Public Defenders Bill

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, hon Members will recall the marathon debate on the criminal justice system Motion moved by my honourable friends across the aisle, Ms Sylvia Lim and Ms He Ting Ru, on 4 November 2020.

In my speech during the debate, I said that our society has and continues to be strongly anchored in the rule of law. I observed that since Independence, great strides have been taken to improve the administration of justice in Singapore. I acknowledged, however, that further work needs to be done in our quest to ensure that such administration is accessible to all.

This arena will always be a work in progress. For new proposals to be implemented, there is a need to strike a balance between the interests of the crime victims, accused persons, members of public and effective marshalling of public resources.

The introduction of this Bill represents an important development in this quest. It formalises the arrangement for provision of legal representation by the Government to accused persons of limited means in criminal proceedings. This is to enhance access to justice for these vulnerable persons. I believe this is a development that hon Members from both sides of the House would welcome.

It is also noteworthy that the Government's position on the issue of providing legal aid to accused persons in criminal proceedings has evolved over the years. Let me trace this evolution.

Twenty-seven years ago in this House, the hon Minister for Law then, Prof S Jayakumar, stated in unambiguous terms the Government's original position that it was incongruous for the state to fund the legal defence of accused persons.

He said that accused persons are only brought to book after a thorough and careful process. He went on to state, "Why are they prosecuted? They are prosecuted in the public interest and the state expends these monies in the public interest and in order to protect the law-abiding majority... It is incongruous and inconsistent that public funds should be used to defend an accused person which the state has decided ought to be charged in Court and use public funds at the same time to get him off. The exception is where life is involved and for capital cases, counsel is assigned."

The Government's position changed in November 2013 when it announced its decision to fund the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, a volunteer scheme run by the Law Society since 1985 to help indigent accused persons.

At the launch of this funding programme in 2015, the hon Minister for Law stated that, "This represents a significant shift in the Government's philosophy."

But there remained the issue of the model. Which model serves us best?

In 2006, the hon Minister Indranee Rajah, then a backbencher, put it pithily. She said in this House, "It just seems a little odd that for something as serious as a criminal charge, these persons would actually have to defend on a volunteer scheme." She then called on the Government to extend legal aid to cover criminal matters as well.

Sixteen years later in April 2022, the hon Minister for Law finally announced the Government's decision to set up a Public Defender's Office for indigent accused persons in certain criminal proceedings that will be co-funded by the Government. This was described as yet another significant shift. This Bill was then introduced in July 2022, after extensive consultations.

I applaud this move. We agree that on the point of fairness, access to justice cannot be denied to those who cannot afford it.

Can I ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary for some data relating to accused persons who have legal representation and those without as a percentage of the cases prosecuted by the state, how many have legal representation and how many do not? Where the accused persons claim trial, what is the percentage of success in terms of acquittal for those who have legal representation and those who do not?

I am aware that this is a crude piece of data. The difference in the acquittal rates is a function of many factors, of course, but one wonders to what extent this is due to the lack of a professional defence presented for some of these cases.

In any case, we should have this data as a point of comparison and to revisit this after the PDO has had time to run once this Bill is passed. The Government will then be able to gauge what other considerations that it may have to monitor compliance with the policy objectives of the Bill.

In addition to the duty to ensure access, the Government also has a corresponding duty, to maintain fiscal prudence. The basic point Prof Jayakumar made about the need to ensure fiscal sustainability when committing public resources is something we must continue to bear in mind in structuring this new office of the PDO. It does cost serious money to fund the defence of accused persons and we heard the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary mention about the Hong Kong experience just now.

We all agreed that the set-up of the PDO and the provision of criminal aid to indigent accused persons is a commitment we have to make to enhance the rule of law in Singapore. This is a cost that we are collectively prepared to incur in priority to other needs.

As responsible Members of Parliament, therefore, we will have to bear this commitment in mind when we make a case for our Government to commit further public funds in other areas.

Let me now turn to the proposed workings of the PDO. For us to ensure that indigent accused persons are provided with good quality representation in criminal proceedings, we need two things: first, adequate resources; and second, competent Public Defenders.

Dealing with the second issue first, may I ask what steps are or will be taken to ensure that the Public Defenders consistently provide a good quality representation to indigent persons? I would also like to offer several suggestions on this matter.

First, in my research, I have come across models in other countries where committees consisting of independent and eminent legal experts are set up with a view to regularly audit the work of the Public Defenders. I wonder if the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary is minded to follow suit.

Second, in some countries, the PDO publishes annual reports providing information on its key performance indicators. In fact, this is mandated in some pieces of legislation that provided for the set-up of the equivalent of the PDO. I recommend that this practice be followed too.

Turning to adequate resources, the hon Minister for Law in his April 2022 speech cautioned against following the examples in several countries where escalating costs eventually had the effect of undermining the very objective of setting up the PDO in the first place.

I fully agree. We need to strive to strike an appropriate balance. In this regard, I support the Ministry's intent to cover accused persons in households with a PCHI of $1,500 or lower. At the 35th percentile, these households would basically have little excess income that can be used for payment of legal fees.

What we need to ensure is that PDO is adequately staffed to ensure that it can handle the expected volume of cases that will be generated. May I ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary what are her plans to ensure this?

There is also another aspect of providing other defence resources which I wish to touch on.

Regularly, in criminal cases, there is a need to procure public documents which are ordinarily subject to payment under the Fees Act. Examples include the First Information Report, Traffic Accident Reports and cautioned statements of the accused.

There is also a need to procure expert evidence such as medical opinion, handwriting expert opinion and so on.

May I ask what is the plan to procure such support for the PDO such that costs can be managed?

In particular, one issue I am concerned about is where the Government has provided resources to the Prosecution, say in form of a psychiatrist, from IMH or the College of Psychiatrists, to opine on the state of mind of the accused. Would the Government be willing to share similar resources with the PDO?

It seems to me that waiver of fees and sharing of resources will have the salutary effect of bringing down the costs of defending the accused. I therefore, would like to encourage the Government to explore this idea.

One practical point which I wish to offer is whether the Prosecution and PDO can explore, in appropriate cases, the joint appointment of experts that will bind both sides. This trend is already being promoted in the Civil Courts.

One concern I have though involves the issue of timing. Usually, the Prosecution may have already dealt with these issues even before an indigent person is charged in Court. However, the indigent accused person may only be entitled to criminal defence aid from the PDO after being charged in Court.

In other words, there may not be an opportunity to make a joint appointment in the circumstances I outlined.

It seems to me that having the PDO involved earlier in certain cases may allow for better cost management. I seek the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary's views on this.

Finally, I turn to the provisions in the Bill. I wish to make three points.

First on the definition of "Court" appearing in clause 2 of the Bill, I note that it is widely defined to include any Court of competent jurisdiction before which any "proceedings" are heard.

"Proceedings" is defined as proceedings mentioned in clause 8(1) or 12(8) of the Bill which deals with circumstances in which a grant of aid may be issued. In clause 8(1), it is provided, amongst others, that a grant of aid may be issued in respect of any "criminal proceedings" instituted in respect of an offence.

So, what constitutes "criminal proceedings" is not specifically defined. As a matter of statutory interpretation, it should be interpreted in a manner that promotes the aims of this Bill. Potentially, this may also include proceedings involving military offences in the Subordinate Military Courts and the Military Court of Appeal set up under parts 5 and 7 of the Singapore Armed Forces Act 1972.

It may also potentially include proceedings under part 7 of the Industrial Relations Act 1960 for contempt in the Industrial Arbitration Court set up under the same Act.

May I please confirm with the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary that Government's intention is to restrict the provision of Criminal Legal Aid to accused persons facing criminal proceedings in the State Courts and the Supreme Court?

Second, may I ask how will the PD deal with an accused with mental illness? As can be imagined, the PD can face formidable challenges when he is instructed to act for an accused with mental illness. He needs to ensure that he is authorised to act for the accused. He needs to take instructions on the conduct of the case as well as provide advice. The question is who should be the proxy for the accused in these circumstances?

In other jurisdictions, there are specific provisions that will enable a PD to be empowered to act for and take instructions on behalf of a mentally ill accused through a Court appointed guardian or intermediary.

From my perusal of the Bill, although there are provisions dealing with applications for the grant of criminal defence aid to a minor, there are no similar provisions dealing with persons with mental issues. This is, with respect, a little bit incongruous, because there is no legal difference in the situation between a minor and a mentally incapacitated person in that both of them cannot act on their own.

I seek a clarification from the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary as to how she proposes that the PDs deal with accused with mental illnesses in the absence of the empowering provisions in the Bill.

Finally, I note that under clause 16(1) of the Bill, it is proposed that the Chief Public Defender may cancel a grant of aid in prescribed circumstances.

I take it that it is proposed that the prescribed circumstances are to be provided in subsidiary legislation. If I am right, may I ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary to outline the prescribed circumstances she has in mind for the purposes of cancellation of the Grant of Aid bearing in mind the aims of this Bill.

Once this Bill is passed, the Government will both prosecute and defend its citizens – there will be no contradiction if we see both acts as necessary for the pursuit of justice and protection of the public good.

Of the two functions, we need to see that the prosecution of persons who do harm as mainly driven by the pursuit of public goods such as safety, peace and security. The public prosecutors are not vengeful vigilantes but impartial officers of the state. So too are Public Defenders. They are not activists or lobbyists for specific causes, but advocates presenting the best defence possible for their clients. They are driven by the fairness of due process, which includes the exercise of mercy and compassion – a point that the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary made admirably in her speech.

Together, these officers – prosecutors and defenders – make for a true commitment to the rule of law in Singapore. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in November 2020, the Workers' Party moved a Motion in this House to call for a review of some aspects of the criminal justice system. This Motion was filed in the wake of the case involving, Ms Parti Liyani, a domestic worker, whose theft convictions had been overturned on appeal in the High Court. Though that case was the trigger for the debate, the Motion was filed on a wider basis, extending to how the criminal justice system operated against those who could not afford legal representation.

It was notable that there was substantial agreement between the Government and the Workers' Party on the need for some enhancements. However, the Government emphasised that it needed to decide on what specific changes to implement and how to pay for them.

The fact that the Government is tabling this Bill today shows that it has squared that circle, as far as enhancing of criminal legal aid is concerned. This is a progressive move. My party colleague, Ms He Ting Ru will speak more about this later.

This Bill is in my view overdue, but as they say, better late than never. In putting forward this Bill, the Government is recognising that fair play is fundamental to justice; so fundamental, that part of the annual national Budget should rightly be set aside for this purpose. Nobody should question the principle behind this Bill. The Workers' Party has over the years spoken about the importance of justice for all and legal aid in criminal cases. We strongly support this Bill.

Sir, I recall that in the past, the Government did not want to fund criminal legal aid in non-capital cases. It was said that there was a contradiction in it funding both the prosecution and the defence. It was the Law Society who stepped up to offer pro bono representation in non-capital cases around 30 years ago through the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, or CLAS, on limited resources. CLAS was in my view the most morally uplifting project embarked on by the Law Society at the time. Those of us involved in the early days of it in one way or another, look back with pride to see how far CLAS has come from its humble beginnings.

Over the years, the Government also evolved its position and from around 2015, started providing funding to CLAS. This Government support has been critical to the sustainability and enhancement of CLAS. Today, there are many lawyers, providing pro bono services under CLAS, conscious of their public duty and committed to obtaining the best outcome for their clients.

That said, it is quite clear to me that the current CLAS scheme for criminal legal aid does not adequately cover cases of need. In my view, there are three main limiting factors, whether a case is: which is covered by the scheme or not; how poor one must be to qualify for aid, also known as the means test; and how strong one's case needs to be, also known as the merits test.

It would be important to understand how the PD scheme will widen the net to provide legal aid to more people.

First on the coverage of the PD scheme. It should be noted that only citizens and permanent residents will be covered. Although foreigners could well need legal aid, I accept this scoping due to the need to watch the budget, especially at this initial stage. The scheme also does not cover a list of offences in the Schedule to the Bill. Ten statutes are totally excluded as they relate to behaviours that should be deterred, for example, terrorist activities and gambling. There is also a partial exclusion under 36 Acts if the accused is brought to Court by way of a notice to attend Court or a summons.

For these partially excluded Acts, this will mean that the more serious offences where the accused is brought to Court upon arrest or bail will still fall within the PDO's coverage for aid. I think this is a sensible compromise to strike. Going forward, this will mean, for instance, that persons facing more serious charges under the Road Traffic Act may be able to obtain criminal legal aid, which is currently totally excluded under the CLAS scheme.

Second, the means test. The Minister for Law had informed the House in April this year that while the current CLAS scheme was able to cover applicants up to the 25th income percentile, the PDO scheme would cover up to the 35th income percentile of resident households.

It is good to note the move to cover about 10% more of the population. The Minister stated then that the per capita household income cut-off would be raised from $950 to $1,500. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary confirmed this earlier and this is a significant inclusive change.

Third, the merits test. According to clause 12 of the Bill, there will be two different baskets of cases to be assessed. The first basket are offences which are prescribed where the Chief Public Defender can decide whether the case has merits. The second basket involves offences which are not prescribed, in which case, the decision on whether the case has merit will not be made by the Chief PD alone but will be made by a board consisting of the Chief PD and at least two lawyers.

It would appear that cases involving prescribed offence would be approved on a faster track while those involving non-prescribed offences needed more consideration.

Earlier, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary touched on this matter and if I heard her correctly, she said that more serious offences needed more consideration. May I ask what is the intention and rationale behind this differentiation such that more serious offences need to pass a more rigorous test?

Next, on the issue of merits for aid, clause 12(2) provides that the Chief PD could consider factors such as whether the proceedings might involve the tracing, interviewing or cross-examination of witnesses on behalf of the applicant. This raises an important issue regarding the power of Public Defenders. Could I ask what powers the Chief PD or other officers of the PDO would have to access Government information, to locate witnesses or to compel their attendance for interviews?

It is further provided in clause 3(7) that every Public Defender who is not a public officer is deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of the Penal Code when carrying out his PD functions.

What is the implication of this provision? Does it mean that offences such as furnishing false information to public servants will apply, such that witnesses who lie to the Public Defenders may be prosecuted under the Penal Code? It would seem to be somewhat anomalous if that were the case since private defence counsel have no such powers when people lie to them. Some clarifications on this would be necessary.

Next, on the Minister's residual power to order aid. Despite the requirements to qualify for aid set out in the Bill, clause 12(7) enables the Minister to direct that aid be given even in cases where the applicant does not satisfy the requirements. This will be where the Minister considers it in the interests of justice that aid be given or where the applicant does not satisfy the means test, that it is still just and proper to grant aid. Is the intention to use this provision only in exceptional situations? Could the Ministry confirm that the Minister's residual power under clause 12(7) does not extend to providing aid for excluded offences?

Sir, before I conclude, I would just like to seek two broader clarifications, please.

First, in April, I had asked the Minister whether the Legal Aid Scheme in Capital Cases (LASCO) administered by the Supreme Court would be brought within the PDO scheme. The Minister had then replied that it would be considered. But clearly today, the answer is no. Could the Ministry inform the House whether this matter was broached with the Supreme Court and why the decision was taken not to include capital cases under the PDO?

Secondly, would MinLaw be able to explain when a person needing legal aid should go to CLAS run by the Law Society and went to the PDO, since there will be overlapping coverage?

Sir, in conclusion, this Bill represents an important milestone for Singapore's criminal justice system. The PD scheme has the potential to go some way towards addressing the imbalance of power and resources between the state prosecution and an accused person. For that alone, I welcome this development.

Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer whose practice involves criminal law.

I welcome the introduction of the Public Defenders Bill. In the course of my work as a lawyer, I find that many accused persons struggle to understand the legal process whenever they are faced with a criminal charge. Many times, they are not given a copy of the charge sheet and do not know what is the exact allegation being made against them. They do not understand the concept of bail and sometimes, they just want to plead guilty without understanding the consequence of a criminal conviction.

In fact, a few of my clients had informed me that when they are charged at the Police station, it is the Police investigator who advised them on the legal process and what to expect when they attend Court. Sometimes, the Investigation Officer informed them that if they plead guilty, the Police will ask for a lighter sentence from the Court.

Sir, this is, of course, unsatisfactory because the interest of a Police investigator is different from that of an accused person.

Allow me to quote from a speech made in Parliament in February 2013 by my former Parliamentary colleague and the current the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr Hri Kumar. He said, "It is not the Government's role simply to arrest, try and jail. Government's role is to ensure the rights of all citizens are protected and that includes making sure that those who are accused have a fair hearing. Its KPI should not be the number of successful prosecutions, but rather that in every case, a fair and just result was achieved."

He continued, "There have been cases of accused persons seeking what they consider to be the easier path – pleading guilty to an offence they did not commit simply because they cannot afford the cost of a trial. And whenever we have cases of wrong convictions, it is a blight on our legal process and the administration of justice. And there is no higher cost than the indelible stain of a wrong conviction, particularly, where the cause is one of lack of resources."

Sir, I agree with Mr Hri Kumar's views. I also appreciate Minister Indranee Rajah's response to Mr Kumar's speech where she stated that, "The Government's KPI is not convictions. The Government's KPI must be and always has been justice." Ms Indranee had then replied that the Government had received suggestions about a possible Public Defender's Scheme and the Government is reviewing the suggestion. I wish to commend the Government for their funding support for the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) which had given various degree of assistance to persons charged with criminal offences and who require legal advice on criminal matters.

Although it had taken some nine years since Minister Indranee's speech, I am glad that this Bill has finally been tabled in Parliament.

Sir, I have some queries regarding the Bill and hope that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can address my concerns.

Clause 4(5) of the Bill states that despite any privilege arising out of the relationship between solicitor and client, a solicitor has a duty to disclose any information to the Chief Public Defender (CPD) which may enable the CPD to perform his functions under the Act.

Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether this requirement would expose the solicitor to allegation of breaching his professional duty to the accused person? For example, if the solicitor obtains privileged information about the guilt of an accused person, does he have an obligation to inform or disclose to the CPD or can he seek a discharge as the solicitor if the accused person refuses to take his advice to plead guilty?

Next, clause 5(1) of the Bill provides for the exclusion of a solicitor from the panel of solicitors. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify whether such a solicitor can still act in a personal capacity if the accused person wants him to continue outside the Public Defender's scheme? For example, if a solicitor insists on making frivolous applications to Court and is eventually removed from the panel, can he continue to act as a solicitor for the accused person and continue with such frivolous applications?

Clause 6 of the Bill provides for the fees payable to the solicitor to be agreed. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary give an indication as to how fees can be agreed upon because it is difficult for a solicitor to determine his fees without knowing whether such a trial would drag for many days or even months? Or would the legal fees be determined after the trial is completed?

Sir, I urge the Government to pay reasonable fees so that we can attract more talented solicitors to join the criminal bar and that we will have then sufficient lawyers to ensure a fair administration of criminal justice. Sir, I understand that even for LASCO, the fees payable to the lawyers involved are very low and way off the market rate for lawyers of that seniority who do capital offences.

Clause 12 of the Bill sets out the process for grant of criminal defence aid. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary provide greater clarity as to the timeframe for such aid to be granted?

In practice, most accused persons have very little time to respond when they are charged in Court. Frequently, the Court allows the accused person one to two weeks to engage a lawyer before going back to Court for the next mention. Would the Chief PD be able to assess whether an applicant would meet the criteria for criminal defence aid within two weeks?

In a situation where an accused is in remand, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has said that the family member can apply for criminal defence aid on his behalf. How much time would be required before the Chief PD can assess the application for criminal defence aid if this person is in remand?

The solicitor would presumably have to visit the accused in remand to determine reasonable grounds for defending. Would the State Court allow an accused person a longer period of time to engage counsel if the person in remand is applying for aid?

Regarding the means test referred to at clause 12(1), how does the Chief PD ensure that a rich applicant does not hide his income and assets so that he can receive the criminal defence aid? Would the Chief PD investigate the declared sources of income and assets or would the Chief PD simply rely on the declaration made by the applicant? I believe this point was previously made by Minister Shanmugam in Parliament that the state should not finance the criminal defence aid of a rich applicant.

For clause 14(2), can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify why aid should not be granted to more than one person in the same set of proceedings? Supposing there are three to four persons who are youth or juveniles who are accused of rioting and all deny responsibility for the offence, why should the Chief PD deny criminal defence aid to more than one applicant? Would it make any difference if the applicants seeking criminal defence aid intend to simply plead guilty? Why not allow the Chief PD the discretion to decide instead of having a statutory bar to giving criminal aid to more than one applicant in the same proceedings?

For the excluded offences under the Schedule, while I understand the need to exclude offences for most traffic offences or most regulatory offences, may I urge the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to consider allowing criminal defence aid to persons accused of dangerous driving where the sentences may entail imprisonment of a few years? And these are not just regulatory offences.

Before I conclude, I wish to refer to the speech made by the then Minister of Law, Prof Jayakumar during the Second Reading of the Amendment Bill to the Legal Aid and Advice Act in July 1995. He was seeking Parliament's approval to delete Part II of the Act. And the Minister had said, "The policy of the Government is not to grant legal aid in criminal cases except for cases involving capital punishment". And in his speech, Prof Jayakumar said that, "It is incongruous and inconsistent that public funds should be used to defend an accused person which the state has decided ought to be charged in Court and to use public funds at the same time to get him off."

Sir, in the interest of transparency, since the Public Defender comes under MinLaw and prosecution by the Police comes under MHA, may I ask Senior Parliamentary Secretary to confirm that the Public Defender's Office (PDO) will be given full independence to represent their accused in Court without concern that the state is incurring public funds to prosecute the accused person. Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary also clarify what brought about this change in the policy? Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, while speaking during the Private Member's Motion on Justice for All raised by my colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim in November 2020, I talked about the importance of having the house of justice possessing strong pillars to ensure that just outcomes are delivered for those guilty of crimes, but also for those who are innocent.

Like many other countries, we continue to work to ensure that accused persons from vulnerable backgrounds do not end up being further disadvantaged, particularly because they cannot afford to be legally represented in the criminal justice system.

This is why today's Bill for the creation of the Public Defender's Office (PDO) is a cornerstone in the development of our criminal justice system and its importance cannot be overstated. The idea of a Public Defender in some form or another is also one which has existed in many other jurisdictions for many years.

While I agree that we must exercise caution in ensuring the our own PDO does not fall into a situation seen in many other countries where clients abuse the system at both the expense of the taxpayer and adversely affects the credibility of the office, we also must not forget to take on board where public defence systems do work to bring about a stronger, more robust and credible criminal justice system and to take on board these positive lessons.

It is in this spirit that I would like to raise some clarifications and questions about the Bill before us.

First, I note that clause 4(5) of the Bill states that the solicitor has a duty to disclose information which may otherwise be subject to client-attorney privilege, the Chief PD (CPD) to enable the CPD to perform its functions under the Act. There is concern that although there are reasons for this exemption, this ultimately compromises the client-attorney relationship or it would be seen to be compromised by the clients who may then be reticent in providing full and frank disclosure to their solicitor.

While the Bill does make it clear about the circumstances under which such disclosure may occur, namely, when deciding whether to refuse an application for criminal defence aid, to vary or cancel a grant of aid or to determine whether there are merits to an application for criminal defence aid, would it be possible to have more explicit guidelines as to what types of privileged information may be disclosable to the CPD and to ensure that the clients either consent to such disclosure or know exactly what may be disclosed and under what circumstances such disclosure will take place. Perhaps, to allay concerns, it could also be made explicit that any such information that is necessary to be disclosed will remain strictly confidential and not disclosed to any other third parties.

Second, on the scope coverage. Clause 12(1)(b) of the Bill states that only Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents are eligible to apply to the PDO. As cases such as Parti Liyani's has shown, a sizeable proportion of the more vulnerable parts of our society include Work Pass holders. These individuals would continue to rely on the goodwill of lawyers to act pro bono if they do not have the financial resources to engage a criminal defence lawyer. While we understand that at this early stage of setting up the PDO, it would be prudent to limit its scope until the exact expenditure is known, would the Government be considering at some point, expanding coverage to long-term residents, albeit subject to more stringent criteria?

Next, moving onto the decisions themselves, relating to whether or not an applicant is granted access to aid under the PDO, the Bill provides that the CPD has the power to issue a grant of aid to an applicant, provided he has satisfied, that they meet the requirements as outlined in clause 12. The CPD's decision would be final, except in circumstances under clause 12(7), where the Minister may overwrite the decision.

This approach is in contrast against the case of solicitors who are excluded or removed from a panel by the CPD. In the event that the solicitor is aggrieved by the CPD's decision, they may apply to the general division of the High Court under clause 5(2) to appeal against such a decision.

While there may be reasons for this different approach, we should consider having a formal appeals mechanism for an accused person to appeal against the CPD's decision not to grant them aid for greater certainty. This would also further enhance public confidence in the office. This appeal process could take on the form of an appeals panel of solicitors to review the decision.

Moving on to a more general point about the criminal legal landscape in general and the impact that the PDO would have on it, part of the concern about the formation of the PDO was that this would adversely affect the livelihoods of current criminal defence practitioners. I do not believe this should be the case, however, as the PDO has been primarily designed to expand legal representation to accused persons who do not currently have the means to appoint counsel to represent them to minimise the possibility of this happening.

What may, however, warrant more attention is the concern raised by the Criminal Bar in the past, that they sometimes feel like they are battling a perception that criminal work plays second fiddle to civil and commercial matters and that they struggle to attract lawyers into their field. While the Ministry has previously stated that the PDO hopes to recruit across a mixture of backgrounds, what is its specific plans to address the concerns raised by the criminal bar and could the Minister elaborate on what will be done to ensure that talented young and mid-career lawyers would consider public defence and even private criminal defence work as their first choice.

Are there plans for officers in the Legal Service to be rotated into the PDO to allow greater exposure to the work that public defence entails? If so, what safeguards would there be in place to ensure that any information obtained by a Public Defender is safeguarded from unauthorised use or disclosure if the officer is subsequently reassigned or rotated into another office, such as that of the Public Prosecutor's office. After all, Public Prosecutors are responsible for bringing cases against accused persons and thus represent the other side of the coin in the criminal justice system.

To round up, I would like to touch on the important principle of justice being kept accessible and comprehensible. This was a key point of our Motion raised in November 2020 and all of us would agree that in order to maintain confidence in our judicial system, justice must be done and also must be seen to be done.

There will be questions from the public about whether public funds should be expanded to fund a Public Defender's Office, especially in the case where the accused person is, in fact, guilty of a crime. This is where public education is crucial in helping the public to understand the important role played by defence counsel, and by extension, Public Defenders. After all, defence lawyers are there to, amongst others, ensure that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty, understands the charges being brought against him and safeguards the due process of law while an accused person's case is being brought before the courts.

It is also helpful to note at this point, that Public Defenders are officers of the Court. They are also Public Officers pursuant to clause 3 of the Bill. This means that they both have duties to the Court and also to the public. Public Officers are expected to uphold values of integrity, service and excellence and are governed by a code of conduct. Ensuring that the public are aware of these duties and codes which Public Defenders are bound by will be key in convincing the public about the necessity of the PDO. The PDO must thus ensure that its conduct is exemplary, standing up to intense scrutiny and that it provides an accused person of a proper defence.

While I have touched on some areas of concern and asked for some clarifications in my speech today, it does not take away that the formation of the PDO by the Ministry is a positive development. A strong PDO would only further aid in ensuring that the robust house of justice continues to endure. I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, a fundamental principle of the rule of law is access to justice, which includes access to legal advice and representation.

Accused persons who are unable to afford lawyers to represent them face an indomitable inequality of arms against the Public Prosecution. Helping impecunious persons gain access to good quality legal representation evens the field and ensures that robust criminal defence is the not the preserve of only the well-to-do and instead is available to everyone.

The Law Society Pro Bono Services' Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) had, amongst other organisations and programmes, served this function. The Public Defenders Bill seeks to enact and enshrine in legislation criminal legal aid, funded by the Government, for persons who meet the means testing and other criteria.

I thank the Minister for tabling this Bill. It will fill a lacuna in our rule of law institutions and create a more fair and equitable society.

But public defending is a new concept to Singaporeans and given our reputation for robustly enforcing our laws and regulations and given the Government's previous position that the hon Member Murali Pillai had spoken on, it is novel and perhaps even discombobulating for the public that the Government will now be required by law to provide or to arrange for the defence of persons accused of certain offences.

In time, it will become an accepted part of our criminal legal system but how it is perceived and how it is approached will depend on the information and education provided to the public on this new setup and how the office carries out its statutory functions when it is set up.

In this regard, I have several points for the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary's consideration.

First, as there may not be sufficient understanding of the structure of the state as regards its legal components, it would be important to step up public education on how the public prosecutor is an independent organ of state and not part of MinLaw, which the PDO would be.

Often, laymen tend to lump all official bodies under the broad heading of the Government. In fact, the Public Prosecutor and MinLaw and the PDO as part of the Ministry are distinct and the public prosecutor is not part of the Government.

It may be otherwise confusing to the layman that the Government is funding both prosecution and defence and this was mentioned by earlier speakers. I note that clause 12(3) does provide that the Public Defender must not determine the benefit or detriment of a case based on the interests of the prosecution or of any other law enforcement agency.

Second, as the Public Defender will be providing a service to impecunious persons who may be elderly or who may not be highly educated, it is important that the process of making an application should be easy and accessible. This would include having various modes of application, including online and in different languages, and assistance to make an application.

Furthermore, to improve access, would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary consider providing a standard allocution for Police officers to recite to accused persons as regards having an option to avail of public defence when that person is being charged?

Further to this, I would also suggest that the period for considering an application should not be too lengthy while, of course, giving enough time for the PDO to carefully consider whether the application meets the criteria.

An accused person would naturally have anxiety as to how they are going to deal with their case and many would be relying on legal aid to help them get through the criminal process. A timely response would ease their minds if they get the grant of aid. If they did not, it would allow them sufficient time to quickly pursue other options, including preparing to self-litigate.

By way of comparison, CLAS currently takes about two weeks to consider an application.

I note also that for urgent cases – and this is something that the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned – clause 12(4) does provide for an expedited process.

When a case is taken up, it is important to manage the expectations of persons receiving aid, in particular as to what are the prospects for their case as regards both verdict and sentence.

I am a little concerned that there may be backlash against the office by the accused person and their family members where a desired outcome in a particular case is not achieved. So, managing expectations will be extremely important.

As regards the performance of the Public Defenders, I note that in many jurisdictions that have such institutions, the common feedback is that Public Defenders have huge caseloads and are overworked to the point that they are not able to spend the necessary time and effort on each case. This leads to less than optimal performance and quality of defence.

As a rough measure, CLAS undertook 864 cases in 2020 and 775 cases in 2021, figures of which I had obtained from CLAS. So, it is not a small number of cases.

In this regard, we need to ensure that the PDO is adequately staffed, of course, with a prudent budget and that there is careful monitoring of each Public Defender's case load so that they take up a manageable number of cases.

On a related note, we must ensure that the Public Defenders are also adequately compensated and have career progression prospects. While they should, of course, have passion in what they do, the PDO should not be a passion project, as it is in many other jurisdictions.

I would expect that because the Public Defenders would come under the Legal Service Officer scheme, their compensation would be competitive and that good lawyers will be attracted to join and stay in the office to build seniority and institutional knowledge. This will help ensure a high standard of defence provided.

I am also gratified that the Bill provides for the involvement of lawyers in private practice via panels of lawyers who can be assigned to cases. The private sector has carried the pro bono defence for many years and this spirit of public service to assist impecunious persons remains strong in the legal fraternity.

I would suggest that the panel of lawyers can be utilised in two ways: one, to assign cases to lawyers whose particular expertise would be useful in those cases; and two, as a release valve when the PDO's caseload gets too voluminous. I hope that there will also be avenues for Public Defenders and private lawyers to be able to work together on appropriate cases to leverage each other's knowledge and experience in defending the aid recipient.

In addition to what I have covered, I have the following clarifications on specific clauses.

On clause 8(1)(b), which sets out the scope of criminal defence aid, I would like to ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the PDO can take up appeals or criminal applications where the PDO had not represented the accused person in the originating proceedings, which are provided for in clause 8(1)(a). This is relevant where a person had, for example, litigated in person in the first instance and then seeks help for an appeal after the verdict in the lower Court.

On clause 12(5), which provides that the PDO may, instead of approving an application, refer it to a body or organisation providing pro bono legal services, I would like to ask the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the PDO will be able to refer cases to an external body if the applicant does not meet all the criteria. This would help to build complementarity between the PDO and other pro bono schemes.

On clause 14(2), which provides that the PDO must not act for more that one accused person, appellant, respondent or party in the same proceedings, the hon Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the PDO could refer these cases to CLAS. I would like to ask whether the PDO could appoint these accused persons to assigned lawyers from the panels as well so that they can act for other persons in the same proceedings who meet the eligibility criteria.

Finally, on the Schedule, on paragraph 1(e), I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary why private prosecutions are not covered. In many cases of private prosecution, the prosecuting party appoints lawyers to pursue its or their case. In this regard, if the defending party is unable to afford their own lawyers, they are essentially in the same position as regards the inequality of arms as a person who is charged by the Public Prosecutor and they would face the same sentences if they were convicted.

So, would the Ministry consider allowing for the Public Defender to grant aid in private prosecutions prosecuted by lawyers where the defending party meets the eligibility criteria?

Sir, public defence is a critical component of our criminal defence system. It provides access to justice that bolsters the rule of law. Notwithstanding my suggestions and clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, according to the World Bank Group report on Cost Benefit Analysis of Legal Aid, the world faces a widespread justice gap. Globally, billions of people lack access to basic justice services and the most vulnerable are often women, children, people with disabilities and people from minority ethnic communities. It is thus important to address this justice gap.

While Singapore has a leading legal system and great access to justice already, we must continue to ensure that the most vulnerable segments of our society get the fair representation that they deserve in our criminal justice system – which is why this Bill is important.

I welcome and stand in support of this Bill and I would like to applaud MinLaw for this step towards greater access to justice. In Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In October 2020, I asked whether the Government would consider providing direct legal aid to those with lesser financial means, who have been charged with criminal offences. This was in light of concerns raised about access to justice and adequate legal representation for such persons, following the case of Parti Liyani.

This Bill allows for access to justice for criminal cases. Previously criminal legal aid is administered by the Law Society alone.

Based on my previous experience as an assigned solicitor with the Legal Aid Bureau and CLAS, I welcome the mechanism for provisional grant of legal aid and mechanism for approval by the Public Defenders Office board. I also welcome the scope of cooperation and sharing of caseload between PDO, that will be established, and CLAS, that is administered by the Law Society, as this will enable accused persons to have access to reasonable legal representation and expertise.

With the setting up of the Public Defender's Office, I hope that more accused can get access to fair and equal representation in Court notwithstanding their position, status or financial standing.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, providing criminal or civil legal aid requires funding and resources. However, there is also an economics argument to improve access to justice in society.

In Canada, the cost of unequal access to justice on public spending in other areas, like social assistance and healthcare costs, had been estimated to be about 2.35 times more than the annual direct service expenditures on legal aid. In Australia, studies have shown that there are net public benefits from legal assistance expenditures. Investments in legal aid can lead to significant Government savings through avoided cost of arrest, conviction, incarceration, probation and post-prison supervision. In addition, public investments in legal aid are also found to generate net savings in terms of avoided shelter or housing costs.

For one to qualify for PDO aid, one would have to pass the means and merits test. I have a few clarifications in this regard.

Firstly, on the merits test, I welcome the expanded means criteria that Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned just now. Already, it is higher than the civil legal aid criteria of $950 dollars. Specifically on PCHI and definition of household members, I would like to ask, if there will be discretion on the part of the Chief Public Defender (CPD), to grant criminal legal aid, if the accused person (AP) is no longer residing in the household, but the NRIC reflects the same address?

How about APs who can actually afford private lawyers because their children can pay, but their children are not living with the AP?

I quote hon Member Mr Lim Biow Chuan's concern that there is need to safeguard against abuse of process. It is important to clarify that passing the means and merits criteria does not automatically mean criminal legal aid will be granted. PDO, or CPD, shall still retain discretion whether to issue grant of aid or not. Hence, I welcome clause 12(1)(d), which retains such discretion and this will cover the exceptional cases and prevent the decisions of CPD from being challenged unmeritoriously.

To illustrate this point: in October 2021, a US couple sued the Colorado Public Defender's Office for refusing to represent them in a criminal case. Both of them earned less than $3,000 a year, which automatically qualifies them for a Public Defender under the Colorado Supreme Court's guidelines. In Singapore, this may not be challenged because of the proposed clause 12(1)(d).

Secondly, with regard to the merits test, CPD can award aid if he is of the opinion that AP requires legal representation to plead guilty, as stated under clause 12(c). However, what about a straightforward plead guilty case, where the AP would require legal assistance to formulate a mitigation plea, for instance, for appropriate sentencing? I propose that for such cases, aid should be granted because firstly, it will save time and resources for both AGC and CPD, if issues on sentencing are appropriately addressed; and secondly, it will be just if the appropriate sentencing is meted out, if the necessary mitigating factors are highlighted.

Next, in respect of co-accused situations now, clause 14 prevents PDO from acting for more than one accused person. This is rightly so, to prevent conflict of interest. However, how will PDO ascertain which accused persons PDO will represent? What will be the criteria? Is it the one with the best merits, the one with the lowest means, or the one that is first in time of application?

In instances where it is equal and the co-accused person is deserving of representation, I welcome Senior Parliamentary Secretary saying that PDO may assign the case to CLAS. I hope it would be the same for the other co-accused persons as well.

Next, in relation to offences involving false or misleading statement, the Offences and Penalties proposed under clause 23 of this Bill, is the same as that of section 21 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, in that both carry fines of S$5,000 per contravention and imprisonment of up to six months.

May I ask, what is the rationale of having similar penalties? Would not the breaches under the Public Defenders Act be more egregious and, thus, should attract more hefty penalties as a deterrent? Given that, firstly, it amounts to a perversion of criminal justice; secondly, it mainly involves matters of policy and public interest, as opposed to civil claims; and thirdly, it involves wastage of public resources.

Lastly, I would like to highlight the important role that PDO plays in portraying the image and integrity of Singapore's criminal justice system, and therefore, it is very important to look into the following aspects. The first is the practice of plea bargaining, which is practised in Singapore and may generally occur once an accused is charged. The outcome of any plea bargain depends on various factors, including public interest, timing of the guilty pleas and so on.

It is important to note, that while a guilty plea saves public resources, a plea bargain is not a given right. In the US, the vast majority of felony convictions are now the result of plea bargains: some 94% at the state level, 97% at the federal level. Very few cases go to trial. US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy once wrote: "Horse trading [between prosecutor and defense counsel] determines who goes to jail and for how long. That is what plea bargaining is. It is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system."

The situation in US is possibly due to a disparity in funding of the two sides of the criminal justice system. Of the US$200 billion spent on criminal justice activities by state and local governments in 2008, only 2% went to indigent defence. There was also lack of training and support for overworked Public Defenders and a lack of reform to the bail system which holds people in jail simply because they lack the funds to secure their own release.

In Singapore, with the establishment of PDO, it is important to ensure that our system does not devolve into a similar scenario like that in foreign countries. I would propose for safeguards to be put in place to ensure that any plea bargain entered will be in the best interest of an AP and perhaps, these cases may have an avenue for review by an independent body with MinLaw and LawSoc's involvement.

I echo hon Member Mr Murali Pillai's suggestions for publication of KPIs. I would like to propose for such transparency, whereby there is publication of annual report of statistics of PDO cases that went to trial, number of APs assisted and conviction rates, if possible.

Next, on avenue of redress, if complaints are raised about PDO officers, to which body would these complaints be referred? For private or CLAS practitioners, they are governed under the professional conduct rules and referred to the Law Society.

My next point is on building up the capability of PDO officers. It is imperative that we attract and retain talent in PDO, to ensure that there are PDO officers with the appropriate trial experience. I propose a secondment of AGC officers to PDO and for active recruitment from the criminal bar.

We need to dispel the myth that Public Defenders are not going to give a fair representation of any accused. In fact, the converse may be true, studies show that Public Defenders perform better than the appointed counsel, that is, those who are counsel in private practice and paid by the system.

In an article published in Yale Law Journal which involved a study of almost 2,500 cases in Philadelphia, it was found that in comparison to appointed counsel, Public Defenders had reduced the clients' murder conviction rate by 19%, lowered the probability that their clients receive a life sentence by 62%. Public Defenders also reduced overall expected time served in prison by 24%. There were two factors that interviewees cited as important differences between public defenders and appointed counsel: firstly, Public Defenders use of integrated teams, which means greater access to non-legal professionals who may help in the defence; and, secondly, the larger amount of case preparation by Public Defenders.

What this means is that a robust training will create more opportunities for our PDO officers. Firstly, they would be able to handle more cases and this will enable them to build up their specialisation and hone their skillsets; and secondly, they will have greater access to resources to aid them in their defence of APs.

In terms of specialisations, perhaps there could be a setting up of dedicated teams within PDO, like that in AGC, arranged according to the types of offences, so that PDO officers can build up deep capability and skillsets, and secondly, a platform for the cross-training and sharing of ideas between prosecutors, PDO and the criminal bar.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with the setting of the PDO, we will have greater access to criminal justice for the public and build skillsets and experience deep enough to prepare us for tomorrow. I stand in support of the Bill.

Sir, this Bill will establish a Public Defender's Office, which is a significant step towards increasing access to criminal justice. I have clarifications to raise in respect of three areas.

My first area of clarification is on the scope of offences. I have two clarifications.

First, the PDO will collaborate with the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, which similarly provides criminal legal assistance for the vulnerable and covers offences under 17 statutes, such as the Penal Code, Vandalism Act and the Women's Charter. The Ministry has announced that it is considering how best to define cases dealt with by the PDO and CLAS. To prevent potential confusion, can Senior Parliamentary Secretary provide an update on how the cases will be scoped?

Second, under subsection 8(2), the grant of aid will not be granted to an offence excluded or belonging to an excluded class, as specified in the Schedule of the Bill. The Ministry has explained that this Bill will exclude regulatory offences, minor departmental and Statutory Board charges. However, regulatory charges can carry potential jail terms. For instance, the general offence provisions under section 22 of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act provides for jail terms of up to two years to be imposed for certain cases. The general offences and penalties provision under section 131 of the Road Traffic Act provides for jail terms of up to six months to be imposed for certain cases.

Can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share why such offences are excluded from the grant of aid when the potential jail terms are no less than what is provided for other offences covered by the PDO, including those under the Penal Code.

My second area of clarification is on the appointment and discharge of a solicitor. First, under subsection 8(8), a grant of aid may be extended to proceedings involving an excluded offence, if the applicant faces charges for two or more offences and one or more of which is an excluded offence, or if the appeal or application arises from the proceedings.

In criminal proceedings, it is common for charges to be withdrawn, taken into consideration, or replaced with alternative charges. Can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share how a grant of aid may be affected in a situation where the prosecution exercises its discretion to withdraw, take into consideration, or replace charges such that the prosecution will only proceed on excluded offences? Would this be ground for the withdrawal of a grant of aid? If so, how will the PDO ensure that the defence of the applicant is not prejudiced by any withdrawal of aid?

Second, section 18 provides that criminal defence aid cannot be discontinued without the permission of the Chief Public Defender. This means that even if an aided person no longer wishes to instruct a Public Defender, the accused person cannot discharge their solicitor without permission.

Practically speaking, it will be extremely difficult for a Public Defender to take instructions from an aided accused person who no longer wishes to be represented by the Public Defender. With any other solicitor-client relationship, a litigant is entitled to discharge their solicitor. Can Senior Parliamentary Secretary clarify the rationale for requiring the permission of the Chief Public Defender before an aided accused person can discharge a solicitor assigned to act for them? What are the situations where the Chief Public Defender may decline the accused person's request to discharge the Public Defender?

Third, under section 17, the Chief Public Defender may require an aided accused person to make contributions to a matter where a grant of aid has been provided. In a situation where the aided accused person is unable to meet the contributions, can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share if this is ground for discontinuation of grant of aid? If so, how will the PDO ensure that the defence of the applicant is not prejudiced by the withdrawal of aid?

My final area of clarification is on the relationship between AGC and PDO that many Members have raised. The PDO will be a department under MinLaw. I understand that AGC is separate from MinLaw. However, AGC's functions include acting as the Government's lawyer and advising Ministries. There may still be some potential areas of conflict given the proximity of MinLaw and the AGC. Even if there is no actual conflict, there may still be perceived conflict, which can be equally as damaging.

There is some basis for concerns about conflict given that the Government's position previously was that it may not make sense for the Government to be both prosecuting the accused and paying for the defence. Can Senior Parliamentary Secretary share what mechanisms are in place to address the potential areas of conflict and to ensure that the decision making and operations of the PDO are independent of AGC?

Notwithstanding these clarifications, Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to first declare that I am a practising lawyer.

In 1985, the late Mr Harry Elias, Senior Counsel, along with several counsel members of the Law Society, spearheaded the setting up of the Law Society's Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, in short, CLAS, to help the less fortunate to obtain free criminal legal representation. Since then, the Law Society's mission to grant better access to justice and ensure criminal legal aid for needy and deserving accused facing a criminal charge never wavered.

It must be remembered that every accused person is innocent unless proven guilty and he or she is entitled to seek legal representation to defend himself or herself. And as recounted by my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Murali Pillai, earlier in his speech, I am glad that the Government has also stepped in over the years to support this meaningful endeavour.

The latest plan to set up the Public Defender's Office (PDO) is the next significant step by the Government in facilitating adequate and easier access to justice for more vulnerable Singaporeans and permanent residents by raising the income limit of applicants to cover more of limited means and expanding the scope of support to cover most offences. I envision that the end result of institutionalising public defence in our criminal justice system to include the following.

First, enabling more vulnerable applicants to apply and receive criminal legal criminal legal aid swiftly.

Secondly, the quality of the criminal legal representation rendered to the applicant being both adequate and desirable.

And thirdly, to cultivate an ecosystem devoted recruiting, retaining and motivating more people to pursue criminal defence as a profession.

In these aspects, I wish to seek the following clarifications.

Firstly, in terms of the offence coverage, while I understand the scope of the coverage for PDO will be expanded to cover more types and class, it will exclude regulatory offences as well as certain acts whose primary purpose is to deter specific behaviours that bring about negative externalities to society, such as organised and syndicated crime.

However, rather than having a total blanket exclusion for those of the offences listed in the 10 specific statutes, can we explore the flexibility to enable either the Chief PD or the Minister to exercise discretion to grant aid due to special circumstances when he or she is of the opinion that it is in the best interest of the justice to do so. This flexibility is needed as the situation that requires it can vary in detail.

An example would be an accused person charged under the Common Gaming House Act. They could either be intellectually disabled or induced to be a lookout for a common gaming house or a gullible teenager who has been influenced by peer pressure to be a bookie. In both scenarios, if the family members of the accused do not have the financial means to assist to seek legal representation for them, these situations will be undesirable unless they were granted aid due to such special circumstances.

Secondly, in relation to the process of granting aid, how long would PDO take to process an application to grant aid?

On the same point as what Mr Lim Biow Chuan has raised earlier in his speech, we have often heard of cases where applicants who have already been in remand for a period of time are still waiting for their request for legal representation to be processed. To prevent situations where the remanded period ends up being longer than what a Court might eventually sentence the accused for, I think it is important that PDO ensures that the application process and the time taken to review the application is as straightforward and as swift as possible to reduce the possibility of such occurrences.

With both PDO and CLAS operating as independent entities, would an applicant be required to make duplicated requests for aid? I hope that a single centralised system can be implemented. With this, each applicant's record will be visible to both entities, reducing the time needed to verify if the applicant has previously received aid in either of the schemes.

I also wish to inquire about the optimal number of Public Defenders and support staff required to ensure smooth operations of the PDO and whether the Ministry is on track with the recruitment to reach this target when the PDO begins operations by the end of 2022. I understand that PDO is looking to bolster their manpower by bringing in a wave of fresh graduates, young lawyers, mid-career hires and Legal Service Officers. But apart from meeting the required numbers, I firmly believe that there is a real need to ensure the quality of the service to be provided.

In this regard, I wish to inquire what would be considered by the Chief PD as duly qualified and experienced to carry out duties as Public Defenders and whether adequate training will be provided to fresh graduates and young lawyers before they are assigned to take on cases independently.

To ensure consistency in terms of the quality of the legal representation provided by each of the Public Defenders, be its in-house Public Defenders or those engaged under the panel of qualified lawyers, the PDO may wish to consider collaborating with the Law Society of Singapore's Advocacy Committee, the Criminal Practice Committee and the CLAS Committee, in working out a series of training sessions to sharpen the skills of the lawyers in areas such as the advocacy and criminal procedures.

In a Mass Call Address 2021, the hon Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon have shared that and I quote, "The pro bono spirit is among the very best tradition of our Bar. Few things are more precious than the opportunity to help someone who has been shut out from the access to justice."

As a lawyer, we are trained to be the person who unlocks that door. The Chief Justice strongly encouraged the newly minted lawyers to actively seek opportunities for involvement in pro bono work and CLAS was cited as an excellently meaningful avenue for pro bono service. I am glad that, moving forward, the PDO will also be another available option for one to contribute accordingly,

However, the reality of our legal profession is that criminal defence is not widely regarded as lucrative work and that those who pursue it as a career are often driven by passion and a conviction to help others. As a result, many young lawyers may not be exposed to doing criminal defence work unless he or she are in firms which support pro bono initiatives or do criminal defence work on a frequent basis.

But just as what the hon Chief Justice has shared in the Mass Call Address, young lawyers should, which I quote, "Learn to lean on the community, look for role models and mentors to whom you can turn for guidance and inspirations."

In this regard, I hope that PDO would be opened to having young lawyers with little experience to volunteer and be included in its panel of solicitors for cases in their capacity as a junior assistant counsel. This is similar to what is currently practised under the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences, in short, LASCO, which allows relatively inexperienced lawyers to observe proceedings and provide some support for the lead counsel, allowing them to be exposed to much needed experience in criminal legal matters. As a further suggestion, we can perhaps also consider giving this junior assistant counsel Continuing Professional Development (CPD) points instead of offering honorariums.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill to establish the Public Defenders’ Office (PDO). The PDO will provide greater legal assistance to the underprivileged group when they are unfortunately embroiled in criminal proceedings.

In this Bill, the Minister or the PDO have the power to grant aid to applicants who do not meet the monthly income criteria under certain circumstances. One Member proposed to increase the per capita monthly income cap to $2,200. The $1,500 per capita proposed by MinLaw is equivalent to $6,000 total household income for a 4-person household. This is quite high already.

We must exercise caution when deciding whether this power should be used. We should not forget the objective of this Bill is to help those accused who cannot afford legal representation. Ultimately, all the cost will be borne by taxpayers.

(In English): Notwithstanding the above clarifications and suggestions, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, most fellow Members will agree that a strong and consistent rule of law has contributed to Singapore's success over the years. A key aspect of the rule of law is access to justice, not just for some, but for all Singaporeans, regardless of their means.

I would first like to commend the Government's readiness to regularly relook this position as our society matures and to shift its policy accordingly. Where the Government has previously taken a position that criminal legal aid should not be publicly funded, today, we are debating a Bill that would render assistance to Singapore residents if they are charged with certain criminal offences. So, we can build a fairer society based on justice and equality.

Speaking as someone who is not legally trained, I would like to seek some clarifications on the Bill and the proposed Public Defender's Office (PDO).

First, from the practical perspective of a person who may use and benefit from the PDO's services and second, on the operational and structural aspects of the PDO. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The law cannot just be a rich man’s game or for the wealthy. Today, there are various options for people to get free legal advice or answers. You can book appointments with legal clinics at the CDCs and CCs to talk to a volunteer lawyer. The iLAB chatbot on the MinLaw's website also provides legal information on issues related to family and divorce issues.

On the other hand, there are lesser schemes for people to get legal representation in Court. This Public Defenders Bill aims to provide just that for Singapore Citizens and PRs who meet the criteria. I understand that the income ceiling will be set at the bottom 35% of households, whose income per household member is $1,500 or lower. How were these limits determined? Is it still too low a ceiling, considering that a three- or four-member household who is just above that ceiling would still struggle to pay legal fees ranging between $5,000 and $8,000 that private lawyers may charge for simple criminal defence matters? This is especially so bearing in mind the current state of high inflation.

To avoid conflicts of interest, clause 14(2) of the Bill rightly provides that the PDO must not act for more than one accused person or party in the same proceedings. However, if there are multiple co-accused qualifying for PDO assistance, how would the PDO choose which case to take up?

One other issue is regarding centralising legal aid in general.

With the creation of the PDO, is there an intention to centralise legal aid into a one-stop shop? Ordinary Singaporeans may not know which specific agency to approach for their matters. For example, the PDO, the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO) and the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) will provide legal representation for different types of criminal offences. The Legal Aid Bureau (LAB) may provide legal representation for certain civil proceedings. All these must also be distinguished from the agencies that provide free legal advice but not representation.

I understand that clause 12(5) of the Bill already empowers the Chief Public Defender to refer an application to another suitable body or organisation providing pro bono legal services. Going one step further to provide a one-stop shop to direct Singaporeans to the legal aid they need – and which they qualify for – all these will definitely be helpful.

(In English): There are some offences that the PDO will not cover and it looks like quite a long list. Some of the excluded offences appear to be offences that ordinary Singaporeans would likely get into trouble for and require legal aid for. Such as offences under the Road Traffic Act or regulatory offences under the purview of certain Statutory Boards.

As clause 8(3) of the Bill allows the Minister to amend the Schedule of excluded offences, how often will the Ministry review the list of excluded offences and potentially reduce some of the exclusions, so that more people can benefit?

Clause 12(8) of the Bill also helpfully clarifies that a person may still obtain legal representation from the PDO even if he is charged with multiple offences and if one or more of them is an excluded offence. However, will such an applicant be treated differently? Will he be required to co-pay a pro-rata share of the legal expenses corresponding to the excluded offences?

Next, on clause 17 of the Bill which allows the Chief Public Defender to require a legal aid applicant to co-fund his legal defence, would that be the norm or the exception? In principle, some degree of balancing would be required to prevent abuse of the legal aid that is provided.

Talking to some lawyers, I have heard stories of legal aid applicants who are less than cooperative with the volunteer lawyers who take up their defence pro bono, especially when the applicants need not fork out a single cent for their defence. So, a default co-funding arrangement may not entirely be a bad thing. It will of course be necessary to calibrate the amount of co-funding on a case-by-case basis considering the applicant's financial and other circumstances.

In terms of timing, at which point in time will the applicant be informed of the contributions that he will have to make? Save for special circumstances, any financial burden should be fully disclosed to the applicant at the outset of the legal aid application. Any uncertainty would detract from the objective of allaying our vulnerable residents' concern over accumulating legal fees; which is quite important.

Moving on to the operational and structural aspects of the PDO, I understand that PDO is targeted to commence operations in end of 2022, and the aim is to start by having PDO-employed lawyers take on all of PDO's cases before PDO considers outsourcing cases to qualified lawyers at a later stage.

When PDO commences operations, how many more people will be able to receive full legal representation, compared to the present average of 1,400 people who receive full legal representation every year under CLAS? I hope Senior Parliamentary Secretary can help answer that question later on.

Another question I have is, what are the conditions to be satisfied before PDO will consider outsourcing cases to qualified lawyers in private practice? Is the intention for the remuneration payable to external lawyers under clause 6 of the Bill to be fixed under subsidiary regulations or will that be subject to another consultation?

There is also an overlap between the space that the PDO will occupy and the space occupied by volunteer lawyers who take up criminal defence cases pro bono. Have there been any studies on whether there are particular types of criminal defence cases that private practitioners are more willing, or less willing, to take up pro bono?

From an efficiency standpoint, PDO should complement the existing pro bono efforts of our lawyers and multiply the potential reach of criminal legal aid in Singapore.

As PDO is also aimed at developing expertise, building up institutional knowledge and access to expert witnesses, medical and forensic analysts and so on, will private lawyers volunteering under CLAS be allowed to tap on PDO's precedents and knowledge? This would reassure the public that there would be minimal difference in outcomes to prefer the criminal legal aid provided by PDO, or that provided by volunteer lawyers through schemes like CLAS.

Finally, what were the considerations behind structuring PDO as a department of the MinLaw, with the Chief Public Defender who is appointed by the Minister for Law? I ask this primarily because I am concerned that the Chief Public Defender's decisions to grant or not grant aid may potentially be politicised especially where specific individuals or offences are involved. Such concerns would have been substantially reduced if PDO and the Chief Public Defender had been given an independent role under the Singapore Constitution. As the famous saying goes, "Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done".

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding the clarifications sought, I support the Bill.