Indranee Fucks WP 3 Times! Gahmen Does Not Use Legal Cost To Intimidate You!

[Sammyboy RSS Feed]

An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:

SINGAPORE: Two Workers' Party members - Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang - crossed swords with Ms Indranee Rajah, Senior Minister of State for Law, in Parliament on Monday (May 9) over an amendment to the Government Proceedings Act.

The Opposition MPs took issue with Clause 9 in the Statues (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2016, which would see a change to Section 29(4) of the Government Proceedings Act (GPA). They argued that the change would make it more prohibitive for individuals to enter into litigation against the Government.

Previously, the Act stated that: "In any such civil proceedings as are referred to in subsection (2) in which two legal officers appear as advocates and the court certifies for two counsel, costs shall be payable in respect of the services of both such legal officers."

Clause 9 replaces the section with: "In any civil proceedings mentioned in subsection (2), costs are payable in respect of the services of more than two legal officers if the court so certifies."

According to the Act, the change is meant to bring the previous laws in line with Order 59, Rule 19 of the Rules of the Court and Rule 871 of the Family Justice Rules 2014.

THE COURT IS THE SAFEGUARD: INDRANEE RAJAH

Ms Lim rose to record her reservation about Clause 9, saying: "Ms Indranee mentioned that this does not give the Government additional powers, but the fact is that under the existing Section 29 of the Government Proceedings Act, the cost claimable is limited to two. So this amendment would actually give an allowance to the court to certify more than two lawyers' cost being payable.

"So it is a change to the legal position as far as the GPA is concerned."

Ms Indranee said that the intent was to "bring it in line" with what is available to other civil parties.

Said the Senior Minister of State: "It is not intended to be costs used in an oppressive manner, but really where if costs are incurred, it gives the court the discretion to allow costs for more than two counsels if the court really thinks this is an appropriate place to do so.

"So the safeguard there is that it lies in the hands of the court."



But Ms Lim said that "when you have the Government on one side of a legal proceeding and perhaps a private individual or private entity on the other side, you are dealing with really an inequality of resources in most case".

She added: "The Government, with its legal officers, having the whole Civil Service there - the prospect of a litigant going into litigation with the Government and sustaining that litigation I think is already prohibitive to most people.

"So my question is why is the Government not able to take a broader view - or a magnanimous view, or perhaps a view from the the accountability standpoint - that we are not going allow costs to be an inhibition, or a prohibitive factor, when a litigant decides whether to continue with litigation or to commence litigation with the Government?

"I'm sure the Government doesn't need the money, so the question is why do you need to change that provision to allow for more than two lawyers' costs to be claimed? Why can't you just limit the Government's position to two?"



Ms Indranee she said that ultimately it should be up to the Courts to decide.

"The idea is that if it is a case that really a lot of work was incurred, and it appears to the court that it is fair and just to award costs for more than two counsel in such a situation, the court can do so. But if the Court, having taken into account the circumstances of of the case, feels that it is not equitable to do so, then it will be up to the Court," she said.

"So at the end of the day, I think it rests with the Court to do the right thing with respect to the costs. And our Courts in this matter, I believe, are objective and fair," she said.

The Government does its best to be fair, objective and rational about legal proceedings, added Ms Indranee.

"When this Government is engaged with litigation - whether it is brought by somebody else, or whether the Government has reason to initiate it - the Government does its best to be fair, objective and rational about it," she said.

"It would not be our approach to use costs to be oppressive, but to seek costs where we think it is fairly and justly incurred, and to leave it to the court to make the appropriate decision on the quantum of costs to be awarded, and the number of counsel to be taken into account."

WILL SOME FEEL INTIMIDATED, ASKS LOW THIA KHIANG

WP Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang then asked for a clarification, saying that he wondered if the change will "raise the perception of Singaporeans that the Government is using the clause to intimidate Singaporeans in bringing any legal case against the Government".

He asked: "So is it a good thing for Singapore as a society that the people who feel somehow being victimised by the Government, but are intimidated buy the costs that you don't know how much the court is going to decide?

"The sense of intimidation of Singaporeans does not spell well for the future of Singapore."



In response to Mr Low, Ms Indranee reiterated that it is not intention of the Government to intimidate anyone.

"I've said it before, once. I've said it before, twice. And I will now say it again a third time: It is not the intention of the Government to be using costs to intimidate anyone," said the Senior Minister of State for Law.

"As I have indicated, when the Government has to defend a matter or pursue a matter, it will do so after having taken advice, doing so rationally, and doing so if it thinks it is the right course of action. That is the first thing when it comes to taken proceedings with respect to the amount of costs that the person may face, when a person brings proceedings against the Government, that person would, no doubt, be legally advised, and also have an indication of the amount of cost that would be incurred.

"And it should not be forgotten that if costs are to be awarded against that party, it does mean that that party, at the end of the day, ultimately failed against the Government, meaning that that case should not have been brought in the first place."

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...html?cid=FBcna


Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com.