Committee of Supply ‒ Head B (Attorney-General's Chambers)

Mdm Chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the increased AGC headcount.

Looking at the period from 2011, then-AG, Mr Sundaresh Menon, felt that AGC was understaffed. His successor, Mr VK Rajah, took the same view as well. AGC raised it with the Ministry of Finance (MOF). MOF has also done a manpower review.

AGC's headcount was increased. Much of the recruitment thus took place from 2011 to 2015, with a 35% increase in headcount over that period. This helped to "right-size" AGC and ensured that it could deliver quality legal services as required by the public sector. The increase in manpower allocation was necessary, in view of the fact that AGC's portfolio and work demands have increased significantly over the past few years.

For example, AGC has taken on an increased volume in complexity of civil and criminal hearings. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in complexity of white-collar crime cases. There has also been an increase in sophisticated, organised and internationalised criminal activity.

The complexity of legal advisory work has also grown, in tandem with the increasing multifaceted nature of the Government's work. The demand for legal input to improve and speed up the formulation and implementation of policies has also increased.

In the international arena, AGC has managed an increasing number of disputes and negotiations to advance Singapore's interests.

AGC has also taken on several new functions. AGC now provides legal representation for Statutory Boards in judicial review proceedings. AGC has taken over prosecution work from the Police's Prosecution Branch. The AGC legislative team has embarked on the Plain Laws Understandable by Singaporeans (PLUS) project, an initiative to improve and modernise legislative drafting, to make our laws more accessible to the public.

With AGC's improved manpower situation, we do not expect the same pace of manpower growth to continue into the foreseeable future.

Ms Sylvia Lim also asked about mid-career recruits to the AGC. Mid-career changes are common in many industries. The legal industry is no exception. Mid-career hires can bring along fresh perspectives and ideas honed by their experiences elsewhere.

The key considerations are whether the mid-career hires possess the necessary skills, aptitude and desire to serve the public interest. We do not see any basis for suggesting that mid-career entrants will not serve the public interest.

It will be noted that many of our Judges are appointed to the Bench from the private sector. Can it be suggested that they are all not suitable because they come from the private sector?

It will also be noted that some Cabinet Ministers are appointed from the private sector, including both officeholders in MinLaw. Would Ms Lim suggest that they are not suitable because they were not in the public sector all their lives?

Finally, Ms Sylvia Lim seemed to suggest that senior officers in AGC should not have had any political affiliation. If she is saying − as a matter of institutional philosophy − that there is something inherent about the office of AG that rules out political affiliation at some time, then that will be inaccurate.

In many first-world countries, the AG, as the head of AGC, is, in fact, a sitting Member of Parliament or politician. In the United Kingdom, the AG is a Cabinet Minister. He is also the Chief Legal Adviser and also oversees the Prosecution Service. Australia has a similar system. The AG is a member of the Legislature.

Likewise, in the United States (US). In the US, the President appoints an AG − and the current AG was a Republican Senator no less. The US AG had taken positions on political issues as a Senator. He resigned from the Senate just before being appointed AG and continues to be a member of the Republican Party.

So, as a matter of systems design, many countries see it perfectly proper to have an AG who is a politician.

We have adopted a slightly different model. In our system, the AG and AGC officers are not politicians and are not members of political parties. But it is going too far to suggest that AGC officers must not have previously had any links with any political party. We must bear in mind two points.

First, AGC must be led by the best legal talent available. Our talent pool for the highest legal appointment is small. It is common for political parties to get the best legal talent. Some of our top lawyers have been Members of Parliament. Look at the senior partners and top lawyers in our largest firms. Drew & Napier − Mr Davinder Singh Senior Counsel (SC), who is generally recognised as the top litigator in town, was a People's Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament; Wong Partnership − the top litigator, Mr Alvin Yeo SC, was a PAP Member of Parliament; Allen & Gledhill − one of the two SCs in the litigation department, Mr Edwin Tong, is a sitting Member of Parliament.

Madam, may I beg your indulgence? I just have a few paragraphs more.

Thank you. If you look at Rajah & Tann − the current Chief Justice, as well as Judge of Appeal Steven Chong and Justice Quentin Loh came into public service, as well as the previous AG. And, in the last few years, several others have also been taken from other firms and the private sector, to come into the Public Service.

In our view, those whom I mentioned, who are still in private practice, would all, together with Mr Hri Kumar SC, be considered to be among the top six to seven litigators in town. This wealth of talent should be available to the Public Service.

Ultimately, the most important considerations are the quality, character and integrity of the individuals appointed to lead AGC.

To put matters in context, of those appointed SCs in the past 10 years, as of last month, only 16 were in private practice or remained in private practice. As stated earlier, Mr Hri Kumar is amongst the top six to seven litigators in Singapore today. He is recommended in publications, such as Chambers Global and Asia-Pacific Legal 500. He has been hailed as, I quote, "an extremely… impressive litigator". Others have observed that, again I quote "few senior counsel … can rival the prowess of Hri Kumar …". Senior figures in the profession have noted that he is "incisive, diligent, fair-minded", possesses "rare intellect" and is capable of "consummate advocacy".

Appointments to the Public Service must, of course, be based on ability. But they are also informed by a confluence of other factors, including the willingness to make sacrifices for the public good and having a heart for public service.

I can tell the House that others have been approached for public sector positions, not necessarily for AGC, including some of the top six to seven, but they were not willing to give up their private practice for a number of reasons.

Mr Hri Kumar accepted his appointment as Deputy AG despite the considerable personal and financial cost to him. He loses the privacy he enjoyed in private practice. He also now earns significantly less than what he used to earn. We should be grateful that a person of such standing has agreed to dedicate himself to the public cause. We should welcome his spirit of public service.

Second, the ultimate decider of cases is the Court, not AG. While AG takes a position on whether to prosecute, it is the Court that eventually decides on innocence or guilt. This is why, in many countries, it is perfectly acceptable for the AG to be a politician.

In conclusion, we must ensure that AGC is sufficiently staffed and led by outstanding leaders in the law. This will enable AGC to serve as a steadfast guardian of the public interest and a steward of the rule of law.

Madam, I would like to state once again that my cut was not meant as a personal attack on Mr Hri Kumar nor a question of his legal competence. But I have three clarifications for the Senior Minister of State.

The first is, she mentioned that Mr Hri Kumar was the most eminently suitable candidate for the post of Deputy AG. Is she by implication saying that the Government does not see any other candidate from the Legal Service that could fill that post?

The second clarification is that the Senior Minister of State mentioned or was trying to say that AG or Deputy AG has a limited role because, ultimately, the decider would be the Courts. But does she not agree that actually, under the Constitution, AG and Deputy AG have very wide prosecutorial discretion? They can decide whether to charge someone, what charges to prefer and their discretion is virtually unappealable. So, in that sense, the posts of AG and Deputy AG are something with vast power, in fact, vis-a-vis the Courts.

The third clarification is that I do not know whether the Minister is able to give an indication of whether should the Deputy AG be faced with a file that is politically charged or has political connotations, whether he would actually take the step of recusing himself, which I think it is quite a common procedure in other countries as well.

Is he the most eminently qualified for this position? What I can say is that there are six to seven people who are considered outstanding litigators. He is one of those six to seven.

I do not know whether the Member will be more comfortable with Mr Davinder Singh or Mr Alvin Yeo. It is a fact that the PAP gets the best lawyers on its side.

Some of us come into Government, some of us go into − when I say "us", I mean litigators − the Bench, and some litigators do other kinds of public service. And Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah made the point that a couple in this top six, seven have previously indicated that they would prefer not to come into the Public Service. I do not think it is appropriate to go beyond that.

He is eminently qualified, there is no question of his abilities; you do not question his abilities. The real issue is: is there something systemically wrong?

Ms Sylvia Lim waxed lyrical about the appointment process in the US, and Jeff Sessions. And they have a system where a sitting Republican Senator transfers over and becomes AG, absolutely no problems. So, I would say I do not see any issue with someone who has had a link in the past, for the very sound reasons that Ms Indranee Rajah has given.

Second, wide discretion, but in matters that go to Court, ultimately, the Court decides. If exercise of discretion is required, of course, AGC decides − AG, Deputy AG, Solicitor-General – based on a variety of factors, and that is why you choose people of character and competence.

You can see that the legal institutions in Singapore since Independence, whether it is Judiciary, AGC, the Legal Service, the Bar − we are one of the few countries that has made these institutions much better than from when we took over from the British, compared to all the other countries that the Member referred to. This is a Government that builds up institutions, not pulls them down.

Third − should the Deputy AG disqualify himself? There are clear rules on when lawyers should recuse themselves from particular matters and I am sure every lawyer in AGC is aware of the laws relating to recusal.