She said that she decided to report it after much pain as she had spent some weeks dealing with the trauma of the incident as well as having an abortion. After Police investigations, she received a curt letter stating that the Police had consulted the Attorney-General's Chambers and decided that no further action would be taken and the case would be closed.

She felt shattered that the system had failed her. When she wrote to me recently, she mentioned that no reason had been given to her for closing the case and put this question, "Am I not allowed to ask?"

Sir, we accept that the state has to take charge of criminal cases to ensure consistency and fairness to accused persons. However, the system would not be able to function if victims do not come forward to assist in criminal cases. We need to remember that crime victims deserve justice and deserve to be treated with respect. We should review our justice system from the crime victims' perspective and see how it can be improved using the UN's Declaration as a guide.

Sir, I have concluded the third key point of my speech. My colleagues will cover other areas relating to the Courts, the Attorney-General's Chambers, access to justice, complaint mechanisms and why enhancements to justice are in the national interest.

Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, I have not finished.

Mr Speaker: Oh, you have not finished. Sounded like you had.

Ms Sylvia Lim: I still have time, right?

Mr Speaker: You do, you do.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. So, Sir, what is the Workers' Party calling for? Let me reiterate the two-pronged approach we hope will be feasible to tackle the issues with we are raising in this debate.

In the areas that are within the Government's sole jurisdiction, the Government should objectively assess whether there is validity in our concerns and suggestions and, if so, take action. From my speech, these low-hanging fruit include composition fines, real reform, various law enforcement practices, such as statement-recording and training and the position of crime victims.

There are other areas which are more complex and touch on constitutional matters. From my speech, these more complex methods include whether the equal protection of the law under the Constitution is in practice being afforded to the poor and whether there are institutional cultures or subcultures that inadvertently discriminate between the rich and poor.

For such issues, we suggest the setting up of a Constitutional Commission headed by a Supreme Court Judge. The Commission should include members with expertise in criminology or sociology and strong personal experience working with the poor. Other matters to be reviewed by the Government or by the Constitutional Commission will be elaborated on by my other Party colleagues.

Sir, let me conclude. Mr Speaker, all of us in this House have come across cases of residents struggling with life. We have seen how legal troubles can derail families who do not have the resources to withstand such trials and tribulations.

Today's Motion is not about tearing down the system or discouraging those who work in law enforcement, the AGC or the Courts. Far from it.

It is about a desire to raise the system to the next level. It is about plugging gaps to give everyone the confidence that the system will work for everyone, from CEO to the poor and disadvantaged. Singapore regularly aims for excellence in its endeavours. We should aim for an excellent justice system too, one that works for everyone, regardless of means or social status. In this spirit, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

6.32 pm

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang)(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I am very honoured to be here to support my colleague Ms Sylvia Lim in passing this, in proposing this Motion. The title of this Motion is "That this House affirms that fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of Singapore's justice system" and this is a very key goal of our legal system. What we hope to have is one where everyone must have access to justice and there must be four key points, pillars to this.

First of all, that the police must investigate based on procedures to the AGC. AG must also look into the case.

Third, the Court, the justices must also establish standards in how evidence should be looked into.

Fourth, the defendant's lawyers have also got a role to play so that we are not just listening to one side of the story.

This is a very important channel to ensure that we have a better outcome.

If these four pillars are operating efficiently at the same time, then our justice system can achieve what it sets out to achieve.

Can we allow this access to justice to be enjoyed by everyone?

It really depends on the pillars themselves. How strong the pillars are? The larger the building is, the heavier the building is, the more that the stronger these pillars should be.

In recent years, the acquittal judgment that was passed in Liyani's case has already pointed out the need for us to strengthen the pillars only through a very sound legal system.

Can we ensure that the innocent can also enjoy good justice?

Just as my colleague Ms Sylvia, Lim has said, Singapore's justice system within this country and also outside of Singapore enjoys good reputation. This is the result of our justices, our officers, legal officers and other participants, all the good work that they have done in enhancing and upholding our legal system. We have no reason to brush aside the good work that they have done all this while.

Workers' Party is also not insinuating that the legal system is not doing what it is out to do.

However, we insist that we must ensure that the justice system must be able to operate in a manner without where no one can face any obstacles today. We must ensure that what we do today will allow the next Liyani to be able to subscribe to justice. In Singapore this is very important. Without any legal representation – if our country faces any obstacles for the vulnerable, especially those without the resources to find our own legal representation, without any knowledge of the legal system, then when they are charged, they will become very nervous and they will just own up to all the charges put across to them and what is worse is that even if they have the ability to seek justice, then simply because they were not allowed, they do not have the ability to pay for the bill, therefore their are case is delayed and, therefore, they are discriminated by their own friends and family.

Defence lawyers also face a very unequal system against them. In contrast to the Prosecutors, these defence lawyers have no right to hold onto the evidence or to force certain witnesses to give their evidence.

Only by having a more equal system, can we have a better outcome? Allowing Singapore's legal system to be able to protect the poor and vulnerable so that the legal system will not just be riding on the backs of the poor and the vulnerable.

So, what we are suggesting here includes the investigative procedures of the Police to make it better, including the power of the AG and AGC to raise charges.

Third, Sylvia Lim also mentioned about the possibility of paying fines and instalment and for bill, to allow the accused to also be able to adopt the other official languages of Singapore, Malay, Tamil and Chinese to offer their own written statement.

All these procedures and measures will ensure that the victim will also, even though they are vulnerable to also have access to justice under our current system.

During this course of matter, we also need to ensure that the entire legal system is more equal.

We must ensure that enforcement side have the right to do what they need to do to ensure that the victims or rather those who — the perpetrators do not escape justice.

At the same time, we must be honest with ourselves and review ourselves. Living in this society, do we feel unease? Are we willing to accept that this justice system will not make any mistakes. But at the same time we also meet to calibrate very carefully and balance it to make sure that the perpetrators do not escape justice. We must know that if our justice building is built too narrowly or if the the threshold is too high, then not enough people can squeeze into the building or be able to enter the building.

Just as equality must be the principles, the pillars and foundational pillars of the founding of Singapore society, these are the cornerstones of Singapore. We must continue to strengthen these four pillars of our legal system and continue to strengthen and expand this legal system to ensure that more people can be covered and protected by our system. Only when everyone can access to justice and when all the public can see that they can enjoy such justice and that the justice system can be enjoyed fairly by everyone. Then this country can really build our democracy. In English.

(In English): As I have mentioned earlier, one of the pillars, the house of justice, represents defence counsel who represent persons who are accused of crimes. These lawyers are there to ensure that the accused persons are aware of their rights and obligations under the criminal justice system and act as their advocates and their cases before the judiciary.

Given the crucial role of defence counsel, it is disquieting to see that a significant proportion of accused persons still appear before the Courts unrepresented, with approximately 40% of accused persons who claimed trial appearing unrepresented at the State Courts during pretrial stages. It is possible that this figure is significantly higher, if you include accused persons who plead guilty.

Studies, some conducted within the Singapore system, have also shown that unrepresented persons have a significantly greater chance of being convicted and are also more likely to receive more severe sentences upon conviction, raising the risk of miscarriages of justice occurring.

As a concrete example, what would be the chances that Parti Liyani or Portela Vilma Jimenez would have secured acquittal upon appeal if they had not been represented by a defence lawyer?

Some of the more common reasons for accused persons appearing unrepresented include lack of funds and also awareness. Many of us are familiar with residents stating that they can either not afford a lawyer or that they do not know where to begin to find one for themselves.

One of the ways in which we should improve access to justice for all will be to enhance existing legal aid. The right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice is a fundamental liberty found in Article 9(3) of our Constitution. Can we be said to be taking this right seriously if a significant number of individuals who face criminal proceedings are unrepresented?

Presently, only those charge with capital offences are guaranteed to have legal counsel appointed in the form of the Legal Aid Scheme for Capital Offences if they do not have means to engage their own lawyers. There is no means test to pass or eligibility criteria to satisfy and the scheme applies to all accused persons, regardless of nationality.

For non-capital offences, the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme or CLAS administered by the Law Society of Singapore and also funded by the MinLaw provides accused persons with a disposable income of not more than $10,000 per annum and disposable capital of not more than $10,000 may be granted legal aid, subject to an additional merits test. Foreigners too can apply for the scheme.

Finally, the ad hoc pro bono referral scheme administered by the Law Society of Singapore offers legal representation for persons of exceptional circumstances who do not meet the criteria for existing legal aid schemes, but nonetheless are in urgent need and may apply for it.

Yet, it appears that the schemes are still limited in their reach, as can be seen by the large number of underrepresented persons and such pro bono legal representation still largely relies on the goodwill of lawyers.

Additionally, the rights to be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of choice in Article 9(3) of our Constitution has been qualified by case law, such as Jasbir Singh, a 1994 case of the Court of Appeal that an arrested person is only entitled to consult defence counsel a reasonable time after arrest. The consequences of this is that accused persons can be held without access to counsel when police investigations are on-going.

This is contrasted against other countries, such as New Zealand and Denmark. In New Zealand, legal aid is available to persons arrested and detained on criminal charges, persons charged with a criminal offence and persons imprisoned on criminal charges. The state is also obliged to provide legal aid to persons with intellectual and mental disabilities, persons who face a potential prison sentence of six months or more, and persons who meet a financial threshold. The legal aid scheme also does not have a set income level in determining the means test but instead adopts a flexible approach by considering various factors, such as a person's gross income for the past 12 months, together with their disposable capital.

In Denmark, the police have a duty to guide an accused person on their option to have defence counsel appointed when provisionally charged in a criminal case. And in a number of cases, the courts may appoint a public defence counsel for the accused person. As a general rule, defence counsel must be appointed in all criminal cases, unless the case is minor. And the cost of appointing public defence counsel is initially paid out of public funds, with such costs to be recovered only upon conviction.

Given all these, perhaps it is now time for us to enact the provisions of the original Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance which were first introduced after David Marshall in 1955 called for a statutory requirement for the provision of legal aid, including criminal matters, to the indigent, for everyone in Singapore to have equal access to the justice system rather than rely on having these resources provided on a voluntary basis by the profession.

Apart from that, the review we are calling for should also consider automatically providing legal aid to certain groups, such as to all individuals charged with serious non-capital offences carrying long-term imprisonment sentences and do not qualify for CLAS or, in the case of Canada, where legal aid is mandatory for all youth offenders. The review should also look into how we can ensure that vulnerable segments of society are informed of their rights and where to seek legal aid. It should also look into considering amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code and whether there should be a fixed time within which an accused person will be permitted access to a lawyer.

Finally, on this topic, I am happy that the Law Minister stated that we are seriously considering setting up a publicly-funded Public Defender's Office for all criminal matters which takes on defence counsel work for accused persons throughout a criminal matter. We can explore having a system of rostering state-funded police station or Court duty lawyers, enabling a person arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence to consult with a lawyer after arrest or allow an accused person to be represented by a lawyer at a Court on their first appearance if they have not or have not been able to contact their lawyer.

The final topic I would like to speak on today will be in relation to the statutory compensation for miscarriages of justice. The Member for Aljunied has already spoken about compensation for victims of crimes. However, I believe the review we are calling for should also look into whether there is scope to bolster the current compensation scheme that we have for accused persons who have been acquitted. Currently, section 359(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code allows for the acquitted person to be compensated a sum not exceeding $10,000, provided that the Court is satisfied that the prosecution was frivolous or vexatious. This qualifier does not account for how an accused person still suffers emotionally from having to go through a trial where they stand accused of a crime and that they may also suffer financial losses or loss of income while the charge is hanging over their heads, even if the prosecution was taking it up in good faith.

Genuine mistakes do happen and, given that cases can last a long time, such as the case of Chibuike being a recent one where the accused was in remand for nine long years after his arrest for drug trafficking. This contrasts against schemes in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom where section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998 states that "The state shall pay compensation for the miscarriage of justice to the person who has been convicted, suffered punishment and subsequently had his conviction reserved or pardoned on the ground of a newly-discovered fact that shows that there was a miscarriage of justice." The legislation is very specific about the circumstances which make such persons eligible for compensation, and the amount of compensation depends on the seriousness of the offence of which the person was convicted or accused, the severity of the punishment suffered, the conduct of investigation and prosecution of the offence and any other convictions of that person.

I realise that this is a complex issue which requires a balance in ensuring that genuine victims of miscarriages of justice are compensated against being so generous as to possibly introduce a chill factor in carrying out prosecutions that may hamper the efficient administration of justice for crimes committed. However, note that, in the UK, there were only 14 successful cases between 2010 and 2013 out of a total of 398 applications. Be that as it may, serious consideration of our existing scheme is still warranted to ensure that wrongly convicted persons may be adequately compensated in what is, after all, a serious deprivation both financially and to their personal liberty.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, while the house of justice and its four pillars may be strong today, it does not mean we stop looking for ways to continually strengthen each pillar to ensure that the house remains strong and able to provide shelter to all despite any storms or subsidence that may batter away at it. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Leader.

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I see Members looked hopeful when I got to my feet. I just wish to inform Members that I will be moving for us to continue past the moment of interruption.

Debate resumed.

6.52 pm

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the High Court ruled that the Liew family may have ulterior motives, and wrongly accused their former maid Liyani of stealing. This case lasted for 4 years, going through all sorts of twists and turns which include the police's handling of the stolen items, the DVD player presented by the prosecutors as evidence in court, and the State Court judge choosing to believe in Carl Liew and convict Ms Liyani.

All these have aroused a strong sense of justice among many Singaporeans. In their eyes, this is a clash between the rich and the poor. The rich and famous use their power and the judicial system to take advantage of a vulnerable maid, and the judicial system did not seem to have treated her fairly.

To be honest, I felt the same way when I learned of the High Court's ruling. I am not a lawyer myself. So, from the perspective of the general public, I can totally imagine that the ordinary citizens would cheer silently for Liyani’s acquittal and getting her freedom back. On the other hand, people also started to have suspicions, frustrations, and even resistance towards celebrities and our legal system.

Therefore, I welcome the statement just made by the Minister for Home Affairs and Law. The Minister made several important clarifications. First, as for the police, the Minister was of the view that the police did commit a lapse in handling the exhibits. Second, in response to the handling of the DVD player by the prosecutors, AGC has also initiated relevant legal and disciplinary proceedings. It is not appropriate for the Minister to make further comments. But the point is that due process is being carried out progressively. Third, as for Carl Liew, we learnt from the Ministerial Statement that the authorities have also started further investigations on him.

At the same time, after further reflection on the case, I begin to understand that precisely because the case has drawn much public attention, we must be more vigilant, and avoid falling into the trap of "knocking off everyone in the boat with one pole".

When "one bamboo pole knocks off everyone in the boat", It is not only the boat that is overturned, but also the people on board the boat.

So, let me first talk about the boat, then talk about the people in the boat. The so-called "boat" is our country's current legal system. The Liyani case reflected several core issues in the system. The first question is: does the system work in favour of the rich and powerful?

Let us look at a few examples. In 2019, Tay May Li, daughter of the Hour Glass founder, was sentenced to 22 months in jail, for careless driving, drug abuse and possession of drugs.

In 2017, Howard Shaw, grandson of movie mogul Shaw Runme, was sentenced to 8 weeks in prison, revocation of all classes of driving licence for 8 years for drink driving. Earlier in 2012, He was sentenced to 12 weeks' imprisonment for child prostitution.

Huang Guang Tian, the son of a shipping tycoon, was charged with 19 counts of drug abuse, fraud and theft and was sentenced to 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment.

These cases show that our legal system, from the police investigation, prosecution, to sentencing, does not favour the rich and famous.

The second core issue reflected in the case is: is the judicial system fair to the disadvantaged?

According to figures in the Ministerial Statement, in 2016, 245 foreign domestic workers were arrested for theft, about 0.1% of all domestic workers in Singapore. Of the 245 foreign domestic workers arrested by the police, 188, or nearly 80 per cent, were not charged. In 2016, there was even an employer who was sentenced to 7 weeks in prison for making false report by wrongly accusing his maid of stealing.

Therefore, I feel the claim that the vulnerable group is disadvantaged in the overall judicial system because of their limited resources, or that the system treats people differently based on their social status, does not hold water.

Volunteers in Jurong told me a case that happened a few years ago. I was quite impressed. The resident involved was a former drug offender. He was caught by the police one day for possessing sleeping pills and was charged with possession of prohibited drugs. The fact is, however, he was depressed because his mother just passed away, and he went to see a doctor for his depression and got a legitimate prescription from the doctor. But the doctor happened to have retired and migrated overseas. He could not find the doctor to prove his innocence and was about to plead guilty. When the volunteers and Members of Parliament in Jurong learned about it, they assisted him to engage a lawyer, and called the doctor back as a witness. He was found innocent and justice prevailed.

Therefore, our judicial system as a whole is fair, just and equal. But this is a never-ending journey. In some ways, there is certainly room for improvement, but we should not overlook the overall fairness and equality of the system. One bamboo pole should not knock off everyone in the boat.

Justice and equality are the key words in our National Pledge, and also the basic principles of our judicial system. They are the foundation of our country, and are our original intentions of nation building. In other words, the boat, at the highest level, represents the systems in our country and society. It can also be said that justice and equality, as mentioned in the Motion, go above the political divide. They cannot be discussed along political lines, because they are core concepts that must be acknowledged by the whole Parliament.

Mr Speaker, after talking about the boat, let me talk about the people. There are many heroes and men of outstanding in the system. They perform their jobs dutifully and serve us, navigating the ship. So I hope to see more public recognition and support for our law enforcement and judicial officers regarding this case. As pointed out by the Minister in his statement, there were lapses on the police when handling the evidence this time. In fact, it has to do with manpower and workload. In other words, this is not a question of professional conduct. It is a matter of manpower and workload. To improve the system, we must first identify the root of the problem, beware of the daily challenges faced by law enforcement and judicial officers, and assist them in their tasks as far as possible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Justice Bao was famous for his impartiality and selflessness. In his famous Kaifeng Court, he also had four important officers to help him execute his work: Wang Chao, Ma Han, Zhang Long, Zhao Hu, and the resourceful Gongsun Ce and a capable guard Zhan Zhao.

Take a look at our own “Kaifeng Court”. In our system, we also have many people like Gongsun Ce, Zhan Zhao, Wang Chao and Ma Han. They are our policemen, prosecutors, law enforcement and judicial officers. The more sensational a case is, the more we can see the conduct of some officers, and the more we should remain objective, and cheer for the integrity of our officers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, our judicial system is sound. Otherwise, we will not be one of the safest countries in the world. However, there is always room for improvement. We can agree with that. Even the famous Justice Bao made some mistakes, as in the Bodyguard Liu Xiaoyuan case.

Whether it is a prince or an ordinary citizen, all are treated alike. It was under this spirit that Justice Bao upheld justice for the people. Similarly, our legal system also safeguards the safety and rights of all Singaporeans regardless of their status and wealth.

According to legends, when people wanted to seek redress from Justice Bao, they could stop him on the road, or drum up their grievances. But in our country, we have proper channels such as legal aid for civil cases and criminal cases, and the Yellow Ribbon Project to help former convicts to reintegrate into society.

After this case, I am sure the authorities will learn from this painful experience and draw lessons from it. With a solid foundation in the judicial system, the authorities will strive for excellence to serve the country and the people better, and allow justice to prevail.

7.05 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, while I do not agree with all the points made by my colleagues from the Workers' Party, I do support the spirit of the Motion. I agree that fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of Singapore's legal system and that the Government should continue its efforts to build a fair and just society. The legal system should not discriminate based on race, language, religion or economic status. I think these principles are universal.

These are, of course, not the only principles that one has to bear in mind when considering a criminal justice system. To these, I would add that the chief purposes of a criminal justice system are also to keep a country safe and keep the crime rate down. People should not live their lives in fear for personal safety or being victims of crime. A criminal justice system should have measures in place to prevent recidivism or re-committal of offences as well as processes in place to help reform those who are convicted.

The challenge in designing a criminal legal system, of course, is that one has to carefully evaluate the effects of any proposed changes on these different principles. Singapore's crime rate is one of the lowest in the world and this is despite the fact that we are sitting close to the "golden triangle" for the drug trade. Generally, anyone can go out late at night in most parts of Singapore without being worried about personal safety. Many people leave doors unlocked without worrying about break-ins. While many of us take this for granted, this personal safety we feel is really the result of a well controlled crime situation.

Our rate of recidivism is also low, especially for those whose crimes are not drug-related. Like many other countries, for those with drug-related crimes, there is a higher likelihood of recidivism and of committing other crimes. This is why keeping the drug situation under control is of vital importance and why we have always supported the toughest measures against drug traffickers.

Our criminal justice system is also not one set in stone. It is one that has evolved over time. The only point in which I think I depart a little from my friends is I do not think you need a grand Constitutional Commission to reform criminal law. Constitutional Commissions are usually to change the Constitution and I do not see any proposals to change the Constitution specifically as yet.

But criminal law reform, I think, is part of the natural process of developing our system. I will give some examples of how the criminal law has evolved through the natural process of criminal law reforms.

Given the tough penalties we have for offences, I think it is important that accused persons must have a fair hearing process and they should not be unnecessarily detained. This too is a journey that has taken place over the years and more and more rights and liberties have been given to accused persons.

Some examples. In 2010, there was a major reform of the criminal law. The prosecution before this was not required to share details of the case or Police statements with the accused before the trial. This was because it was believed that if the accused was innocent, his story should be consistent at all times and if he tells a different story at the trial, the statement to the Police could be brought up to contradict his account. This was the reasoning for why the system was the way it was before that.

However, from the lawyers' perspective, this appeared to be unfair because the defence counsel would be operating without knowing what the prosecution had up its sleeve and needed to get their clients to try and recount what had happened and what they had told the Police. Where there were inconsistencies that emerged at trial while the accused was being cross-examined, the defendant's lawyers would not be able to take instructions for the reasons for this and whether there was any other explanation for the inconsistency other than, of course, the accused lying.

The criminal disclosure requirements that were amended in 2010 required the prosecution to disclose a summary of their case, a list of exhibits the witnesses would rely on, including Police statements prior to the hearing. The defence would do likewise. There was an exchange of information. In this way, it was somewhat analogous to the process that have been in place for a long time for civil cases. As a final step, the prosecution would share the remaining Police statements of the accused and copies of documentary exhibits. This allowed both the prosecution and defence counsel to anticipate matters and better reduce the drama in Court.

In 2018, following further amendments, the list of offences covered by these procedures were broadened to include offences under the Moneylenders Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The 2010 reforms also provided for victim compensation because victims are also an important part of the criminal process. In the past, criminal law was largely about convicting those accused of crimes and victims were witnesses in the process. If they wanted personal relief, they may need to commence separate civil proceedings.

The Courts always had a discretionary power to order compensation for victims but victims did not have a right to insist on this. The 2010 reforms required the Courts to consider victim compensation in all cases. Victims were empowered to take part. If the Court chose not to grant compensation, it had to give reasons for doing so. This mechanism gave victims a right of compensation, which would save them the cost and emotional energy of a second trial process if they were satisfied with the compensation.

Another feature of the 2010 reforms – and this goes to how our legal system looks at rehabilitation – is community-based sentences were expanded. Prior to this, accused persons had limited alternatives to prison like home detention and probation. In 2010, a wide range of alternatives was introduced, including short detention orders, day reporting orders, mandatory treatment orders, community service orders and community work orders. What this allowed is it gave the Courts a broader flexibility to give sentences that were more proportional for less serious or less culpable offenders. This too was enhanced by further reforms in 2018.

A wide range of other reforms that have taken place over the years included safeguards for minors and victims of sexual offences and for accused persons in death penalty cases.

In 2018, another significant step was the introduction of video recording of interviews because what took place when police statements were recorded started becoming more contentious as these were challenged in trial. The video recording of interviews was also a helpful step in resolving these concerns because judges would also be able to observe the demeanour and behaviour of the accused.

In 2013, the Appropriate Adult Scheme was piloted for suspects with autism spectrum disorder, mental health conditions and intellectual disabilities. This was for vulnerable accused persons or suspects. This scheme proved to be useful and was made permanent in 2015. In 2017, this was expanded to include all young suspects under the age of 16.

These are all additional safeguards that have been put in place as our legal system evolves. This represents our commitment to ensuring that the legal system continues to be one that is fair and just.

A second aspect of this that is of course important and it is access to justice. In the earlier speech, Minister K Shanmugam made clear that we have a very large number of accused persons. I think 66,000 was the number every year – I mean, people who are accused of crime. These are all in the reports. Clearly, it is not feasible for the state to fund immediate legal representation for everyone. However, for serious offences, I agree it is important for people to have proper representation.

There are several schemes in place that do this already. The Supreme Court's Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences, or LASCO, provides everyone accused of capital crimes with legal representation. There are of course a series of different aid schemes as well which I think the Minister mentioned. This includes the Law Society's Pro Bono Services, or LSPBS, the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme. All of these are basically cooperative schemes led by the bar but with the Government's support as well.

If resources permit, and as was clear from the question I raised earlier, it would be helpful if more people are given access to legal counsel and possibly at an earlier stage. I do not have a straightforward answer to this because of the difficult question of how we are going to have adequate resources but I do support a public defender's office because this would at least institutionalise a group of lawyers who would be there to defend victims who need earlier access to lawyers.

If I were to look at many of these specific suggestions that my friends made, I think many of them are worth considering.

If I were to look at many of the specific suggestions that my friends made, I think many of them are worth considering. The plight of the poor, improvements in the law enforcement agencies process and more justice for victims of crime. There are many good suggestions here which can be taken into account as we evolve the criminal justice system and as part of the normal review process.

To sum up, Speaker, I agree that fairness, access and independence should be cornerstones of Singapore's legal system and the Government should continue its efforts to build a fair and just society. I do not think the Government should ever rest on its laurels. I think principled and systemic reform should continue as it always has over the years.

I support the spirit of the Motion. I do not think we need a Constitutional Committee for this but, of course, this is early in the debate, so my mind is not closed. But I also think it is important for us to acknowledge the good work that has been done so far. I would like to record my thanks to everyone involved in keeping our criminal justice system working, including the Police, the Prosecutors, the defence counsels, the Courts, the Prison Services and the many organisations and volunteers working to assist the process of crime prevention, victim support and rehabilitation.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

7.16 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I start, I would like to declare that I am a lawyer in private practice.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chief Justice, in his speech, at the Opening of the Legal Year in 2020, suggested three principles ought to guide the redesign of our justice system.

The first of the principles he spoke of was the principle of accessibility which he said and I quote, "should be understood in terms of closing the justice gap, which is a metaphor for the problem of unequal access to justice."

He said that there are three dimensions to this justice gap. One, a physical gap, that is to say the physical distance between an individual and the institutions of justice. Two, a resources gap which deters the individual from seeking legal recourse due to concerns over cost. Three, a literacy gap which follows from lack of awareness about one's legal rights and remedies. He said that the justice system that seeks to minimise the level of injustice in society must necessarily be interested in closing each of these gaps, thereby enhancing and equalising access to justice.

The issue of resources gap has been much talk about and is a continuing work in progress. Despite recent Government efforts to increase access for civil legal aid to the Legal Aid Bureau, many still do not qualify despite the exemplary efforts of many volunteer lawyers under the CLAS scheme and the Law Society pro bono schemes. Beyond the rendering of pro bono advice, many still cannot find someone to represent them in legal proceedings on pro bono basis or the quoted fees of other lawyers may be unaffordable. My colleague the hon Ms He Ting Ru has already touched on this point too.

The Chief Justice did not elaborate on the term physical gap. How an average Singaporean thinks of our Judges is important. He or she must of course be learned in law and also in the area of specialisation that he or she is known for. Beyond pure commercial law and particularly in areas like criminal and family law, the ability of Judges to understand and empathise with the different challenges faced by litigants of different socio-economic backgrounds is critical and can, in my view, bridge this physical gap.

For the next part next part of my speech, I will be talking about Judges selection and training in the State Courts.

The hon High Court Judge reviewing Parti Liyani's appeal found that the trial Judge in the State Courts was wrong in applying the legal and evidential burdens of proof. The case generated much attention. While in the interest of justice, it was right and good that the High Court has allowed the appeal in favour of Ms Parti Liyani. We cannot always merely rely on appeals to High Court, righting a wrong done in the Lower Court.

To this end, we should strive for even higher standards in all our Courts and, in particular, in the context of the State Court Judges and Magistrates as they are, after all, critical gatekeepers of justice. They need to be carefully chosen, have a strong and right sense of mission and have the training and disposition to carry the torch of justice for those whose lives have been entrusted to them.

On the issue of selection, the issue of age and maturity of our judicial officers in the State Courts, has been raised in this House on at least two occasions.

In 2010, during the debate for the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill, my colleague the hon Ms Sylvia Lim, had asked that then Senior Minister of State of Law Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee, about requirement that in order for a person to be appointed as a Magistrate, one need only have held a relevant law degree for one year. At that time, the powers of Magistrate, including power sentencing has already increased over the years. Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee had, some years before, expressed similar concern about whether young Deputy Registrar and Magistrate could be able to dispense justice and apply the law appropriately without, and I quote the former Senior Minister of State, "The wisdom that comes from experience in dealing with matters of the world."

Having to defend the policy, in reply to the issues raised by Ms Sylvia Lim, Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee sought to assure the House that despite the low minimum requirements, the practice was to appoint judicial officers who exceeded the minimum threshold of one year.

In a current version of section 10 of the State Courts Act, there is now the provision at section 10(2) requiring a Magistrate to be a qualified person for not less than three years. However a person can still be a point under section 10(3) if the Chief Justice deems that he is suitable for the appointment even though he has been qualified for between one and three years.

Notwithstanding previous assurances that past appointments have been made for persons who have exceeded the minimum threshold, is it now the time to review the minimum requirement of one or even three years under section 10? Would it be prudent now to stipulate higher minimum seniority requirements for judicial officers, especially those handling criminal cases as Magistrates and District Judges? Perhaps, to have someone more senior like eight to 10 years of post-qualification experience.

In my view, it is extremely important to convince the public that Judges understand the lives of ordinary people and people of different stratas of society. How should we work towards that? While I am not advocating that we re-introduce the system of jury here, we must understand why some countries continue to cling onto their jury systems – because it is of fundamental importance to them that decisions on life and liberty are made by juries, composed of members of the public from a cross-section of the population.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue of whether to have a separate dedicated Judicial Service in the State Courts have been raised in the past and more recently in wake of Ms Parti Liyani's case. Currently, the Legal Service Commission chooses legal officers will be posted from the Ministries or the AGC into the State Court Judiciary and then out again.

In 2014, the Prime Minister did announce the system of greater specialisation among legal officers so that at the middle ranks, officers can be posted either the legal or judicial branches and remain there for some years to hone their experience. While this is a positive move, it still leaves the more junior officers open to posting in and out judicial branch. The posting could also be to and from postings of DPP or Senior DPP.

The Law Minister share his views earlier with us on this issue during the Ministerial Statement. But I am still of the view that it may still be worthwhile for the proposed review that we are proposing to still consider this issue of whether we should have a more specialised or dedicated judicial track at the State Court level, encompassing Magistrates and District Judges, and discontinuing inter-services posting or rotation with other branches of the legal service, particularly with AGC. This may be preferable to the current system to provide more distance between Prosecutors and those working as Magistrates and Judges.

For example to avoid having AGC colleagues, some of them being more senior colleagues, arguing cases before them, knowing that they may well be posted back to AGC again in future. Up till now, judicial officers or AGC staff often regard themselves as working for the legal service. It is perhaps time to discard this nomenclature and have a dedicated judicial service set apart from the rest of the legal service. As the familiar administrative law saying goes, "Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done."

When State Court judicial officers are subject to inter-services postings or rotation, I also wonder whether at the moment sufficient time is given for any judicial officer due to be posted to clear his or her cases without compromising the justice and interest of the parties involved. At the onset, when trial dates are fixed, frequently, it may be difficult to dictate the actual length of hearing days required. Many litigants may require more trial days as the cross-examination may take more time than expected. What happens when the posting is due soon and a trial may possibly not be completed in time? Can or does the judicial officers seek a delay in his or her posting, in the interests of the justice of the litigants of the case? If this can be done, the proceedings can still continue fairly for all parties without any pressure on time. Cross-examination does not need to be rushed.

Spending more time as a judicial officer, coupled with the right training which can be provided by institutions, such as the Singapore Judicial College, can help to mitigate against factors, such as lacking life experience or lacking sufficient understanding of people from different socio-economic stratas of our society as well as any unwitting misunderstanding or prejudices.

Talking about training of judicial officers, it is good to know that training is already being increasingly prioritised. The Singapore Judicial College is a development in the right direction. Set up five years ago, it is reassuring to see a unified training champion for the Supreme and the State Courts. It conducts various programmes, including induction programme for newly appointed Judges and judicial officers. In addition to the hard skills in law administration, there are courses focused on enhancing the experience of the public, such as effective engagement of litigants who are unrepresented.

I also note from its Annual Report that the Judicial College has embarked on forthcoming research on litigants-in-person and access to justice in an adversarial system, a topic which is of high importance.

That said, lawyers still observe lopsidedness in cases where the accused person is unrepresented. For example, at sentencing hearings, the Prosecutor could be arguing for a particular sentence and submit bundles of authorities for the Judges' consideration. The poor unrepresented accused person will not know how to react to the submission and frequently just ask for leniency. The unrepresented accused person has no clue what he should expect in respect of the sentence. He or she is likely to get, except maybe some gratuitous information fed to him by the IO. He cannot distinguish the authorities submitted by the Prosecutor and would not even be able to rebut the Prosecutor if there is any mistake in applying the authorities to the facts of the case. This common example exemplifies both the resources gap and the literacy gap which the Chief Justice has talked about.

While working on improving access, we should also consider how we can enhance the ability of our Judges to reduce the effect of disadvantages faced by such unrepresented accused persons in their experiences in Court. Many of the accused persons who are unrepresented comes from the poorer and less educated strata of our society. These people rely on our judicial officers to mete out decisions and sentences, which will not only be fair to them according to the alleged crimes they are charged for but also bear in mind the handicap they may suffer from not having representation at a time of hearing. To this end, research and training should also include checking against any inadvertent prejudice against the poor or less educated, if that is not already done.

It has also been pointed out in an article and titled "Wrongful convictions in Singapore: A general survey of risk factors", dated 2010 Singapore Law Review by Chen Siyuan and Eunice Chua, and this is reported in Singapore Law Reform Review 28 at pages 98 to 122, that there has been reported cases where Judges made wrong assumptions on witnesses' abilities to recall facts and should be trained accordingly. A local Singapore case involving a previous Chief Justice was, in fact sight, cited.

Indeed, I would exhort the Singapore Judicial College to continue to enhance its training for Judges in the State Courts in the areas I have talked about, which in my respectful view, will certainly help to reduce any physical gap, using the term as mentioned by the Chief Justice, and to further enhance our justice system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon Ms Sylvia Lim has called for a Constitutional review by a Supreme Court Judge, and I humbly submit that that the suggestions in my speech should also be included in such a review to make our justice system even better. I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

7.29 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. Sir, Singaporeans pledge to build a democratic society based on justice and equality. I believe Ms Parti Liyani's case has evoked such strong and widespread reactions because justice and equality are instinctive values that all Singaporeans believe in and cherish deeply.

Ms Sylvia Lim's Motion identifies fairness and independence as cornerstones of our criminal justice system. Where prosecutorial decisions and processes are concerned, justice demands fairness and independence both in reality and in perception. It is a trite saying in law that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

I will speak on two topics today. One focuses on fairness and the other focuses on independence.

I will first speak on the Prosecution's duty of disclosure and propose that its common law disclosure obligations be codified in the Criminal Procedure Code or CPC. Thereafter, I will speak on the bifurcation of the Attorney-General's roles, so that they are held by two persons and not one.

First, the prosecution's duty of disclosure. Sir, the matter of non-disclosure by the prosecution of evidence that is favourable to the defence has been the subject of much judicial attention this year. Before getting to this year's cases, let me give some background.

This House passed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code in 2010, which included formalisation of the criminal case disclosure conference procedure. Before that, there was no statutory framework for discovery in criminal matters in the State Courts. Prosecutors had overwhelming evidence in their hands compared to the defence. For example, on many occasions, a previously withheld statement of the accused would be sprung on the defence during trial to impeach the accused's credibility, forcing the defence to throw its litigation strategy out of the window.

After the framework for criminal discovery was enshrined into law, one Member of Parliament in this House said that this was akin to the criminal justice system "moving out of the dark ages". But I would say that we were still in some shadows as the CPC amendments did not require the prosecution to disclose material such as witnesses' statements that might help the defence.

This changed in 2011 with the Court of Appeal's judgment in Muhammad bin Kadar and another versus Public Prosecutor – hereinafter, referred to as Kadar – where the Court ruled that the prosecution must disclose to the defence any credible and relevant unused material that would be favourable to the defence's case. This was an excellent development making serious inroads into rebalancing the asymmetries of evidence between the prosecution and the defence.

However, what I wish to highlight from Kadar is this. In Court, the prosecution ran the argument that it should have an exclusive and unquestionable right to access evidence and unilaterally decide whether the material was credible and relevant based on its own bona fide exercise of subjective discretion. The Court rejected this argument, saying that such a procedure would provide an unacceptably low level of accountability.

In addition, the prosecution conceded that while it had an ethical duty to produce any witness before the Court including evidence inconsistent to its case, it argued that it had no legal duty to do so, citing a judicial precedent in Selvarajan James versus Public Prosecutor. In that case, the then-Chief Justice Yong Pung How ruled that it was not for the Court but for Parliament to impose disclosure requirements on the prosecution.

Mr Speaker, I have mentioned these arguments of the prosecution, so that this House and members of the public can appreciate one aspect of the evolution of Singapore's adversarial criminal justice system in the recent past. Even so, the starting point is one of tremendous asymmetries of information between the prosecution and the defence, with the system structurally weighted in favour of the former.

Almost 10 years after Kadar, it is apposite to ask how deeply the prosecution's common law disclosure obligations have been internalised in our criminal justice system. In Ms Parti Liyani's case, the lack of forthrightness of the DPPs in informing the trial court about the serviceability of the DVD player makes a similar point about fairness in our adversarial system. Crucially, however, it raises the public's eyebrows about our prosecutorial culture. That is all I will say about Ms Parti Liyani's case as her application against the DPPs and, specifically, their conduct in this matter, is pending.

With that background, let me move on to this year's cases on the prosecution's disclosure obligations. Tellingly, the year thus far has seen a number of judgments that, at first blush, reveal troubling aspects to the prosecution's approach to disclosing statements to the defence in spite of the almost decade-old Kadar judgment.

One significant case was Public Prosecutor versus Wee Teong Boo, hereinafter referred as Wee Teong Boo. In that case, the accused, a doctor, was convicted of outrage of modesty and sexual assault. He faced a total of 10 years' imprisonment. On appeal, he was acquitted. In its judgment released in June this year, the Court of Appeal ruled that the prosecution did not make available to the defence documents that would have established clear and material inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence. The Court of Appeal decided that the delay in disclosing one document in particular, prejudiced Dr Wee, even as the prosecution ran the argument that that document was actually irrelevant to the case.

In Wee Teong Boo, the Court of Appeal restated the prosecution's obligation to disclose material, as this can assist the Court in determining the truth. The Court reminded the prosecution of its overarching duty of fairness, in addition to a duty to the Court and the public, to ensure that only the guilty are convicted. The Court referred to a 1916 English judgment, which referred to public prosecutors as "ministers of justice", even as the Court of Appeal confirmed that it is neither the prosecutor's duty to secure a conviction at all costs nor, quoting Kadar's case, to timorously discontinue proceedings the instance some weakness is found in the case.

Sir, I wish to stress that non-disclosure by the prosecution is not synonymous – it is not synonymous with suppression of evidence. But non-disclosure revelations in cases like Wee Teong Boo risk crystallising such a public perception. Furthermore, judicial decisions on failures of the prosecution to meet disclosure requirements can easily cause the public to lose trust in the Attorney-General's Chambers and by extension, the criminal justice system.

To that end, the Court of Appeal's decision in Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad versus Public Prosecutor, also released this year, has expanded the Kadar disclosure obligations even further. For example, Kadar did not require the release of statements that were neutral or adverse to the defence, but the Court in Nabill ruled that as the statements of material witnesses would in most cases be limited, and that all statements including those neutral or adverse to the defence should be released to the defence as a matter of routine. Nabill points to a clear recognition by the Court of Appeal of the central role of disclosure by the prosecution in a fair and just criminal justice system.

Yet another case was reported in the mainstream media only last week. In this on-going case, a defence lawyer argued that the conviction of an accused person ought to be ruled unsafe because the prosecution did not disclose material evidence. The Defence in this particular case had earlier filed a criminal motion in the High Court. At this hearing, the prosecution also accepted there had been a breach of its disclosure obligations under Kadar and Nabill, and that the trial judge had erred in concluding that a statement in question was not liable to be disclosed.

These cases bring me to my suggestion to this House that the prosecution's disclosure obligations should be codified in the Criminal Procedure Code.

Mr Speaker, a question that stands out is that since there is case law, why would Parliament need to legislate the prosecution's disclosure obligations? The prosecution in its submissions in Nabill paradoxically makes the argument for legislation. Tellingly, in that case, the prosecution submitted that it may not, despite acting in good faith, fully appreciate the defence that the accused intends to run and, as such, the prosecution admitted that it might, and I quote, "inadvertently fail to disclose statements which might tend to support the defence". The Court of Appeal considered this position as, I quote, "an intolerable outcome".

Sir, I believe the prosecution made its point in earnest and the status quo is something for this House to contemplate upon deeply. In my view, Mr Speaker, it is precisely because of the very prospect of inadvertent non-disclosure that Parliament has to legislate forthwith to prevent possible future miscarriages of justice because of non-disclosure.

The inadvertent failure, and I stress, not failure, but inadvertent failure to disclose by the prosecution may be better appreciated if we remember the adversarial nature of our criminal justice system. Some defence counsel and deputy public prosecutors can be far more adversarial than others, and this structure reality and such human factors are potentially a barrier against more consistent standards of the prosecution's disclosure obligations.

Separately, the judgments in Kadar and Nabil require that the prosecution actively considers, on an on-going basis, its disclosure requirements. In view of the human factors alluded to earlier, can consistent standards of disclosure represent a reasonable expectation of the prosecution's obligations, as it would naturally be more substantively focused on its own case, especially during a trial?

I make this point not to run down the prosecution or imply that they are likely to fall short in their disclosure obligations more often than not. But even so, Mr Speaker, a perhaps overly sanguine expectation of consistent disclosure standards combined with the reality of inadvertent non-disclosure, as admitted by prosecutors today, make it entirely plausible that we could see more future cases of non-disclosure that prejudice the defence, if a decisive legislative move is not made.

At minimum, an amendment to the CPC to codify the prosecution's disclosure requirements, as established in Kadar and Nabill, would send a powerful signal that prioritises proactive and early disclosure by the prosecution at the pre-trial stage when the case for the prosecution is filed. This would imbibe greater confidence into the criminal justice system by virtue of far fewer miscarriages of justice arising from non-disclosure.

Mr Speaker, I would like to advance this matter further with two suggestions. First, if the Ministry is minded to consider a legislative amendment to the CPC, it would be worthwhile to seek the inputs of the Criminal Bar and the Attorney-General's Chambers on the ambit of documents and other material that should be made available to the defence, in the interest of justice.

In 2010, the Minister argued against criminal disclosure by stating that disclosure of witness statements went against public policy considerations. Kadar and Nabill have changed this position. It would be worthwhile to review the extent of disclosure that would serve the ends of justice.

In my opinion, Sir, more disclosure in criminal matters cannot be a bad thing. It would allow the Court to have a fuller picture of the circumstances of an alleged crime, with all the relevant evidence marshalled and admitted before the Court from both sides before deciding whether to convict or acquit an accused. Such a regime could also contribute to a more efficient justice system with defence lawyers in a better position to advise on the prospects of success at trial. A decision by the defence to plead guilty early, for example, would save the prosecution time. More disclosure could also lower the prospect of cracked trials where the accused pleads guilty shortly after trial begins, but after significant time and resources have already been spent by the prosecution in trial preparation.

My second suggestion goes to levelling the playing field for the defence, not for its own sake but to further the interests of justice. The fact today is that even if the prosecution discloses to the defence witnesses statements that could help the accused person's case, the defence still has a problem. Under section 259 of the CPC, statements of witnesses are not admissible in Court unless specific conditions have been met. I have been reliably informed that in cases where the prosecution adheres to its disclosure obligations, it objects to the admission of a disclosed witness statement favourable to the defence during trial, as it is entitled to do under section 259.

Simply put, the prosecution's position is that if the defence wants to use the contents of a favourable statement, it should get the witness to give evidence in Court, so that the evidence can be tested. From a legal point of view, this is a sound argument. In practice though, it is not as simple as it sounds for the defence. Before calling a witness, defence counsel would, understandably, want to interview that witness. But what if the witness refuses to cooperate with the defence? The option is open to subpoena the witness but the defence may not want to subpoena a witness if it has not had a chance to interview the witness, to assess the probative value of putatively favourable evidence against its prejudicial effect.

As it stands today, even with a favourable witness statement in hand, the defence is effectively playing Russian roulette should it choose to subpoena a witness without being fully apprised of the facts and circumstances that led to the making of what the prosecution regards as a favourable statement. In extremis, an unwilling witness may turn hostile on the stand.

To achieve greater fairness before trial, my suggestion is that arrangements should be made for defence counsel to be given the option to interview witnesses, whose statements are helpful to the defence, in a police station. This ought to be considered, so as to reassure witnesses, and for the defence to clarify their statements before trial. Thereafter, the defence can decide whether to call the witness to Court.

The counter-argument against allowing the defence to interview witnesses is that the authorities and the prosecution should not be burdened with such a request. After all, in civil cases, the same considerations come into play for counsel. The difference, Sir, is precisely that. The difference is that we are not speaking of civil cases here. In criminal matters, the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the demands of natural justice and the importance of getting at the truth of a matter in Court, notwithstanding the adversarial system, requires higher thresholds of fairness than in civil cases. A system that contributes to a thorough evaluation of the evidence, not just for the prosecution but the defence as well, would strengthen the rule of law.

As reforms to the criminal justice system are an on-going process, I hope the Government can look into the matter of codifying the prosecution's disclosure requirements and the extent to which what further disclosure requirements are to be made in the name of fairness and to achieve the ends of justice.

Sir, I move on now to my second topic which is on the role of the Attorney-General. In order that there be greater independence in the criminal justice system that can be readily seen by the public, the Workers' Party calls upon the Government to split the office of the Attorney-General or AG into two roles of the public prosecutor and the Government's legal advisor.

What we are proposing is not new. The Workers' Party called for the splitting of roles of the AG in our 2020 election Manifesto. This was also raised by Ms Sylvia Lim at the Committee of Supply Debate this year on the Attorney-General's Chambers.

Additionally, this was proposed by no less than a former nominated Member of this House, Prof Walter Woon, who served as the fifth Attorney-General of Singapore. He persuasively argued for such a separation in an opinion piece published in The Straits Times in September 2017. But we raise this matter again for the Government to reconsider its position and consider how the current system can be improved, and it is timely to raise this again in light of this Motion.

In support of my call, I will make three points. First, there are gaps and blind spots in the current prosecutorial structure; second, improvements should be made to strengthen the system both in reality, as well as in public perception; and third, there are no robust reasons, I would offer, for all the roles of the Attorney-General to be held in one person.

My first point is that there is a weakness in our prosecutorial structure. Our current structure has two key characteristics that taken together, represent an area where the system can be strengthened.

One, the AG is entrusted with two roles. The first is that of being the Government's legal advisor and the second is that of public prosecutor. As the Government's lawyer, the AG takes charge of three areas: legislation, international affairs and civil matters involving the Government, including lawsuits. As public prosecutor, the AG is to prosecute without fear or favour. Two, the AG has absolute discretion as to whether and who to prosecute. Each of these characteristics may or may not be a weakness in itself. But it is the combination of both these two characteristics that can compromise the systems foundation in some cases.

As the Government's legal advisor, the AG's duty is to protect the interests of the Government. As the public prosecutor, the AG represents the public and must prosecute without fear or favour, even if it means damaging the reputation of the government of the day, or prosecuting Ministers or even the Prime Minister.

This duality of roles in one person brings with it a potential conflict of interest for the AG which can create potential for abuse. It is not difficult to imagine cases where the role of the Government's legal advisor conflicts with the role of the public prosecutor. Say the employees of a Government-linked company pay bribes in order to secure contracts overseas. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, extraterritorial corruption is punishable in Singapore. However, prosecuting these employees which has to be in open court is likely to bring with it negative publicity against the Government of the day in the local and international news media, simply by virtue of the company being Government-linked. And AG might believe in all sincerity that the interests of the Government are better served by not prosecuting the employees, and as public prosecutor, then decides not to prosecute. Clearly, the roles of the Government's legal advisor and the public prosecutor are in conflict.

Another example – say a suspect has been arrested for an offence while in custody. He suffers a serious injury either through a assault or negligence that puts him in hospital. If this suspect is eventually charged in open court, this is likely to bring with it negative publicity against the government of the day in the local and international media. And AG might believe, again in also all sincerity, that the interests of the Government are better protected and better served by making a deal not to prosecute the suspect in return for the suspect not suing the Government in Civil Court. Even if an AG can mentally separate the roles and prosecute regardless of the negative consequences to his client, the Government, the fact is that a conflict exists.

We should have a system where the basis of such conflict should as far as possible not even arise. Mr Speaker, the elephant in the room is that this conflict of interest could go even further and facilitate abuse by a future government. Again, some scenarios are not hard to imagine. Say in the future, a Prime Minister installs an AG who is friendly to him. At the time of the appointment by the President, there is no reason to suspect anything untoward about the AG. Then, the Prime Minister commits serious offences, perhaps acts of corruption. Despite clear evidence, the AG decides not to prosecute the Prime Minister. This could be due to pressure of desire to keep his job, for favours or simply because the Prime Minister and the AG are cronies. Potential abuse and the pressure on prosecutors is not the stuff of fiction, but a real prospect.

Prof Woon in his opinion piece, says that a look at the state of the world shows that the pressure on prosecutors is common. There are too easily available examples or perhaps I should call them cautionary tales. I will not say more except to say that one is a close neighbour and the other is a major country that regularly makes the news because of its President.

Both these countries have had prominent cases of their Attorney-Generals being subject to political pressure. They are both instances of how the system can become compromised rapidly even in countries that pride themselves on the rule of law. Let Singapore not be one such country in future.

I now move to my second point on this subject. What improvements should be implemented to strengthen the independence of the public prosecutor, both in reality and in the perception of the public? I mentioned two characteristics in our system that contribute to the problem – the dual role of the AG, as Government lawyer and public prosecutor, and his absolute discretion in prosecutions. As it is the combination of these two characteristics that contribute to potential conflict, a number of changes can possibly ameliorate the prospects of abuse.

The first and most obvious change is to split the role of Government legal advisor from the role of public prosecutor. Neither role should be subordinate to the other and different offices should be formed. Even if no other change is made, this single change removes the possibility of a conflict of interest when one person performs both roles. Prof Woon says that the prosecutorial function must be held by the Attorney-General as the AG has the necessary stature being second only to the Chief Justice in the hierarchy. He says that the role of being Government legal advisor which involves handling civil matters, international matters and legislation, could be given to the Solicitor-General, for example. The Workers' Party is open to these views.

However, while the splitting of roles takes away conflict of interest, it may not be enough to entrench the independence of the public prosecutor. The second suggestion is for the public prosecutor to be appointed for a fixed term of a relatively significant length. Prof Woon suggests a term of five years. His reason is that this promotes stability in office. The Workers' Party is open to this idea of a five-year term as we believe it not only promotes stability, but also independence. The third suggestion is for the system to eschew to the appointment of an ex-Member of Parliament as public prosecutor. Such an individual can of course be considered for the role of Government legal advisor. And there are two reasons for this.

First, it would be natural for a former elected Member of Parliament to have imbibed the political views of the party he or she used to represent. Even if a public prosecutor who was previously a Member of Parliament does his or her sincere best to be objective, they cannot but help be a product of their previous beliefs, which they perhaps still hold. A public prosecutor who was a Member of Parliament of a political party and steeped in the party's ideology for years, is likely to hold certain beliefs and approach things in certain ways.

Second, if there is no connection between the public prosecutor and the Government in power, this engenders greater faith among the public that the prosecutorial system is fair and conducted without fear or favour. Another aspect to this is that even if a public prosecutor is completely objective and able to divorce himself from his previous political loyalties and beliefs, it is possible that the public may not believe it. This is especially so in light of the internet and the easy accessibility of the Member of Parliament's political views when in party politics. Sir, public confidence in the independence of the system is critical. Even if there is objective independence, is their perceived independence? And insofar, as public confidence and trust is concerned, perception is highly significant.

It is noteworthy that the Attorney-General's Chambers made it a point to release a statement that the Attorney-General, Mr Lucien Wong was not involved in any prosecutorial decisions regarding Ms Parti Liyani, and that he would recuse himself from the review of the case. This is a clear indicator that the Attorney-General's Chambers and the current Attorney-General himself recognised that the public cares about independence and that public perception matters in reinforcing the rule of law.

Sir, the Government made its position known on this matter at the Committee of Supply Debate in 2017 when the then Senior Minister of State for Law, Ms Indranee Rajah responded to a cut on the Attorney-General Chambers by Ms Sylvia Lim. On the matter of the political affiliation of the AG, the Government's position was that in many first-world countries, the AG was a political appointee and that these countries had deemed such a system to be perfectly proper.

However, there are many things that Singapore does differently to deliver effective and robust outcomes in light of unique local circumstances. The political dynamics, competitive political systems, and the limits to political terms, in many first-world countries also operate to represent a check on political appointees.

Ours has been a one-party dominant state for more than half a century. So, the point of an independent public prosecutor free from political links would in fact buttress the rule of law and remain in step with the continued development of an autochthonous legal system.

Of course, Mr Speaker, no matter what is done to entrench independence, there will always be someone who is dissatisfied or will imagine conspiracies. But in law, we invoke a reasonable person who in more misogynistic times, was the reasonable man. What level of independence would satisfy a reasonable person? To this, what I would forward, Mr Speaker, is that the current system can be reviewed and improved against the prospects and perceptions of non-independence.

My final suggestion is a short one. To strengthen the system, the public prosecutor should have criminal justice experience, whether as a prosecutor, defence counsel or judicial officer. Again, public perception that the public prosecutor is qualified for the job is critical. While this may not always be possible in all cases, a commitment to criminal law and a deep desire to understand and master it is critical.

Let me now move on to my third point which is that there are simply no robust reasons for not splitting the roles of the Attorney-General in two. Ms Sylvia Lim raised the splitting of the roles of the Attorney-General at the Committee of Supply Debate for the Attorney-General's Chambers in February 2020. Senior Minister of State for Law, as he was at that time, Minister Edwin Tong responded. Essentially, his reply was that a large proportion of the public has confidence in our justice system; our system is working well, and it has sufficient safeguards. The implied conclusion was that it is not necessary to split the roles. At no point did Minister Tong say either why it is a bad idea to split the AG's roles or why it is preferable for the roles of the AG to be held by the same person.

The Workers' Party understands that policy-making and in this case, amending the Constitution often involves trade-offs and crucially an eye into the future about how a law or policy will serve situations that had not been originally envisaged and can last the test of time. However, I would argue that there are no negative trade-offs in splitting the roles of the Attorney-General into the public prosecutor and the Government's legal advisor. From the perspective of justice and independence, there is only upside. The only reason I can think of for the roles of the AG to be held by one person is that somehow, we lack sufficient legal talent in Singapore to find two people to fill the roles of the Government's legal advisor and public prosecutor.

However, that is unlikely to be the case. Right now, in the Attorney-General's Chambers, there is an Attorney-General, two Deputy Attorney Generals, the Solicitor-General and a Deputy Solicitor-General. While the Deputy Solicitor-General heads the Legislation Division, there is also a Chief Counsel who leads the Civil Division and the Director-General who heads the International Affairs Division.

Mr Speaker, those are my three points for this topic of splitting the role of the AG. There is weakness in the current structure and improvements should be made to strengthen the system. There are also no robust reasons for all the AGs' roles to be held by one person and to that end, I support Ms Sylvia Lim's call for this issue of the splitting of the Attorney General's roles to be reviewed by a Constitutional Commission.

Mr Speaker, let me conclude this way. Let us think of our justice system as a house which has served as a family home. The house may have stood firm for decades and the occupants may have lived safely, but there is a flaw in the foundations. If a future occupant of that house uses it in a way that it was not meant to be used, for example, like for commercial storage or is a restaurant, the foundations may give way, harming all the occupants of the house. There is no reason why we cannot fix the foundations or at the very least strengthen it now.

In doing so, we can move the needle on justice and independence in our legal system and in doing so leave a more secure justice system that reinforces the rule of law in Singapore for our next generation. I support the Motion in the name of Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

7.59 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. Notwithstanding my exchanges with the Minister for Home Affairs just now, I would like to state my case again for an open and independent inquiry into Parti Liyani's case for further consideration by the Government.

Mr Speaker, the Progress Singapore Party’s stance is very clear. We think that the wide implications of the lapses in the criminal justice system in the Parti Liyani case warrant an open and independent inquiry.

I do not think it is unfair to say that there were lapses in all three major institutions of our criminal justice system – the Police, the prosecution and the State Courts.

We were extremely fortunate that Ms Liyani’s counsel Mr Balchandani had an unwavering conviction to ensure that justice was done, and the High Court caught those errors and reversed them, thus preventing a miscarriage of justice.

While it is of absolute importance that both MHA and AGC conduct their own internal investigations, it is frankly not enough.

There are three main points of concern with merely conducting an internal review. Firstly, it is not unreasonable to say that most would want to paint the best picture of the situation when it is your organisation on the line. Are they independent enough to be completely objective in their review?

Secondly, systemic issues are not going to be caught by piece-meal internal investigations since they are conducting micro and not macro level investigations. An independent inquiry would be able to examine the entire criminal justice process across all the three major institutions to ensure that systemic problems, where identified, are acknowledged by the various institutions and considered for improvement to the system.

I would like to draw the House’s attention to an example of an independent inquiry and that was the Committee of Inquiry or COI into the MRT breakdowns of 2011. In the wake of the two consecutive breakdowns in December 2011, then Minister for Transport Lui Tuck Yew convened the COI which ran in parallel to SMRT and LTA’s own internal investigations as concerns were raised about possible systemic shortcomings.

I quote the former Minister, “LTA and SMRT have also started their own separate internal investigations. This is to be expected. Both parties clearly have the duty and responsibility to find out what went wrong, especially for those areas that they are accountable for… The COI on the other hand is an independent party appointed by the MOT and will also look into the larger systems issues beyond that which SMRT and LTA will cover in their respective probes”.

Compared to the MRT case, the systemic failure in the Parti Liyani case needed even more coordination in order to be addressed because it is not restricted to one Ministry but also involved the AGC and the State Courts.

Thirdly, it is appropriate to reiterate that justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done. An internal review by the relevant agencies alone, is unlikely to assuage those doubts amongst our citizens, nor that justice was seen to be done.

Singaporeans like to know why a simple theft case involving an underprivileged in our society has taken four long years to see the light of day. The time and resources required in our criminal justice process means that the odds are stacked heavily against the underprivileged in our society. How can we improve the access to justice for these people?

Although the legal process is based on evidence, Singaporeans are also looking for answers as to why there was little compassion shown to the underprivileged in our society. Especially in this case, both parties were on opposite ends of society, one party living in the highest echelons of society and the other the complete opposite.

In his appeal judgment, Justice Chan Seng Onn has also raised some questions about the plaintiffs’ motive in filing their Police report. So it is not just the lack of compassion but there is also a perception of favouritism among some segments of Singaporeans, where the rich and powerful can directly or indirectly enjoy the power of the state to their benefit.

This has to to addressed seriously. As Han Fook Kwang put it, “People can accept huge differences in wealth, say, between a business tycoon and his servant. This is the reality of a capitalist society like Singapore. But they will revolt if, on top of this wealth gap, there is a privilege and entitlement divide that separates the elites from the masses.”

Convening an independent inquiry with hearings that are open to the public, or live-streamed, would go a long way to show our citizens that justice is being done. Mr Speaker, Chinese please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Singapore Progressive Party calls on the Government to set up an independent committee of inquiry as soon as possible for further investigation if there are systemic problems in our criminal justice system.

Internal investigation by the various criminal justice agencies are not enough to restore people's confidence in the impartiality of the Judiciary.

Singaporeans do not understand why a seemingly simple theft case involving a person belonging to the vulnerable group took more than four years to see the light of the day. The effect that there are so much resources are needed to go to Court means that our judicial system is unfair to the disadvantaged group. We have to give the disadvantaged a fairer chance.

Despite the fact that the law is based on procedures and evidence, it is difficult for Singaporeans to understand why our legal system is almost completely unsympathetic towards the disadvantaged groups. In particular in the Liyani's case, parties are at an extreme opposite of the society, with one party at the highest echelon of society and the other at the lower end.

In his judgment, High Court Judge Chan Seng Onn also expressed doubts about the motive of the plaintiff in reporting the case. This had led many to suspect that our system is only lacking in compassion but also that the rich and powerful may use the power of the State to seek welfare for themselves.

So, we must do all we can to dispel these doubts.

As Han Fook Kwang said that people can accept huge welfare between a business tycoon and his servant because it is reality in Singapore, a capitalist country. But if there is a gap of privileges beyond this welfare between the rich and the poor which separates the elites from the people, then the people will definitely revolt.

The best way to dispel any doubt is to set up independent committee of inquiry and broadcast the proceedings live. This will prove to our people that our country will uphold justice.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

8.09 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, fairness, access and independence should be affirmed as cornerstones of Singapore's justice system. In pursuing these goals, we should address shortcomings and blind spots in our current institutional matrix of laws, regulations, policies and practices relating to justice.

Sir, I should focus my speech on only one recommendation that I would argue would advance significantly towards that goal – creating the office of an ombudsman.

The Workers' Party has advocated for setting up the office of an independent ombudsman in our GE 2015 and 2020 manifestos. In its GE 2011 Manifesto, the Workers' Party proposed the establishment of an independent Police Complaints Commission for some of the same reasons.

Sir, an ombudsman would function as an independent office to investigate complaints about administrative decisions or actions of a public agency, including delay, rudeness, negligence, arbitrariness, inconsistency, oppressive behaviour or unlawfulness.

Parti Liyani's case has raised the question of wider access to the criminal justice system and avenues of redress on the part of those with lesser means. An ombudsman would provide access to an independent public office with remit and resources to investigate potential wrongdoing, errors, lapses or weaknesses in the conduct of public officials.

The office of the ombudsman would be open to Singaporeans of all backgrounds and income profiles.

The remit of the ombudsman in our proposal would extend to the conduct of all public servants, including the Police and the prosecution service. In so far as the Police are concerned, this role has parallels with that of independent Police Complaints Commission's or councils found in other jurisdictions, such as the UK and Hong Kong.

However, the ombudsman would not have the authority to investigate complaints against the Judiciary so as to protect the vital tenets of judicial independence from any potential or inappropriate external interference.

Sir, the idea of creating an office of the ombudsman in Singapore is not new by any means. Let me recount some highlights of past public discussion about the proposal to establish an office of the ombudsman in Singapore. The idea has in fact been debated publicly and in this House on many occasions.

The 1966 Wee Chong Jin Constitutional Commission recommended instituting an ombudsman to ensure an independent check on the acts and decisions of the public sector, apart from the principle of Ministerial responsibility. The Government then responded that it was not rejecting the proposal but that it was not the right time to institute it. This was in the 1960s because citizens had not yet developed a clear understanding of their rights and obligations.

According to then Law Minister, Mr EW Barker, such an institution would be, and I quote, "flooded by complaints by people who do not know what are the limits of his jurisdiction".

In 1990, then Member of Parliament Mr Davinder Singh called for the establishment of the ombudsman, noting that, and I quote, "it is in our interest that we develop a system of accountability, a system which will assure the man in the street that if he has a grievance, he can take it up to a person or a body who has a right or has a power to look into it, look into the files of the Ministry, if necessary, or bring a complaint of shoddy treatment up to the superiors".

In 1994, as has been alluded to earlier today, then backbencher and current Law Minister Mr K Shanmugam also raised it in Parliament, suggesting that an ombudsman, and I quote, "might actually help retain the confidence of people in the system, to have an intermediate institution which can provide for a quick and effective remedy and reserving the final appeal to the minister for extreme cases".

In 2011, then Member of Parliament and now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Pritam Singh, called for the establishment of an ombudsman during the debate on the President's Address, noting that former President, Mr Tony Tan, had revived interest in this during the presidential campaign.

Mr Singh asked a Parliamentary Question in 2012 as to whether the Government will consider whistle blower protection legislation and the institution of a national ombudsman to act as a layer of deterrence against wayward civil servants.

In response, then Deputy Prime Minister Mr Teo Chee Hean stated that there are multiple channels for raising irregularities. Independent bodies, like the Public Service Commission, the Auditor-General's Office and CPIB are involved in the process.

Sir, other Members of Parliament who have spoken in favour of the idea of an ombudsman over the years include Mr Zaqy Mohamad in 2013, my colleague, then Non-Constituency Member of Parliament and now Member of Parliament Mr Dennis Tan in 2016, Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin in 2016 and Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Mr Kok Heng Leun in 2017 and myself in 2018.

Sir, there are a number of arguments for an ombudsman in the Singapore context. I shall attempt to summarise these in the following three points.

Firstly, an ombudsman could undertake an inquiry that is independent from and seen to be independent from a public sector agency, which is the subject of a complaint, setting it apart from internal enquiries that occur within Ministries or Statutory Boards, by the quality service department, for example. Having access to such a check would, in fact, bolster the standing of the Public Service.

Secondly, an ombudsman would be equipped with investigative resources and a remit to independently investigate complaints that organisations like the Auditor-Generala's Office and Public Service Commission do not currently have.

Thirdly, an ombudsman may uncover policy gaps or institutional shortcomings that are not related purely to corruption, accounting or corporate governance that are dealt with by the CPIB and Auditor-General's Office, as I argued in Parliament in 2018. The office of the ombudsman could therefore table a review paper every year analysing in aggregate, the cases it had dealt with, describing any systemic patterns discerned and putting forth evidence-driven recommendations for systemic change in how the Public Service interfaces with citizens.

In 2016, during the public discussion on the Constitutional amendment to the elected presidency scheme, scholar Mr Chirag Agarwal published an op-ed essay outlining outlining how an ombudsman could benefit Singapore, and I think it is worth citing that. To paraphrase, he argued firstly, the delivery of public services has become more complex and citizens have become more demanding. Parliament has had to address specific incidents involving Government agencies. An ombudsman should be able to investigate such incidents in the first instance and recommend corrective action where necessary while the Government focuses on developing sound public policy. The Government could then consider any policy recommendations made by the ombudsman in its annual report. Secondly, an ombudsman could also quash unsubstantiated claims and vicious attacks on the Public Service by conducting a transparent and independent investigation into any allegation. And thirdly, the transparency and independence of the ombudsman will help build trust in the Government.

Next, Sir, I would like to consider examples of other jurisdictions that have created the office of an ombudsman or its equivalent.

A 2018 OECD working paper noted that almost 30% of governments have included independent institutions like ombudsman offices to foster a more "open state" which OECD recommendation on the council open government defines as and I quote, "When the executive legislature judiciary independent public institutions and all levels of government recognising the respective roles, prerogatives and overall independence according to their existing legal and institutional frameworks collaborate, exploit synergies and share good practises and lessons learnt among themselves and with other stakeholders to promote transparency, integrity, accountability and stakeholder participation and support of democracy and inclusive growth."

Notably, 96% of the ombudsman institutions studied in this report focus on complaints against the public administration and 67% also conduct mediation of such complaints between citizens and the public administration. This is the OECD, the club of more developed economies.

A 2011 report by the Asian Development Bank or ADB noted that most Asian Ombudsman Association or AOA members focus on the following mandates.

One, providing redress for individual complainants. Two, addressing systemic issues to improve public administration. And three, enforcing accountability in government. The ADB report noted that an ombudsman can be established either under the Constitution by statute or administrative regulations. Some relevant Asian AOA member institutions of interests and their legal basis includes the Ombudsman of Indonesia created under presidential issuance decree number 44; the Ombudsman of Hong Kong created under the Ombudsman Ordinance in 1989; Malaysia's Public Complaints Bureau created under administrative circular number 4 in 1971; the Philippines Office of the Ombudsman created under the 1987 Constitution Republic Act.

Sir, I shall highlight for more detailed treatment here, just two examples, Hong Kong and Australia.

Established in 1989, the Ombudsman in Hong Kong monitors public governance. The office strives to improve the quality of public administration and enhance the culture of service through independent objective and impartial investigation into complaints received and by self-initiated studies in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Ombudsman has powers to: firstly, investigate complaints from aggrieved persons about maladministration; secondly investigate complaints against government departments and agencies for non-compliance with a code of access to information; and thirdly, initiate direct investigation into issues of potentially wide public interest and concern.

Next, let me turn to Australia. The office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in Australia safeguards on aims to safeguard the community in its dealings with the Australian government. It is responsible for ensuring that the actions of agencies are fair and responsible by: (a) handling complaints; (b) conducting investigations; (c) performing audits and inspections and (d) encouraging good administration. The office of Commonwealth Ombudsman was created by law in 1976 in Australia. The Act provides that the Ombudsman is to investigate the administrative actions of Australian government departments and agencies. The Ombudsman interestingly is also the law enforcement and ombudsman and can investigate complaints about the actions of the Australian Federal Police or AFP, and about the policies, practices and procedures of the AFP as an agency. If a person is dissatisfied after making a complaint to the AFP, they can make a complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman reports to Parliament, at least annually, on the comprehensiveness and adequacy of the AFP's complaint handling.

Sir, next, I would like to talk about next steps. I have argued for the creation of an office of independent ombudsman in Singapore to investigate complaints against public servants. We propose submitting the idea of creating such an office as an item to be considered in the external review described by my Party Chair and Member of Parliament, Ms Sylvia Lim.

The review process could consider the role such an ombudsman could play in our current eco-system of laws, regulations and practices, in the context of the questions raised by the Parti Liyani's case and taking into consideration and useful lessons from the study of the operating model for an ombudsman in force at other jurisdictions.

Sir, there are various models on how an ombudsman could actually operate, found in different jurisdictions around the world. The classical model is that of an office with extensive powers to investigate cases, question witnesses and requisition documents, one where the ombudsman may work towards mediation of conflicts. If no solution can be reached, they will provide recommendations to the relevant administrative unit. That is the classical model. In this model, the office would have no power of coercion and can only apply soft pressure to get the recommendation accepted. The ombudsman would submit an annual activity report to Parliament.

Sir, this is close to the model common in Western Europe and some commonwealth countries, including the UK, Australia, Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands and Hong Kong. So, in other words, the model for an ombudsman could be as follows: the office investigates all complaints using an objective process of fact-finding. The office of the ombudsman would then recommend follow-up action to the public sector agency concerned. If the follow-up action is not undertaken to a satisfactory extent, the ombudsman would have recourse to the Courts or would have other means of recourse, such as publishing its findings, for example. The ombudsman would be appointed by Parliament for a fixed term and would be answerable to Parliament.

The office of the ombudsman could be enshrined in the Constitution in an Article that could also specify the grounds for disqualification. Such an Article on disqualification could be modelled on Article 72 of the Constitution for the Presidential Council for Minority Rights or the mechanism for the removal of Judges under Article 98(3)(iv). I should stress that this is one model for constructing such an office that seems to me to be reasonable but the question of the operating model for an ombudsman warrants far deeper scrutiny before an appropriate model is defined.

Next, Sir, I would like to deal with objections to the idea of an ombudsman.

Currently, the Singapore Government rejection of the notion of an ombudsman seems to be premised on the fact that there are sufficient mechanisms already in place to receive public feedback, safeguard public trust and maintain the integrity of public institutions. I shall attempt to deal with these objections one by one.

First, we have the possibility of internal reviews within Ministries and Statutory Boards. But as I mentioned earlier, these would risk not being seen as independent and thus potentially leave open the possibility of a growing trust and confidence deficit.

Second, we have the citizen's right to sue the Government in Court. However, most citizens in Singapore believe that this avenue of redress comes with considerable, if not, prohibitive cost, in terms of money and time, and they believe this for good reason. Citizens will first have to find a law firm willing to sue the Government and face the AGC as an opponent. Next, if it is a judicial review action, leave of Court to commence such an action must first be obtained and only then can action be brought. Therefore, two sets of legal costs are involved in a judicial review action.

Third, many documents are in the Government's possession and these may be denied to a litigant due to a claim of official secrecy. All these factors, taken together, explain the rarity of such legal action.

Thirdly, we have the Public Service Commission or PSC. However, the PSC is not an investigative body per se and does not possess the resources and expertise to look into complaints against the Public Service to approximate what we see in the office of the ombudsman in, say, Hong Kong and Australia. Moreover, the PSC does have powers to conduct investigations into misconduct by public servants, but only on a complaint by a Permanent Secretary as relates to sections 3 and 4 of the Public Services Disciplinary Proceedings Regulations. This means that PSC cannot conduct investigations and complaints brought by members of the public.

Fourthly, we have REACH but REACH again is not an investigative body that can probe the actions of public servants and provide closure in a way that is seen as independent.

Fifth, we have the Auditor-General's Office or AGO but the work of the AGO is primarily focused on the annual audit of public sector which involves randomly selecting agencies for audit checks on a sample check basis as auditors do. No doubt the AGO can be ordered to conduct off-cycle special audits. In 2016, I obtained a Parliamentary reply to the effect that there have only been two AGO Special Audits ordered by the Government in the past 20 years. The first related to claims made by Opposition Members of Parliament in Parliament about healthcare subsidies in 1996. The second was a request audit of the Workers' Party left Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council in 2014. However, Sir, the AGO is currently not set up to field the broad complaints about public sector lapses, errors or poor quality of service.

Sixth, we have the CPIB but the CPIB only investigates and resolves allegations of malfeasance, corruption and so on, which are potentially criminal offences, not oppressive, unfair or rude behaviour by public servants, for example; or flaws in the complaints handling process, for example.

And seventh, we have Meet-the-People sessions. It has been a hallmark of our system that Members of Parliament write letters of appeal to Government agencies to address the grievances of constituents. But, Sir, these appeals are subsequently addressed by the agencies themselves. The process does not amount to an independent investigation by an external agency, resourced and qualified to do the same. Members of Parliament's letters merely present the perspective of the constituent. There is no independent fact-finding.

Lastly, Sir, let me address the objection that creating an office of the ombudsman will incite a flood of frivolous complaints against public servants, consuming enormous resources and sparking the growth of a complaint culture that may undermine confidence in the Public Service and induce public servants to do their work defensively, as it were.

One can discern echoes of such an argument in the response of former Law Minister, Mr EW Barker to the idea of an ombudsman in the 1960s. Considering this argument more closely, one can see that this is an argument against creating responsive complaints handling processes of any kind rather than being an argument specifically against the institutional form of an ombudsman.

If we are worried about the system being flooded with frivolous complaints, ought we not to similarly abolish Quality Service or QS departments in Ministries, for example? Why does an ombudsman risked triggering a flood whereas these other institutional forms of complaint handling do not?

Moreover, if a flood of complaints is occasioned by the creation of an ombudsman as it were, might that not be proof that there were latent grievances that members of the public hesitated to bring forth reasons of lack of confidence in existing channels of redress? If a reasonable fraction of those latent or pent-up grievances turn out to be legitimate, would addressing them not be a good thing for the quality of justice and fairness in our social fabric?

Mr Speaker: The Member will be reminded he has 20 seconds left.

Mr Leon Perera: Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, and just in time, the office of the ombudsman would concentrate professional investigative resources into handling complaints of lapses, errors, poor processes and blind spots in the work of public servants. In doing so, it would strengthen public confidence in the state among our citizens since they would know that there is an independent avenue of redress accessible to the ordinary citizen who cannot afford costly legal action against the Government. Such a move would be a significant step towards achieving what this Motion today calls for, making justice accessible to all.

Mr Speaker: Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

8.30 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Fairness is one of the key foundations of our society. It is etched in our pledge as Singaporeans. This democratic society is built on the basis of justice and equality. We were raised with these values and they are entrenched in us. Therefore, when something that goes against these values happens, we will reject it and our people will voice it out.

Recently, the Ms Parti Liyani's case has received a lot of attention and made people voice their concerns. This case involved a helper and her previous employer, Mr Liew Mun Leong who is from a well-to-do family. One issue that has arisen in the minds of many people is whether someone with a high position in society, like Mr Liew, had used his status to influence our justice system. Many questioned whether our justice system, which encompass the police, the Attorney-General's Chamber (AGC) and the Court, is truly fair and treats everyone equally. We have seen many news materials, sharing of opinions and comments about this case in the traditional media and social media. Maybe not everyone knows each detail of this case or had the opportunity to read all 100 pages of the written judgment of the High Court judge, but many were affected by the issue of fairness that was raised.

When doubts were raised about the system and processes in our institutions arising from the decision of the High Court judge and the public concerns in this matter, the Government took steps to investigate further. This reflects the transparency of the Government and our commitment to fairness. Minister Shanmugam, from when this case was first raised, had already stated that we have to find out what happened, how it happened and later deal with it; and take responsibility. He said that it was the best way to build people's trust towards our system. After that, he said, we should disclose the steps that we have taken openly after the review is completed. This has been done.

Earlier, Minister Shanmugam had analysed in detail the specifics of this case. He gave a report on the findings of the investigation that was carried out and answered Members' questions regarding this matter. The investigation showed that, amongst other things, indeed, there is room for the police and the Attorney-General's Chamber to improve the process of preparing the case for trial. For example, the Police should not have taken so long to take a record of the things that were said to be stolen after the police report was made. This shortcoming was acknowledged and assurance was given that this matter will be given attention.

However, there was no finding of any wrong-doing or influence over the police or AGC. There was no evidence that showed any personal relationship between the Liew family and the police, the AGC or the judge. The police and prosecutors actually considered this case as a routine case such that the superiors were not aware of this case while it was in progress.

The reality is that, specifically for this case, there is no basis to say that there is unfairness or wrongdoing in the judicial process.

The question now is whether the issues of justice and fairness are systemic, are we seeing wrongdoing that is happening pervasively in our justice system? Is our justice system broken to the extent that we need a review?

On this, I would like to raise a few matters.

Firstly, I feel it is important for us to realise that for each case that is portrayed in the media, there are many other cases that are dealt with by the police and prosecutors. In 2019, there were 35,209 criminal cases recorded. In the same year, the prosecutors dealt with more than 500 trial cases and 6,189 cases where the accused pleaded guilty. The cases that are shown by the media usually have elements that are sensationalized, but when you look at it deeper, there are good explanations that are given, like the Parti Liyani case that we discussed earlier. If we follow the explanation that is given whenever a controversy is raised, we can see the reasons why a certain decision is made. In general, we can say that the cases do not raise any issues or show pervasive unfairness in our system.

Secondly, I also wish to mention how this principle of fairness is something we see broadly in our judicial system including in the civil courts. I was a lawyer specialising in civil and divorce cases. I worked at a medium-sized law firm. The clients that come to see me for help come from different backgrounds. Many had modest incomes. Sometimes my client has to face a big company represented by a big firm. However, in my experience, the judge does not look at someone’s financial ability or skin colour and is always fair. Each party is given the opportunity to present facts and evidence.

I still remember, a few years ago, our client was a lady who had lost her husband. Her husband, a motorcyclist, was hit by a bus and later passed away. We made a claim against the bus driver and the bus company which were represented by a bigger firm. However, that was not a barrier to getting a fair trial. I was affected by that case because as we were going through the Court process, at one time, the woman became emotional and stated that she did not want any compensation but she wanted the other side to return her husband. It was sad to watch her situation but fortunately, the case was resolved.

Winning or losing does not depend on someone’s life status and a decision is made based on the truth, what took place and the prevailing laws. The justice system is indeed blind; it does not look at whether a person is rich or poor, man or woman, and it does not look at your race or religion.

However, it cannot be denied that there is a worry that if someone cannot afford it, he cannot get the advice and legal representation and this would affect his ability to present the best case to the judge. He may also be hampered by legal processes which are complicated and which he does not understand. This what is talked about when we discuss access to justice.

I was on the panel of the Legal Aid Bureau for a while and managed to help with a few divorce cases for those who could not afford legal costs. Many lawyers are actually volunteers and there are many schemes to help those who have legal problems.

Aside from that, the Court processes are often updated and simplified so as to reduce legal costs. For example, uncontested divorces can be processed more easily at the Family Justice Courts.

Are all the assistance schemes adequate? Of course, we should continue to improve the existing help channels. In particular, there is room to increase assistance given to those who may not meet the criteria for existing schemes. I had highlighted this issue in my past speeches in Parliament. I believe that this is a work in progress. But I feel that it is important for us to acknowledge that there are processes and channels for help in our current system.

One more matter that I would like to highlight is the hope and desire of our society to see justice and fairness in all aspects of our lives, not just in Court. We will feel angry if we see discrimination happen at the work place. We will voice our unhappiness if we see a group in difficulty that is not being helped. We do not want to see anyone in Singapore left behind.

Like I said earlier, there are certain values which are entrenched in our society and these values shape our way of life in Singapore. Because of this, many systems in our country exist based on our values. If there is an issue of discrimination at the workplace, for example, there is a channel to make a complaint and ask for justice. If we see someone needing help, there is a help channel, for example through the Social Service Office (SSO) that we can refer to. Indeed, there are many efforts and programmes created to ensure that the needy groups are supported to have a better life.

The open discussion today also reflects the efficacy of our systems. The debate in this Chamber shows the maturity of our society and the existence of space to voice opinions. If our systems are broken and fairness and independence do not exist, today’s discussion could not have happened.

Our systems are surely not perfect and there is much that we need to keep doing. While we try to find the shortcomings and improve our justice system, it is important to preserve our society’s and the world’s confidence in the transparency and integrity of our system. If we are not careful, we may be planting seeds of doubt dan in time, the trust in our systems will be eroded.

I would like to quote the words of Chief Justice in the Terence Siow case

He said: "..there are few things more corrosive of the legitimacy of the judiciary, upon which the justice system is founded, than the perception that it is stacked in favour of any individual or class." The perception that the justice system favours a certain individual or group has the ability to chip away the legitimacy of our judicial system. This is true for all systems and institutions in this country. If a negative perception spreads, even though it is not based on facts, we will erode the trust of the people towards our systems and institutions.

We see many things happening in other countries where the trust in the key institutions of the country has disappeared. We cannot let this happen here. We have to ensure that our systems are always clean and transparent, but at the same time, we cannot just wantonly make baseless assumptions and damage people’s trust.

Therefore, although I agree with the call to continue improving any existing shortcoming, I feel that there needs to be a realisation and acknowledgment of the strength of our justice system, the existing continuous effort to increase its standards and the sincerity of the many officers who work in our institutions like the police and prosecutors who carry the responsibility to ensure the efficacy of our system.

I hope we can continue to uphold our existing systems and continue to protect it; and ensure that justice and equality continue to be the key foundations of our country.

A house is standing because of the joints

Which is cared for perfectly and well

A nation is strong with a promise

That our we guard our values with our hearts

(In English): Thank you.

8.43 pm

Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Sir, for letting me participate in this debate. Let me start by trying to deal with some of the points that have been raised. I thank Ms Lim and Ms He for recognising that the criminal justice system, taken in totality, works well – they are not saying the system is broken or ineffective – and that Singapore is a safe place to raise children, and the justice system has been instrumental in achieving that and that our justice system enjoys a good reputation. I think various indices were cited.

So, let me try and deal with specific points but let me start off by saying the speeches I have heard, particularly from the Workers' Party. Now, I will come back to Mr Leong Mun Wai. I hope he is in the Chambers. I do not think he is. Okay. Maybe we will have another discussion.

I would say – with the Workers' Party and the points made – we are on the same page. In many ways, we are pushing at an open door. It is not that any of these principles are new or in some way not thought of or that we are opposed to them. I think in large measure, from the speeches that I heard, you are setting out positions of principle, which we have no problems with, but sitting on the front bench here, we also got to decide how to implement it and how to pay for it. And so, therein comes some of the implementation issues. If I may say, actually, the very first point I will take illustrates that very well.

Legally, I think Ms Lim, Ms He Ting Ru and maybe Mr Dennis Tan talked about the importance of legal aid, particularly for the poor. We cannot be more agreed on this. Of course, we want legal aid for the poor and we do have legal aid for the poor. As I said, CLAS covers 25% of resident households or is intended to.

But I have explained why I do not want to make legal aid mandatory. I explained to you by reference to the UK example – that the moment you make it mandatory, then what happens? People game the system too and people game the system in this way. They will not be able to find lawyers who can do it for the fee that the state is prepared to pay, or an extraordinarily exorbitant fee is required, or lawyers do not come forward. And because you cannot find the lawyer to handle the case, therefore the case gets postponed. And I gave you real-life examples from a first class jurisdiction – UK. This is not a figment of anyone's imagination. You have got to deal with that. I think rather than going the same paths that others have gone and gotten into minefields, we should try and make it work.

I will also share with you – I had it in my original text but I took it out because of the length – the experience of Australia and New Zealand. New South Wales in Australia offers a fully government-funded public defender's scheme. Two thirds of its cases are outsourced to private lawyers. Government expenditure on criminal legal aid has seen a 50% increase from 2015 to 2019. Every time I show these figures, my Finance Minister gives me a look.

Similarly, when we enhanced CLAS in 2014, we were not in a very difficult budgetary position but we were all projecting for a time when we would be in a difficult budgetary position. I did not want to get into a situation where we will just be required to write bigger and bigger cheques without taking into account public interest.

The reason why any Member here, with a child who is 10 years old, would dare to let their child take public transport is because of our law and order system. That is a very precious privilege. It is a privilege – every lady in this room will be able to take public transport at any time of the day and night. That is a fundamental human right. You will not be able to exercise that in any comparable city, anywhere in the world.

There is a reason for all of that. That is because cases get dealt with properly. Crime is low. We have kept crime low at a relatively low cost to the taxpayer. But I accept we must also help the poor when it comes to legal aid for criminal cases.

Let me tell you about the Australian example – the case of Lloyd Raynay. He was an experienced lawyer accused of murdering his wife, received legal aid in 2013. Cost to taxpayers of his defence was around $2.3 million. Do you believe that that person should get legal aid at that cost in Singapore? I do not think you do. So, we should move away from absolutist positions to say, "How can we make it work?", because we are both on the same side on this argument.

Paul Cohrs was accused of murdering his mother and brother in 2018. Close to $1.5 million dollars in assets. He was offered legal aid because his assets were frozen. Court cases get delayed – I am talking about Australia now – because lawyers refuse to take on legal aid cases. Legal aid rates were considered inadequate; cases being adjourned. Victims and witnesses are having to endure a long wait for justice and preparation by prosecutors and the police wasted.

In 2016, court cases against alleged murderers of underworld figures, Barbaro and Yilmaz, were put off for more than one year because legal aid rates were inadequate for suitable lawyers to take on the lengthy and complex case. The government introduced reforms in 2020 to ensure more sustainable legal aid budgets, including changes in fee structures, introduced fixed-sum lump-sum payments for less serious criminal matters. And guess what? The legal industry opposed it.

New Zealand. Fully government-funded public defender's scheme. The total cost rising by 62% from $101 million in 2006 and 2007 to $164 million in 2018 and 2019. There was an independent review of the system in 2009 led by a senior civil servant. She concluded the system was open to abuse, including lawyers who game the system. I am not suggesting that lawyers will necessarily game the system but you have these experiences elsewhere and you got to be careful about it.

They delayed plea or changed plea part way through the process, maximised legal aid payments. Lawyers demanded or accepted top-up payments from clients. To curb the bill, they expanded the public defender's scheme but that was also opposed by the bar.

We, thankfully, have a relationship with a bar which is more constructive. They do pro bono through CLAS but I have said that we are now considering how we can set up a public defender's office which would be sustainable. So, in principle, there is no issue. The question is – how do you implement it.

Second, I think there was a question of bail. I think Ms Lim wondered if the Bail Court was comatose or still in existence. It is functioning, alive and kicking. It is in the State Courts. Court 4A undertakes the role of the Bail Court. It handles the grant of, or review of, bail. The Court aims to ensure that the bail reviews are dealt with expeditiously, minimise – we are again on the same page – the time spent by accused persons in remand and balance against the need to ensure that the accused persons attend Court or are available when investigations are required.

Since 2018, increasing number of persons in remand are being released on a reduced bail with e-tagging – because we can use technology. Between January and July, more than 180 accused persons have been released on reduced bail with e-tagging. In 2018, I think some Members will recall that the Criminal Procedure Code or CPC was amended to specifically provide for e-tagging and the Police are generally prepared to consider allowing personal bonds in more cases. So, again, on the bail issue, I do not think there is divergence here.

Three, on people who cannot afford to pay fines. I think the situation that Ms Lim highlighted was that some people run up a series of regulatory offences and then they find themselves unable to pay and then have to turn up to Court for these matters.

It is a tough issue when it comes to this because, in principle, you have the laws, you need to enforce them.

I think everybody agrees that you need to enforce them. Because if you have laws and you have fines that can be imposed but if people can break the rules – it can be as simple as parking, if people can park without having to pay the fines and fines will not be collected – then, the system will slowly break down. We cannot have that. We have to impose the fines.

But, then, there are a group of people we all feel sympathetic towards because they cannot pay. The fact that they cannot pay the fines then lead some on to other situations which sort of snowball and we really do not want that. I think that is a situation where other kinds of safety nets will have to come and try and help them. This is where MSF comes in, the local Member of Parliament, or MP, comes in, for situations like that.

But where the agencies come across this, some agencies may be able to handle it but, generally, the agencies are not best placed to go and make distinctions between people – okay, you can pay the fine, you cannot pay the fine. I think we will very soon have a system that is dysfunctional. I think that sort of intervention has got to be an intervention from outside of the regulatory agency. But, in principle, we agree that there must be ways to try and find these people help.

Ms Lim also talked about how AGC sometimes – I am sure this is based on what the criminal bar has said because they have said this to me too – that officers sometimes prefer the most serious charge. I would put it this way. I think in the Parliament, when we debate like this, it is going to be general statements. If you say they should not put the most serious charge, of course, I agree. But we also agree that neither the Parliament nor MinLaw should be directing AGC on what charges are appropriate.

I think the starting point is what the Attorney-General has said at the Opening of Legal Year, which is that the DPPs ought to be told, and have been told, they are ministers of justice. They need to take an overview on this and they need to approach this with fairness. The Attorney-General and the Deputy Attorney-General have regular discussions with the criminal bar. These are issues they can deal with.

Recording of statements – again, I think the starting point is the same. We must get accurate statements. It must be fair to the person being interviewed. It must be something that the person who is interviewed can understand. I do not think it is going to be possible – the Police are not going to be able to record it in the language the witness speaks. But fairness must be there. So, we need to have the right interpreter and we must emphasise to the IOs that – look, it is not a question of getting down and putting it in the way that you want. It has got to be what the person is saying. This is a constant endeavour.

I am sure Ms Lim has, I am sure others have – I have – we have all come across situations where lawyers tell us – well, the statement has been taken in a way that is not quite accurate. They say that. I think you have got to discount some of it because it is seen from a defence's perspective. But it has happened too.

So, this is something, as I said, the golden standard would be if we can have video recording but in my Ministerial Statement, I explained, or in my clarifications, I explained the difficulties that we are having. Not that we do not want to do it. Actually, doing it would help the Police. It is protective of the Police but we cannot do it. We cannot expand it because of the specific resource constraints that I spoke about.

There was a question on the level of legal training of IOs. The Police officers who take on the IO role do take some legal modules on investigative powers, drafting of charges and statement of facts, to understand the Evidence Act, the burden of proof, presumptions, on general law, on general training for trial preparation. None of that is going to make them a lawyer and, I think, again, the real answer is what one of the Members asked me earlier – how quickly can we put the AGC and Police officers together early in the investigations so that there is that legal guidance?

It is a serious resource issue. The size of AGC is small. The size of the Police's IOs is small. To try and put them together to deal with these thousands of cases, is not going to be easy.

Ms Lim said something which I heartily agree with – that the specific Police IO in Ms Liyani's case does not become a scape-goat. I will start out by saying that we do not scape-goat people, but when I come to the Parliament, I cannot shy away from saying what has happened. I cannot shy away from saying that unfortunately – I did say "unfortunately" – he will have to face disciplinary inquiry. In my original statement, I actually said I am personally very sympathetic to the IO.

The Police were very uncomfortable with that because they take the disciplinary inquiry seriously and their view was that if the Minister says that, then it creates difficulties for them. But I am very sympathetic to the IO because we are all looking at this with hindsight and with a huge microscope, day by day.

So, I do say, "Poor chap". But rules are rules. He was there. He did not do it for five weeks. There are certain consequences. He is in an unfortunate situation. But I entirely agree.

Ms Lim also asked about instalment payments for fines. I have said it in the House here. I think we should try when people have difficulties in making payments to allow them to pay in instalments. The difficulty again is to distinguish between who can afford and who cannot afford. We do not want to go down the route of setting up another mechanism, more resources to go and check that. But subject to that, I have given directions earlier this year to the Police to consider in which areas we can go, for possibility of instalment payments on fines.

There were some points about young people, what sort of assistance they get when Police interview them, amongst others. Actually, for those who have not been following closely our criminal justice system and our system of imprisonment or incarceration, there has been a sea change in approach. Today, for example, the Prisons service tags itself as Captains of Lives. They are no longer prison wardens. When the people come in, the statistics show that there is a high likelihood of recidivism when they go out. They are going to come back again. So, our task is to actually be with them and make sure as much as possible that they do not come back. We do a lot of intervention when they are in there.

We actually want to go earlier, upstream, do not even let them become prisoners, do not even let them get into trouble. What can we do upstream? And we want to look as much as possible, for people who infringe or who have committed some offence. We want to see how we can move them away from the penal system to a more guidance programme for rehabilitation. So, the primary focus, if I can use one word to describe our system today, it is to focus on rehabilitation.

Which is why the very significant changes on first- and second-time drug users were put through legislation. And Parliament agreed with it.

So, for young people, we have diversionary programmes for those who commit minor offences. In the past four years, four to five hundred guidance programmes cases a year. Completion rate has been about 80% to 90%. We also have a guidance programme for young offenders who commit less serious sexual offences, like possession of obscene films and so on. We give them Adolescence Sexuality Treatment.

The Streetwise Programme is a voluntary programme for wayward young people. And we have an enhanced Streetwise Programme. For those involved in minor gang-related offences, they are sent to these programmes.

Our approach today is first, we try and prevent them from getting into Prison. Second, if they commit some offence, as far as possible, we put them in different tracks. We do psychological assessment. Even if they have to serve time, then, we see whether they have to serve the full time or whether they can be put through different programmes and then, put in halfway houses to the extent possible – of course, depending on the nature of the offence.

So, that has been the approach and if Members are interested, we can give them a specific, more in-depth briefing. But there has been a very significant change in approach here.

Ms Lim talked about victims in a couple of specific cases. Ms Lim, Ms He Ting Ru will accept, I do not know the facts, I do not know why specifically the matter was not proceeded with. All I know from what has been said in Parliament is that AGC advised that it cannot be proceeded with. Beyond that, I do not know anything else and I cannot comment on it.

There are always two sides to every story and we will have to ask AGC why it did not proceed.

Ms He said that defence lawyers face unequal access to witnesses and evidence. Again, in principle, I agree there should be fair access. What is fair, how do you detail what is fair, there might be a difference of views. It was not quite clear to me what exactly she said. But I am setting out a matter of principle here.

Access to counsel, I have dealt with earlier.

Ms He Ting Ru also talked about compensation for miscarriage of justice. I think in principle, if it is a vexatious case, if it should never have been brought, compensation ought to be paid. But on a regular basis, if every case, the state loses, you have got to pay compensation, then, I think I would take a different approach and a different view. I do think that would create chilling effect on prosecution. But I do not think that is what Ms He was suggesting.

Mr Dennis Tan expressed his concern about the young and the poor. I say for the record, we are all concerned. Mr Dennis Tan is not the only one who is concerned. I think his concern is legitimate but we are all concerned.

He also spoke about judicial training and he spoke about this point about rotation between the different parts of the Legal Service. I have given a very full answer and I have said that these matters are dealt with by various boards headed by the Chief Justice. He decides, together with his board, and there is, I described the Personnel Board for Judges and Personnel Board for Legal Service Officers.

Mr Tan also spoke about qualifications of Judicial Officers. These are matters for the Legal Service Commission. They will take into account. I told you about the Judicial Personnel Board. They will deal with it and choose. I think he got some of his facts wrong. The point he made about one year for Magistrates and three years for District Judges, or DJs – that is only possible when the Chief Justice is of the opinion that the person is suitable. Otherwise, the normal process is three years for Magistrates and seven years for District Judges.

In the State Courts today, we have 55 Judicial Officers who hear criminal cases. All are qualified persons who are at least seven years. I stand corrected – these are the figures I have been given. If it is inaccurate in any way, I will let Mr Dennis Tan know.

And training of Judicial Officers, again, I agree with Mr Tan, and it is already being done, as he will probably know – Singapore Judicial College. And Mr Tan agrees that this is a good development.

Mr Pritam Singh talks about disclosure, setting up a statutory framework on what needs to be disclosed. I think specific on Kadar vs Public Prosecutor, Mr Singh would recall, that I told this House that it is good in principle, the Kadar case, and should be followed. Maybe Mr Singh does not recall, but that is what I said.

So, the Government is absolutely ad idem with Mr Singh on this point.

Looking at setting out the disclosure requirements in statute, I am happy to tell him that, knowing that he is going to raise it today, we have been discussing it since early this year, internally. It has started with MHA; it is being discussed. I think it is unsatisfactory that it is left as a common law principle. So, we are going to put it out in statute – what is appropriate, what is fair, how do you framework it, which are the cases and principles you take. It is being discussed with various stakeholders; we have not discussed with the bar yet. I think we have discussed it with Supreme Court, I cannot remember specifically.

It has been something that we have been discussing since early this year. But this small event of COVID-19 has put many of these things out of kilter. So, a little bit more time is being taken.

Mr Singh also talked about how do counsel discuss relevance and non-relevance. I think all I can say to him is, AGC officers have an over-arching duty as ministers of justice. Mr Singh and I cannot be telling them what to disclose and what not to disclose. But the principles are clear. Again, as I have said, we will put it out in statutory form. So, he is pushing at an open door on this.

Ms Lim talked about more means for seeking compensation. I think she knows 2010, we amended the CPC to require the Courts to actively consider. Because we felt that while we had given the Courts the power to order compensation, we did not see enough cases where compensation was being awarded. So, I actually decided that we had to go further.

So, in 2018, the law was further amended and now, the Courts are required to give reasons if compensation is not awarded, where it has the power to do so. That requires an active consideration. Victims are there in a criminal case. Rather than requiring the victims to start another proceedings, decide then and there how much money should be paid. But if for some reason, you think that no money ought to be paid, you set out your reasons.

So, victims will be able to participate in the process by making submissions. It is really meant for simpler cases. The criminal Courts are not equipped to deal with complex hearings which are dealt with by civil Courts. And we also should be careful about dragging out proceedings because there is a knock-on effect on the Courts’ ability to deal with other cases.

The Courts have also been empowered to order compensation to the dependants of a person whose death was caused by an offence. For example, for bereavement and funeral expenses.

So, those are the points I wanted to cover. There are other points which I am sure some other colleagues will cover.

Coming back to Mr Leong Mun Wai and the Committees of Inquiry, he will recall the earlier exchange. He has agreed that there was no issue he could identify and there was no need for a Committee of Inquiry, or a Commission of Inquiry. But now, he has reversed himself and says, I suppose an hour or so in between, has helped him to recall why he wanted it in the first place.

Mr Leong, let me put it this way. You are quite wrong in saying this is an internal review by agencies. Let me explain. First, it has gone through a very public process with detailed cross-examination and an examination in the minute, a forensic examination of all the issues. Every possible issue relating to the Police, and AGC, and the evidence has been dealt with in great detail in public, in cross-examination and in submissions. So, what is it that you want from a review that has not been publicly set out?

Then, you have a High Court Judge who sets out his judgment and has set out what he said were the issues. So, you have got a judgment from a High Court, setting out, “This is where I felt that Police were lacking and this is where I think the AGC was lacking”. So, we had that process, which is, I think he would accept, an independent process.

Next, as regard to AGC, that is going to go for another Disciplinary Tribunal. And the officers will give account of what they did. It will be dealt with by the Disciplinary Tribunal or DT, and if the DT feels that there is a case to answer and it needs to be referred, it goes up to the Court of Three Judges. Or the DT dismisses it – whatever it is, that is another independent inquiry. So, that deals with the AGC part of your requirement for the Commission of Inquiry.

Then, the Police. Three specific issues were identified: translation and two other issues. I have dealt with them, the three issues.

You see, the duties of Members of Parliament, is not to come and repeat whatever is outside but to apply our mind, take whatever feedback there is, crystallise it, apply it to the facts, listen to the arguments on the other side, and then say, “Yes, I see all these; now, I will tell you what it is.”

Because if you ask for a Commission of Inquiry, it is because you are not happy with something. You feel that there is a reasonable basis for having an inquiry into something. So, you need to tell us which part of this requires further inquiry.

I will answer your other points, but perhaps I can invite you to answer that.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: I thank the Minister for giving me the chance to learn further.

When we look at this case, basically, it is a case where there are a number of possible systematic faults across this case. For example, from the Police to the AGC – you admitted there were lapses. And the AGC, there is a case that is still in the Courts now. And now, you have also disclosed or have said that the behaviour of some of the plaintiffs is not credible.

So, there are all these things. If there are so many of these problems, at every stage of the process, there is supposed to be a check on the problem. The way I listened to what you have said, now it seems that the problem is like being drilled down to a poor guy in the Police force. That cannot be the case. If one person makes a mistake, the next stage of the process is supposed to check on that and then stop the mistake from carrying on.

So, to a layman like me – as I have said, I am not a legal expert – and probably the average Singaporean in society, we will think that, eh, the whole process, why nothing stops this process from carrying on, making the poor Ms Liyani suffer for four years?

Mr K Shanmugam: If I could ask you, Mr Leong, I have heard about the four years. I will come back to the four years. Can you just help me because I have said we are happy to have – not happy – but we are prepared to have a commission of inquiry. I did say the officers involved will face Police disciplinary inquiry. Of course, the supervisor will face the disciplinary inquiry, too, because of the five weeks. So, we have settled the five weeks. So, what is it that requires the commission of inquiry? What is troubling you now? Do not give generalities. What, specifically, is the issue?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. We think that the systemic failures that I have—

Mr K Shanmugam: What is the systemic failure?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: The systemic failure is like what I have explained just now – why, in the process, was there no stopper? It just goes on and on. So, if this poor policeman makes the wrong investigation—

Mr K Shanmugam: What went on and on?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Basically, from the Police, it went on to the AGC.

Mr K Shanmugam: Wait, stop, please. The five weeks are a Police issue. It did not go on to anyone else. AGC issue, where it happened at trial, will be dealt with by a Disciplinary Tribunal. So, what is it about the Police – beyond the five weeks?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: You actually mentioned that there were some lapses in the treatment of the evidence. So, the five weeks. When this five-week thing happened, why did the superior officer in the Police force, for example, not identify the problem? And when this moved to AGC to make the prosecution—

Mr K Shanmugam: So, wait. Let us deal with the five weeks. I have told you that the IO and the supervisor were wrong and will be dealt with by way of a Disciplinary Tribunal. What is that you propose – what is your allegation? Are you suggesting that they did not do it because of improper influence? If so, say it and we will have a commission of inquiry.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: I am not saying that that is definitely the case.

Mr K Shanmugam: Okay, then tell me why we need a commission of inquiry.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Like what I have said, Minister, if a junior officer had done something, why was it not checked by a senior officer, and then the senior officer—

Mr K Shanmugam: The senior officer is now going to face a Disciplinary Inquiry, too.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. Then this senior officer made a mistake, this whole thing goes to AGC.

Mr K Shanmugam: So, let us leave the Police alone. That is what the Police did.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes.

Mr K Shanmugam: There was a lapse, unless we are suggesting or we have reason to believe. Let me tell you this.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay.

Mr K Shanmugam: In any system – and you have been in organisations – there will be lapses.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes.

Mr K Shanmugam: Lapses do not equate to Commissions of Inquiry. Lapses equate to disciplinary proceedings. Commission of inquiry is if there is something larger.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes.

Mr K Shanmugam: You are not suggesting – it is good that you have disavowed any suggestion of improper influence. I am happy that you have said that. So, once we accept that, then the question is, on these facts—and I have told you 10% of the cases succeed on appeal. I have told you there is another case where there was a break in the chain of custody. We cannot be having Commissions of Inquiry each time the High Court says that the Police have made a mistake. So, the reason why I was prepared to recommend a commission of inquiry was because I felt your suggestion was Mr Liew had improper influence. But now that you have disavowed that—

Mr Leong Mun Wai: We are not saying that, yes.

Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, thank you. And, therefore, in terms of how the Police handled it, the two officers – maybe more than two, or whether there were other IOs who have dealt with it at different times – that is a matter for the Police. Internal matter. And you would have heard me saying I welcome Ms Sylvia Lim's point. We do not want to make a scapegoat of this young officer. But, you know, rules are rules. He will be dealt with. So, leave aside the Police. There is no basis for a commission of inquiry against the Police.

For AGC, there is no basis for doing a commission of inquiry because if you accept that the AGC officers' conduct will be dealt with by the Disciplinary Tribunal, they will go into it – why they did it, what they did – you have got your independent inquiry. So, we do not need a commission of inquiry.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay. Like you said just now, Minister, in an organisation, when we do a cross-department investigation, sometimes, in the organisation when things like, for example, the Operations Department makes a mistake and the Finance Department—

Mr K Shanmugam: This inquiry internally was done by the CID, which is external to the IOs, and the next level of disciplinary proceedings will also be done properly and I did say to Mr Pritam Singh, if he was interested, I will let him know what the results are. But I need to go and check the law as to whether I am entitled to tell him.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay.

Mr K Shanmugam: All right. So, I think you will be good enough to agree that if those are the concerns, there is no basis for a commission of inquiry? Thank you.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, Minister. We thought that the systemic faults alone are enough to be a basis for the inquiry. But after your explanation, okay, we are prepared to accept that you have done a thorough investigation of the situation already, then we will withdraw our proposal for the inquiry.

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you, Minister.

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you very much, Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Leader.

Mr K Shanmugam: Okay. Now I am left with nothing else to answer. Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Then we do not need the Leader now. [Laughter.] Ms Sylvia Lim.

9.23 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Speaker. I have two clarifications for Minister on what he has just said.

The first clarification concerns his response to my suggestion on the recording of statements in languages other than English. He mentioned that while he does not think that that can be done, of course, he also said that I think the gold standard was video recording. But I would also like to highlight that, in the UK, actually, they do have provision in their Police and Criminal Evidence Act that when an accused person wants to give a cautioned statement in a language other than English, that the police will record the statement in that language and later on an English translation will be provided. I wanted to highlight that other countries have done it. So, I hope that he will not close his mind to the matter. And if this could be done – that means, recording the text of the statement in a language other than English – I think that would greatly increase reliability. That is the first clarification.

The second clarification is what he mentioned in response to my point on the victims. The two cases which I have mentioned, of course, I am not expecting the Government to comment on the merits of the cases. My reason for bringing them up is to highlight that no reasons were given to the victims for the decisions made and, more generally, to advocate for greater recognition in the Singapore system of the role of victims as stakeholders. And based on these two cases – and there are many others as well – it is clear that victims do feel disempowered and I think we can do better to recognise their role as stakeholders in the system.

Mr K Shanmugam: I do not really have a quarrel with either point. I think the recording of statements other than English, I know that Police have said, and I have a lot of sympathy for them that they have difficulties. We will look at the other countries and their models. But I have expressed the hope we are waiting for artificial intelligence and video-to-text automatically. We have looked at some, but they are not yet mature technologies.

On the second point of the role of victims as stakeholders, I think Ms Sylvia Lim would have heard me say, in fact, I have pushed for that. In fact, in 2018, we amended the law so that victims would be given compensation or the Courts would have to explain why they are not being given compensation, if the Courts so choose not to. But we will see where else the right role of victims can be better protected. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

Ms He Ting Ru: I thank the Minister for his response. I just have one point of clarification. Is the Minister saying that jurisdiction with more legal aid or a more beefed-up legal aid system will lead to bad outcomes? Are there not ways that we can expand our system or having safeguards to make sure that the abuses that he cited do not happen and that costs do not spiral out of control? Thank you.

Mr K Shanmugam: Thanks, Ms He. I was corrected by the Prime Minister that I had mispronounced your name.

I think the answer to both questions is, no, I am not saying any of those things. Again, I said we are on the same page. I believe like you that the poor should get legal assistance. We are doing it. I have said that I do not find the current system satisfactory and that we have been discussing for some time how we can do it better. I was addressing my remarks to some of the statements that you made but which were a little bit more absolutist – like this is a human right, this is cast in stone, it has to be done – and I pointed out that some of those may lead us into alleyways and byways which others have found themselves in and then we will get stuck in the weeds, and we would not be able to come back. So, we need to avoid those traps, but try and achieve the objective in a way that will make the Finance Minister reasonably comfortable. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to speak on this topic based on my personal experience.

My second posting in the Legal Service was at AGC. This involved significant decisions whether or not to prosecute a person or to charge a person. Let me give you an example. One of the cases I had prosecuted was to do with rioting. The facts of the case were that there appeared to be a riot in a foreign worker dormitory. Five foreign workers were charged for rioting. They were watching a sports match. Things got tense and people started to fight. But I was not sure whether one of them was even part of the fight. As a DPP, I raised the question to my superior that rather than being part of the fight, I thought that the foreign worker in question was trying to break up the fight. I was instructed to interview the foreign worker. I asked to do a site visit where the fight happened, in order to get a sense of the evidence. That was a foreign worker dormitory. In the end, we formed the collective view that, indeed, this man was innocent and had actually tried to break up the fight.

I went to Court as a DPP to ask for a discharge amounting to an acquittal for the foreign worker. He was set free because of AGC's application for a discharge amounting to an acquittal. That, to me, was my experience of the AGC – the integrity of the AGC. It is so easy to tar an institution, but I feel that, on the whole, AGC is an excellent institution, made up of good officers and I want to stand up and say that today. [Applause.]

In the example I gave, the foreign worker did not have a defence counsel. So, the decision-making was all borne on the shoulders of the DPPs in question and the superiors we reported to.

One has to appreciate within AGC the intense nature of the work, the huge number of investigation papers, evidence and statements, and on top of that, having to run trials, attend plea of guilt mentions and pre-trial conferences. It is tough work, as Minister Shanmugam said, it is dynamic. There is so many pressures and each decision has sometimes life or liberty of a person in question.

The second point, Sir, I would like to make is that a lot has been said about the trial Judge who handled the case at first instance in the State Courts. Here, I would also like to speak up for the system and see that there is indeed a lot of pressure on Judges. Many factors weigh in the Judge's mind.

Firstly, is the person guilty, beyond reasonable doubt? Then, the Judge needs to ask if indeed the person is guilty. What is a fair and just sentence? How does one tamper justice with mercy in a sentence? And in sentencing, there can be so many permutations. Again, I say this in this House with some level of experience – notwithstanding that experience as a very junior judicial officer – my first posting in the Legal Service, before AGC.

The Judge could be guided by retribution, which is a form of punishment. Or the Judge can be guided by deterrence which is to deter the accused or others from doing the same offence. Or a judge could opt for rehabilitation because he or she sees the sincerity in the offender and feels that he or she should be given a second chance to rehabilitate. Or the Judge can opt for restorative justice – which is my favourite type of justice – where the offender is given a chance to apologise for his or her mistakes and the relationship is restored between the accused and the victim.

Therefore, in addition to needing to weigh up evidence, that is, whether the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt or whether he or she should be acquitted, the Judge needs to decide what rationale of sentencing to apply. And so, judging is not easy. It is not easy and we have many excellent State Court Judges.

We will never be finished trying to improve the system. That is a constant. One listens to the Minister and all the speeches – we are all trying to improve the system, yes. But we have got a good foundation here. And there have been significant policy improvements over the years which I am aware of as counsel in private practice – which I declare to you, Mr Speaker.

For example, over the years, we have introduced the video recording of statements by an accused. We have expanded the criminal case disclosure regime by having access to more information, the defence would be able to better prepare a more accurate case. We have allowed video recorded statements to be adduced as verbal evidence under certain circumstances to reduce the trauma of vulnerable victims. We have introduced provisions allowing certain vulnerable victims to testify, shielded from the accused. We have introduced provisions to ensure that the victim's identity in an offence under the Children and Young Persons Act is held in strict confidence. And we have introduced more comprehensive offences to tackle the seriousness of child pornography and child abuse content.

Therefore, we do have a good system, Sir. This particular case has shown that there are still areas for improvement and I am heartened that the agencies will be reflecting on this case. I have every confidence that we can continue working from a good solid base towards a fair justice system for all.

So, we have a good system, Sir. It may need improving, but it is a good system nonetheless. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

9.37 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, migrant workers face a unique set of challenges when navigating the justice system due largely to their low socio-economic status in our society. Many of the problems they face will be in addition to those faced by low-income Singaporeans, which my Workers' Party's colleagues in this House have highlighted.

First, I would like to discuss the challenges faced by migrant workers who are victims of abuse, salary non-payment or other offences.

Migrant workers face steep power imbalances when dealing with employers and Government authorities. They are in a foreign land and may not speak our local languages well. They are far from their families and their friends back home. Some migrant domestic workers do not even have a local support network because they have limited interaction with peers outside of their employers' homes. They are unfamiliar with our local laws and customs and often do not know their rights.

When faced with a situation where they are mistreated or denied their salaries, they may hesitate to make reports to the authorities. This was the case for Miss Khalifa, a maid from Indonesia who endured six months of horrific abuse at the hands of her employers in 2012. She was sent back to Indonesia just as she was due for a medical check-up and chose not to tell the immigration officers of the abuse as she was happy to finally escape it. It was only when she returned to her village in Indonesia that her family discovered her injuries and made a report.

Migrant workers in these situations are often caught between a rock and a hard place. If they choose not to report the wrongdoing, it may continue or their perpetrators may get away scot-free. If they choose to report the offence and their case is taken up by the authorities, they will have to remain in Singapore to assist in the investigations and cannot immediately return to their loved ones at home.

The legal process takes time. For maid abuse cases that go to Court, the investigation alone can take at least a year while the trial could take another year, not to mention appeals. By the time the final sentence is passed, the entire process may have taken two years or more. In the meantime, the worker may not be able to work to earn a living. This can be financially ruinous as they are often the sole breadwinners of a large family back home.

While victims for assisting in investigations are issued with a special pass to remain in Singapore, this does not grant them an automatic right to work. They are still required to seek permission from the investigating authorities before working. Fortunately, in most cases, permission is granted for victims. However, this work may not come easily. Many employers may be hesitant to employ migrant domestic workers who are assisting in Police investigations. Some victims may be so traumatised by the abuse that they do not wish to risk being in such a dangerous situation again. They also have to look for a place to stay. The burden of sheltering them currently falls mainly on non-government organisations or NGOs.

Taking a step back, there are other factors which may give migrant workers great pause before they make a brave move to report their abuse.

First, many come from countries where corruption and abuse of authority is rife. This could make them inherently distrustful of authorities. Some may even need to be assured that Police officers in Singapore will not demand a bribe to take up their case.

Second, the employers may sometimes make or threaten to make counter-accusations against them, for example, accusing them of theft or damaging company property.

Third, in cases where there is no physical abuse, but strong elements of coercion or psychological abuse, the investigation might end with a warning but no punishment for the employers.

In all of these cases, the end result for the worker would likely be termination of their current employment and repatriation to their home countries.

The cost of premature repatriation is tremendous for these workers to find work in Singapore. They would have incurred thousands of dollars of debts owed to recruitment agents in their home countries. They would have to spend months, sometimes years, paying off these debts on the back up low salaries in Singapore. Being terminated and terminated and sent home will saddle them with huge debts, not to mention a loss of income and embarrassment for their families.

At the end of the whole trial, even if the perpetrator is convicted, the victim may not be financially compensated for the full extent of what they had suffered. While it is good that there is now a compensation framework for victims, this is not guaranteed as the perpetrator can escape payment of compensation by serving a jail term in lieu or claiming bankruptcy.

I will now move on to the challenges faced by migrant workers accused of crimes while in Singapore.

The same language hurdles encountered by victims are also faced by those accused of crimes. This was the case for Ms Parti Liyani who, according to the High Court judgment, was interviewed for some of her statements by investigators in a mix of English and Bahasa Melayu while she spoke Bahasa Indonesia. Her recorded statements were read back to her in English and translated into Bahasa Melayu by the Investigation Officer or IO. No Bahasa Indonesia interpreter was present for the recording of four of her statements.

During cross-examination in Court, the IO conceded that there was a difference between Bahasa Melayu and Bahasa Indonesia, and admitted that he could have understood Ms Liyani's statements in Bahasa Indonesia differently from what she had meant.

Justice Chan Seng Onn, in his judgment, also said that the likelihood similarly existed that Ms Liyani could have misunderstood the IO's questions during the interview and recorded statements read back to her differently from what the IO had meant. He was thus satisfied that there was a reasonable doubt in relation to the accuracy of the translation for two of the statements.

Accused workers also need to remain in Singapore to assist with investigations. Ms Liyani was arrested on 2 December 2016 and spent almost four years in a shelter managed by the NGO, HOME. While waiting for her case to be concluded, she was fortunate that HOME was able to find someone to post bail of $15,000 for her.

Most migrant workers accused of crimes may not be able to secure such a bailar. They faced a similar dilemma as victims when deciding whether to plead guilty or claim trial. Should they plead guilty, the time it takes for them to serve their sentence may be shorter than the time it takes to go through the Court process if they claim trial.

Ms Liyani was sentenced by the State Court to 26 months in prison, which was less than the four years she spent waiting for the outcome of the case. This presents an invidious choice for them. Even if they know that they are innocent, bizarrely, it is actually expedient for the migrant worker to plead guilty even if they did no wrong. But is justice served this way?

Should they claim trial, they may not find a lawyer and will certainly not be able to afford one.

The Minister for Law has mentioned that Ms Liyani's fees would have come up to $150,000. Criminal legal aid is available but not by default as they need to pass means and merits test. Even if they do, they may still not be able to find a lawyer willing to take up their case pro bono.

My Liyani was very fortunate to have a Singaporean lawyer, Mr Anil Balchandani, representing her pro bono at the trial and the appeal. Justice Chan commended Mr Anil for showing much skill and dedication in his work for this case.

I would now like to share some proposals on how we can make the justice system fairer for migrant workers who have to go through it, either as victims or accused persons.

First, we have to tackle the upstream problems, which severely hamper their bargaining power vis-a-vis their employers and contribute to their unwillingness to report abuse. We must find ways to reduce the high recruitment fees that migrant workers need to pay agents to find a job in Singapore. If workers do not feel such a sense of obligation to their employer because of a need to pay back exorbitant fees to recruiters, they will be more likely to report abuse when it happens.

I shared one solution to this during September's debate on the President's Address – to create a jobs portal that advertises all open positions for migrant workers. The positions should be open to only Singaporeans for a period of, say, two weeks before being extended to foreigners. With increasing IT savviness, migrant workers can even search for such positions from their home countries and apply directly. This move towards jobs transparency would cut out the middleman and reduce the need to pay exploitative fees to recruitment agents.

Second, support services should be provided to all workers who choose to make complaints against employers and find themselves without a home and a job. It should not be left entirely to NGOs and their limited resources. This support should include the provision of basic needs like food and shelter, counselling services and help on understanding their rights.

Third, every individual, local or foreign, should have access to legal representation. If they cannot afford a lawyer, legal aid should be made available to them. To prevent abuse, means testing could be done so that only those who are in genuine need will have their legal fees covered. I note that Minister said earlier that the public defender's office is under consideration. I welcome this and I hope that this will be pursued further.

And fourth, once the Court orders a payment of compensation to the victim, the system must ensure that the victim receives that payment. Victims should not be left high and dry, just because the convicted person is unable to pay. If necessary, a fund could be set up to ensure that victims are guaranteed to receive the compensation amount ordered by the Court.

In 2014, the AGC announced that it had formed an internal working group to focus on improving Court processes involving abused migrant workers. It mentions several areas it was looking at, including: one, exploring how to help more foreign maids get compensation for the losses they incur after they stop working because of abuse; two, improving Court processes involving abused foreign workers; three, securing medical reports and witness statements more quickly; four, persuading the Courts to fix early hearing dates; and five, expanding the use of compensation orders to help more maids obtain compensation for losses resulting from a criminal offence committed against them.

It has been six years since this announcement. What is the outcome of this working group? And what were their final proposals and which of them have been implemented?

Mr Speaker, migrant workers are among the most disadvantaged members of our society. Even though they are foreigners, they are an integral part of our society – looking after our children and elderly and building our skyscrapers and roads. As a developed country, it is our duty to ensure that they have equal access to justice if they suffer abuse or are accused of wrongdoing. Sir, I support the Motion standing in the name of Ms Sylvia Lim.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

9.50 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, my colleagues have discussed at length why the experience of many Singaporeans with respect to the justice system may differ from our aspirations for fair and equal access to justice as a society.

I actually wish to take a step back and ask the question of not so much where some areas within the system appear to fall short, but why we should care about the overall efficaciousness of the judicial system, which goes far beyond the events surrounding Parti Liyani's case.

Sir, I will share with this House, the concerns my colleagues have raised are not just a matter for jurisprudence. It is also a bread and butter issue that has implications for the business competitiveness and economic viability of our nation

Over the past decade, there has in fact been an erosion in the rule of law worldwide for which Singapore has sadly not been exempt because the success of the rule of law relies on the confidence of those who participate in it. It is crucial that our justice system does not merely provide for its reliability, but actually be perceived to be so.

Let me begin with a story of fence. This fence divides the city of Nogales in the State of Sonora, from the city of Nogales in the State of Arizona. Up until the First World War, Nogales was essentially one city. In 1918, armed conflict between the army and militia led to the construction of the first permanent border. Despite the shared history, culture and geography, the fate of those who lived on either side of the Nogales fence could not have been more different.

In Arizona, household incomes amount to about $30,000 a year, most teenagers are in school and life expectancy is relatively high by global standards. Residents are able to go about their daily activities with little fear for their lives or their property. Yet just a few feet away, in Sonora, however, most teenagers do not complete high school and most adults do not possess a high school certificate. Health conditions are poor with mothers worrying about the survival of their infants. And in contrast to their neighbours in the north, the rule of law is weak, with endemic crime and significant risks involved in the starting and running of businesseses.

This story, retold by economist Daron Acemoglu and political scientist James Robinson in their book "Why Nations Fail", underscores the importance of legal, political institutions, such as the rule of law in shaping economic outcomes. In particular, the authors argue that when institutions are inclusive, when decision-making is shared by many and the system is subject to robust checks and balances, human flourishing is allowed the room it needs to succeed, thereby bringing progress and prosperity for nations that subscribe to such quality institutions.

Singapore has historically distinguished Itself by being an island, literally and figuratively, of institutional stability in a sea of tumultuous institutional change. As a Crown Colony, we inherited a sophisticated legal system and chose to adhere to this conception of the rule of law following Independence. This choice has generally served us well, both from the perspective of natural justice and because the rule of law has been an important cornerstone that has underpinned our business and commercial activities.

We must guard against taking this inheritance for granted. Globally, the rule of law is in retreat. According to the World Justice Project, which my colleague Ms Sylvia Lim, cited earlier on, adherence to the rule of law has fallen for the third consecutive year since 2017. The World Bank's Governance Indicators also document an erosion in the rule of law since 1996 for developed and developing countries alike. Countries in Central Europe have experienced particularly marked declines in their adherence to the rule of law. Closer to our neighbourhood, a number of nations in ASEAN have also experienced reductions.

Although as Minister Shanmugam has argued, Singapore remains highly ranked, we sadly have not been exempt from this trend. We have seen a decline in indicators of the rule of law over time. The World Justice Project's assessments of the quality of civil and criminal justice fell to the lowest it has ever been since scores were first compiled in 2012. Our judicial independence as adjudged by the World Economic Forum continues to slide from its peak in 2008.

Mr Speaker, although documenting the roll-back in such called quantitative indicators of the rule of law may seem like an abstract exercise, they are in fact the lived reality for many. Indeed, the different measures of the rule of law are often constructed from the reported perceptions of the public and society at large, of the quality of their day-to-day interactions of citizens with the legal system, their sense of whether contracts are enforced, whether property rights are respected and whether the police and judges are trustworthy. This is why careful reviews such as what this Motion is calling for, are so important because they can restore the confidence of the public in the inherent fairness of the legal process. The objective is to ensure that there is a consistency between the intent of the existing laws on the books, what is sometimes referred to as the jury system, and the perceptions of how the law is practised, the de facto system.

If the gap in perceptions becomes too large, the rule of law risks becoming disconnected and hence, discounted by the public to the detriment of more than just justice per se. This is precisely why so many Members in this House have discussed the importance that the rule of law not just be done but be perceived to be done.

Now, when the rule of law is compromised, economic performance suffers. There is abundant empirical evidence that asserts this relationship. Deteriorations in the rule of law affect in particular domestic as well as foreign investment activity, as well as productivity and growth. Put simply, when people are insecure about the rule of law, they invest less, they produce less; and even when they work and invest, they are less productive.

Mr Speaker, most of us are keenly aware of the enormous success of South Korea over the past half century. We drive Kia and Hyundai cars. We watch movies on LG and Samsung TVs and smart phones, and many of us, including my dear mother and sister, go crazy over Kpop and Korean TV dramas.

What many of us may be less familiar with is that at the time of partition, it was North Korea that was the more prosperous half, the more industrialised part of the peninsula. Yet today, the city of Seoul itself produces more than 10 times the economic product of the entire economy of North Korea. There are, of course, many reasons for the ultimate difference in economic outcomes of the two regions, but one major factor was that the North chose to pursue an institutional path that failed to respect the importance of the rule of law while the South continued to do so.

So, when we flag concerns of fairness, excess and independence in Singapore's justice system, we are not merely talking about the alleged judicial missteps of the Parti Liyani case or about other cases of potential lapses in the fairness of the justice system, which my colleagues have mentioned. It is also about the divergent fortunes of the Nogales and Koreas of the world. And when we underscore the importance of the rule of law, we are not only trafficking in the realm of our shared notions of justice, but our common economic future as well. With that parting thought, I assert my support for the Motion.

10.00 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I recognise that fairness, access and independence are indeed cornerstones of Singapore's justice system. With that in mind, I have some proposals that I believe will help strengthen our criminal justice system. Many of what I will share has been discussed previously, but I hope to share further points in detail on some of these proposals.

My first point is about the Appropriate Adult Scheme that I raised in my Parliamentary Question that Minister addressed earlier. But can I appeal to the Government to re-consider and include foreign domestic workers for a start under this scheme and not all work permit holders? The scheme allows an independent and trained adult to accompany vulnerable groups who have to give statements to the Police. It is meant to ensure that the vulnerable person is not misunderstood during the interview.

It makes sense to also include FDWs into the scheme. After all, when we recently raised penalties for crimes against vulnerable people, we did specifically include FDWs as a class of vulnerable people. I completely understand the tremendous workload of our Police officers. So, may I suggest that MHA work with the NGOs for this and it might help ease the workload a little. I would be glad to help facilitate this process.

My second point is about video recording, and Minister has addressed this point significantly. All I am asking is whether MHA could share the timeline for the full implementation of this video recording. Hopefully, this can take place sooner rather than later.

My third point is about language interpretation. Can we ensure that all suspects are provided an interpreter in their own language and not just in a language that they understand, which the Minister has mentioned earlier? The key words here are "in their own language", which is used in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) in some sections.

We need to enhance the CPC. The Code is vague. It states that people who do not understand English should be provided interpretation in a language they understand. It provides no clarity on what is the standard of "understanding" and who gets to determine it.

Sir, it is clear that we need to tighten the Code to ensure there is no misunderstanding during the course of Police interviews. I propose that we set high but reasonable standards for language interpretation during Police interviews.

First, all Police interviews start with the Investigation Officer (IO) informing suspects that they can request for an interpreter. Second, the suspect should be provided an interpreter in their own language. They should get to declare what this language is and this should be officially recorded. Third, the interpreter should have professional certification or relevant experience to ensure their services rendered are of suitable quality. Fourth, new rules should be introduced to mandate that interpreters follow certain protocols. For one, they should stick strictly to interpretation and avoid providing any legal advice or personal inputs. Programmes could be set up to accredit interpreters who receive training in this regard. Fifth, Police interviews should not start unless the interpreter is in the room. Sixth, the interpreter should arrive with minimal delay. Otherwise, a suspect may accept the absence of an interpreter to avoid being detained for an unduly long period of time. Seventh, the interpreter should not only translate the final statement, but also interpret what the Police officers and the suspect say.

Some of these points were addressed by Minister Shanmugam earlier and I am glad he has stated that some changes will be made. But I hope that all the points I have raised above will also be considered.

Sir, I recognise that there may be operational and cost considerations to having interpreters quickly and universally available. But we cannot have a situation where Police questions can be misunderstood, and we cannot allow suspects the opportunity to later claim that they had misunderstood questions. In the grand scheme of things, the cost of interpretation is a small price to pay for the procurement of justice.

Sir, in conclusion, I propose three things. One, the introduction of the Appropriate Adult Scheme for foreign domestic workers. Two, the mandatory video recording of all Police interviews. Three, the mandatory provision of language interpretation during Police interviews, with high standards set to ensure professional quality, prompt availability and no misunderstanding.

Time and again, we have seen cases turn on the uncertainty of what happens in the interview room. When this occurs, it does a disservice to suspects, Police officers, prosecutors, judges and all Singaporeans. My proposals will help alleviate these problems.

Mr Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.

10.05 pm

The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, Mr Leon Perera brought up the ombudsman and cited many decades of history on this. But I would say in response to Mr Perera to look at the request in the context not only of the countries that he has cited – and I will come back to that in a moment – but also, particularly, in the context of Singapore – our system, our institutions and our people.

The intention behind the ombudsman is to enhance the rule of law, improve our criminal justice system and I think you have heard earlier Members from this side of the House brook no dissent with that. We all agree that that is a fundamental objective. We want to enhance our rule of law. We want to improve our systems. But I would suggest, Mr Speaker, that the proof of the pudding is really in the eating, in looking not only at the countries that have set up the ombudsman, but to look at where they stand after years, if not decades, of having the ombudsman and the impact it has had on their legal system.

So, in that respect, we have heard the World Justice Report cited several times. I would like to take Members back to that. Singapore, in 2020, was ranked 12th, an improvement from the previous year. In contrast, the three countries that Mr Perera cited as having had Ombudsman – Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines – were ranked 59th, 47th and 91st respectively. If you were to take the most recent Gallup Law and Order survey, out of a hundred points, Singapore scored 97. Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia were at least 10 points behind Singapore.

And if you look more closely at the most recent Crime Index 2020, Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia are all behind Singapore. So, I would suggest that instead of just citing these experiences from other countries, to put it in the context of where this system operates and the people that operate the system as well, and ask ourselves, what is that reality? How does the Ombudsman translate into a better legal system, better rule of law and, fundamentally, a safer Singapore? Where would you choose to bring up children? Where would you want to have our women and children be safe late at night – in Singapore or some other countries? And I think that is the proof of the pudding. Proof of the pudding is in the eating and that is what I meant when I said that. Ultimately, you look at those indicators.

And in Singapore, we have our public institutions with its governance. We have internal reviews and, to the extent that some Members have said internal reviews are not sufficient because they are all conducted by internal people, then, on occasion, where necessary, there is the external review as well. I am sure Mr Perera is aware of the fact that there are many such panels.

In MHA, there is the independent Review Panel set up to review cases externally, independently. The SAF has set up external Review Panels as well. Likewise the SCDF. And to the extent that issues of public interest are raised, there is this forum in Parliament, and I am sure Members will agree that as we sit here past 10 pm this evening, that we spare no effort debating, discussing, going down into every detail that matters.

There is the current case. Members will remember that we have had the SingHealth breach raised in Parliament as well by way of Ministerial Statements, by way of Parliamentary Questions; the MRT breakdown, the MINDEF incidents, even what happens to doctors when they are apparently wrongly prosecuted.

And on occasion, even that may not be enough. And after the recent SCDF incidents were ventilated in Parliament, a separate Board of Inquiry, or BOI, was set up to look into the matter, separate from the Police investigation, came up with a report which subsequently MHA accepted. No cover-up on any of these occasions. On top of all of these, we have the COI. We have had a lot of debate about the COI, whether it is "committee" or "commission". But that provides an additional layer with public hearings. We have the Courts ultimately. And I thought I heard Mr Perera said that it is very difficult to bring an action in Court, either by way of judicial review or otherwise.

I had a quick look at the numbers and, in the last two years, there were 46 civil actions filed against the Government. I am not suggesting that these numbers are high or low. But I think where it needs to happen, this is an avenue. This is an avenue that our citizens can avail themselves of: bring their claims and the Courts – not the Executive, not an internal body – will evaluate these claims.

And, ultimately, when you have an ombudsman, the question really is: can they serve a better function than each of these specialist panels set up specifically for an inquiry, where necessary, with the relevant powers of investigation and with the relevant expertise for each of these cases?

Mr Perera said CPIB only investigates corruption, but not rude behaviour. Well, we have the QSM for that. We have the Members of Parliament who listen to residents every week, week in, week out. I am sure many of you would have come across occasions where you were told so and so was rude to me, so and so did not listen to me. There are proper avenues for this to be brought up. So, I would say to Mr Perera and to other Members suggesting the ombudsman, to look at this suggestion in the context of not only what we have in our society already running, functioning, but also what the end result has shown.

Sir, some questions have also been raised concerning the length of time that it has taken for the trial to proceed and why it has taken four years for Ms Liyani's case to be resolved. Let me take this House through some key events. The Police report was lodged on 30 October 2016 and Members will remember that Ms Liyani returned to Singapore in December 2016. She was then arrested and, for a period of time, the Police conducted their investigations.

On 5 June 2017, the Police sent the file to AGC for their investigations and recommendations. AGC asked the Police to clarify certain points, which the Police then looked into. Eventually, on 10 August 2017, the AGC directed the Police to prefer charges against Ms Liyani. She was released. She was charged in Court on 31 August 2017 and released on bail. Ms Liyani claimed trial to the charges and, at the second pre-trial conference in October 2017, AGC asked for trial dates in February 2018 – four months later. However, counsel said that he could not take dates in February or March 2018. As a consequence, the trial was fixed for hearing in April 2018. That was to accommodate her counsel's availability.

The trial commenced in April 2018. Due to the issues, it could not be concluded within the allocated period, and it took place over several tranches and eventually concluded on 17 January 2019 – 20 hearing days. And we are not suggesting for a moment, I think, that we should truncate the trial simply because we want to have speed as opposed to thoroughness.

There was a total of 16 witnesses – 12 prosecution witnesses, four defence witnesses – and the record of proceedings came up to 3,699 pages. The verdict by the State Courts was delivered on 20 March 2019 and Ms Liyani was sentenced a few days later on 25 March. She then appealed against the sentence and conviction. Detailed submissions were put forward to the High Court by both parties, and this was heard over three days – in November 2019, February 2020 and August 2020 and, eventually, the High Court acquitted Ms Liyani on 4 September 2020. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: We will probably sit here past 11 pm as well. Ms Gan Siow Huang. Oh, Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: I thank the hon Minister for his points. Just a few clarifications.

Firstly, I cited a number of countries that have an ombudsman – not only Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia, but also Hong Kong, Australia, various European countries. I am wondering if the Minister is making the argument that having an ombudsman actually lowers the quality of justice, and is there any evidence to that effect? Is the Minister also saying that all countries that have an ombudsman, generally, because of some causative effect of having an ombudsman, actually fare more poorly in terms of justice indicators and so on and so forth? Is he making that argument? I do not think he is, but I do want to clarify that.

Secondly, I think he talked about Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia; and he selected just those countries of all the ones I mentioned. Would the Minister acknowledge the possibility that those countries, without an ombudsman system, may actually fare even lower in the rankings than where they currently are at?

Thirdly, I believe that the Minister would argue that we have fundamentally strong criminal justice institutions and so on, but I would like to invite the Minister to agree with me that even though things are good, there is a possibility that they can be better. There is always room for improvement. Would he agree that ideas like the ombudsman may help us to get to that goal?

Lastly, just very briefly, to respond to the Minister's point on QSM and Meet-the-People sessions, I did address that in my speech. QSM is not an independent process that is outside of the authorities, Statutory Board or Ministry that is the subject of the complaint. Meet-the-People sessions do not include an independent fact-finding process. I just want to make that observation.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I thank Mr Perera. I am not generalising and I know that you have gone into a series of other countries. I think if you did the research – which I am sure you did – you would have seen numerous articles about the ombudsman system in Australia, in the UK and the failings that they have had. Just look at the NHS ombudsman in the UK and the police ombudsman in the UK. Two examples.

Second, I am not in a position to speculate as to what might happen to those countries were there no ombudsman. But I think the point I am making is two-fold: first, look at the outcome in these countries – I am suggesting that they do not fare better than Singapore and I am sure the Member will agree; and second, perhaps more importantly, that we have our own systems, we have our own context. And we have our system that works in the way in which I have outlined. I am not sure if I did justice to it when I outlined it very quickly, in the interest of time.

I am sure the Member will agree that you have to apply suggestions in the context of what you already have in your own systems and look at whether that is going to improve the system or whether that would create yet another layer.

On his third point about the QSM, I made the point in response to the fact that you do not need an ombudsman to deal with someone who is rude to an individual. That is where you have the QSM, you have your Members of Parliament, you have other avenues like REACH to deal with.

On his final point, I think we all agree that if we can better the system – obviously – and I think on that, we are on the same page.

Mr Speaker: My apologies, the long sitting is affecting my eyesight. Where is Desmond Tan?

10.19 pm

The Minister of State for Home Affairs and Sustainability and the Environment (Mr Desmond Tan): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, fellow Members of Parliament: I have heard many speeches and questions from fellow Members. While there are differences in opinion, what is clear is that all Members are concerned about this issue and for our country. In fact, the debate in Parliament today fully reflects the three pillars of our transparent, fair, and structured system of governance. Let me sum them up with “one, two, and three”. One, it represents a kind of insistence, an insistence on accountability. Two, it represents our two core values: justice, and equality. Three, it represents the separation of the three branches of power in Government, that is, the independence of the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.

One, two and three: one insistence, two core values, and three independent branches of Government. These three key points form the cornerstones of our system of governance, and are implemented across our management and decision-making, across every Public Service Department and every public servant, and in every decision everyone here, makes every day.

Without accountability, we will become a society where people accuse one another and problems remain unresolved; without justice and equality, we will become a corrupt and backward country; without separation of powers, the consequences will be most frightening, and the power vacuum will plunge our country into chaos and crisis. This is certainly not an outcome we want.

To ensure Singapore's continued growth and prosperity, we must hold steadfast to these three pillars of governance.

First, we must uphold the accountability system. Ms Liyani's case has sparked questions from the public on whether individual law enforcement officers have complied with the standard operating procedures, whether there are flaws in the investigation procedures of the Attorney-General's Chambers, and the qualifications of the trial judge. We must address these concerns. In the Ministerial Statement by Minister K Shanmugam earlier, he addressed these concerns by setting out the facts and the corresponding remedial actions.

Every job has a certain scope of duty, rules and regulations that must be observed, and tasks that must be done. If mistakes are made at work, it is clear that the jobholder must bear responsibility and face the consequences. This is the system of accountability that we have always upheld, and this is especially important in the Public Service.

This is because the Public Service uses public resources, and thus has to be accountable to the state, to the people, about the areas where resources were used, why they were used, and to produce results. The Public Service has always been open and transparent. If a civil servant’s performance is unsatisfactory, he/she is held accountable. If punishment is necessary, it is not shirked, and it is not perfunctory. The public can see that the assessment system is robust. If results are not produced, there are areas of negligence, or laws have been infringed, the jobholder will be promptly removed from the service.

A holistic, clear, and rational system of accountability encourages us to identify problems, find solutions, and seek progress. This is a continuous process. The accountability system should not lead to inaction in the public service, nor should it become a tool for political criticism. As we identify problems and explore solutions, we must also guard against over-correcting or putting the cart before the horse. If a law or judicial process is taken advantage of by criminals to exonerate themselves, or causes people to stop reporting crimes and lose confidence in the justice system, it will go against the objectives and spirit of the original legislation.

Second, our two core values of justice and equality. Justice and equality are the core values on which Singapore depends for her survival. They are reflected in our policies in various areas, such as free education for 10 years, ensuring that every Singaporean child has the opportunity to upgrade themselves through education, and thereafter to continue training and maintain job competitiveness through government subsidies. Public housing policies ensure that every resident can afford to own their home, rather than allowing the market to freely determine housing prices. In healthcare, the Government also gives higher subsidies to the low-income and disadvantaged groups, and ensures that every Singaporean has access to quality medical care through Medisave and other schemes.

The values of justice and equality have been ingrained in our thinking and systems, as well as our lives. During the debate on the President’s Address in Parliament in 2018, Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong said that Singapore would not condone ostentatious displays of wealth or discrimination against others, and must always remain vigilant and must not allow elite groups from becoming closed circles. The Singapore government's stand on this issue is clear: we seek a fair and just democratic society and will never tolerate the formation of closed circles of elites. Any actual injustice can be corrected. This includes providing pro-bono legal advice and representation to those who have limited means through the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS). Ms Liyani is one such beneficiary under this Scheme.

In 2013, the Ministry of Law announced funding for the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme and in 2015, it co-funded the Enhanced Criminal Legal Aid Scheme with the Singapore Law Society. From 2015 to 2019, the government allocated an average of $2 million per year to fund the scheme.

The scheme also encourages practising lawyers to come forward to provide their services. Over the past 4 years, they have taken up close to 1,000 cases, ensuring that no Singaporean will be denied the help they need because they cannot afford to pay for a lawyer. This is a commitment by the Government and community organisations to Singaporeans.

Protecting Singaporeans' lives and property is an enduring commitment. This year, the police force celebrates 200 years of maintaining law and order in Singapore. Our law enforcement agencies have pledged allegiance to the country and to protect people's lives and property for up to 200 years. We are proud that Singapore ranked second in the world's safest cities, just behind Tokyo. This achievement, this sense of security, did not come by easily. Besides the prosperity and development of the country, our people live and work in peace and harmony, and the Singapore Armed Forces and the Home Team – as well as other law enforcement agencies - do their utmost in their duties. We must all work together and do our utmost to uphold the reputation of a safe city in the world.

Third, the separation of powers. The separation of powers is the cornerstone of our democratic system and ensures the independence of the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary branches of Government. Hence, even for someone who has power in the Executive or Legislative branches of Government, he may still be tried independently before the law by the Judiciary branch of Government, and may still be subject to independent investigations by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. Minister K Shanmugam also explained in his Ministerial Statement just now that our system of governance and the justice system abide by the rule of law. If anyone commits a crime, he would have to face the consequences of a judicial trial, and would not have any special privileges. Minister also provided many examples and details. Fellow members who know the law have also shared many precedents. Hence, I will not belabour that point.

Mr Speaker, there is one more point I would like to cover. Apart from penalties, it is more important for us to be self-disciplined. While the law sets the baseline for our conduct, morals and ethical standards should be the ultimate guide of our behaviour. We often hear the elderly say: “we must pay attention to “propriety” and law.” This means "proprieties" – which include courtesy and etiquette – should take precedence over the law. We have to abide by the proprieties and law, and not violate the law. Confucianism advocates the following goals in life: "observe things, gain knowledge, be sincere, be righteous, improve oneself, keep the family together, govern the state, and bring peace to the world ". If every one of us can be sincere, upright, improve oneself and keep the family together, there will be no reason for police officers to come to our doorstep, much less will there be any negative impact on society.

Besides managing oneself well, we also need to care for others, especially the disadvantaged groups in society. If you find that there are people around you who need help, I urge you to inform welfare organisations in the community, raise the difficulties they face, and work together with everyone to solve them. Do not cross onto the wrong side of the law or embark on the road of crime.

This, is where we will have to be accountable to ourselves.

Since Singapore's independence, the Government has upheld the three pillars of accountability, fairness and equality, and the separation of powers, and in so doing, built the progressive, prosperous, just, and equal nation, that we have today, just as promised in our Pledge. We are all Singapore Citizens; I hope everyone will continue to work together to achieve happiness, prosperity, and progress for our nation. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.

10.31 pm

The Minister of State for Education and Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang): Mr Speaker, I am glad that the hon Mr Gerald Giam shares our view that foreign domestic workers have specific vulnerabilities and there is more that we can do to support them. Foreign domestic workers help many of our households and families with care-giving and domestic chores, and we value the contribution of foreign domestic workers.

MOM has put in place regulatory framework and partnerships with NGOs to protect and take care of our foreign domestic workers in many ways. Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act and Regulations, employers are required to make timely and full payment of salary to their domestic workers and help upkeep their maintenance during their employment in Singapore. This includes provision of adequate food and medical treatment, safe working conditions and adequate daily rest.

Over the years, we have also made several changes to our laws to better safeguard the well-being of foreign domestic workers. In 2013, the law was amended to require employers to provide foreign domestic workers with weekly rest day or compensation in lieu. In 2018, employers were required to purchase personal accident insurance with payout of $60,000, up from $40,000 previously, for their foreign domestic workers. More recently in 2019, the law was amended to explicitly disallow employers from safekeeping the salary of their foreign domestic workers to reduce downstream salary disputes. Complaints against employers who fail to meet their obligations are investigated and errant employers are given appropriate penalties. For more serious infringements, employers can be prosecuted.

First-time foreign domestic workers and employers are educated about their rights and responsibilities. Such education is done through the mandatory Foreign Domestic Worker Settling-In Programme and the Employers' Orientation Programme.

At the Settling-In Programme, we inform foreign domestic workers of their rights and encourage them to perform their work duties responsibly. We also educate foreign domestic workers on the multiple channels of help available that they can approach and this includes MOM, of course, employer agencies, the NGOs such as Centre for Domestic Employees, the Police and the embassies. At the Employers' Orientation Programme, we inform employers of their legal responsibilities towards their foreign domestic workers.

MOM has also started a programme with the Centre for Domestic Employees to interview first-time foreign domestic workers in their first few months of employment, conducted in their native language. This interview helps detect any settling-in or adjustment issues, so that the foreign domestic workers and employers can work through and resolve them early.

NGOs such as Centre for Domestic Employees and Foreign Domestic Worker Association for Social Support and Training, or FAST, run regular clinics with their legal partners for foreign domestic workers who need legal advice. Foreign domestic workers will be assisted to secure pro bono representation with volunteer lawyers from the Law Society Pro Bono Services and other partnering law firms. Ms Parti Liyani was similarly assisted by Legal Aid facilitated by an NGO.

Foreign domestic workers who are victims of errant employers will be removed from their employers' place of residence for their protection. MOM allows them to remain in Singapore to assist in investigations. MOM will ensure that they have proper food and housing, and the foreign domestic workers will be allowed to seek employment during this time.

In fact, when I visited the Centre for Domestic Employees or CDE, I met several foreign domestic workers who were in the shelter. They were actually very grateful that their basic needs were being taken care of. In their free time, actually, they also interacted and learned about each other's culture and even picked up simple craft. For foreign domestic workers who call CDE, we also have a vehicle to go and pick them up if they do not know their way.

The vast majority of employers and foreign domestic workers respect their contractual and legal obligations to each other, and many have strong relationships. We regularly reach out to employers and foreign domestic workers through electronic direct mailers and newsletters to feature best practices and tips on how to develop good working relationships.

The Association of Employment Agencies Singapore gives out awards to honour and recognise foreign domestic workers and employers who have maintained healthy long-lasting relationships. One of the award winners in 2019 was Ms Somejo. She is 59 years old and has worked with her employer for 28 years and looked after her employer's four daughters like her own. When Typhoon Haiyan left Ms Somejo's family homeless in 2013, her employer and one of her daughters raised funds to help Ms Somejo's family rebuild their home.

A healthy and strong working relationship requires the cooperation and effort of both employers and the foreign domestic workers. MOM will continue to work with the stakeholders to protect the well-being of foreign domestic workers as well as the employers, and promote harmonious relationships between them. We have made good progress through the years. There is more that we can do and we look forward to working with the stakeholders to improve the system for foreign domestic workers and the employers.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

10.37 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to start off my speech by conveying my sincere thanks to the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms He Ting Ru for moving this Motion and triggering this enthusiastic discussion, despite the lateness of the day.

It is clear from the speeches that we have heard that there is broad consensus on much that is touched by the Motion. There is broad consensus on the point that fairness, access and independence have been and continue to be cornerstones of Singapore's justice system. There is consensus that justice must apply equally to all, irrespective of means or social status. And I would add that, it should also not matter what one's race, language or religion is.

These are matters for which there is overwhelming consensus not just in this House, but outside this House as well. It reflects the founding values of Singapore from Independence – a point I will develop later in my speech.

As Ms He pointed out, there are constitutional articles where these values are enshrined and against which all other laws and Executive action are void and effective. Articles such as Article 9 which deals with no deprivation of life or liberty, safe in accordance with law. Article 12, which requires all persons to be equal before the law and be entitled to equal protection of the law. Article 93, which vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court in the State Courts.

There is also a broad consensus over the fact that whenever there are shortcomings affecting the judicial system, steps must be identified to remedy them. This has been the case before, now and will continue to be the case.

In this regard, we need to understand the separation of powers within our Constitution which is modelled on the Westminster system. The Executive arm of the Government is accountable to this House for the actions of its enforcement officers. The Judiciary is an independent arm of the Government. So is the Attorney-General. He derives his power from an independent constitutional grant. Our apex Court has described his office as a high constitutional office equal to that of the Judiciary.

They are separate processes spelled out in the Constitution and other legislation to hold judicial and prosecuting officers to account in a way that does not compromise the independence of our Judiciary and the Attorney-General's office. The hon Leader of Opposition referred to the fact that the DPPs in the Parti Liyani case were referred for disciplinary action in relation to whether or not they had breached the Kadar obligations.

So, this is a separate process that will have to take place. And if these DPPs are held to be in breach, then they would have to suffer the consequences, while maintaining the independence of the Judiciary and the Attorney-General's office.

I agree with Ms Lim in her view that the justice system must work fairly for disadvantaged and vulnerable persons navigating the system as defenders. For them, we need to ensure equal access to justice.

Access to justice does not necessarily equate to assess to lawyers. These are not my words. These are the words of Lady Hale, the retired President of the UK Supreme Court. In Singapore, Courts have taken great pains to explain their decision so that people could understand the law, particularly in the criminal law sphere.

And I would even say, for sentencing the Courts have come up with frameworks to allow people to understand for a certain kind of offence, what would be the probable sentence. This would assist lay people to appreciate what decisions they would face if they were to be convicted in a court of law.

But one accepts that a Judge would generally be in a better position to decide on the merits of the case as a neutral umpire hearing both sides, as opposed to entering into the fray to help frame questions and arguments for the unrepresented person.

The main points I wish to make in my speech are as follows.

This is a country that is governed by the rule of law. That has been my experience over the past 28 years as a former regular Police officer and now a lawyer. The hallmark of the rule of law is independence and transparency of the Judiciary. And I am very glad to note that hon Members from the Workers' Party agree fully with this point.

The second point I wish to make is that in the context of administration of justice that involves more stakeholders; the Police, the DPPs, the State Courts, Judiciary and so on, we have made improvements over time, over years. We certainly have not arrived yet. And today we have heard very good suggestions from both sides of the House which should be considered, debated and distilled.

The point that the hon Minister for Home Affairs made just a few moments ago, is something that we should bear in mind. While there can be good ideas, at the end of the day, it is a balancing process. We need to balance the interests of the victims, the accused persons, the public and, of course, the state resources of which the Minister for Finance is in charge of.

With that as a background, I wish to recount my experience in the Police force. Sir, like the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim, I joined the Police force as a regular for a few years, before I joined private practice as a lawyer – again, just like her. In fact, Ms Lim was my colleague; a very capable colleague, I would add.

The work of the Singapore Police Force officers, then and now, has always been focused on protecting the vulnerable amongst us. Although it has been decades since I left the force, I can still vividly remember some cases I personally dealt with. I will highlight two, where I was involved, was covering the duties of CIO 1 Tanglin Police Division.

The first case involved a rape case, of an 11-year-old girl who was going for tuition in the day. She was raped at a staircase landing of a flat. It was a terribly trying moment for her. But amazingly, she was able to provide a good description of the assailant. We devoted full attention to the case, leaving no stones unturned. That helped us nab him within a few days. He was charged in Court and convicted and sentenced to a long imprisonment term.

I still remember the note from the girl's father who expressed his appreciation over the work that we did. He said that the apprehension and conviction of the assailant brought closure which allowed him and his daughter to move on. His daughter would be about 36 or 37 years old now.

The hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim shared her experience of a rape victim who unfortunately was not told the reasons why the AGC did not proceed with her complaint and charge the accused in Court. But she would certainly agree with me that between the time when we were in the Police force and now, great strides have been taken to improve the process.

Previously, rape cases were dealt with at the Division level. Now, we have the Serious Sexual Crime Branch under the CID, where Police officers are given special training to give special attention to victims of sexual offences and, in the process, make sure that they would get the justice that they deserve. We have not arrived yet, but we have made great progress.

The second case I will never forget involved my colleague, the late SI Boo Tiang Huat. He was the OC of Whitley NPP, if I remember correctly. At that time, there was a spate of housebreaking at homes under the charge of the NPP. He personally led anti-house breaking rounds, night after night, to deter such incidents. He felt it his personal responsibility to lead these efforts.

In the early morning of 30 November 1994, SI Boo was murdered by a person whom he stopped to check along Newton Road. The person was apparently walking home after an aborted robbery attempt. He chopped SI Boo with an axe that he extricated from a bag he was carrying.

Personally, for myself and colleagues who attended the scene, it was tough to accept that a colleague we saw earlier in the morning has sacrificed his life in the course of duty. It was tougher for his wife and his young children, whom I accompanied to the scene to pray for SI Boo's soul later that day.

Police officers, past and present have spilled blood, sweat and tears in their mission to ensure the safety and security of Singapore. Deputy Prime Minister Heng and Senior Minister of State Mr Heng Chee How and several other hon Members have storied careers in the Police force They know this for a fact. The core values of the Singapore Police officers are courage, even if it means to risk their lives, loyalty, integrity and fairness.

On fairness, SPF's published credo is as follows and I quote,"We are fair in our dealings with people, irrespective of race, religion, gender, age, standing in life and irrespective of whether they are victims, suspects or convicts."

This is this unstinting devotion to duty that allowed Singapore to achieve the enviable reputation of being a relatively safe country with low crime rate. That is not to say there is no discipline cases within the force. Yes, from time to time, we have black sheep. These persons will be dealt with effectively by SPF, CPIB and the Courts. But their conduct is not representative of the vast majority of upright, dedicated and hardworking Police officers. And earlier today, we heard Minister Shanmugam saying, maybe even overworked Police officers.

I joined legal practice in 1996. I continued to be involved in criminal and pro bono work. As a pro bono lawyer, I have acted for vulnerable and disadvantaged people. In fact, this eventually led me to politics. I highlight two cases where I was involved in.

My very first trial was a pro bono case to defend a young man accused of shoplifting. He just completed his National Service (NS). He and his family had very modest means and could not pay for a lawyer. He had walked out of the department store with items that he did not pay for. Luckily for him, the Court was persuaded that he walked out of the store accidentally and acquitted him.

Recently, I took on a Court-assigned pro bono case involving a mentally disordered person with little education. His father had passed away and his mother was a cleaner at a hawker centre. He was accused of stealing coins from a vending machine. He was diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder. I was exploring a community sentence, a Mandatory Treatment Order, to be imposed on him even though his prognosis for recovery was not good. As it turned out, he subsequently assaulted his own mother. That put paid to my efforts and he was sentenced to prison for his offences.

At this point, I wish to state that it is a matter of pride for me that over the years, the Law Society of Singapore has nurtured a strong culture of pro bono work amongst its lawyers, especially through the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme or CLAS started in the 1980s by the late Mr Harry Elias, Senior Counsel, and now supported by MinLaw.

Mr Anil Balchandani, the lawyer who acted for Ms Parti Liyani, is a good example of a selfless legal professional devoted to the cause of justice on behalf of persons who ordinarily would not be able to afford to pay for the services of a lawyer. I am confident that many more lawyers would be motivated by his example. This can only auger well for our country.

I also wish to state that I have acted for people who have occupied important positions and have been charged in Court for various criminal offences. For example, I acted for Mr Choo Wee Khiang, a former Member of Parliament and Mr Chuang Shaw Peng, a former Nominated Member of Parliament.

In none of the cases that I dealt with, for the vulnerable persons and the "connected" persons, if I could use that word, did I get the feeling that the justice system was tilted in favour of "connected" persons, as compared to the persons who are disadvantaged.

And this may be a convenient time for me to deal with a few points that the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim raised in her speech.

She pointed out that bails could work adversely for poor people because they cannot post bail. I wish to state that the provision of bail is a judicial decision. The Judge deciding whether to grant bail or allowing the person to be released on his own cognisance, would be something that has to be dealt with after considering the offence that the person is charged for, the kind of sentence that may be imposed and, of course, the strong presumption of innocence until proven guilty. So, it is a balancing act. And I have seen Judges deciding to allow persons of humble means to be let off, to be bailed or rather, to be released on a personal bond.

Ms Sylvia Lim also mentioned about the difficulty of paying fines for indigent persons. And that is a fair point but again, I come back to the important note that the imposition of a fine is a punishment by the Judge acting in his judicial discretion. The Judge would have to decide in the circumstances of the case, whether a fine is an adequate punishment.

And there are other options as well, particularly in the last few years, we have, as some Members have pointed out, the community aentence option in addition to the usual options. So, there is a discretion given to the Judge to make sure that the ends of justice, not just from the perspective of the accused, but from the perspective of the victim and the state, are met.

There have also been great strides in improving the criminal justice system. I would not go through ground that has already been highlighted by hon Members who spoke before me. I would just go straight to the fact that clearly, there is broad agreement between Members from both sides of the House about the importance of fairness, access and independence being the cornerstones of Singapore's justice system from inception and recognition that there has been continuous efforts to improve the justice system to build a fair and just society, regardless of one's personal background, race, religion or social economic background. These efforts must continue on.

With that in mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your permission to move an amendment to the Motion under discussion to reflect this broad agreement.

Mr Speaker: Do you have a copy of the amendment?

Mr Murali Pillai: Yes, Sir. May I hand it out now? [A copy of the amendment was handed to Mr Speaker.]

Mr Speaker: Do you have copies for Members?

Mr Murali Pillai: Yes, Sir. I have handed them to the Clerk. May copies be distributed to hon Members, please.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed. [Copies of the amendment were distributed to hon Members.] Please move your amendment.

Mr Murali Pillai: Obliged, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the following amendments:

(1) In line 1, to delete "affirms" and insert "recognises";

(2) In line 3, to delete "calls on the Government to recognise" and insert instead "affirms the Government's continuous efforts since Independence to build a fair and just society";

(3) In line 3, to delete "its shortcomings" and insert "any shortcoming";

(4) In line 4, after the words "regardless of" to insert the words "race, language, religion, economic"; and finally,

(5) In line 5, to delete ", including facilitating a review of the justice system" and insert a full-stop.

With your leave, Sir, I would like to explain the proposed amendments.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali, can you pause for a while. Leader, would you like to suspend the Standing Orders for the extension of time for Mr Murali?

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali.

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, I am obliged to the Leader of the House for moving the Motion.

Sir, I was at the point of explaining the proposed amendments. Let me just say that it is my hope that these proposed amendments would get bipartisan support.

With that, let me now go through the amendments.

The first point is really replacing "affirms" with "recognises", to be more precise. And that is to state the fact that from the outset, from Singapore's Independence, fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of the Singapore justice system.

And the next point, Sir, it is in relation to the usage of the word "affirms". And this is really to state as a matter of truth, that the Government has been continually putting in the effort since Independence to build a fair and just society, to remedy any shortcoming to enhance justice for all regardless of race, language, religion, economic means or social status. So, I added the words "race, language, religion" and I do not think that should be controversial.

I have proposed to delete "including facilitating a review" of the justice system. Let me explain why. This is to leave this Motion in broad terms so that at the end of the day, it is an affirmation that the Government would continue to remedy any shortcoming that is brought up, and to allow the conversation to happen in this House about what further steps need to be taken.

One should realise this. At the end of the day, the buck stops with this House. It is this House that has to make the political decisions to pass legislation, to move amendments to the Constitution in relation to the justice system. So, the buck must stop here and this Motion reflects that reality. I do not think anything is taken away with the amendments that I propose.

Sir, I am clear in my mind where the PAP Government stands on this. The raison d'etre of the PAP is to build a fair and just society, founded on justice and equality for all people, especially the disadvantaged. This applies in and out of Court.

Just a few days ago, Miss Lim, a daughter of a man who was on his deathbed approached me. She was served with a Stay-Home Notice or SHN, and she was extremely concerned that she would not be able to see her father at the deathbed because she had to serve the SHN. Within three hours, she was able to see her father in the hospital. Which other country would be able to do this and this was way after office hours?

Sir, let us not forget, while we wish to improve the system, we have every reason to be proud of the justice system and, in fact, the Government system that we have in place today. This is not the time to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And I believe my hon friends from Workers' Party across the aisle would also hold true to the same values. With that, I beg to move. [Applause.]

11.03 pm

Mr Speaker: There are five amendments proposed by Mr Murali Pillai. These are:

"(1) In line 1, to delete 'affirms' and insert 'recognises';

(2) In line 3, to delete 'calls on the Government to recognise' and insert 'affirms the Government's continuous efforts since Independence to build a fair and just society';

(3) In line 3, to delete 'its shortcomings' and insert 'any shortcoming';

(4) In line 4, after the words 'regardless of' to insert the words 'race, language, religion, economic';

(5) In line 5, to delete 'including facilitating a review of the justice system' and insert a full-stop."

Does any Member wish to speak on these five amendments? And, if so, Members wishing to speak on these five amendments can speak on them en bloc.

We will now deal with the five amendments proposed. The first amendment.

Question, "In line 1, to delete the word 'affirms' and insert the word 'recognises'", put and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The second amendment.

Question, "In line 3, to delete the words 'calls on the Government to recognise' and insert the words 'affirms the Government's continuous efforts since Independence to build a fair and just society'", put and agreed to.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, may we ask for our dissent to be recorded?

Mr Speaker: We will record the dissent.

Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Raeesah Khan, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong indicated that their dissent be recorded.

Mr Speaker: The third amendment.

Question, "In line 3, to delete the words 'its shortcomings' and insert the words 'any shortcoming'", put and agreed to.

Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Raeesah Khan, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong indicated that their dissent be recorded.

Mr Speaker: The fourth amendment.

Question, "In line 4, after the words 'regardless of', to insert the words 'race, language, religion, economic'", put and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The fifth amendment.

Question, "In line 5, to delete the words 'including facilitating a review of the justice system' and insert a full-stop", put and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: For those who are dissenting, if I can request that you raise your hands, so that we can record it.

Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Raeesah Khan, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong indicated that their dissent be recorded.

Mr Speaker: The amendments have been agreed to. The original Motion, as amended, is now before the House.

Question proposed, "That this House recognises that fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of Singapore's justice system and affirms the Government's continuous efforts since Independence to build a fair and just society and remedy any shortcoming in order to enhance justice for all, regardless of race, language, religion, economic means or social status."

Mr Speaker: Yes, Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, a point of order. Am I not given the right of reply?

Mr Speaker: You will be replying at the end.

Ms Sylvia Lim: When would that be? It should be before the vote.

Mr Speaker: After Ms Indranee Rajah, you will wrap up. You will be wrapping up the discussion. Ms Indranee Rajah.

11.07 pm

The Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, I believe Ms Sylvia Lim may have been asking whether she could speak on the vote to amend the Motion. Is that correct, Ms Lim? Or are you asking to speak on the vote on the Motion, as amended?

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, I would like your ruling whether I am entitled to a right of reply as the mover of the original Motion.

Mr Speaker: As in replying to the amendments?

Ms Sylvia Lim: To round up the debate.

Mr Speaker: Yes, you will be rounding up.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Before the final vote is put.

Mr Speaker: Yes, you will be rounding up the debate. No change to that.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, when Ms Sylvia Lim moved this Motion, she said that she was not saying that the system is broken but it can be improved. She also said that today's Motion is not about tearing down the system or discouraging those who work in law enforcement, the AGC or the Courts; far from it, it is about a desire to raise the system to the next level, which indeed I think is something that we can all agree on.

The Workers' Party had put forward some suggestions. These have been debated. I would like in my speech to address the suggestions that were put forward by Mr Pritam Singh, the Leader of the Opposition, specifically with regard to decoupling the function of the Attorney-General and the function of the Public Prosecutor.

Mr Singh made three points. But actually, the second two points are really premised on the first. So, let me deal with the first one.

His first point was that there is, allegedly, a weakness in our prosecutorial structure and that arises from the two roles of the AG: one being his role as the Government's legal advisor and the other being the role as a Public Prosecutor. In the first, he takes charge of three areas – legislation, international affairs and civil matters. In the second, as the Public Prosecutor, he has to prosecute without fear or favour.

The essence of Mr Singh's argument is that there is a conflict, an inherent conflict in these two roles. And he articulated it in this form, that as the Government's legal advisor, the Attorney-General's duty is to protect the interests of the Government and as the Public Prosecutor, it is to represent the public and prosecute without fear or favour.

In addressing this, he also mentioned that Ms Sylvia Lim had raised this point previously. Indeed, she had, but not quite in the same way.

So, what I want to do is firstly, address how Ms Sylvia Lim articulated it and then, I will go on to address how Mr Singh articulated it. To be fair, they both want to reach the same point, which is that there is a conflict so you should decouple them. But actually, the argument has evolved a little bit.

Let me first start off with how Ms Sylvia Lim first put it. She put it in this way: "in order to further strengthen the system and shore up the independence of the Public Prosecutor", we should "consider splitting the two roles...to reside in two different offices, so that the person who is the Public Prosecutor or PP, is not the same person taking the Government's instructions in non-criminal matters. I believe this separation exists in other countries to enhance the independence of the PP's office."

So, the first point that she made was that, you must decouple it so that the person, who is the PP, is not the same person taking the Government's instructions in non-criminal matters. But this argument is not correct because in non-criminal matters the Attorney-General advises the Government, the Government is his client. And similar to private sector matters, he takes in instructions on matters which are within the Government's purview.

But in criminal matters, the Attorney-General decides whether to prosecute. The Executive and the Cabinet have no say in that.

So, there is no issue with the same person in both roles because the system ensures that in his PP role, the AG acts independently. And the thrust of that argument that Ms Sylvia Lim originally made was that, you are taking the Government's instructions. You take the Government's instructions on the civil matters, on the other matters, but not when it comes to the decision to prosecute.

In responding to that, then Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong also pointed out that the reason why the role is separate in other countries is because in those countries where the roles are separate – in countries such as UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand – the Attorney-General holds political office. He is a political office holder or he sits in Cabinet. There is therefore the question of being subject to political pressures and the separation of the role of the Attorney-General from the public prosecutor in those jurisdictions has to be looked at in that context because he is subject to political pressure. Whereas here – and I will go on to discuss that in a bit more detail later – our situation is different because our Constitution has safeguards in that our AG does not hold political office. The constitutional safeguards ensure that he is protected from such political pressures, and it allows him to discharge both his roles as PP and the Government's legal advisor without fear or favour.

I come back to Mr Singh's argument today. Previously, the argument was you should do it the same way as other countries because of independence. And then, of course, it was pointed out that in other countries, because the AG is a political office holder, that is why you have to separate it.

So, today, the argument is that as the Government's legal advisor, the AG's duty is to protect the interests of the Government. Well, yes and no.

Because as Mr Singh pointed out, as the Government's legal advisor, the AG takes charge of legislation. So, when he protects the Government's interest in legislation, that has nothing to do with his prosecutorial function.

His other role as advisor is international affairs. When he is advising the Government on international affairs, that has nothing to do with prosecution.

The third one – civil matters. When he is advising the Government on civil matters, that has nothing to do with his role as a prosecutor.

And when it comes to his role as a prosecutor, we agree he must be able to prosecute without fear or favour – and he does.

The track record shows that the Attorney-General has prosecuted high level people before, without fear or favour. This includes, for example, the prosecution of Mr Ng Boon Gay, the former director of the CNB; the prosecution of Mr Peter Lim, the former SCDF Commissioner; and more recently, the charges against Mr Pek Lian Guan, CEO and Executive Director of Tiong Seng Holdings, and Pay Teow Heng, Director of Tiong Seng Contractors (Private) Limited.

So, there has never been an issue about being able to act independently.

Mr Singh then raised a couple of examples of where there may be such conflict. And he talked about the difficulty the AG may have in prosecuting Government-linked companies, for example. But again, that is not the case because we have had no difficulty doing that.

In 2017, seven former officers of ST Marine who had been charged were convicted for giving corrupt payments to secure business and/or for other offences. These officers included former Presidents of ST Marine See Leong Teck and Chang Cheow Teck. ST Marine is a subsidiary of ST Engineering, which is in turn, majority-owned by Temasek Holdings, which is a Government-linked company.

So, we have had no issue with prosecuting anybody, whether Government-linked or not, provided the PP sees that there is a case on the face of it to bring charges.

Then, Mr Singh went on to say that it would be difficult, for example, if in the case of – it is a hypothetical example, not a current one – a future government, where the Prime Minister and the AG may be very chummy and therefore the Attorney-General or the PP may not wish to bring a prosecution, either against the Prime Minister if there was an offence committed or somebody close, that thereby, he may have a desire to keep his job for favours or simply because the hypothetical alleged future Prime Minister and the AG are cronies.

Sir, section 22G of the Constitution provides that the Director of CPIB can go to the President if the Prime Minister refuses to proceed with a corruption investigation. The Constitution has many checks and balances. And it envisages that if such a situation may happen where the Prime Minister does not act in accordance with his duty, there is a check, there is a balance, and there is an avenue where corruption and other offences can be prosecuted.

So, really, I have dealt with the alleged conflict. And the position is that there is no conflict between the two roles, for the reasons I have explained.

Mr Singh did point out that in other countries and he named two. He did not name them, but we know who they are. He said that in both these countries that prominent cases of the Attorney-General being subject to political pressure. And that is precisely the point.

Our system protects the Attorney-General from being subject to political pressure. First, with the appointment of the AG. The AG is appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister cannot do it just as a whim. The Prime Minister does it in consultation with the Chief Justice, in consultation with the incumbent Attorney-General and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.

Appointment is one thing. The next thing is removal. It is very difficult under our system to remove the Attorney-General. Removal is by the President and this time not acting on advice. It is by the President, acting in his or her discretion, and if it concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister cannot tender such advice except if the AG is unable to discharge the functions of his office whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause or for misbehaviour. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister, Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance and National Development", Official Report, 4 November 2020, Vol 95, Issue No 13, Correction by Written Statement section.]

So, the Prime Minister cannot just say, "I advise you to get rid of the AG because I happen not to like the way he did this prosecution, or I wanted him to do this and he did not do it". He cannot. The Prime Minister is constrained by the constitutional provisions.

And further, the Prime Minister cannot tender such advice without the concurrence of a tribunal, consisting of the Chief Justice and two other Judges of the Supreme Court.

So, our system has safeguards to ensure the independence of the Attorney-General and this is very different from other jurisdictions. In fact, in the US, for example, the Attorney-General's position is entirely at the President's pleasure. So, it is not so much about the appointment. It is about whether or not once that person is in place, how easy is it for you to remove him. And in our case, it is not easy. And that gives the Attorney-General and the Public Prosecutor the assurance of knowing that he can carry out his duty without interference.

Mr Singh then went on to say he had two suggestions for improvements, but the improvements are premised on being able to make out that there is a case that there was a conflict. And I have addressed why there is no conflict.

But there is one point I want to address, which is security of tenure. Because I think the point that Mr Singh will likely make is that, well, you have all these safeguards, but if you have a relatively short term of tenure, then that sort of takes away from the ability to be independent.

But actually, that is not the case either. There is no general rule for tenure. Some countries have a fixed tenure for their Attorneys-General, and some do not. Officers in charge of prosecutions in England and Wales, Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong have no security of tenure and typically serve predetermined terms which may be renewable.

And in the US, there is no security of tenure at all. In the words of one of their former Attorney-Generals who was asked to resign, he said, "I serve at the pleasure of the President. I've understood that from the day I took the job".

So, what is more important is the constitutional safeguards against removal, and those we have in Singapore.

The third point that Mr Singh made was that he suggested that the system eschews the appointment of ex-Member of Parliament as a Public Prosecutor. And he did say that such an individual can be considered for the role of Government legal advisor. That too is a little bit different from the position advanced by Ms Sylvia Lim before. Because Ms Sylvia Lim before when she raised this point, talked about not having an ex-Member of Parliament, or MP, as the Attorney-General. But shifted slightly – now, it has just become only Public Prosecutor.

But never mind. Let me let me deal with it in any event.

The reason given by Mr Singh was this. He said firstly it would be natural for a former elected MP to have imbibed the political views of the party he or she used to represent. Even if the Public Prosecutor who was previously an MP does his or her sincere best to be objective, they cannot help but be a product of their previous beliefs, which they perhaps still hold. As a Public Prosecutor who was an MP of a political party and steeped in the party's ideology for years, he is likely to hold certain beliefs and approach things in certain ways.

On the face of it, yes, it sounds a little bit worrying. But let us ask ourselves, what does that actually mean? What are the political views of the party that Mr Hri Kumar used to be in, for example.

Well, one of the views is we believe in meritocracy. As a member of the PAP, we believe in meritocracy. We believe in integrity. We believe in not having a corrupt system. We believe in access of justice. I am not sure how this would affect his prosecutorial functions. We also believe in a green and sustainable Singapore. I am not sure how that would affect his prosecutorial functions as well. I mean, what is it about the beliefs of the PAP that would somehow affect his prosecutorial functions? Nothing.

There is nothing. Read our entire manifesto. There is nothing in there that would conflict with the ability of the Deputy Attorney-General to prosecute cases. If the argument is being made that he may have a conflict because of a political reason, would he have to charge somebody who, for example, was from the party previously whom he knows, that is a different argument. That is basically a situation where you see a conflict of interest in which case, the right thing, the proper thing to do is you recuse yourself. Which is exactly the approach that has been taken all along. It is standard procedure. Lawyers do that all the time.

Mr Singh did point out that appearances are important, he referred to how in this case, it was mentioned that the Attorney-General Mr Lucien Wong was not involved in any prosecutorial decisions regarding Ms Parti Liyani and that he would recuse himself from any on-going review of the case. As Minister Shanmugam explained, the earlier part of the prosecution, Mr Wong had nothing to do with it at all. That was dealt with at a different level. And since the matter has surfaced, he has recused himself very properly.

And the point I am making is that this is how the system works and that is the assurance that people can have, that if there is some conflict, that the Deputy Attorney-General or the Attorney-General will do the correct thing.

So, I believe, Mr Speaker, I have addressed the points raised by Mr Singh. I just would conclude by saying that it seems that there is much in common. There are some differences in terms of the approach towards the Motion which Mr Murali's amendment addresses. I therefore support the amended Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

11.27 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The first, with regard to a general point that the Leader makes about conflict. I will make the point that I do not believe the Leader's answers have squarely addressed the reality of possible conflict between the Attorney-General in his role as Government legal adviser on the one hand and public prosecutor on the other. I still take the view that the conflict is possible and that is the basis of the suggestion that I put in my speech.

I will give an example. I gave two examples: one was with regard to that Government-linked company, which I hypothesised. Now, let me try and take it to some specifics. There is an old article, 23 December 1997. It is an opinion piece by an individual who would later become the Attorney-General in Singapore, Mr Walter Woon. And he talked about malfeasance, a corruption scandal involving Keppel again, but not the latest deferred prosecution agreement that was entered into by —

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, you are raising a point of clarification?

Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, I am. Not the deferred prosecution agreement between Brazil, the US and Singapore, but a similar scandal that occurred previously. And there, what Mr Woon really says is the Attorney-General decides to go after the company, but then does not prosecute the individuals. And so, the situation is the company can accept the fine, but the individuals who later may benefit because of these bribes that were given – they benefit through the fact that the company will give out more bonuses to them, for example.

So, the question, of course, is do we have a situation where we can tell ourselves, "Look, there is no prospect, no implicit bias here". Is there a system we can consider of conceive of, which can reduce that prospect in the public perception? And this is where I feel a division of the roles actually may be more helpful to the Government. That is the first point.

The second point is with regard to security of tenure. I hear what the Leader is saying. I take the point. Even in our own experience in Singapore, we have had Attorney-Generals who have served for a long period of time, and others just two years. And my point really is, it would serve the Government well, if the term was at least, for example, five years. I can agree with the suggestion that Mr Walter Woon made because it heightens the prospect of independence in the eyes of the public that this individual was not removed for reasons which the public may start imagining – which may or may not be true.

So, a longer term for the Attorney-General I think would be good for the system.

The third point is about a Member of Parliament who takes on the role of AG. Of course, I can agree with the Leader about integrity, meritocracy and so forth. But again, I think the bigger question is whether the public see it that way. And I would forward that while reasonable people can have different views about this, it is probably more propitious to have that individual not be associated with a political party. And that is a view that reasonable people can have a different view about.

To that end, I did consider whether this position is supposed to be for all time. Let us say, if an MP steps down in 2020, does it mean that he cannot take on the appointment as AG forever and ever? Could there be some scope to consider at least a moratorium period or a garden leave period? I did consider that. So, if there is a question of some concession or some coming together as the Leader suggested in her wrapping-up paragraph and that the positions between the Government and Opposition are not so far apart, perhaps the Government can consider some of the proposals in that light to see how we can end up with a better legal system.

Ms Indranee Rajah: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his clarifications. He raised three. Let me deal with them in turn. With respect to the first one, he mentioned a concern where he articulated that you go after the company and not the individuals. It so happens that in this case, I think if he is referring to the previous case of Keppel O&M, as I had explained in a previous answer in Parliament, that a conditional warning was issued to the company with various penalties. And in that case I had also explained that with respect to the individuals, evidence still needed to be gathered and that it was not a case where somebody had got off or not got off. But rather, it was a case where the Public Prosecutor was facing challenges in terms of getting the evidence. In fact, those investigations still continue. The Attorney-General's office or the Public Prosecutor's office has requested further information and it is still pending. That is out of our hands.

The second point was with respect to the term. I am not sure if I got the point correctly. Just to extend the timing maybe to a longer period. Yes. You can take different terms, it depends on various countries. But the point I was making, and which is actually the more fundamental point, whatever the term is, during that term, nobody can interfere with that person's exercise of his prosecutorial discretion. And that is what guarantees the independence of the system.

The third point, how the public perceives it if somebody who was a former politician becomes a Public Prosecutor, the answer is has that person given anyone any cause for concern? If the person has resigned from the political party, the person takes on the duties, knows the duties and has not given any cause for concern or acted in any way, then there is no reason why the public should feel alarmed.

But and this is a big "but", if that person in any way shows that he or she is not acting in accordance with the duties, then appropriate action would have to be taken. That is how we can make sure that our system remains independent, remains strong and remains robust. But I welcome the debate because I understand what drives it, which is the desire to improve the system and to make one better for Singapore. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his suggestions.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On the first point, this is just as a matter of clarification with the Leader. I do not mean to be argumentative, but I am not referring to the latest Keppel infraction. In 1997, there was another case where Keppel Corp, I do not know the formal legal entity that was involved in this, it does not say Keppel O&M, so I am just reading off what it is. It says, "Keppel Corp faced 17 charges of bribery, a total of $8.3 million was paid to the Repair and Technical Manager of a British subsidiary of Exxon" and Keppel got contracts to repair 17 of their tankers. "The statement of facts extended to the court revealed that this had been done with the knowledge and approval of senior Keppel executives and some directors", "the prosecution chose to proceed only with three of the charges. Keppel pleaded guilty, which meant that it admitted to the statement of facts without qualification", "the district judge fined Keppel the maximum $100,000 on each of the charges and a total of $300,000, and that was the end of the matter".

So, I think the point that is being made in this particular case is, the question on the minds of the public in the context of a public prosecutor that also performs the role of the Government legal advisor is, was that discretion, the prosecutorial discretion exercised appropriately? And I think this is where as the Leader suggests, she understands where the thrust of some of our concerns are coming from. These are the sort of situations which we feel may compromise in the public eye, rightly or wrongly, the independence of the AG.

Mr Speaker: Leader.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the facts with respect to the 1997 case. But the point is that there does not seem to be anything in what Mr Singh has said which indicates why further action was not taken. We do not know at this point of time and I do not wish to speculate.

The point I wish to make is that it is not at all clear that that has anything to do with the fact that the PP also has an AG role.

I think where the Leader of the Opposition is coming from is that whatever the case in the prosecution, people must feel satisfied that the prosecutor in exercising his functions and duties, has done so properly. And I have given an example of how not in 1997 but many years down the line, where it is a case of the company and potential liability for individuals, company was pursued and the case against individuals is still open.

So, you can see that whatever it is, the Public Prosecutor looks at it and where it is appropriate, takes the necessary action.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim. Would you be wrapping up?

11.38 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, first, let me thank all Members who spoke on the Motion. Everyone who has spoken accepts that fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of our justice system. Let me summarise the Workers' Party's position first.

In respect of fairness, the Leader of the Opposition has highlighted shortcomings in relation to the prosecution's duty of disclosure to the defence and how prosecutors have fallen short of these duties, as flagged by recent judgments from the Court of Appeal.

The unfairness faced by the poor was highlighted by MP for Sengkang Ms He Ting Ru and myself. We have described how a lack of resources can unfairly impact households who are faced with charges for offences, even minor ones. This is a major societal issue that if unaddressed could worsen the class divide and entrench inter-generational poverty.

We have made suggestions on how the unfairness may be mitigated such as re-looking at composition fines and bail.

Fairness is also an issue for those not comfortable in the English language, when it comes to statement recording by law enforcement. For this, I have suggested recording statements documented in other languages. Ms He raised the unfairness faced by those who are wrongly accused and suffered damage and harm. She argued that there should be recourse to compensation, balanced with the need for effective law enforcement in prosecutions.

As for crime victims, I have highlighted that their role and rights need strengthening, if the system is to be fairer to them.

As far as access to justice is concerned, Ms He and Mr Gerald Giam, MP for Aljunied, have acknowledged the existence of legal aid schemes but pointed out that enhancements are due. For instance, criminal legal aid provided in non-capital cases should be entrenched in statute and not left as a Law Society initiative albeit co-funded by the Government.

Mr Giam has particularly highlighted the disadvantages faced by migrant workers, whether it is crime victims or accused persons.

On the right to consult a lawyer when arrested, Ms He pointed out that this was a constitutional right and a review is needed to ascertain if it is functioning optimally, balancing the interests of law enforcement and the accused.

As regard to the third cornerstone of independence, several of my Party colleagues touched on this. MP for Hougang Mr Dennis Tan was concerned about judicial officers at the State Courts and how their independence could be enhanced. He suggested the State Court Judges should not be subject to rotation in and out of the Executive Government, and this could be assured by setting up a separate judicial service.

He also asked if the criteria for the appointment of State Court Judges should be raised to a higher threshold of seniority.

The Leader of the Opposition Mr Pritam Singh proposed that the Attorney-General's office be subject to structural change to enhance its independence by decoupling the rules of public prosecutor and the Government legal advisor, so that they are held by different people. He also proposed a longer contractual period of five years for appointees to the post of AG and that any future nominee should have experience in criminal practice either as a judge, prosecutor or defence counsel.

Another Aljuined MP Mr Leon Perera raised the need for additional independent checks on the actions of public bodies through the office of an ombudsman. I have also suggested that it is prudent to do a review on whether there is any institutional sub-culture that inadvertently results in discriminatory outcomes between the rich and poor. If such a sub-culture exists, steps should be taken to eradicate it.

Finally, Sengkang MP Assoc Prof Jamus Lim reminded us that strengthening the rule of law carries an economic imperative and is in the national interest.

Several Members gave different perspectives. Mr Xie Yao Quan praised our criminal justice system and said we should not tar everyone with the same brush. His point was that we should not be critical of all who work in the criminal justice system. And, of course, that was not my intention, as I pointed out that there are many public-spirited professionals in law enforcement, prosecution and the Courts, who take their mission seriously.

Mr Vikram Nair supported the spirit behind my Motion. He agreed with the principle of criminal law reform and spoke of the reforms legislated in the CPC in 2010. He also said that there could be greater access to counsel by accused persons at an earlier stage and he agreed with the idea of a public defender's office. He said that my points on the plight of the poor, improvement of processes of law enforcement agencies and support of crime victims were things that could be looked into. I thank him for that.

I also think Mr Leong Mun Wai for supporting the original Motion.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam reiterated points made by Minister Shanmugam in his Statement on Ms Parti Liyani's case. She said that unfairness is not pervasive and that processes and channels for help exist in our system. However, she agreed that our systems are not perfect and that we should work on our shortcomings and remedy them. If not, we were planting the seeds of doubt and eroding trust in the system. I thank her for saying those things.

Mr Louis Ng raised concerns about the timeline to implement video recording and on translation of statements.

Mr Murali Pillai gave us a lecture on the separation of government powers. He also shared his experiences working within the system.

As for government responses, I am glad that Minister Shanmugam has recognised several issues that we have raised. He said that on many issues, we were on the same page, pushing at an open door. He said we were setting out positions of principle and he did not object to them, but that the front bench needed to think about the implementation.

He said that on a few points, things are already moving. On other things, he said the Government would not be implementing them. He agreed that the poor do face bigger challenges in paying fines for regulatory offences and the potential snow-balling effect. He felt this was a complex issue that required the involvement of many agencies. He agreed that instalment payments could be allowed and that he has given directions to look into this.

The Minister for the said that the Government is at ad idem with MP Pritam Singh and that the Government is consulting stakeholders on the codifying of common law case disclosure requirements. On legal aid for the poor, the Minister agreed with the principle, but felt that we should proceed cautiously in view of the experience in other countries. Nevertheless, he said that the Government was not fully satisfied with the current system and was looking into the feasibility of setting up a public defender's office.

We welcome that action is being taken on the above matters.

For some issues, he cited resource constraints. For instance, he said that as far as recording of statements is concerned, audio-visual recordings are the gold standard but resource issues were a bottleneck.

On compensation for miscarriages of justice, the Minister felt that only vexatious cases deserved compensation. We ask the Government keep an open mind on this, as there could be other cases deserving of compensation.

Minister Edwin Tong talked about the ombudsman and rejected our suggestion. He pointed out that the Government was more concerned with overall outcomes. Minister of State Gan Siow Huang highlighted the efforts made by the Government to support migrant workers in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, since we filed the Motion, many members of the public have reached out to us. They have shared with us their own experiences of being crime victims or suspects or having family members being subject to such experiences.

Questions raised by the public include the following: where is the justice when someone is wrongly accused and had to endure humiliation in investigations, only to be acquitted? Does the prosecution aim to win cases at all costs? Do we treat migrant workers fairly or as modern-day slaves? How is it that the weaknesses in Parti Liyani's case were not picked up by law enforcement, the Prosecution and the trial Judge? How neutral are these agencies, they asked.

Mr Speaker, even if the Government and the ruling Party are not convinced that the system has shortcomings, the fact that the public is asking such questions should not be ignored. It is sad that after all the points made today on where improvements can be made or, in fact, are due, the Government does not even accept that the system has any shortcomings. I believe this is an opportunity to review the justice system with an open mind.

Sir, by filing this Motion, the Workers' Party is not motivated by a desire for heads to roll in the Parti Liyani case. What we hope to achieve is a strengthening of the system so that it is built to last for the future.

To conclude, I would just like to summarise that we cannot accept the amendments proposed because they imply that there are no shortcomings in the system and that there will be no review of the system. As these are key aspects of our original Motion, we are unable to support the amended Motion.

Mr Speaker: Any clarifications? Minister Shanmugam.

11.47 pm

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to clarify that what I had said is that we are looking at putting in statutory form the disclosure requirements. I think Ms Sylvia Lim said or attributed to me a different formulation. So, I just want to be clear.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali.

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to clarify a comment made by the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim on the purport of the amendment. She appears to have understood my amendments as suggesting that the Government does not admit that there was any shortcoming in the past.

That was not my intent. In fact, if anything, Mr Speaker, the point I was stressing in my speech was that there were shortcomings in the past. But the point is, the Government continues to expend effort to improve the system and to ensure there is justice for all.

So, that is really the point I sought to make.

Mr Speaker: Any final clarifications before midnight? The original Motion, as amended, is now before the House.

Original Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved, "That this House recognises that fairness, access and independence are cornerstones of Singapore's justice system and affirms the Government's continuous efforts since Independence to build a fair and just society and remedy any shortcoming in order to enhance justice for all, regardless of race, language, religion, economic means or social status."

Mr Speaker: Yes, Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party Members of Parliament would like to have our dissent recorded. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: If you raise your hands, please, it will be recorded.

Hon Members Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis, Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song, Ms He Ting Ru, Mr Leong Mun Wai, Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim, Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, Mr Leon Perera, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Raeesah Khan, Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong indicated that their dissent be recorded.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Before I call on the Leader, I would just like to make a few points.

Thank you very much for bearing with us and, thankfully, finishing before midnight. I just want to register my thanks to our staff in Parliament, the security staff and so on, and especially our interpreters, for supporting us up to this point. [Applause.]

And especially, as we were talking about ex-politicians, I would like to make a special call-out to Mr Lau Ping Sum who celebrates his 80th birthday today, in there interpreting for us from English to Chinese and vice versa. [Applause.]

Thank you very much and happy birthday! Leader.