Mr Speaker, Sir, before I speak on this Bill, may I say that I have no direct personal pecuniary interest. But I certainly have an interest because I am a member of the Society and I am an advocate and solicitor. Secondly, may I also make it quite clear that I am not speaking on behalf of the Law Society or any group. I am speaking here as a Member of Parliament and expressing my own views on this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not that the Bill is devoid of any merit. I can find one particular amendment which commends itself to me and I think it should commend itself to the public at large, and that is, that there should be somebody outside the legal profession sitting on the Disciplinary Committee when it makes a formal investigation into a complaint against a member of the Law Society. I think it may be perhaps judicious that we should apply this generally now to all professions, and I would like to commend to the Minister and to the Government that perhaps they should set up a professional tribunal panel consisting of memebers who would be called upon from time to time to sit on Disciplinary Committees or other committees inquiring into the conduct of professionals. And at least one member should come from a profession outside the profession of the member who is inquired into. So it is completely not without merit, Mr Speaker, Sir. But nevertheless I oppose this Bill and I do so, Mr Speaker, Sir, vehemently. My opposition to this Bill springs largely from the motives for the introduction of this Bill. I question the motives and I think it is necessary that the Minister should explain the real motives for this Bill and not hide behind platitudes. Nobody, Mr Speaker, Sir, questions the need for the public to repose the utmost confidence in any professional grouping. It is not only just lawyers, but doctors, accountants, architects. It is necessary that the public should be protected from errant members of these professions who service the public. So no one questions that need. I do not think the lawyers have ever questioned that need. But it is not as though there has been no protection for the public against errant members of the legal profession, and I shall, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the time allotted to me, show that there is ample protection at the moment. Let it not be forgotten that the legal profession is the one profession where its members are controlled and disciplined not by the members but by a body completely outside. The control and discipline of the members of the Law Society lie with the Judges of the Supreme Court. I shall show that the Minister is wrong when he says that the Council shares this responsibility. The Council does not share the responsibility. At the moment there is ample protection for the public in the measures outlined in the Act relating to complaints against members of the Law Society, against the members of the legal profession. So what has prompted this Bill? I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is quite plain to anyone that this Bill has been prompted purely for one reason, and one reason only. Just as I said about the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) (Amendment) Bill, that it was prompted only for one reason and that it had nothing to do with the decorum and dignity of the House. This Bill has been prompted simply because the Law Society has done the unforgivable thing in Singapore. In the past, the Law Society had somehow carried out its functions in a manner that the Government approved or accepted. If it had any recommendations or any communications to make, it made it direct to the Government. So that was all right. The public were not told. But sometime this year when the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill was introduced, the Law Society took upon itself to fulfil one of its roles, and I say that it is one of the roles of the Law Society. It is a role that the Society should discharge to members of the public. It is a role that any professional society should discharge to members of the public, and that is, to voice their criticism or fears of any impending legislation, or indeed of any issue that might concern and affect the citizens generally. And that is what the Law Society did. But that was unforgivable. The Government took umbrage when a government in any other democratic country, a government which respected its citizens, a government which trusted its citizens, would have welcomed the criticism of the Society or the group. But not in Singapore. In Singapore, no one, I repeat, no one can stand up and voice his criticism and especially so if that criticism carries some weight, as indeed the criticism by the Law Society did, because it was voicing the criticism of the members of the legal profession. And we had, immediately following the criticism by the Law Society, statements by the Ministers that the Law Society was entering into the political arena, that the President of the Law Society was politically motivated - all quite uncalled for. A society which voices criticism is not necessarily thereby entering into the political arena. The fallacy which I have said outside is that this Government says that it is open to any individual member of the society to voice any criticism. But it says he cannot do it with 10 others together. That is the fallacy. I have said, if the Government says quite seriously that any member of the public can voice his criticism, then that right must be given or recognized, whether the person says it individually or whether he says it with 10 others. Freedom of assembly is an integral part of the freedom of speech, and that I am afraid this Government fails to grasp or recognize. It would appear, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Government has no faith, no trust. I said, in speaking on the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill, that the Government would appear to have no trust or faith in the judgment of its citizens and it was necessary to regulate and con- trol their reading. Now it would appear that the Government has no faith or trust in the members of the legal profession. That, this Government has made quite plain from its inception in 1959. It had no trust, no faith in its own citizens, and I say, Sir, in all sincerity and with all force, that a government which has no faith, which has no trust in its citizens, and particularly in its professionals, has no moral right to govern. If you do not have any faith in the citizens, then you have lost your right to govern the citizens because government can only proceed upon mutual trust and confidence, ie, mutual trust of the citizens in the government and mutual trust of the government in the citizens, and particularly of the professions. But if that is lacking, then you have lost your right to govern. Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is intended to humiliate the members of the Law Society. Again, as the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill was intended to humiliate our citizens, this is intended to humiliate the members of the Law Society. And so I ask the question that I asked then: why does this Government take it upon itself to ridicule and humiliate our people? What right does the Government have? Not long ago, we had the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office making a completely unwarranted attack on the professions. I have been accused here of having made a scurrilous comment on the Chief Justice. I have asked, what is my scurrilous comment? What about the comments made by the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office? If mine was scurrilous, what were these comments? Pure abuse of the profession and at a time when we need the people outside Singapore to repose confidence in Singapore and Singaporeans. But here is the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office branding all professionals in Singapore as crooks, swindlers, and what have you. So what will an investor think before he decides to come to Singapore? A man with money to invest, what will he think? He will say, "I have got to think twice. Here is the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office giving me plain warning that Singapore is full of crooks." I hope the Government realizes the damage that has been done by this Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office. The humiliation is that before this Bill was introduced in Parliament, the Council of the Law Society was never consulted. No views of the Council were sought on this Bill and yet this Government speaks time and time again of consultation, of feedback. After the 1984 elections, it was recognized that there was a need for consultation and they set up the Feedback Unit. What happened to the Feedback Unit when this Bill was thought of? Why were the lawyers not consulted? Why were their views not sought? If I may mention by way of contrast, Mr Speaker, Sir, there was another Bill, not concerning lawyers, but concerning the gentlemen in the stockbroking industry. We were told this year in March, I think, that as early as the middle of last year or the beginning of last year, the Government had proposed to introduce a new Securities Industry Bill to give the MAS more powers over the stockbroking industry. We were told that the draft of that Bill was sent to the Committee of the Stock Exchange sometime at the beginning of last year or the middle of last year. And we were told by the Minister that the gentlemen in the Committee of the Stock Exchange were not very happy about the Bill, and so nothing was done. It was not introduced in Parliament until, of course, these gentlemen in the Stock Exchange Committee and others had brought ruin to thousands of Singaporeans by the Pan-El crisis, leading to the closure of the Stock Exchange for three days. After they had wrought the damage, simply out of pure greed, then the Government decided that it could not wait any more for their views. It decided to rush through the Securities Industry Act, with or without their views. But there you have it, by way of contrast. The Government sought the views of the Committee of the Stock Exchange in 1985, but not the Council of the Law Society on this Bill. Why, may I ask, was a distinction made? Why were the members of the Committee of the Stock Exhange treated in a preferential manner? What clout did they have? Would the Minister try and explain? I ask again the Minister to be honest and tell us what is the reason for the Government introducing the Bill. Has there been any public outcry? Has there been any public disquiet that members of the Law Society, the lawyers, are getting away unpunished, or is it just merely in the mind of the Government and its Ministers? Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I propose to show what control now exists over the members of the legal profession. As I said a little while ago, the disciplinary control is not exercised by the Council. It is exercised by Judges of the Supreme Court, and what better protection than that can the members of the public have? By section 85 of the Act, Mr Speaker, Sir, the members of the Inquiry Committee are appointed not by the Council, and this is why I think the Minister was not altogether truthful when he said that the Council shared the responsibility. He was omitting this - that the members of the Inquiry Committee are all appointed by the Chief Justice. He selects them. The Council has no hand in the appointment of Inquiry Committee members. Then, by section 86 of the Act, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Council is required to refer all complaints to the Inquiry Committee from any member of the public or any public application. The Council has no discretion. It must go to the Inquiry Committee. And by section 87, the Inquiry Committee is required, it is mandatory, to report within two months. They cannot drag their feet over any complaint and I thought there were some vague allusions or insinuations that things were being covered up. I shall show that there is no possibility of any cover-up, and I do regret that the Minister should have chosen in this House to smear the whole of the legal profession in the manner he did. The Inquiry Committee must report whether a formal investigation is necessary and, Members of the House, that means that the matter should be referred to a Disciplinary Committee, or the Inquiry Committee can report that a formal investigation is not necessary, or it can report that the Council itself can take action on it. Then once the Council receives the report from the Inquiry Committee, the Council must determine within one month what it proposes to do. If the Inquiry Committee recommends a formal investigation, the Council has no choice in the matter. It must go to the Disciplinary Committee. But the Council is allowed to disagree with the Inquiry Committee if it proposes no formal investigation. The Council can, nevertheless, still refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee even when the Inquiry Committee says no formal investigation is necessary. And then by section 91 when the matter is referred to the Disciplinary Committee, the members who sit on the Disciplinary Committee are all appointed by the Chief Justice. The Council has no choice. It does not select any member to sit on the Disciplinary Committee. The Chief Justice does it. It is his decision and his decision alone. Then if we look at section 94 of the Act, you find that the Disciplinary Committee decides whether the member should be made to show cause. It makes a recommendation to that effect. But the important thing is this: that the report of the Disciplinary Committee does not go only to the Council, it also goes to the Chief Justice because it reports to him. And in cases where the Disciplinary Committee recommends that no sufficient gravity exists to ask the member to show cause, the Chief Justice can still direct the Council to apply to the Court by way of Originating Summons for the member to show cause. So there you have it. Even where the Disciplinary Committee says, "We don't think it is necessary for the member to show cause" after their formal investigation, the Chief Justice can disagree. Of course, the Council cannot, but the Chief Justice can and he can direct the Council to apply to the High Court for an order to show cause. So I hope I have made it quite clear that the real control lies with the Chief Justice, not with the Council. And then you have sections 96 and 97 of the Act. By these sections, Mr Speaker, Sir, any applicant who is not satisfied (by an applicant, of course, I mean a member of the public who has complained about the conduct of a member of the Society) if he is not satisfied with the decision of the Inquiry Committee that it should not go up to a Disciplinary Committee or, again, if he is not satisfied with the report of the Disciplinary Committee that the member should not be asked to show cause, he still has a remedy. He can himself take out an application in the High Court before a Judge and ask the Judge to direct that the Inquiry Committee's findings be set aside and the matter be referred to the Disciplinary Committee, or that the Disciplinary Committee's findings be set aside and that the man should be made to show cause. We have had instances of that in the recent past. So the public are adequately protected and, at the risk of repetition, the control vests with the Chief Justice and the Judges of the Supreme Court. Let us look, Mr Speaker, Sir, at some of the figures over the last five years of reports made to the Law Society and what action has been taken in those cases. I have culled these figures from the reports of the Inquiry Committees which were presented along with the annual reports of the Law Society. The Law Society, like every other society, presents an annual report, and attached to the annual report is a report of the Inquiry Committee. So the figures are taken from those reports. For the year October 1980 to September 1981, there were only 29 complaints which were investigated by the Inquiry Committee. Out of these, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Inquiry Committee held that 21 either had no grounds for complaint or that they should be dismissed. So out of 29, 21 were dismissed by the Inquiry Committee. And, as I said, the person who made the complaint could have taken it up if he had any qualms about the decision, and again the Chief Justice could have taken it up if he had any qualms or doubt about the decision. Fines were imposed only on six lawyers, and only in one case was a Disciplinary Committee appointed. We come to the year October 1981 to September 1982. There were 38 cases which were inquired into by the Inquiry Committee. I have only got the figures for dismissals. About 15 were dismissed and only in four cases were Disciplinary Committees appointed. For the year October 1982 to September 1983, there were 40 complaints and the Inquiry Committee held that 27 of them either had no grounds or that there was not enough evidence to justify the complaint. So 27 were dismissed and fines were imposed on six and Disciplinary Committees appointed in seven. Then if you look at the October 1983 to September 1984, 33 cases were inquired into by the Inquiry Committee. Of these, 22 were dismissed and fines imposed on eight, and Disciplinary Committee appointed in only three cases. I should perhaps explain, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the benefit of Members, that a fine is the discretion given to the Council where the Council agrees with the view that no sufficient gravity exists for the member to be asked to show cause but nevertheless feels a fine should be imposed, and under the Act, the Society may fine any member up to $5,000. Then if you come to the last year for which I have the figure, and this is October 1984 to September 1985, there were 25 cases inquired into by the Inquiry Committee, of which 21 were dismissed, fines imposed on three and Disciplinary Committee appointed in one. That is the position up to 1985. I do not have the figures after that. Do they show, Mr Speaker, Sir, an alarming state of affairs in the legal profession? Mr Speaker, Sir, we have more than 1,000 members in the legal profession. I think the latest count would probably be about 1,350 or more. And the number of complaints does not come up to 5% in any year. May I say that is a remarkably low figure - complaints from members of the public - because if you look at the position in the United Kingdom, for example, again of course, they have got far more solicitors, you will see the complaints there come up to quite a big figure. So why has the Government suddenly come up with this Bill? The Minister has not explained to this House why he considers the present sections in the Act inadequate and what is wrong about them. As I said earlier, we are left then with only one reason, and that is, the Law Society and its members have to be put in their place, and their place is not to criticize the august Government, however gently they may do it; their place is simply to obey; that the Government was the embodiment of all that is good for Singapore, and that nobody should be allowed to deviate from the Government's embodiment of what is good for Singapore. So the Government decided that the Society and the President had to be punished. The President of the Law Society, under the amendment, will have to vacate his office. It is quite clear to me that once this Bill becomes law, he can no longer remain as President of the Law Society. If one looks at clause 3, one finds that section 59(1) which deals with members of the Council vacating their office, is amended by deleting the existing paragraph and substituting the new paragraph (a) which reads: 'he has been struck off the roll or suspended from practice for a period of 6 months or more or has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty;' So it seems to me patently clear that the President will have to vacate his office. And this is a slap in the face for the members of the Law Society. They elected him and the Government decides that they should not have elected him. This is gross interference with the rights of the members of the Law Society. There is a section in the Act which says that all members of the Society shall enjoy the same privileges and rights. Of course, for the period of the suspension, the member does not enjoy the same rights and privileges. But once the suspension is over or he is restored to the roll of advocates and solicitors, then he enjoys the same rights and privileges. Why should he be denied this right and privilege to stand for election to the Council of the Law Society? The Minister says that it came as an utter surprise, to the utter amazement of the Government, that the members of the Law Society should be so foolish, should be so unwise, had gone out of their minds perhaps, to elect as their President someone who had been suspended at one time from the membership of the Society. May I ask the Minister whether any squeak was heard from the Government when he was elected? Did the Government express any regret? Did the Minister for Law express regret? Nothing. We heard nothing about it. But, of course, the position changed when the Law Society committed the unforgivable sin in Singapore of speaking against the Government on a proposed Bill. That is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is necessary to expose the hypocrisy behind this Bill. I say that the motives are not genuine and it is brought simply because the Government has decided it is time that the Law Society should be punished. And this, of course, is in line with the entire manner in which things have been done in Singapore. In 1973, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was a member of the Council of the Law Society, and so was Mr Dennis Murphy a member of the Council of the Law Society. But I was told, after it happened, that the Prime Minister had summoned all the members of the Council, excluding me and Mr Murphy. He did not want to see us. He had summoned all the other members of the Council and had told them how they should run their affairs. And it was there, I was told, that the Prime Minister said that he was going to deal with me outside. That was why I was not there before him. But this is it, this desire, this insatiable thirst, to control every activity in Singapore. No one can be allowed to regulate their own affairs and to run their own house but the Government must control it. There is yet one other incident, Mr Speaker, Sir, before I sit down and which comes to mind is this summoning by the Prime Minister of the pilots of the Singapore Airlines. There they were complaining, they were involved in a wage dispute with the company over their pay and the matter had been referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court. And I think the Industrial Arbitration Court is equated to the High Court. Notwithstanding that the matter was before the Court, the Prime Minister summoned the executive body of the Pilots' Association and gave them a dressing down and they were asked to withdraw all their demands. As I said, this is all in line; it is part of a pattern, a pattern that was set when the PAP took office in 1959. And it makes nonsense of all their protestations after 1984, of listening to the people, of a desire to relax and let the people have their say. Mr Speaker, Sir, before I sit down, may I just run through one or two points made by the Minister. One of his points was that the Law Society does not disclose the number of complaints. As I said, they make a report. The Inquiry Committee furnishes a report every year.