Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank Members for the views that they have expressed in the debate and for those who have supported the Bill. Let me now take up some of the points which were expressed. First, I will comment on the points raised by the Chairman of the GPC for Law and Home Affairs, Dr Arthur Beng, who supported the Bill. He also conveyed to this House a summary of the views, as he understood, which the lawyers had. I was familiar with some of the views that he recounted but I was not familiar with one particular view which I found rather surprising. It was this: that the lawyers want extra tiers of appeal because the other professionals, the doctors, accountants, architects, etc, who are subject to their disciplinary proceedings for misconduct are non-lawyers being defended by lawyers. In other words, doctors, accountants, and others, have lawyers, who are strangers to their profession, defending them. But as he put it, lawyers who are subject to disciplinary proceedings have the tragic misfortune of being represented by one of their own species. I hope the lawyers who express this view, are in the minority because they are expressing very little faith in their own brothers-at-law. The other view which several Members referred to is that lawyers are concerned or feel that the disciplinary bodies, like the Inquiry Committee and the Disciplinary Committee, are not decision-making bodies but investigative, fact-finding bodies. The real decision, according to their view, is made only by the Court of 3 judges, and therefore, there is a sense of unfairness that there is no further appeal. I have two comments on that. First, that is not really correct. It is not really correct to say that the disciplinary bodies only recommend or investigate. The Inquiry Committee, for instance, makes a report to the Law Society Council on its findings, and the Council has to take a decision. So there is a decision. And if the Council determines that - there must be a reference to the Disciplinary Committee; in fact, the Law Society Council has no choice; it must refer to the Disciplinary Committee. So in that sense, the Inquiry Committee's decision is effective. Then take the Disciplinary Committee. Is it just an investigative body? It is almost like a full-blown trial. There is a prosecutor appointed to prosecute and the lawyer who is subject to disciplinary proceedings has counsel; in quite a number of cases, Queen's Counsel. True, the Disciplinary Committee can either make a finding that there is a cause of gravity or there is not sufficient cause of gravity for reference to aCourt of three judges, or it can reprimand. But its finding is effective. In other words, if it finds that it must be referred to a Court of three judges, that is binding and it goes to the Court of three judges. It is a decision. The second comment I want to make is that if that is the view being held that a Court of three judges is viewed as a first body that makes the decision - effective decision of striking off, censure - then of course it can be easily taken care of, couldn't it, by having it restored to the same position of the other professions. In other words, the Disciplinary Committee can be given the full panoply of powers - reprimand, fine, censure, and strike off the rolls, and an appeal to a court of 3 judges or a single High Court judge. The question is, which is the most appropriate solution? Other Members have also spoken that perhaps that there should be a permanent Court of Appeal or that there should be reference to a single High Court judge and then to a Court of Appeal. And the Chairman of the GPC asked if the Government would be receptive to his proposal. Let me say that the Government will be prepared to consider this or any other proposals which will improve, strengthen, or make more effective the existing disciplinary procedures. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few days I also received a proposal from a retired judge, Mr Choor Singh, who also serves as a Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee. He has asked us to consider several changes. For example, he has proposed that we consider conferring on the Disciplinary Committee additional powers - powers to impose a penalty of a fine, reprimand, censure, suspend and/or strike off lawyers from the rolls. His argument was that under the revamped procedures, we now have retired judges, very senior lawyers, serving the Disciplinary Committee and we can give the powers because at the moment the Disciplinary Committee does not have the power to impose a fine, suspend or strike off the rolls. He also asked to consider that from the Disciplinary Committee with such additional powers, there can be an appeal to a single High Court judge, and thence to the Court of Appeal. Some lawyers, like Members in this House, have also proposed that, as a consequence of abolition of appeals to the Privy Council, we also consider changes to the system so that instead of a reference to a court of 3 judges directly, it should be to a single High Court judge and then to a Court of Appeal. Let me say that the Government will consider these suggestions but it will take some time, during which we will also study changes proposed in the United Kingdom Green Paper, mentioned by the Chairman of the GPC, to see if there is any proposal there which would be also useful to us. And if there is any merit to all these proposals, they can be taken up when we next amend the Legal Profession Act. Let me add that we are indeed examining other provisions of the Legal Profession Act such as the provision which restricts judges from practising law when they retire or leave the Bench. Sir, this provision has discouraged several good lawyers from accepting appointments as judges. This is a problem which Dr Wang Kai Yuen also raised in his speech. It is settled convention in Britain as well as the old Commonwealth countries that judges upon retirement do not re-appear as advocates in the courts over which they presided. But this should not prevent us from considering procedure where they can practise as solicitors without appearing in the Courts. So after considering the changes that have been made in other old as well as new Commonwealth countries, we will amend this section of the Legal Profession Act. The Chairman of the GPC also asked if I could give some information on the meeting which the First Deputy Prime Minister had with the Council's President and members of his Council. The President of the Law Society wrote to the Prime Minister asking for a meeting and the Prime Minister replied stating that as the 1DPM was in charge of matters such as this, First Deputy Prime Minister would meet with the President, Vice-President and five other representatives. The meeting took place on 9th February at which the Attorney-General and I were also present. The purpose of the 1DPM was to give an opportunity to the President and his Council colleagues to expand on their views and to convince 1DPM with good arguments that the amendments should not be proceeded with. He told them that he could understand the emotional reaction or natural reaction which lawyers would have to the removal of appeals to the Privy Council. This was understandable. However, as 1DPM also put it to the lawyers, the key issue was whether any serious injustice would be caused by these amendments. He noted that this was not the case as even after the amendments, the lawyers would have several tiers of appeal or disciplinary processes ending up in a court of 3 judges, a feature which no other profession had. Similarly, on the question of making the convictions final and conclusive, the Law Society argued against the amendments. But 1DPM explained that if we did not make these amendments, the disciplinary process could be converted into an unauthorized appeal on the convictions. On the third question of the composition of the Board of Legal Education, 1DPM and I informed them that the intention was that of the eight persons to be appointed, a good number would be advocates and solicitors. There was no intention not to do anything else. We took their point that the role of the Law Society should be given recognition and we informed them that this provision will be modified. Members will note that I have tabled an amendment which will be taken up during Committee stage. Sir, I think the meeting was useful in that it enabled them to put across their views to us, and at the same time for them to understand the Government's position on this matter. Let me now, Sir, take up the points of Mr Shanmugam, Mr Davinder Singh and a few others who touched on the question of the provision of making the convictions final and conclusive. Mr Shanmugam expressed the view that the court should have the power to review the convictions in exceptional circumstances. The point to be borne in mind is that if we do not make this amendment, surely each lawyer who is on a disciplinary charge must be tempted to argue that his case is an "exceptional" case and soon "exceptional cases" will become the norm. The amendment on this point - to make the underlying convictions final and conclusive - does not mean that the court cannot look at the facts of the case under any circumstances. In fact, Sir, Mr Davinder Singh has explained this to some extent - the court not only is prevented but may have to look at the circumstances of the case because under the Act, section 80 provides that if a person is convicted of criminal offence implying a defect of character which makes him unfit for his profession, it must follow that the disciplinary body or the court of 3 judges can look at all the facts of the case, in other words the criminal conviction, to come to a decision whether this conviction of that offence does or does not imply a defect of character which makes him unfit for the profession. The amendment that is before the House does not prevent the disciplinary body or court of 3 judges from doing that. Likewise, as Mr Davinder Singh pointed out, if the disciplinary body answers that question in the affirmative - yes, it does imply a defect of character rendering him unfit for his profession - it is still open to the disciplinary body to look at the facts of the case in the surrounding circumstances to decide whether the penalty should be a reprimand, a fine, censure or a more extreme penalty such as suspension or striking off the rolls. And this amendment does not prevent a court of 3 judges or adisciplinary body from looking at the conviction for those purposes. Then what does the amendment seek to do? What the amendment seeks to do is that the disciplinary body, a court of 3 judges, cannot review the merits of the original criminal conviction and to inquire into the legal validity of that conviction. In other words, what this amendment seeks to do is to say that in the disciplinary process, the IC, the DC and the court of 3 judges, cannot go behind the conviction and to confer on themselves, either an appellate judicial function or a revisionary judicial function, of a court of appeal. In other words, we must keep distinct the appellate (or a revisionary power if there is one in a particular case) and the disciplinary process. That is all that the amendment seeks to do. If the disciplinary body and the court want to look at the conviction for purposes of determining what is the appropriate penalty or for the purpose of determining whether the conviction renders him unfit for practising his profession, it is open to do so. And those provisions of the Act have not been altered. The point has also been made, I think by Mr Davinder Singh, and others whether we should not look at the other professions, as far as the finality of the convictions is concerned. I have taken his point. We may indeed have to review the legislation for other professions and it will take us some time to do that. I want to thank him for the suggestion. Sir, let me now deal with the points raised by Dr Lee Siew-Choh and Mr Chiam. Dr Lee Siew-Choh, after a few sittings, I think if we close our eyes, we are under the impression that it is Mr Jeyaretnam talking! I know that he is, if I may borrow a phrase from Mr Jeyaretnam, beholden to Mr Jeyaretnam for many matters. But I hope that he will give us some refreshing views of his own instead of appearing to sound like Mr Jeyaretnam all the time. Sir, he asked: is this a knee-jerk reaction to the Privy Council decision? I have already spoken on this at length at the previous sitting and I explained that the whole question of appeals to the Privy Council has been under consideration for some time. I even revealed extracts of correspondence between the Prime Minister and one of the Law Lords dating back several years. And I pointed out that we are taking our time to consider the overall appeals to the Privy Council. But I am not in the least bit embarrassed or apologetic in saying that in certain areas such as this or on ISA appeals, some events or decisions do bring matters to a head. They crystalize our thoughts and we introduce amendments. In the ISA case, we have been concerned for some time, for instance, about appeals to Privy Council on security matters after the Spy Catcher case. But matters are brought to a head when our Court of Appeal expounded the principles and the cases in the Commonwealth and other countries which they are going to follow. So I came to the House and amendments to the Internal Security Act and to the Privy Council on security cases were tabled. So also here. I have indicated at a previous sitting what is the opinion of the Attorney-General on this case, how the Privy Council did not hear the Attorney-General, how important legal arguments were consequently not fully addressed. Although we are taking our time on the rest of the implications of appeals to Privy Council, there is no embarrassment in saying that certain decisions do cause us to crystallize our thoughts and act without delay. Then he talked about Francis Seow. I think after the revelations of Mr Francis Seow, residents in Eunos will know what a narrow escape they had, how close they came to electing a person like Mr Francis Seow and they must be very grateful that the result was what it was. Dr Lee Siew-Choh said these amendments are for Mr Francis Seow. But he did not tell us when Mr Francis Seow is coming back. That is important because Mr Chiam says the timing is wrong and that we should wait for Mr Francis Seow to come back. But supposing he does not come back. We do not move these amendments at all? It cannot be. When is the right timing then? Do we wait for Mr Francis Seow to come back? And Dr Lee Siew-Choh does not tell us when his colleague is coming back. We should hold this amendment in abeyance, indefinitely perhaps. We cannot do that. Sir, Mr Shanmugam has pointed out that Dr Lee Siew-Choh insinuated that Mr Jeyaretnam was struck off the rolls for political reasons. This is a very serious allegation, as Mr Shanmugan has pointed out. It is a very serious allegation because striking off is by a court of three judges. And to say that this is for political reasons is to make a very serious allegation and I like to remind him that his predecessor was subjected to a penalty and was chastised by this House for making similar allegations. And I would like to know whether he denies saying this, stands by it, maintains the allegations or withdraws the allegations. Finally, Sir, Mr Chiam throws the quotations of the Prime Minister and myself on what we said about the Privy Council. I was wondering when these quotations were going to be thrown at us. Did I say this? Yes, I did. I always thought for sometime that it is good to have appeals to the Privy Council, provided (and that is a very important proviso) that the Privy Council remains relevant to the circumstancesand conditions of our time. I have shown at the previous sitting how United Kingdom laws, trends in judicial interpretation, have gone off in divergent trends unsuitable for our purposes. So it is really with some reluctance, if not sorrow, that we are cutting off appeals to the Privy Council. At our last sitting, I said that we are not just in security cases concerned about appeals to Privy Council but in other cases as well. Since the Member referred to this quotation, let me also for good measure ask him to look at what I said on 17th March 1981 when I was a Backbencher, a few months after my election. This was when the Prime Minister had spoken about the difficulty in getting judges and he remarked that we may have to employ expatriate judges. I then said: (Vol. 40, No. 8, col. 707). 'I wonder whether an expatriate judge would have that sense of appreciation of the policy underpinnings of certain laws which he might have to administer in cases appearing before him. I am thinking particularly of cases like Constitutional Law cases where this may impinge on important national interests and the judge ought to have an awareness of the social and political underpinnings of the laws.' That concern was expressed eight years ago about expatriate judges in Singapore. What more of judges sitting thousands of miles away? So he should also look up that quotation. I have not been inconsistent. But let me in any case give advance notice in case he is going to keep this quotation also for future reference and to use it against me. It does not mean that as Minister for Law that I will never advise my Cabinet colleagues against getting expatriate judges under any circumstances. Because if we fail to get our ablest and the best of our own lawyers to serve as judges, it may be the only solution. So the point I am making is a simple one. Yes, at one time we thought the Privy Council was useful but reluctantly we have to sever the links. Yes, we have reservations. I have reservations on expatriate judges. But if we have no choice and the courts are going to be swamped by a backlog of cases and tremendous delays in fixing of dates, we may well have to do that. Nothing is immutable. Overriding interest is the national interest and that is the note on which I would like to end. When we talk about justice, justice for whom? These disciplinary procedures and proceedings are to protect whom? True, there are safeguards for the lawyers, opportunity to be heard, tried and heard by fellow peers, several tiers so that different bodies can address their minds before the final decision is taken which may affect his livelihood. But I would like to suggest to the House that the overriding interest is a public interest and the many people who know nothing about law and whose private lives or public lives or family matters are in the hands of the lawyers. And as Mr Chiam has pointed out, lawyers are stakeholders for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. So let us not have a distorted perspective of justice when we discuss the Legal Profession Act. The fundamental consideration must be that the legal profession must have in mind as overriding interest the public it serves and that it has a duty, not just the Government, it has a duty to ensure that the delinquent and the errant amongst them must be disciplined, and effectively disciplined, so that the good name of the profession is preserved and that the public who have no choice but to go to the lawyers will always have confidence in the legal profession and the legal system.