Speech by Mr. Louis Ng Kok Kwang, MP for Nee Soon GRC at the Second Reading of the Legal Aid and Advice (Amendment) Bill [Bill no. 42/2018]
Introduction
Sir, I stand in support of the Bill.
Many MPs, myself included, have asked for the Director of Legal Aid to be given broader discretion to extend legal aid to those who do not qualify under the means test.
I am heartened to see that the Ministry has taken on board our suggestions in allowing the Director general discretion to grant aid if it is just and proper to do so.
It was announced just last week that from next year, a new system set up by the Legal Aid Bureau will help applicants access legal aid more quickly by allowing lawyers to browse and select cases, and legal aid applicants to check the status of their applications.
These legislative amendments coupled with improvements in implementation are progressive moves towards improving access to justice for the most vulnerable and becoming a more compassionate society.
Sir, I would like to seek three clarifications.
Qualifying limit for new means criteria
The Ministry has stated that the qualifying limit for the new means criteria to be set in subsidiary legislation will take into account the latest income data to maintain the number of eligible households.
However, if legal costs have increased, access to lawyers may be beyond the reach of a larger number of households. If that is the case, rather than holding the number of eligible households constant, legal aid may need to be extended to a larger number of households.
When the Act was amended in 2013, the criteria was relaxed to increase the percentage of qualifying citizens and permanent residents from 17% to 25%.
The last large-scale study of legal costs in Singapore was the 2001 Census Of The Legal Industry And Profession. The census had suggested that the billable rate of law firms had steadily increased between 1998 and 2000.
Is the Ministry tracking the trends in legal costs and the proportion of households for whom legal representation remains accessible? Will the Ministry consider increasing the percentage of qualifying citizens and permanent residents?
Legal aid for aided persons who appeal
Next, currently, an aided person who wishes to appeal a decision must make a new application for legal aid. In the Assigned Solicitor’s Guide, the solicitor is advised that they cannot act for an aided person who is looking to appeal a court judgment.
There are strict timelines that must be adhered to in an appeal. This is acknowledged in the Assigned Solicitor’s Guide, which advises the aided person to file a Notice of Appeal on their own before making a new application for legal aid.
However, whether the aided person decides to appeal is likely to depend on whether they are able to obtain further legal aid. In this situation, it is left to the Assigned Solicitor to decide on their own initiative whether to assist the aided person in filing the Notice of Appeal.
Could the Minister clarify the rationale for subjecting the aided person to another full round of means and merits testing to obtain legal aid for the appeal?
The means of the aided person might have changed but I doubt it would be significant for most persons.
Admittedly, the merits of the case may need to be considered afresh if it is going on appeal.
An unfavourable decision may cast new light on the merits of the claim.
In a favourable decision where the aided person is appealing against the amount awarded, it should be considered whether the sum awarded truly is so unsatisfactory as to warrant an appeal and whether this should be supported with legal aid.
However, given that the claim has gone through an initial round of merits testing, it may not need the in-depth assessment given to a new claim.
Again, considering the strict timelines that must be adhered to in an appeal, would the Minister consider an expedited process for assessing whether to extend legal aid to an aided person who wishes to file an appeal?
Legal aid for aided persons enforcing judgment
Similarly a new application for legal aid must be made for an aided person to enforce their judgment.
Could the Minister also clarify the rationale for subjecting the aided person to another full round of means and merits testing to obtain legal aid in enforcing the judgment?
The means of the aided person would similarly not have changed much after obtaining the paper judgment from the court. The merits of the claim would be further reinforced by the favourable judgment given by the court.
Having supported an aided person all the way to the point of obtaining a paper judgment, surely it would be logical for legal aid to see the claim all the way through until the aided person obtains the sum claimed which is the entire objective of filing a claim in the first place.
Would the Minister consider allowing an initial Grant of Aid to extend to enforcement processes that an aided person may need to undertake?
Conclusion
Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.