Justice for All- Review of the Case of Parti Liyani v Public Prosecutor 2020 SGHC 187 (Motion)

(5 min) 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.

Hansard: https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/sprs3topic?reportid=motion-1532

Response from Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, in Part 2, I will go to the broader questions that I identified, which is an inquiry, or rather, the questions I have dealt with in Part 1 inquiring into how the investigations and prosecution were conducted. Here, I want to go into the broader questions. The key question is whether the case was handled differently because of the status of the complainant or if there has been any improper influence.

Really, if I were to put it this way – did LML in any way influence these proceedings or was the case investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the rules like any other case?

I have said it earlier and I will reiterate. I can be categorical. There was no influence by LML. It was treated as any other theft case and handled accordingly. We have checked with the IOs, their supervisor, the DPPs and their director. They have confirmed this. There was no pressure or influence exerted on them by LML or anyone acting on his behalf, and they handled this case as they have handled other theft cases.

I will now deal with the Police. I have set out how the Police handled the matter and what they took into account. It was dealt with by the IOs. Decisions were taken by them, together with their immediate supervisor. The case did not come to the attention of the senior management either at the Police or in my Ministry. No one senior has spoken with or been influenced by LML or any of the Liews on this case. Meaning, as I said, it was dealt with by the IOs and their immediate supervisor and no one beyond that. No one lobbied or exerted pressure either on the IOs or on the supervisor, or on anyone in a position to influence the investigations.

Turning to AGC, I have explained how the matter was dealt with by AGC. It was dealt with by DPPs and cleared at the level of a Director. Again, neither LML nor anyone acting for them, approached AGC or had any contact with AGC in this case. AGC dealt with Police.

There have been some questions asked specific to the Attorney-General, that he was on the Board of Directors of Capitaland between 20 November 2000 and 2 January 2006 when LML was the President and CEO. As a result, did AG in any way influence the proceedings? The answer is no. AG did not know of these investigations or proceedings until the case went for trial.

There is a further point. AG resigned from the Capitaland Board with effect from 2 January 2006. He resigned because he had a difference of viewpoints with LML on some issues. When AGC conducted its internal review on this matter, AG recused himself. AG felt that given the history of differences he has had with LML, the perception of fairness may be affected if AG oversaw the review. Thus, AG had nothing to do with this case at any stage. The case was conducted by the State Courts in open Court in accordance with the Rules.

This case is, in fact, an illustration of how the Rule of Law applies. A foreign domestic worker is charged, the High Court acquits her, the Complainant is a wealthy, powerful person, but all are equal before the Law. It does not matter who the parties are, Justice according to the facts and the Law as the Courts see it.

We may agree or disagree with the State Court's or High Court’s decisions and conclusions, but that is a different matter.

If you look at it at a systemic level, at the highest level, you talk about the criminal justice system – we have the Police who investigate in accordance with the legal framework for Police investigations. AGC make the charging decision based on available evidence and public interest. The Trial Courts consider the sufficiency of the evidence and the legal issues. The Appellate Courts review the decision of the Trial Court. The case shows that the criminal justice system, as a whole, works.

If you drill down to the next level, we have "systems". For example, these would comprise investigative protocols, SOPs for how the Police and the DPPs operate. I have mentioned some errors that were made, we have to try and strengthen the "systems" at that level, try and prevent re-occurrence. I have also mentioned the challenges.

Besides these levels to the system, there will always be the risk of mistakes by individuals. These lapses will have to be dealt with.

Sir, the idea of Rule of Law is central to our ideas of fairness, equality and justice. It is even more important in the current zeitgeist that is sweeping through countries. Societies around the world are grappling with debates on inequality, a sense that the elite are creaming off most of the economic benefits and bending the rules and systems to their advantage, and in the process buying off, suborning those in Government. People are fed up with unfair structures; equal opportunities are drying up.

In Singapore, we are not in the same situation. Our active intervention in socio-economic issues has helped most people to benefit. But our people know we must jealously guard the availability of equal opportunities. We must ensure that everyone has a fair shake. We must be alert, guard against the wealthy and the powerful taking unfair advantages.

If a significant section of our people feel that the system favours some, or that it is unfairly stacked against them, then Singapore will lose its cohesion and it cannot succeed. Thus, it is essential that we have a fair system, that we have a clean system, that we have a system that gives opportunities to all.

These are our fundamental concerns. If LML did unfairly influence the proceedings, then it will be a hit to our foundations and it will be a hit to our sense of fairness, equality and justice. And a dent to Project Singapore itself because Singapore is built on these ideals.

We have always been jealous about guarding against such corrosion. It does not mean that there will be no abuse of power and no corruption. But when it happens, swift, decisive action must be taken.

Members will know successive Governments have been clear about this. There has to be a ruthless intensity in upholding integrity. Mr Lee Kuan Yew set the tone. The case of Mr Teh Cheang Wan is a prime example of the approach. He was one of the most senior Members in Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s Cabinet. But when corruption allegations surfaced, Mr Lee directed the CPIB to conduct investigations. Mr Teh was placed on leave of absence. He ultimately chose to end his life rather than face trial or corruption charges, which the AGC had then yet to settle. Mr Lee said at that time, and I quote, "There is no way a Minister can avoid investigations and a trial if there is evidence to support one."

These were the values of our Founding Generation and these are and have to be our continuing values. They have been scrupulously stressed and adhered to by the two succeeding Prime Ministers. They are like religious commandments. There cannot be any compromise. When there is a breach, action is taken, will be taken. Let me refer to some cases.

In 2012, you had Peter Lim, Commissioner of SCDF – in fact, he was Commissioner of SCDF when I was Minister for Home Affairs too – convicted of corruption charges for receiving sexual favours with three different women, sentenced to six months' imprisonment, dismissed from public service following disciplinary proceedings.

In 2013, you had Mr Edwin Yeo, Assistant Director of CPIB, misappropriating money, jailed for 10 years for criminal breach of trust or CBT as a public servant and forgery.

In 2007, you had Mr TT Durai, CEO of the National Kidney Foundation, convicted for corruption, sentenced to imprisonment; appeal to the High Court dismissed.

In 2012, you had Mr Howard Shaw, then-Executive Director of the Singapore Environment Council, convicted for obtaining commercial sex with minors; had asked for a nominal fine based on testimonials of his good character and social standing. Court found no exceptional circumstances; 12 weeks' imprisonment. Sentence was to provide a strong deterrent to others.

Peter Lim was a senior Home Team officer. In many countries, his actions would not have attracted criminal punishment. In most countries, Commissioners of SCDF, Assistant Directors of CPIB, are pretty much untouchable. But not in Singapore. The message is it does not matter who you are, if you do wrong, action will be taken.

But it is not only corruption that we must guard against. We must also guard against what I call soft corruption and influence peddling.

Let me quote what Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Goh Keng Swee have said. In 1984, Mr Lee said, and I quote, "We exercised power as trustees for the people, with an abiding sense of our fiduciary responsibility. Our honour, our sense of duty made us exercise power scrupulously. We have curbed, restrained, prevented any distortion of policies which would have been inevitable if the personal interests of the few in charge were allowed full rein. This is the case in many new countries.

When those in office regard the power vested in them as a personal prerogative, they inevitably enrich themselves, promote their families, favour their friends. The fundamental structures of the modern state are eroded, like the supporting beams of a house after termites have attacked them. Then, the people have to pay dearly and long for the sins and crimes of their leaders.”

And as early as 1961, the late Dr Goh warned about the risks, that groups of elites might create an environment that would favour one community at the expense of another. In an article in Nanyang University journal, 1961, he said, and I quote, "To achieve an honest and energetic administration appears easy in theory. In practice, very few of the young and emergent nations have achieved this. Even in the most advanced and leading societies, whether communist or democratic, the problem of nepotism is a recurring one and can only be countered by constant vigilance.

In advanced societies, it is not so much open nepotism that is to be feared, but the insidious 'old boy' type whereby no illegalities are committed, but in which the pinnacles of power, influence and wealth are the reserve of those born into the right families. In underdeveloped countries, the matter could be more serious. A system may arise in which the dominant majority, whether of families, clans or even entire communities, arrogates to itself not only the openings to the seats of power, but also the avenues by which individuals can fit themselves out for such positions of power. The dominant majority is thus able to point out that those outside of the charmed circle just do not have the necessary qualifications to be admitted to this elite group.

Thus, many able and aspiring people are denied the opportunity for the full use of their abilities."

I personally find these words very powerful, insightful and have more than once quoted this speech of Dr Goh in my own speeches because Dr Goh, I think, has identified precisely a serious, insidious risk in any society including ours. We are not that special that we can be immune to these risks. We have to constantly make sure that we do not allow it. We have to be very careful to try and stamp it out wherever it appears, and make no mistake, make no mistake. It will keep appearing in big and small ways.

This is again something successive Prime Ministers have been vigilant about. One illustration of that is the letter that the Prime Minister sends out at the start of each new term of the House. Most Members are aware of the letter. I have put it in Annex 8. [Please refer to Annex 8.]

I will quote parts: "the context each time may be different but the subject remains constant. Integrity, honesty and incorruptibility are fundamental. We must never tire of reminding ourselves of their importance. One vital factor to retain the trust of Singaporeans all these years is honesty and integrity.

The reputation for clean, incorruptible government is one of our most precious assets. I cannot stress strongly enough every Member of Parliament (MP) must uphold the rigorous standards we have set for ourselves, do nothing to compromise them, never give cause for allegations that you are misusing your position, especially your access to Ministers. A few will cultivate you to obtain benefits for themselves or their companies, to gain respectability by association with you, or to get you to influence Ministries and Statutory Boards, to make decisions in their favour. Personal favours, big and small, are just some of the countless social lubricants which such people use to ingratiate themselves to MPs and make you obliged to them. At all times, be seen to be beyond the influence of gifts or favours.

Separate your public political position from your private, professional or business interests. MPs who are in business, who occupy senior management positions in companies or who sit on company boards, should be especially vigilant. You must not exploit your public position as Government MPs, your close contacts with the Ministers, or your access to government departments and civil servants, for your personal interest or the benefit of your employers. Your conduct must be always above board. We have held our position because our integrity has never been in doubt. Always conduct yourselves with modesty, decorum, dignity."

I can tell Members this. This is all not just nice sounding advice. Even before it reaches the kind of conduct referred to in the Prime Minister’s letter, if we feel that there is some conduct that requires a closer look, we do take a closer look. I am referring here to conduct which is not criminal, not a breach of ethics, but which in our view should be avoided; something that may be legal but, for example, lead eventually to something which is not of so good odour.

When we sense that, I usually have a chat with the relevant MP. They come, have a cup of coffee with me. When they leave, the issue is usually resolved. And if it is not resolved, then they do not remain as MPs. But do not worry, it does not happen every time people come and have coffee with me.

If it is criminal, of course, there will be prosecution. And there have been MPs and ex-MPs who have been prosecuted. If there are breaches of other rules, the respective professional or regulatory bodies will take action, as they have done. We do not intervene or try and stop any of this.

I have dealt with this at some length because we must understand these are fundamental values. And if we do not keep them, we will be in trouble. In Singapore, in this context, we have a more challenging environment because we are a small place. A lot of people know each other – many educational, professional, work-related, social familial connections. Same schools, colleges, Universities, time spent in National Service, other connections. People interact with each other frequently. We try and look for the people on the basis of merit and they will often, because of their careers and education, have deep connection with many others whom they interact with.

The way we handle this – make sure the persons appointed are men and women of character. They have the moral fibre to do the right thing.

Earlier I had said, the Attorney-General recused himself from the review because of his history with LML. What will the position be if he was, in fact, a close friend of LML? We will expect him to disclose that and recuse himself as well from any decision making. This is how the system works.

Let me give a few examples. Prof S Jayakumar, when he was Minister for Law, what were his connections? When he was Dean, Law School, the then-AG’s wife had been his Vice-Dean. Former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong had been his law school contemporary. Former Commissioner of Police Goh Yong Hong was also his law school contemporary. And the succeeding Commissioner of Police Tee Tua Ba was Prof Jaya’s law student. The Attorney-General and I were his law students as well. I had spent 22 years in private practice; I worked with many Senior Counsels, senior lawyers, appeared before many Judges.

Our small size means these connections and interactions are inevitable. And so, we will always have to be very careful, always remember we are fiduciaries. This is a sacred trust. We do this for the people. We do the right thing. Do not allow any corrosion of public interest. Act with honour. Be worthy of the trust people have reposed in us. It is critical that, whatever the relationship, the Government maintains high standards of probity, of conduct so that decisions are made on objective and impartial assessment.

And have we lived up to those standards? Members can ask that question honestly. What is the lived reality for Singaporeans? How much corruption do people encounter here? We rank highly on credible international indices, for absence of corruption, for rule of law, for the way our system functions cleanly. This is a country known for all these – and that continues to be the case.

What happens if you allow the system to go awry? What happens when you allow influence peddling? What happens when you allow corruption, abuse of position, abuse of power? Let me just give a couple of examples.

First, the US. Influence peddling has become part and parcel of politics and governance. The US Supreme Court has said: “Ingratiation and access embody a central feature of democracy.” Not against the law for officials to set up meetings, host events, call other officials on behalf of lobbyists. Big businesses extensively lobby regulators, using middlemen.

I personally think this is not good for the healthy functioning of society. Lobbying itself in the US is a massive business. Big Pharma, for example, spent US$4.45 billion on lobbying alone over the last 22 years. And it works. One study found that regulators were 45% less likely to initiate enforcement action against banks that lobby versus banks that do not.

The experience of South Africa offers another example. In South Africa, "State Capture" is a buzzword because of how private interests have exerted influence over government decision-making and used this influence to plunder the state. Corruption scandals involving the former President and the Gupta brothers are the most famous examples. It is, of course, an extreme example of the system going awry.

The critical question for us: how do we ensure that the system stays clean, that we do not allow what Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Goh Keng Swee warned against? We have a media that highlights these issues. See the number of articles that have appeared on this matter in the Singapore media - accountability, because a well-educated, aware population that holds us accountable; and Parliament, where we have these issues to be openly discussed, debated. All these are essential. But these factors are also present in many countries where influence peddling is, nevertheless, a cancer.

We have avoided that slippery path because, in addition to the above, we have had in our three Prime Ministers the strong will to ensure a clean system and the decisiveness to act when something goes wrong. And always, always, regardless of your rules and regardless of your systems, the rot starts at the top. If the top is clean, then your systems can work well. And we have got to make sure of that. And if it starts, then very few things can save such a country.

In this case, if we had seen anything wrong by way of influence peddling, swift, open, transparent action would have been taken.

Sir, I have spoken at some length on the case and on the broader issues. Now I will deal with the questions Members have raised by way of Parliamentary Questions, or PQs, which I have not already dealt with.

Mr Murali Pillai, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Derrick Goh have asked a number of questions about the High Court’s observations, the agencies’ processes, the internal reviews and related questions. Part 1 of my Statement has covered these points. Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Derrick Goh have also asked for some information on foreign domestic workers, theft cases, Court proceedings.

I have said earlier, Police investigate around 14,000, in fact, 14,122 theft-related cases – I think that was in 2016. For the specific offence of Theft as a Servant, an average of 528 arrests annually, about 48% of them are foreign domestic workers. On average, about 70, or 27% of the 255 foreign domestic workers, were prosecuted. We do not track data on how many of them claimed trial or how many of them had legal representation.

At the same time, on the reverse side of the coin, from 2015 to 2019, 115 employers were prosecuted for committing offences against foreign domestic workers. This includes cases of physical and sexual abuse. Sixty-five persons have been convicted, 21 cases are pending.

Mr Louis Ng asked if foreign domestic workers and other work permit holders can be accompanied by non-legal personnel, similar to the Appropriate Adults, or AAs, scheme, for Police interviews. From 2015 to 2019, an average of 2,741 foreign workers on work permits were arrested each year as potential accused. Interviews have to be done quickly. I have earlier said Police are already very stretched. Let us not stretch them further. It will be a very difficult exercise. Appropriate Adults attended to 2,300 activations in 2019. These cases involved minors and mentally vulnerable persons.

If we had to provide AAs for every foreign worker interviewed, we would have to minimally double the current volunteer pool, provide the training and resourcing; and some may require more than one statement, and this will become a real constraint and load on the Police. And each time you have an interview, you have to look for an Appropriate Adult. Interviews will be delayed if the AA is not available. Evidence could go missing. There are other issues.

The foreign workers are adults. The key is for Police to make sure that the foreign workers understand the questions and their answers are properly recorded. And it has to be open for scrutiny in Court, which it is.

So that Members can understand the load on our officers, I will share the following. As I said earlier, Police investigated 66,200 criminal cases in 2016 and they were handled by 1,100 IOs. Just to give Members a sense, the ratio of Police officers to population – I have spoken about this previously in the House and I am here referring to Police officers in general, not just IOs – New York at 0.42%, London at 0.34%, Hong Kong at 0.39%, Singapore at 0.23%, including full-time National Servicemen.

If we were to have the same numbers as Hong Kong, we would need 9,100 more officers. My entire Police force today comprises 13,200 Police officers, including National Servicemen. If we were to have the same numbers as Hong Kong, we would have to have 9,000 more officers. If we were to have the same numbers as London, we would need 6,000 more officers. If we were to have the same numbers as New York, we would need 11,000 more officers.

So, Members can understand and appreciate the load on our officers and, as I have said, I have spoken about this in the House more than once. And my concern is that there is a limit to how much our officers can do with increasing workload and increasing expectations, but without a proportionate increase in manpower.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked how many State Court Judges had previously worked as prosecutors in the AGC and whether the Ministry will review the policy of separation of duties. This point has come up previously and let me put it this way.

The total number of lawyers in our Legal Service and Judiciary, excluding High Court Judges, is 801. That is a relatively small number. In this context, the question is: why are officers posted between the State Courts and other parts of the Legal Service? Can there be independence if they are liable to be cross-posted?

Let me quote something quite dated. Mr A P Rajah, a former Speaker and High Court Judge, said in 1963: “He thinks that if you are a DPP, then you cannot be a good District Judge; if you are a District Judge, then you cannot be a good DPP; if you are a first-rate DPP, then you cannot make a first-rate Assize Judge. He seems to suffer from that misapprehension. Merely to say that because one has been a DPP and that, therefore, when he gets on to the Bench, he is going to side with the prosecution, is not correct and is not fair to the profession.”

I am not suggesting that Mr Lim Biow Chuan or anyone else is under any misapprehension. I think it is a fair question. And this was said in 1963 when the number of officers was much smaller. What is the situation now? Today, all movements in the Legal Service are overseen by Personnel Boards and/or Committees all chaired by the Chief Justice, and the Legal Service Commission, of which the Chief Justice is the President.

The Legal Service Commission takes the view that rotation has three major benefits.

One, it provides access to a larger pool of talent to select State Court Judges with the right blend of temperament, knowledge and experience.

Two, it develops Legal Service Officers (LSOs) into well-rounded officers by exposing them to, and training them in, different fields of legal work and allowing them to learn about their strengths and weaknesses. And this benefits the Legal Service and Singapore, no matter where the LSOs are posted in future.

Three, this also gives flexibility, for instance, to accommodate LSOs who want to try different types of work, or LSOs who have a change of heart about their preferred line of work. Judges who have prosecutorial experience will bring added knowledge to the work.

However, significant changes have also been made. In 2014, the Prime Minister announced greater specialisation in the Legal Service. There are now two separate career tracks for the middle ranks of LSOs. One is the “Legal” track and the other is the “Judicial” track. LSOs on the Judicial track are posted to jobs within the Judicial Branch and they are assessed by a separate Judicial Branch Special Personnel Board headed by the Chief Justice.

The Prime Minister explained why this was done: “We need a first-class Legal Service that in turn calls for a first-class personnel management system to attract and retain the best people, to remunerate them fairly with reference to the market, to groom talent systematically and prepare them for leadership positions and to imbue officers with the right values and commitment to Singapore." Up to now, we have always decided to stick to the integrated model because we had too few officers to support two separate services and we believed that LSOs would have a better career path in one single integrated service.

But it is timely for us to review the position again, in the light of changing circumstances. First, because the Legal Service is much larger, so officers can specialise without conscribing their career prospects. Second, because the scope and complexity of work, whether in the Government Ministries, whether in AGC or in the Courts, the scope of work has in all cases grown enormously in the Government, in the Ministries – there are more responsibilities. Hence, we need more specialist and expert skills than ever before.

Thus, the Legal Service Commission or LSC introduced two separate career tracks for LSOs up to Grade 3 – the "Legal" and "Judicial" tracks. Eligible officers can elect to specialise along either track. They will then be posted to jobs within either the Legal Branch or the Judicial Branch.

To oversee the two career tracks, two new Personnel Boards under the LSC – the Legal Branch Personnel Board and the Judicial Branch Personnel Board – were established. These Boards manage the LSOs in the respective Branches.

However, even as we promote more specialisation, it is critical that the Legal Service operates as an integrated whole. The specialisation into the two tracks is for the middle ranks of the Legal Service. Junior officers starting out on their careers will still be posted to different departments and across branches to develop them in different fields of legal work.

Beyond Grade 3, the senior officers at Grade 2 and above will still be managed by the Legal Service Commission because at that level of seniority, there will only be very few officers and it is necessary to continue with the integrated model to provide better career options and flexibility in deployment to meet the needs of the Service.

The approach we have adopted strikes a balance between specialisation and integration, with safeguards for judicial independence. The system is working well. And we think that this is what is good for Singapore.

Mr Leong Mun Wai has asked whether there can be an expedited trial process for foreign economically vulnerable accused persons and he has also asked about the interpretation services in SPF.

First, on the trial processes, the median time taken in the Courts for a criminal case from being first charged in Court to judgment is 15 months – median. Depends on the nature of the case, availability of counsels, DPPs, how long the trial itself takes, documents, witnesses, challenges that the Prosecution and Defence make, and time taken for deliberation.

The State Courts, as I said earlier, handle about 600 criminal trials per year. We have 55 judges to handle these trials. Again, it is a very heavy load for the State Courts. About a quarter, 22% of these cases, involved foreigners.

If we expedite a case for a foreign person, then a Singaporean accused will have to wait even longer, if we take Mr Leong Mun Wai's suggestion. So, having a criminal case pending, why should we make Singaporeans suffer disproportionately more?

If I can give one example. We had a 51-year old Singaporean accused person charged in March of this year for two counts of shop theft. He claimed trial to the charges against him and was remanded. In June 2020, AGC assessed that his remand period, three months at that point, might outstrip his possible sentence even if he were to be convicted. At the Public Prosecutor's request, the trial was brought forward and conducted on an urgent basis. A two-day trial was conducted, after which he was convicted and sentenced to 16 weeks' of jail.

There will be many other cases like this but even if there is no specific remand situation, if you bring forward some people in the queue, the others in the queue will have to wait longer. And I do not think it is fair to Singaporeans to do what Mr Leong Mun Wai has suggested.

Second, on the interpretation service, I have given a fairly extensive answer. The Police currently employ a pool of interpreters for the three official working languages – that is, Chinese, Malay and Tamil – as well as more common local dialects – Hokkien, Teochew and Cantonese.

The Police will engage the services of interpreters if the interviewee is unable to understand the language used by the interviewer or vice versa. For foreign languages, the Police will engage the services of foreign language interpreters on an ad hoc basis. There is a framework to assess the suitability of interpreters, which includes their qualifications and relevant work experience.

As regards Ms Liyani in this case, she was asked. She said she could speak in Malay. The point is: does the interviewee understand the language being used? And as I said earlier, the Police have been told – they must really check this.

Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr Leong Mun Wai have asked about increasing legal aid for accused in criminal cases; and secondly, increasing the honoraria paid for lawyers under CLAS. Ms Carrie Tan has specifically also asked if we will consider having a public defender scheme to defend accused persons in criminal cases.

Let me give Members some background to the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme or CLAS. CLAS aims to provide legal aid to persons facing non-capital charges. It is administered by the Law Society's Pro Bono Services, or LSPBS. This scheme was started in 1985. The initiative came from the Law Society, senior lawyers, in particular the late Mr Harry Elias. And it was an outstanding initiative by the profession.

There is in place a framework, an assessment process, means and merit tests applied in each case to try and ensure that funding is targeted, allocated to applicants who are most vulnerable and who genuinely need assistance.

The Government pays 75% of CLAS' operating costs. This goes towards general operating costs, including staff salaries and overheads. This was decided in 2014. I announced it and it started from 2015.

Where the accused are Singapore Citizens or PRs, the money can also be used to pay honoraria. CLAS funds the remaining 25% of its costs through private donations. Law Society pays some. And this sum is also used to defend foreigners who need criminal legal aid.

But I should make clear. I have referred to honoraria. The honoraria that is paid is extremely nominal. It is effectively pro bono.

It is a system where the Government funds some part; the private sector funds some part, through cash donations, lawyers giving their time.

Should we change the model and go for full Government-funded criminal legal aid? Let me first give Members a sense of the experiences of other countries. I will just give the experience of two countries though we can look at many countries' experiences.

The United Kingdom, or at least England and Wales, offer a fully government-funded criminal legal aid scheme which comprises both a public defender scheme with in-house government lawyers and a legal aid scheme that outsources cases to private lawyers.

There has been much public debate and outcry in the UK over these schemes for various reasons, including abuse and escalating government costs.

First, there has been much unhappiness over the large legal aid fees, especially evident in cases where legal aid was spent on lengthy trials for defendants who were ultimately convicted. For example, three men who were accused of the murder of a policeman known as Andrew Harper. When they tried to evade arrest, he tried arresting them, they killed him, it cost the UK taxpayer S$817,000 in legal aid fees in 2008. And they were convicted of manslaughter in the end.

Another case was that of Ben Butler and his partner Jennie Gray, who were convicted of murdering Butler's six-year-old daughter and of child cruelty. Both were granted nearly S$2.64 million in legal aid expenses, covering both their criminal cases and a custody battle with the child's grandparents.

There have been many reports about rich defendants who received legal aid as their assets were frozen, but they remained wealthy enough as the state did not manage to seize all their assets.

Around 50 defendants with more than S$1.76 million in illegally obtained assets were found to have received legal aid in 2012. One of these was Virendra Rastogi, a London metals trading tycoon, who owned a S$10.55-million home, arrived in court every day in a chauffeur-driven car and he received S$8.79 million worth of criminal legal aid. These defendants were ordered to repay their legal aid costs but some failed to pay up despite court demands.

Given the large legal aid costs, it has been difficult for the UK government to sustain this level of spending. The government has had to implement drastic cuts to legal aid budgets since 2012, but these reforms were strongly opposed by the legal industry. Lawyers deemed the reformed fee schedules to be inadequate, went on strikes in 2014 and again, in 2018, to oppose cuts, disrupting court proceedings and delaying the resolution of criminal cases.

In one case, a convicted drug dealer was allowed to keep his alleged $7.9 million fortune because of delays in finding a legal aid lawyer to represent him in confiscation hearings. The lawyers' protests eventually resulted in more watered down reforms, continued escalating legal aid costs for the government and legal aid lawyers won a $40 million fee rise after the 2018 strike.

You must note: once you make legal aid a requirement, then you cannot proceed with the case until you find a lawyer who is willing to handle it for the fees that he proposes.

If we take Ms Liyani's case as an example, the Defence Counsel has estimated that if full fees were charged, it could have cost about $150,000. If we make criminal legal aid a requirement, then the taxpayers will have to pay that amount or whatever the Defence Counsel requires. It could be more, it could be less, or have the trial postponed until a lawyer is found.

This is what is happening elsewhere. So, I welcome suggestions but Members, please look at these points. And then, when you make your points, maybe offer concrete suggestions on how we can avoid what has happened elsewhere, if we want to go down this route.

My second example is Hong Kong. Hong Kong has a fully government-funded public defender scheme that outsources part of its cases to private lawyers and the Law Society. Hong Kong spent a total of $217 million on both civil and criminal legal aid in 2017. Hong Kong has also experienced escalating legal aid budgets due to continued increase in lawyers' fees of around 4% to 10% every year.

This is why we have been very careful.

We also looked at the situation in Australia, New Zealand – raised similar issues. I would go into them, but we knew it can get very costly and very difficult to manage.

So, in our situation, we have actually been very fortunate because our legal profession has worked with Law Society, the Government. We have got CLAS. It has been a cooperative relationship and a strong public spirit. We make Singapore a vibrant legal centre. It means our lawyers do well in the other areas and we are able to encourage the pro bono spirit at the same time.

Mr Leong Mun Wai has asked can we increase the honoraria that is paid to lawyers under CLAS. My preference is to keep the probono spirit. A mix of lawyers employed specifically by CLAS, small number; lawyers from private sector, coming in – I think it is a better approach.

So, our approach has been legal aid for those who truly need it with public and private partnership, tapping on the excellent pro bono spirit of our lawyers. And should we give it up?

But I will say this. We are also not completely satisfied with the current model. There are some hard questions. How can we better help those who cannot pay for lawyers and yet, make sure that we do not go down the road that other countries have travelled?

Last year, we reached the five-year mark since the enhanced CLAS was announced in 2014. As I said earlier, CLAS was originally initiated in 1985 by the late Mr Harry Elias, together with a group of lawyers, to better help those who could not pay for a lawyer.

In 2015, pursuant to my announcement in 2014, we enhanced CLAS, with the support of the legal profession and we started reviewing the enhanced model last year which is the five-year mark since we made the first announcement. We have been considering different possibilities, including possibly a public defender's office.

CLAS today covers the lowest 25% in terms of household income. Should we expand that number? I am happy to hear from Members. We will consider suggestions seriously.

I should also mention that in 2014, when we announced the enhanced CLAS, some in the legal profession were very concerned that this was going to eat into their rice bowl. There was some disquiet. We received a petition from some lawyers – not that few – about the possible adverse effect of the enhanced CLAS on their work, on their livelihoods.

Then Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah and I met some of these concerned members from the criminal bar in 2014. We showed them the figures – that we were not going to take away their work, that we were helping those who could not have gone to them anyway. People need to be helped and that is central to the Government's mission.

Our profession has 781 firms who have between one and five lawyers in the firm. Of these 781, 233 firms practise criminal law. In terms of lawyers, there are about 750 lawyers who practise criminal law. Many depend heavily on the smaller value legal work on criminal cases. We should aim to have a structure that helps those who truly need help but does not become an unacceptable strain on the treasury. For those who can afford to pay for lawyers, the taxpayer should not have to pay for them.

In this context, the public defender's office, assisting together with the means and merits test, seems like a good option. Law Society is in principle supportive of expanding criminal legal aid in order to enhance access to justice. However, the Law Society's council has expressed strong concerns on the impact on paid work, especially for small firms. They had doubts as to whether this proposed expansion that the Government has been discussing with them would so neatly capture Singaporeans who could not afford lawyers' fees. The criminal bar representatives have counter-proposed to expand the coverage of offences, rather than increase the means test coverage.

We will continue discussions and decide.

The primary factor will be, as I have said, to ensure that those who cannot afford lawyers can get access to justice without the situation becoming fiscally difficult for the taxpayer and the Government is discussing but in principle prefers the approach of a public defender's office.

So, the answer to Ms Carrie Tan's question is yes. We have been and we are considering seriously a public defender's office. We will study the details and feasibility of this further in consultation with the Law Society and the criminal bar.

I have used the term "public defender's office" assuming that everyone understands what it means. Maybe I should explain. "Public defender's office" means the Government pays for the lawyers, employs the lawyers in a separate structure, and they act in criminal cases to defend the accused; with a suitable means test and a suitable merits test.

"How many officers? How big? How much?" are conversations we have to have with MOF, amongst others. But in principle, we will have to first discuss it with the profession and then talk to MOF and deal with the issue. But in principle, our approach, I think, might have to go down that route and at least my Ministry, MinLaw, is in favour of this approach.

Finally, a Committee of Inquiry. Mr Leong Mun Wai has asked for a Committee of Inquiry to consider the conduct of the Police and AGC in relation to Ms Liyani's case. I assume his concern is whether there was any undue influence by or on behalf of the Liews on the Police or AGC in this matter.

Sir, Committees of Inquiry under section 9 of the Inquiries Act, which sets out the list of purposes for which a Committee of Inquiry may be appointed – accidents involving deaths, serious injuries, serious property damage, incidents that may endanger public safety or public health, conduct of a Ministry department, statutory body falling under the responsibility of the Minister, conduct of any officer employed by such Ministry department or statutory body.

I think it will be clear to Mr Leong if he had looked at section 9 that I do not have the power to appoint a Committee of Inquiry in respect of AGC because it is not an agency that reports to me. Now that I have shown the Member this, I think he will acknowledge his request is legally not doable.

Let me make a set of broader points. If the Member really wants another inquiry into this matter, then what will be necessary is a Commission of Inquiry, not a Committee of Inquiry. That is very high level, headed by a Supreme Court judge or someone qualified to be a Supreme Court judge.

I am prepared to recommend to the Cabinet that we have a Commission of Inquiry but the Member should first tell us what he wants this Commission of Inquiry to look into and he should confirm that he will come to the Commission of Inquiry and state his position.

I say this for the following reasons. The officers involved, both AGC and the Police, have confirmed categorically no improper pressure. Ms Liyani's case was dealt with as a routine case. I have set out the facts, what has happened. It shows clearly there was a good prima facie case to proceed. There is also the Disciplinary Tribunal which will inquire into the complaint against the AGC officers.

Thus, before we have a Commission of Inquiry, which is a serious matter, will take up resources, lots of time, more and more work, the Member should specify what part of this matter continues to reasonably make him believe and question that undue influence was used, by the Liews? What exactly by reference to what the Police did and what AGC did? I would like him to tell us, Sir, before I carry on.

Source: Hansard