Law Students Found Cheating in Bar Examinations and Steps to Address Public Concerns

3 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Law (a) whether there were similar instances of cheating by trainee lawyers in the years prior to the recent discovery of candidates cheating in the 2020 Part B Bar examination and (b) if so, what actions were taken against them.

4 Ms He Ting Ru asked the Minister for Law (a) whether any steps need to be taken to address public concerns about the law students found cheating; and (b) whether the punishments meted out are sufficient.

5 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Law (a) whether the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) has observed a similar trend of trainee lawyers cheating in their Bar examinations, especially for the 2021 cohort; and (b) whether the Ministry intends to introduce any rules to regulate trainee lawyers' conduct so as to ensure that they are deemed ethically ready to be called to the Bar.

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to answer all the Parliamentary Questions related to the recent incidents of cheating by trainee lawyers during the 2020 Bar examinations together? That would include Question Nos 3, 4 and 5 in the Order Paper from Mr Seah Kian Peng, Ms He Ting Ru and Ms Hany Soh, as well as Question No 11 for Written Answer from Mr Ang Wei Neng filed for today's Sitting.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. Sir, the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) conducts the Bar examinations in Singapore. SILE has said that it has put in place additional safeguards to prevent cheating. It has introduced remote proctoring for examinations that are conducted online and SILE's position is that, apart from the 11 cases which have been uncovered, they have not found any other cases of cheating in the subsequent rounds of the Bar examinations. But, of course, the fact is that there is a difference between whether it has happened and what they have found. But they have not found anything else.

As regards these particular trainee lawyers, SILE has required that all of them who cheated are to repeat the preparatory course and/or the Bar examinations in the next year. The Attorney-General has objected to their applications for admission because of the cheating during the Bar examinations and the Court has adjourned their hearings for admission. So, what does that mean? It means that their applications to be admitted to the Bar will be heard at some time in the future, when the adjournments end. To get admitted, they will need to convince all the stakeholders involved that they are fit and proper to practise law before they are allowed to do so.

As with all admission applications, the High Court has the discretion to rule on whether a particular applicant should be admitted or should not be admitted, taking into account the views of the Attorney-General, SILE and the Law Society.

We need to be careful about how much we discuss here and I have to be careful of what I say because the applications of the trainee lawyers who cheated are still pending in Court. In the circumstances, what I can say is this: lawyers are fiduciaries. They are expected to act in the best interests of the clients they advise. They are also officers of the Court, meaning they owe a very high duty to the Court. They have to be honest, both with their clients and with the Court. They have to act with the highest standards of probity to ensure that they can be relied upon with utmost confidence. That is not just as lawyers advising clients, but in every other aspect of their conduct.

Cheating is a serious derogation from the basic principle of honesty. I think all this can be said without too much contention. There are levels of seriousness when lawyers behave dishonestly: misleading clients is serious, lying in Court is serious, lying on oath is serious. Some of these carry potential criminal consequences. There is also other conduct which, if it is unbefitting of a lawyer, whether or not in the context of advising a client, can also be taken up.

These are basic principles. I am sure Members, including the Members who have asked the questions, would accept that any such conduct is quite unacceptable.

What happens to the particular trainee lawyers' applications, how they will be dealt with – the Courts will decide, taking into account the views of the respective institutions, which will put forward their views.

Mr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister.

Mr Speaker: If you can keep it to two questions, please. Thank you.

Mr Seah Kian Peng: Okay. First one: the Minister mentioned that SILE has since put in additional safeguards. Of course, we could say we are smarter in hindsight, but my question is, why were some of these safeguards not put in place in the first instance? If some of the trainees in previous examinations – which is the question I filed – have subsequently been practising, may I ask the Minister whether the LawSoc has found any misconduct amongst any of them in that group? These are the earlier cases. Were there any similar cases of examinees that cheated in the past?

My second supplementary question is: earlier on, we were concerned about second chances. Given that the names of these candidates are now revealed, what can we say about giving them second chances?

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Seah Kian Peng's first question is: why did SILE not put in safeguards earlier? Sir, I cannot speak for SILE. I assume that they, perhaps, expected lawyers to be more honest than what has turned out to be the case, at least, with regard to some of them; and, prior to COVID-19, examinations were usually conducted physically. So, I do not think SILE has that much experience conducting it in this format. Second, with regard to whether there were earlier cases, Sir, what I can say is: SILE says that it has not found situations of such cheating. I drew a distinction between that and whether something like that has actually happened.

Mr Speaker: There was a second supplementary question, Minister, about second chances.

Mr K Shanmugam: My apologies. On whether it should be a question of second chances, I think the way we ought to approach it is this. The first point should be: what is the offence and who committed the offence? The offence here is cheating – which is serious. Who committed it? Trainee lawyers – that is also serious, doubly serious. You start with that and the message has got to go out to others that all of this will be dealt with very seriously. I do not think anyone can dispute that.

Second, at the same time, what is the right penalty? As I have said, that is before the Courts, so, we need to be careful. But I think we can say this much. These are young people. Does that mean that we forever prevent them from practising? I think most people would say that would sound very harsh. So, what is the appropriate penalty, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, but also their age and should they forever be prevented from being lawyers, being called to the Bar? I think most people would think that is probably too harsh.

Should they face significant sanctions that bring across the seriousness of the conduct? I think most people would agree with that. Within that framework, how the Courts decide, I think we have to wait and see.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Speaker. This question is akin to what Minister has just responded to, in relation to recommending having a rehabilitative nature or giving these trainee solicitors a second chance: whether we can also explore recommending that these trainee lawyers be conditionally called, continue to have close supervision by their supervising solicitors or representative from the Law Society and serve the community by volunteering in cases through the Legal Aid Bureau or the Criminal Legal Aid schemes, until they are deemed satisfied by their supervising solicitors.

Mr K Shanmugam: I think the points made are interesting. As to whether they need close supervision, at the age of 23 or 25, I do not think you need to have close supervision to know that you ought not to be cheating in an examination, because, being Singaporeans, they would have gone through examinations for the most part of their lives and one hopes that this was not earlier practised.

I think there are some merits in some of the other points about requiring them to do some service to the community. But these are not things that are decided by the Government. We can decide as a matter of policy in future under the law, but for these specific cases, these are matters that are between the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Law Society to make suggestions and for the Courts to decide.