Speech on Head R “Trust and Access to Justice”

I had the pleasure to kick off the Committee of Supply Debate on the estimates for Ministry of Law. In my speech, I focussed on (1) enhancing access to law for the ordinary man; and (2) updating legislation to keep up with the times and legal developments. On the first point, I suggested that the means test limit for legal aid be raised. I also suggested that the Govt better publicise the fact that Legal Aid Bureau may entertain cases where the applicants don’t satisfy the means test when it is just and proper to do so. I also asked for the simplification of the legal procedure to distribute wealth post-death (referred to by lawyers as probate and administration). On the update of laws, I suggested that the Debtors Act which allows judgment debtors to be sent to civil prison paid by creditors be relooked on the basis it is not keeping with the times. Please see below the text of my speech.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Sir, I beg to move, “That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100”.

Sir, I am heartened to note the significant steps the Ministry of Law has taken to strengthen access to justice in Singapore to the average man in the street and forging an efficient & trusted legal system in the past year.

One major initiative which has received good reviews from members of public is iLAB, which is a free legal chatbox that provides legal information on 9 modules which includes Covid-19 legal issues, monetary claims in addition to the usual family law issues.

There has been very good take up rate of this service -

In 2021 alone, iLAB registered 47,579 queries in 3,408 sessions. The feedback on its services is also good, averaging 4 out of 5 stars in post-usage surveys.

This achievement comes on top of other initiatives such as:

a. The operationalisation of the Protection from Harassment Court with simplified processes allowing a person to navigate the system on his own, without the need of a lawyer; and

b. The Apostille Act, which was put into effect on 16 September 2021, which helped Singapore travellers easily get apostilles for their Singapore issued vaccination records for travel to countries if so required as a condition of entry.

These and other moves have enhanced access to justice and make our legal system more efficient and trusted.

I have 2 suggestions that I hope the Minister will consider, to strengthen this even more:

a. First, the simplification of the probate and administration process.

i. I have been advocating for change in this process, especially for non-contentious matters for some time now. I suggested that the Japanese Kobeki system, which does not involve courts, be looked at.

ii. The vast majority of probate and administration cases are simple. Yet, the current system requiring executors or administrators to file applications in court is cumbersome and costly — as it involves lawyers in a Rube Goldberg machine of a process.

iii. Several years back, the Government agreed to look at my proposal to simplify the system. I would be grateful for an update please.

b. Next, to further strengthen access to justice for persons of limited means, I wish to propose that the current means limit of PCHI of $950, which was last adjusted in October 2019, be raised. Mean testing is an important part of prudence in public spending; balanced against prudence is an assurance that cost will not be an obstacle to access to justice.

i. I noted that in the past 5 years, the total number of applications have reduced.

• Between 2017 and 2019, the applications were generally in their 9,000s. In 2020, the number went down to 7,722. In 2021, it went down further to 6,651.

ii. That is not all, I also note the number of successful applicants has also gone down.

• Between 2017 and 2019, the average number of successful applicants is 6,180. For 2020, it went down to 5,466 and in 2021, it went even lower to 4,928.
• The percentage of unsuccessful applications that did not satisfy the means test criteria is about 80%. This could mean that many well to do people are trying their luck, but looking at the benchmarks for income in other parts of our policies on means testing, I do not think so. For example, in comparison, a person under the Joint Singles Scheme may apply for a public rental flat from HDB so long as his gross monthly salary does not exceed $1,500.
• Given that there is capacity to take on more cases, I suggest that a study be done to review the PCHI and study the feasibility of revising it upwards.

iii. I also suggest that the Ministry make it better known that there is discretion given to the Means Test Panel to waive the Means Test requirements when it is found to be “just and proper” to do so.

• I learned from MinLaw’s recent response to my PQ that since 2019, when the amendments to the Legal Aid and Advice Act to provide for flexibility in providing legal aid was introduced, the Means Test Panel received only 7 applications of which 5 were approved.

— In the end though, out of the 5, 2 withdrew leaving only 3 applicants proceeded with the applications.

• In my respectful view, this may be too small a number given the demand for legal aid, although I do not have more than anecdotal evidence.
• I also checked the Legal Aid Bureau website and noted that the reference to this statutory discretion to provide legal aid despite failing the means test is, respectfully, rather cursory.

— I was not able to find a reference to Means Test Panel and the fact that decisions of the Panel can be appealed to the Minister.

— The illustrations as to what can constitute “just and proper” circumstances are also rather limited.

From time to time, our laws have to be updated in keeping with developments. I would be grateful if the Minister could please outline his Ministry’s plans in this area. I would also like to make 2 proposals for his kind consideration:

a. First, I propose that the Ministry look at amending the Limitation Act 1959 to address a recent decision of the Court of Appeal to the effect that claims in unjust enrichment and restitution for wrongs are not covered under the Act.

i. As a result, stale claims based on these causes of action may potentially be brought in our courts.

ii. As the Minister may recall, last year, I suggested that his Ministry review the Limitation Act arising from the Law Reform Committee’s recommendations that it be amended.

• The Minister’s response then was that the Act will be reviewed, but given other priorities of the Ministry, the review may take some time.

iii. Given the decision of the Court of Appeal, I suggest that there may be some urgency now to review the Act because it would be anomalous to allow for stale claims in restitution and unjust enrichment be filed in our courts when claims based on the other causes of action covered by the Act would be time-barred.

b. Next, I propose that the Ministry review the merits of retaining the provisions in the Debtors Act, 1934 which allows for judgment debtors to be committed to civil prison after an examination before a court on his ability to pay or satisfy the judgment debt.

i. In the Minister’s response to my PQ recently, he stated that based on a manual review, since 2013 there have been no such instances of judgment debtors being committed to civil prison.

• Data on applications made under the Debtors Act prior to 2013 is not ready available.

ii. In my respectful view, this provision is anachronistic.

iii. In any event, there already exist provisions to deal with judgement debtors who are not forthcoming with honest answers or have fraudulently removed assets to frustrate judgment creditors.

Mr Speaker, I have spoken on the need to capture all possible efficiencies, including from chatbots and new technologies, to ensure that the provision of justice remains a lean and streamlined process. That is tending to the cost of supply.

At the same time, we must also look at demand for legal services, and ensure access to justice for all. In this, I asked for us to review the means tests. Last, I ask for a few smaller reviews to ensure that our laws are updated and made coherent with developments across the entire body of law. Together they ensure that our legal system remains efficient, accessible and coherent, all of which will go a long way towards maintaining and building up that trust that Singaporeans have in our laws.