Committee of Supply – Head R (Ministry of Law)

Madam, I would like to raise two areas for review concerning the investigation and pre-trial stages of criminal cases. First, I would like to revisit the suggestion to video record the statements given by accused persons in custody, which Mr Hri Kumar just touched on.

This practice of video recording is in place in various jurisdictions, including Australia, the United Kingdom, South Korea and Taiwan. Its purpose is as a safeguard, to ensure that the person in custody gave his statement voluntarily and that the words in the statement fell from the accused's own lips and were not force-fed.

I first raised this issue during MinLaw's COS five years ago in 2008. At that time, the Government's response was that video recording does not ensure that statements are voluntarily given. In 2011, MinLaw made a similar response after the Ismil Kadar case.

While I agree that video recording is not a fool-proof guarantee against impropriety or allegations of such, the benefits of doing so are undeniable and accrue to both the state and the defence. For the state, it offers significant protection to our law enforcement officers against groundless allegations that they threatened the accused or subjected the accused to duress. Footage of the statement recording will show the demeanour of the accused and the recording officer, to enable the court to come to certain conclusions about whether the accused's will was sapped through sleep deprivation or he was not in a proper frame of mind during the recording. Furthermore, statements are often challenged by the defence on the ground that the words in the statement were put in by the recording officer and did not come from the accused. A video recording will settle that question decisively.

In other countries, video recording has been found to save Police and Court time, as both sides may decide not to pursue certain matters after viewing the recording. At the same time, it is a safeguard to maintaining high standards of law enforcement. We in Singapore may need this safeguard even more, since an arrested person's right to see counsel under arrest is so limited. Would the

Page: 40

Government at least re-think its position on this issue or at least for capital cases?

Secondly, the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 introduced a new pre-trial case disclosure regime where both prosecution and defence are required to disclose evidence relevant to the case well ahead of the trial. Since its implementation, I have assisted as defence counsel in a few court cases under the framework, and I can see its value and contributions towards a fair trial. Currently, only District Court cases under the Penal Code and selected statutes come under the disclosure regime. Other cases, for example, those charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) have not been brought under the framework yet. As the framework has proven useful and successful, when will its scope be expanded to cover other laws like the PCA?

Madam, the fourth Presidential Election in August 2011 was the first contested election for the presidency since 1993.

Candidates presented competing, and often conflicting, visions of the Elected Presidency. In some respects, the conflicting visions were encouraged by the electorate which had high expectations, and saw the President as a political player to function as a check on the Government.

This is notwithstanding that Singapore's Head of State is not vested with the same powers as the executive Presidents of the United States, France and many Latin American countries.

There was the palpable expectation that the presidency should be a watchdog that can both bark and bite. The sense was that the current reactive powers of the Elected President results in a watchdog that could only bark, and even then only in limited circumstances.

However, put simply, the Elected President is not designed as a countervailing source of political power in our system of Government.

The silver lining is that Singaporeans saw the first presidential contest in 18 years as an opportunity to demonstrate their aspiration for a more robust political system and to entrench good governance.

Page: 41

Would the Government consider using the next couple of years before the next presidential election to create better awareness and understanding of the constitutional limits of the Presidency? I note the Minister's own efforts in trying to clarify the role and function of the Elected President but I felt that it did not make much headway in the lead up to the hustings, particularly as it came on the back of the bruising 2011 General Election.

Madam, candidates must run for the office that exists, not one that they wish to have. The Elected President is a little understood and a much misunderstood institution in our system of constitutional government.

More importantly, the electorate must be discerning to know which candidate is over-promising on the Elected President's constitutional powers and mandate. I make this call to Singaporeans to better understand our system of Government.

At the same time, I call on the Government to let the Elected Presidency to evolve in tandem with Singaporeans' reasonable expectations of the roles and functions of the office, all in the name of entrenching good governance.

Madam, the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) has been kept busy and efficiently handled numerous small claims for a whole range of claims. My residents, as well as some of the freelance professionals whom I have come into contact with, have shared with me the limitations of the Small Claims route. The issue is not with the process and getting the order but the costs of litigation if one seeks to enforce the small claims judgement. For example, if the amount of judgement claims is $1,000 or even $5,000, the cost to enforce, if the losing party refuses to pay, may render it not worthwhile to take further civil action. Can MinLaw help plug this lacuna and provide some recourse for the claimants who have judgement in hand?

In line with my earlier point on enforcement of small claims is the incidence of small companies which are liable to pay under a small claims judgement and end up winding up the company and setting up shop under another company and a new name. The claimant is often left in the lurch. Can MinLaw do something to help such claimants?

And, finally, with an increase in our population and the rising number of household units and the close proximity of neighbours, the frequency of

Page: 42

disputes between neighbours is likely to increase. It can be noise, smoke, dripping water, excessive items along corridors, to invasion of space. Besides community mediation, a Magistrate's Complaint, and show cause action by the Police, can we not set up a tribunal for neighbourly disputes which should incorporate compulsory mediation, penalty provisions and establishing community norms?

Madam, I would like to follow on from the suggestions by my colleague, Mr Patrick Tay, about the discussion for developing a Community Mediation Framework. In particular, whether it is possible if the first round of mediation does not resolve in an amicable situation, then an appointed body or group issues a notice to the party or parties involved requiring them to comply with an appropriate or described set of behaviours.

And where the offence then is a failure to comply with the notice, rather than letting cases drag on until one party reports the matter to an authority, the other party gets fined and the relationship becomes more strained and very adversarial, I am not suggesting that we could use this opportunity to develop a framework to draw up a list of offences – which may be a difficult list to agree upon. It is the process which is prescribed and the failure to engage with the process that is the offence.

For long-drawn disputes where either party refuses to attend mediation, could the act of refusal to attend mediation be considered as an offence and give the process of mediation more bite and enhance its effectiveness?

Madam, Singapore has earned a reputation internationally as the country that can get things done, with good infrastructure, capable IT support and personnel and a knowledge-based economy. These are the basic, necessary and vital ingredients to achieve our ambition to be an Intellectual Property hub. If I may add one other critical ingredient necessary to be an Intellectual Property hub is our impartial and efficient legal system.

Madam, the areas of IP patents, royalties and licensing are important ones and set to grow. The World Bank listed royalties and licensing to be worth about US$200 billion.

The number of patents is growing at a furious pace of 45% annually.

We should have a slice of that pie. But we must work at removing some impediments to growing the IP industry. Perhaps, even consider a review of section 34 which could blind-side an IP newbie, mostly inexperienced start-up individuals, registering their product overseas first and not being aware of the requirement under this section and would be fined.

More communication and education are needed to counter potential "leakage" of IP filings going elsewhere. Could the Ministry study if this section could be removed or reviewed altogether or have more publicity or comprehensive communication plans such that the public is aware of this? Secondly, would MinLaw also consider setting up a Do-it-Yourself registration, a DIY facility, especially for small companies, many of which are start-ups, who

Page: 46

may find it costly to register through the services of a lawyer?

I look forward to the Minister for Law updating the House on the plans to further develop Singapore into an IP hub. How else can we help our local businesses to commercialise and exploit the IP that they own?

Mdm Chairperson, I thank all who spoke.

Mr Hri Kumar asked for an update on the impact of significant legislative changes in the past year. MinLaw administers over 80 Acts, which is about 20% of the Statute Book, which we review and seek to reform from time to time. A number of reforms were made in the last financial year.

Looking at criminal justice, the Evidence Act was amended to expand the court's discretion to admit hearsay and opinion evidence. As regards sexual assault victims, we made it clear that cross-examination on sexual history can only be done when directly relevant.

Together with MHA and AGC, we worked on and brought before this House, reforms to the mandatory death penalty in relation to drug trafficking and murder, as well as the procedure for the Court of Appeal to review death sentences. The transitional cases are now being dealt with. We will monitor the impact on our crime rates as a result of these changes.

Separately, a law reform committee led by the Senior Minister of State for Law will be looking at rationalising the Penal Code offences relating to homicide and hurt where death is caused; and whether and to what extent mentally disabled offenders should be punished differently across the whole spectrum of criminal law.

Mr Kumar also asked about hate speech in the context of the Internet. I think that Members would know that yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Teo made some comments about reviewing this area. We will update the House when that review is completed.

To boost the legal services sector, we amended the Legal Profession Act, the International Arbitration Act, and the Foreign Limitation Periods Act. If you

Page: 47

look at the Legal Profession Act, we widened ad hoc admissions for Queen's Counsel. More flexibility was also given for Singapore firms to collaborate with foreign firms.

Under the International Arbitration Act, we updated the definition of arbitration agreements, recognised emergency arbitrators, clarified the tribunal's power to award interest and allowed judicial review of negative jurisdictional rulings.

As regards the Foreign Limitation Periods Act, it was made clear that, where a case is governed by foreign law, the issue of limitation will be governed by foreign law. This has made Singapore a more neutral forum.

The amendments were made as part of an overall effort to develop our arbitration sector. It is difficult to pinpoint the effect of each change on the legal sector, but you can see, in broad terms, the overall effect on our legal sector. In 2012 – the nominal value-add from legal services was estimated at around $1.85 billion. In 2008 – it was $1.48 billion. That is a 25% increase. And if we have a vibrant legal services sector, that will in turn support the banking sector, the finance sector, corporate headquarters in Singapore and areas which require sophisticated legal support.

Other changes we made include the Legal Aid and Advice Act, where we updated the means test to keep pace with the cost of living, and try and protect vulnerable persons in family disputes. With the amendments, an additional 300,000 citizens and PRs can meet the income test. That is about 25% of Singapore residents, up from the current 17%. The Civil Law Act was expanded to give greater discretion to distribute property of deceased persons with no heirs. For example, unclaimed CPF monies are now covered. That Act came into effect on 15 February 2013 and I have tasked the Public Trustee to take charge of its administration.

For the Moneylenders Act and Rules, we enhanced the enforcement powers of the Registry of Moneylenders, extended interest rate caps, prohibited up-front fees which increased borrowing costs, and removed exceptions to caps on unsecured lending. This and earlier measures reduced the volume of moneylending, and the number of moneylenders fell from 249 in 2011 to 209 in 2012. The value of the loans fell from $480 million to about $260 million over the same period [Please refer to Official Report of 7 July 2014].

Page: 48

Moving forward, we will continue to reform the law across the different areas of legislation that MinLaw covers.

One of the major areas that will be covered this year is our bankruptcy and insolvency regime. Mr Vikram Nair asked if we can consider an easier regime to discharge certain types of bankrupts: bankruptcies due to business failure and bankruptcies due to unsecured consumer credit. I think there is merit in differentiating between the different types of bankrupts. We have started a review of our discharge policies, but I ask that Members bear in mind that we have to balance between the creditors' interests and discharging bankrupts where it is just to do so, without creating a moral hazard. We will certainly consider the Member's views in the review.

We will also consider the Member's views in the context of the Insolvency Law Reform Committee. That Committee will be finalising its report on the Omnibus Insolvency Bill which will improve and streamline personal bankruptcy and corporate insolvency regimes. We will also consult the public after reviewing the Committee's report and our discharge policies.

In this context, Mr Desmond Lee asked whether our laws would allow a HDB flat owner who is in financial distress but not yet a bankrupt to downgrade to a small flat without having the proceeds of the sale taken by creditors. Under the Housing and Development Act, HDB flats in general cannot be used as security. In bankruptcy, the HDB flat owned by at least one citizen will not vest in the Official Assignee; that is to say that it is not available to the creditors. The High Court has also ruled that that protection also applies to proceeds from the sale of the HDB flat. Those in financial distress should be aware of these bankruptcy protections. We will also ask MND and HDB to see if there is a gap in this area.

Next, if I can move to resolving community disputes. Mr Patrick Tay and Dr Janil Puthucheary spoke on this. We note their concerns and suggestions. Community disputes, as Members recognise, fall into many categories, ranging from noise disturbances to unpleasant smells. Some are bona fide and some may suggest extreme sensitivity. It is inherently difficult to resolve these disputes because emotions tend to run high and views on what is acceptable behaviour are very subjective.

The existing framework of criminal and civil laws, I think, may need to be relooked at. My Ministry is working with MND, MHA and MCCY to see if we can develop a framework that can apply to this set of issues. This was broadly

Page: 49

referred to yesterday by the Second Minister for Home Affairs in the context of what should be the norms of acceptable conduct between neighbours, enhanced mediation processes and calibrated sanctions to enhance compliance.

This is a work in progress and we welcome suggestions, but bear in mind that legislation cannot solve all issues.

Finally, on Asst Prof Tan's suggestions on improving Singaporeans' understanding of our system of Government, especially the role of the Elected President. Since 1988, when the idea of the Elected President was first mooted, the Government has explained the role of the Elected President several times. In 1999, then-Prime Minister Goh made a statement in this House. In 2011, statements clarifying the role of the Elected Presidency were issued.

The role of the President, as stated in the Constitution, is not very difficult to understand. Article 21 states clearly that the President acts on Cabinet's advice, except in certain specified areas: the use of past reserves; appointments to key public offices; ISA detentions; CPIB investigations; and restraining orders relating to the maintenance of religious harmony.

I think it is very clear. If I may refer to Asst Prof Tan's own article which was published on 31 May 2011 in the media, and I quote, "Singapore's Head of State is not vested with the same powers as the Executive President of the United States, France and many Latin America countries. Despite our President being elected, our system of Government remains a parliamentary one, in which policy making and law making are the prerogatives of the Cabinet and Parliament. Put simply, the Elected President is not designed as a countervailing source of political power in our system. The Elected President has two key custodial functions: That of protecting Singapore's financial assets and safeguarding the integrity of Singapore's public service… In layman's term, the President holds the ‘second key'. But the President cannot initiate a drawdown of the reserves or make key appointments, laws or policies; his powers are inherently reactionary. In most other areas, the President has limited discretionary power, mostly acting on the advice of the Cabinet, or being constitutionally required to consult with the Council of Presidential Advisers."

So, it is very clear. Asst Prof Tan has set it out, I have set it out, and others have set it out.

I would suggest that in the specific context that Asst Prof Tan mentioned, of candidates – or some of the candidates at least – saying what they thought

Page: 50

the powers were – that it is not a problem of public misunderstanding. It is perhaps a misperception of what candidates may have considered to be the powers of the Elected President.

I agree with Asst Prof Tan that public education is important and the Government will continue to clarify these areas. Students are educated on Singapore's system of government, including the President, and on their responsibilities as citizens. These include their responsibilities as voters in presidential and parliamentary elections. They are taught at a level commensurate with their maturity through compulsory subjects, including Social Studies, and Citizenship and Character Education.

The Senior Minister of State for Law will take the remaining cuts.

Mdm Chairperson, Mr Hri Kumar asked about the QFLPs. From 2008 to 2011, the value of legal services exported from Singapore increased by 51.8% from $363 million in 2008 to $551 million in 2011. This growth has been catalysed by our calibrated liberalisation of the legal services sector, mainly through the QFLP Scheme.

In 2008, the first six QFLP licences were handed out. The six firms have done well. Eighty percent of their gross revenue comes from offshore work, work that would otherwise have been done overseas. Last month, we awarded a second round of QFLP licences to four top international firms. We will continue to monitor the QFLP scheme to ensure that it continues to contribute to the strength and diversity of our legal sector.

Mr Fong had asked about making Singapore an Intellectual Property hub. Mdm Chairperson, today, the development and exploitation of intellectual property have become a key driver of economic growth globally. The importance of intellectual property (IP) will continue to increase. Transactions in IP will become a business in itself and Singapore must ride this wave. A vibrant IP marketplace in Singapore will support high-value jobs and business opportunities for Singaporeans. It will also enable Singapore businesses and innovators to commercialise and exploit their IP. We, therefore, set up the IP Hub Steering Committee last year to formulate a Master Plan to guide Singapore's development in this area.

Page: 51

The Committee has submitted its findings and recommendations to the Government. It identified three strategic outcomes that we should work towards. The first is that Singapore should aim to be an international hub for IP transactions and management, so that companies will use Singapore as a base for regional and international IP transactions, and manage their IP portfolios from Singapore.

Two, Singapore should aim to be a hub for quality IP filings for companies all over the world. These companies can tap on our IP service providers and infrastructure and use Singapore as the gateway to secure IP protection in key markets all over the world. Singapore should become a choice venue for IP dispute resolution by leveraging on our efficient, cost-effective and high quality judicial system, and alternative dispute resolution methods, such as arbitration.

To reach these strategic outcomes, the Committee has recommended that Singapore develop skilled IP professionals, networked to the region and beyond, to effectively serve the international needs of companies. Also, we should build a conducive and progressive environment to encourage IP players worldwide to bring their IP activities to Singapore, and thus create a thriving IP eco-system in Singapore, entrench our status as an IP hub, and position us to assert thought leadership in the field.

We are in general agreement with the recommendations of the Committee, and we intend to aggressively develop Singapore into a regional and international IP hub. Detailed announcements will be made over the next few months on this front.

Mr Fong also asked about the review of section 34 of the Patents Act, currently referred to as the National Security Clearance (NSC) provision, which is meant to safeguard the disclosure of information prejudicial to national defence interests and public safety. Patents agent professionals are aware of the requirements and the clearance process at IPOS is simple and quick. Information about NSC is available at the IPOS website, but IPOS will study how to further raise awareness of the provision among companies.

On Mr Fong's suggestion to set up a DIY facility, it is already possible today for companies to file IP, such as patents and trademarks, on their own, but most still seek IP service providers for professional assistance. Companies can enjoy a 400% tax deduction or 60% cash payout on IP registration under the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme. This can include the

Page: 52

associated fees paid to professional service providers.

On the Small Claims Tribunal – an issue raised by Mr Patrick Tay – legal costs for proceedings are minimised as the process is simple and parties appear in person. Money orders are enforced through the Magistrates Court through the Writ of Seizure and Sale (WSS), and the filing fee for the writ of execution to enforce the Tribunal's order is $105, which is 30% lower than the fee for a case not under the Tribunal. Incidental costs of enforcement, such as bailiff and auctioneer fees, may bring the total cost of the enforcement to about $400 to $600. However, the Court will generally order the losing party to bear all enforcement costs, so that the successful claimant may not need to pay.

We are conscious of the cost factor in our on-going review of the Small Claims Tribunal Act together with the Subordinate Courts. We will ensure that the Small Claims Tribunal stays true to its purpose of providing effective and swift redress for small claims.

Mr Patrick Tay had asked about consumers' recourse against errant companies who fold up and set up as new companies. A person who uses the corporate form for fraud can be made personally liable for the debts of the company. He may also be guilty of a criminal offence. If a person is a director, he could also be disqualified from holding directorships. In terms of public education, ACRA has collaborated with CASE to develop a guide for consumers dealing with business entities. That guide shows consumers how to use ACRA's information services, to conduct background checks on business entities before deciding whether they should deal with them.

On criminal procedure, Ms Sylvia Lim had raised a question on the disclosure regime under the CPC. In launching the disclosure regime, we determined a body of predicate offences to be included. The Prevention of Corruption Act is not included in this list. CPIB investigations under the PCA, therefore, are excluded from the disclosure regime. However, CPIB investigations of predicate offences included in the regime will observe the same disclosure requirements.

The Police has introduced measures over the years to improve the quality of their investigation processes. These practices are shared among the Government investigation community, which includes the CPIB. MinLaw will convey the Member's comments to the CPIB and this will continue to be reviewed. In the meantime, for cases not covered under the statutory regime, the common law will still apply, as the Court of Appeal made clear in Kadar's

Page: 53

case.

Both Ms Lim and Mr Hri Kumar raised the issue of video recording. The issue of video recording is an operational matter relating to police investigations and it comes more directly under the purview of MHA. However, MinLaw understands from MHA that there are currently no plans to introduce video recording for the taking of statements. MHA's position is that the issue of video recording as well as other operational issues should be looked at in the following manner: there should be a fair system which seeks to ensure that crimes are solved, and the system should also seek to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected. If an accused wishes to challenge the statement given by him, there are clear avenues available today.

On the question of whether this regime can be re-thought, over the years, MHA has introduced a number of changes, and it is MHA's intention to continue to look at the processes. I think the Government recognises the rationale behind the suggestions made by Mr Hri Kumar and Ms Lim. That rationale, together with other considerations, will be considered in the light of evolving circumstances when MHA further reviews its processes.

Mr Hri Kumar also raised the issue of legal aid, and made three points for consideration: whether we could have ad hoc practising certificates for retired practitioners or people who can come in to help with legal aid; using law students for pro bono work; and what can be done for accused persons who are unrepresented. As I had mentioned previously, I am currently chairing a committee on the promotion of pro bono work. We will take these suggestions to the committee and consider them and see what can be done.

On a slightly broader note, because Mr Kumar also mentioned what MinLaw has done over the past year, if I may just say a few words on the legal sector in general. The legal sector has grown, as mentioned by the Minister. If I may just add that the arbitration sector, in particular, has also seen stellar growth.

Singapore is now recognised as the leading international arbitration hub in Asia. A 2010 White & Case International Arbitration Survey found that we are clearly the most popular Asian seat. Worldwide, we are the third most preferred seat by companies, together with Paris and Tokyo, and after London and Geneva.

Page: 54

The growing caseload of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) reflects our rising stature in international arbitration. The number of new cases handled by SIAC rose from 99 in 2008 to 235 in 2012. The total value of disputes reached a record high of S$3.61 billion in 2012, well in excess of the total for 2010 and 2011 put together.

This growth is the result of the aggressive and holistic approach we have taken to develop the arbitration sector over the years. We have a completely open regime for international commercial arbitration. Parties engaging in arbitration in Singapore have the freedom to engage lawyers of any nationality and to use any governing law. We have also introduced tax incentives for arbitrators and arbitration work. And we have established Maxwell Chambers, which offers world-class arbitration facilities. The Global Arbitration Review called Maxwell Chambers' opening one of the "Best Developments" in the arbitration industry. Our Courts, too, have been strongly supportive and pro-arbitration. Finally, we have a supportive legislative framework in the form of the International Arbitration Act, which we continually update in consultation with academics and practitioners.

Our coming of age was evident when the International Council for Commercial Arbitration held its Congress here. The Congress was attended by the who's who of the international arbitration community, and had the largest participation rate in its history, of more than 1,000 attendees.

Concurrently, we have seen the growth of arbitration expertise in the local Bar, at all levels. This will enable Singapore to continue to be the arbitration centre of choice for the region as well as internationally. I would encourage younger Singaporean lawyers to deepen and extend their arbitration skills and knowledge to take advantage of this growth area so that, in the years to come, we will continue to have a strong pipeline of Singapore lawyers who will be able to serve the local, regional and international markets for arbitration.

We also hope to see the continued growth of strong Singapore law practices and hope that they will take advantage of some of the available incentives, such as the Development and Expansion Incentive for International Legal Services, a concessionary tax rate for firms which do international work from Singapore; and a tax incentive for international arbitration work done substantially or culminating in hearings in Singapore. In addition, agencies, such as EDB, SPRING Singapore and International Enterprise Singapore, provide a variety of general incentives for capability building that the Singapore

Page: 55

law practices can tap on.

For dispute resolution, as the Chief Justice announced at the Opening of the Legal Year, Justice V K Rajah and I will lead a committee to study the proposal for creating a Singapore International Commercial Court, and this will further expand our dispute resolution offerings.

Mediation is also a priority. In the coming year, we will build on earlier efforts by the Singapore Mediation Centre to strengthen our services for international commercial mediation.

Mdm Chairperson, the development of the legal services will be a source of growth in itself, and more importantly, a vibrant legal services sector supports growth in other sectors of the economy which require sophisticated legal support.

Thank you, Madam. Two clarifications for the Senior Minister of State on her response to my cuts. The first is regarding the disclosure regime and whether other statutes, for example, the PCA, would be brought under it. The Senior Minister of State seemed to suggest that it is something discretionary and may or may not happen. But my question is: should we not proceed on the basis of whether there is any good reason why it should not be brought under that regime? After all, is it not desired to have uniformity in these pre-trial disclosures, especially for cases heard by the District Court?

The second clarification is concerning the issue of video recording. The Senior Minister of State appeared, in the gist of her remarks, to say that this issue is actually an MHA issue. Perhaps, she would like to clarify because, historically, MinLaw has taken ownership of this issue of video recording, both in the CPC review in 2010 as well as certain statements made to the media about this issue.

I would like to ask: does MinLaw not have an interest in the standards of evidence brought before the Court and how Court time is used? In fact, Mr Kumar also alluded to the fact that much Court time is being used now to refute such allegations which I think video recording could somewhat mitigate. In other countries, it has been shown that prosecutors are pushing for this because they have found the value in video recording in the handling of trials. I would

Page: 56

like to ask the Senior Minister of State what is actually MinLaw's ownership of this issue or whether it is just something which they think MHA should take the lead on from now on?

Madam, I will answer the question. The Government takes ownership of this issue. Obviously, the Member is entitled to ask the Government and someone has to answer. The gist of the response on video-recording is that, in the past when MinLaw took up the issue, it is often that the office-holders were double-hatting, or because of the specific context of the legislation before the House.

Now, today's question is operational in nature: video-recording has to be done by the police if it is instituted, and the Member knows that.

Therefore, given the operational nature of the issue, given the fact that MHA agencies have to deal with it, they will have to assess whether it is feasible, whether they have the necessary resources, and what implications it has on their investigative procedures. On these operational issues, we defer to them. We are happy to relay the answer on their stance, but we also think that it would be more productive, in the specific context in which this question is raised, that it be put directly to MHA, perhaps in the form of a parliamentary question. But we are happy to respond, and we have responded today. We also recognise the rationale for the Member's point, as well as Mr Kumar's point, and we would put it across for MHA's consideration. So, if the Member wishes to continue to raise the issue with MinLaw, we will be happy to answer; we are just making the additional point that the Member could consider specifically raising it with MHA.

In response to the Member's point as to whether or not MinLaw is interested in making sure that standards of evidence in court are up to scratch – I would reply, yes, absolutely. We want to make sure of that, and as everyone can see from the moves that we have made in the last few years, and as the Member will recognise, standards have been refined considerably. I think the Member will welcome the changes, for example, to the disclosure regime. Last year, when we had a meeting with the members of the criminal bar, several stood up and welcomed the changes. One of them, a leading member, said, "This is the best time to practise at the defence bar." But that does not mean that the current position is crystallised. We have to continuously evolve, look at

Page: 57

the best practices, and we welcome suggestions by Members and others.

Secondly, as far as criminal case disclosure is concerned, again, we put it in because we believe that it is the right thing to do, and it has been put in place for many pieces of legislation. But let us see how it works before we expand it to other agencies, other pieces of legislation.

So, that rationale has already been explained. The speed with which the regime can be expanded depends also on the ability to make sure that the agencies can comply with the processes, and whether they believe it is workable in their particular context. That is the case in the specific context of CPIB and PCA. That is also the case for other agencies and other pieces of legislation, and we will continue to have conversations with CPIB and other agencies on this.