(Delivered in Parliament on 2 March 2018)
Extradition – Sylvia Lim
The rationale for extradition arrangements is long-standing. Offenders who manage to leave the countries where the offences were committed should not escape justice. At the same time, countries that do not have extradition arrangements with others risk becoming magnets for fugitives, which will affect their own security and reputation.
Understandably, one cannot rush into concluding extradition agreements. According to the government, besides the need for a mutual desire for extradition arrangements, the compatibility of the two legal systems is another consideration.
In September 2016, Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah told the House that as far as ASEAN was concerned, there was a model ASEAN Extradition Treaty being worked on, which would function as a sort of template to enable ASEAN members to enter bilateral arrangements. While I can understand that ASEAN Member States overall have very different legal systems, does this mean that there is no plan or desire for an ASEAN-wide mutual recognition of arrest warrants?
One only needs to look at the case involving David Roach to illustrate the ASEAN challenge. Roach was suspected of committing a bank robbery in Singapore in July 2016, one and a half years ago. He escaped to our ASEAN neighbour, Thailand, was arrested and convicted of other offences under Thai law, and is only now being extradited from London to Singapore because he was being deported from Thailand to his home country, Canada, via London.
With the move towards greater ASEAN integration, the fact that such suspects can go to a fellow ASEAN country to escape justice does not seem acceptable.
On a more general level, does the government plan to increase the number of countries which Singapore has extradition agreements with? Currently, Singapore has arrangements with 40 declared Commonwealth countries, as well as bilateral agreements with the USA, Germany and Hong Kong, which makes only 43 out of nearly 200 countries. Does the government find it an acceptable coverage?
Legal Aid – Chen Show Mao
Sir,
The Legal Aid Bureau currently provides legal aid to needy Singaporeans. Roughly 10,000 cases a year since I have been MP, if you include legal advice, legal assistance to draft documents and legal aid in representation in civil proceedings. In order to qualify for legal aid, Singaporeans would need to pass two tests: the Means test, to show that they are needy, and the Merits test, to show that they have a good claim. It is not easy to meet both requirements and we have all met Singaporeans who applied for but were found ineligible for legal aid.
However, even needy Singaporeans with good claims who qualify for legal aid from the Legal Aid Bureau may not be able to press their claims with the Bureau’s assistance in the following circumstances.
In many standard form contracts that Singaporeans enter into, such as insurance policies, there are contractual requirements that the parties go to arbitration in the event of a dispute. They must go to arbitration. No legal proceedings. There are many good reasons why an insurance company that drafts the policy would want such an arbitration clause. But one effect of such a clause is that it may keep a needy Singaporean from pressing a meritorious claim in the event of a dispute, since legal aid currently does not cover the costs of arbitration proceedings.
I’d like to ask that the Minister look into extending aid to eligible recipients, namely Singaporeans who have met the Means test and Merits test for legal aid, to help them cover the costs of arbitration proceedings to which they have been mandatory directed by arbitration clauses in standardised contracts used in large volume.