It is time the Law Ministry show Singaporeans and the rest of the world that they can withstand scrutiny outside their backyard. The implication in IBAHRI’s report is very clear and the Law Ministry must step up to the plate for such an open debate. Anything less should be viewed as a lame attempt to restore credibility.

So i guess the way out is for the govt to relent, or for the Law Society President to use his soft persuasive skills to persuade the govt otherwise.

I agree with Conjob that the Law Society and it’s current president is no JBJ, Francis Seow, Tang LH or Chee SJ.

Survival and peace for oneself and one’s loved may be the reason that there is only one Chia Thye Poh, JBJ, Francis Seow, Tang LH or Chee SJ.

Look what happens to Chee Siok Chin now. Fixed so nicely that she cannot even attend a democracy leadership programme at Stanford University in the US.

It take much balls to take them on.

I salute Ms Chee for having some!

feedmetothefish

Point taken. Thank you.

That being said, it’s still sad that that law is on the books — and that the Law Society is content to live with its hands tied. Or at least it has to continue this way, until as such time the government relents, or if the Law Society is headed by a more dynamic and aggressive leader.

“they trying to do us in”?

Nice weekend one and all.

I’m not trying to quash the debate here by taking a “i’m trained and therefore my word is right” stance, so lets get this possible thought out of the way. What i’m trying to do is to show that your interpretation is not tenable at all.

What you are basically saying is that s38(1)(c) only allows the Law Society to comment on legislation submitted to it, and that is ok because in that it is assisting the govt. however, it can still comment on any legislation not submitted to it under s38(1)(f) because in that form, it is assisting the public. And therefore, I made a logical leap of faith and confused literal and preferred interpretation.

However, and that is not immediately apparent to those not used to statutory interpretation, this argument would really make s38(1)(c) obsolete, and no court will interpret a statute this way. Put simply, if s38(1)(f) allows the Law Society to comment on legislation submitted to it OR otherwise, because it is assisting the public in that form, then what use is that of s38(1)(c)?

if it is inherently ambiguous, the courts will look at the Interpretation Act, s9A, where under it they can look at parliamentary debates to ascertain the provision in question and how it relates to the Act. This is where the minister’s statement as quoted in the above posts comes in; it is clear that parliament intended for the Law Society to only comment on legislation submitted to it.

The underlying point really is that a statute must be read consistently. While your preferred interpretation may be logical, and certainly it will find popular support, the fact remains that your interpretation will make s. 38(1)(c) obsolete. it does not matter in what guise the Law Society acts; what is more important is the extent of its powers given to it by s. 38 and whether they can be exercised consistently. Towards this end, it does not matter whether the words “only if” are not added, because the statute can still be read consistently.

The literal interpretation does not spell out the limitations of the Law Society — had it, this article would not have existed.

To quote zz:

“Sub sub section (c), in contrast, spells out a specific power that the Law Society can exercise, which is to “to assist the Government and the courts in all matters affecting legislation submitted to it”. The phrase “submitted to it” is crucial, and indeed this was the exact change made in 1986. s. 38(1)(c) simply means that the Law Society can comment on the legislation only if its submitted to it. ”

The phrase ’submitted to it’ does not translate into ‘only if submitted to it’. The words ‘only if’ divide the differing definitions of both phrases. Allow me to demonstrate by analogy, in this case that of a clerk. A clerk in an office generally has so many things to do, which fall into his field of speciality. His job may well be accounting for quotations, invoices, and the sort. However, he may choose to help his colleague with accountancy work, and may even work overtime for free in order to clear his work. On the other hand, his contract could bind him to stick to his area of speciality, and force him to work very rigid hours (like those in the military).

The difference between the two is that of space for individual action. In the ‘literal interpretation’, the Law Society is obligated to assist the State — but is free to act as a whole. In the government’s preferred interpretation, the Law Society may only act when the State says it may act. Nowhere in the law is the Law Society specifically prohibited from taking collective action, independent of the State. Should people believe that the law still prohibits the Law Society from taking action, then the law itself must be clarified to say that, because in its existing form, the law is ambiguous enough for me to interpret it in the matter expounded above.

zz, while your reasoning may be sound, it is based on a logical leap. You took the literal interpretation, and muddied it with the preferred interpretation, by adding the words ‘only if’. People may say that I am quibbling, but it is clauses like these that shape the true flows of power, and the actual meanings of words.

The purpose of the statute may be to shut up meddlesome lawyers, but herein lies a loophole in the law. I am not a trained lawyer, but it seems to me that Section 38 (1)(c) isn’t worded strongly enough to actually deter the Law Society from taking action if it wanted to, and that Section 38(1)(f) provides a strong reason to act.

The ambiguity of the law means that it can be interpreted to suit various purposes. I may take your argument that the law may not contradict itself. So, the Law Society may, under Section 38(1)(c), assist the government. In addition, it may also assist the public under Section 38(1)(f), in ways leading up to and including the release of press statements, because the wording of Section 38 (1)(c) does not stop the Law Society from doing so.

What about the intention of the statute? MG has pointed out that the then-Minister of Law said that “we amended the Bill to make it loud and clear that we only want their assistance on matters which we submit to them.”

That is all fine and well. What does the phrase ‘we only want their assistance on matters which we submit to them’ mean? It means that the government only wants the Law Society’s help on anything submitted to the Law Society. That is fine by me, too, because the Law Society can act to help the general public, under section 38 (1)(f), by performing the actions I have speculated about in my main essay, without running afoul of the government’s intention.

Nowhere in the law is the Law Society prohibited from directly challenging the government. The intention of the statute, as defined by Barker, was to limit the assistance of the Law Society to matters submitted to it by the state. Should the Law Society act independently, to assist the public, and against the government stance, they would have no quarrel with the courts — because they are acting in accordance with Section 38(1)(f).

Of course, it can be argued that the law was designed to prevent challenges to the State from the Law Society to begin with. Then let me pose a scenario to you:

The government is on the edge of passing a law, allowing it to empower the police to freely tap into the phonelines of suspected terrorists, with very little burden of proof. The public is up in arms against this, fearing an invasion of their privacy. The Law Society’s members find that they cannot in good faith accept the government’s proposal. The government has submitted the Bill to the Law Society for its assistance.

So what can the Law Society do? It can reject the bill altogether. Under Section 38(1)(c), its job is to assist the government; that includes rejecting the submitted bill, by finding it unjustifiable, illegal, etc. Calling the Law Society a political threat in this case would harm the government more, because the former is helping the latter to avoid committing a crime or shooting itself in the foot.

Now, imagine that the government has decided to not submit the Bill to the Law Society. What it can do is to assist the public, by laying out carefully-worded statements, explaining the complexities of the law, outlining the pros and cons, weighing the merits of either decision — but letting the people decide. This can come in the form of a press statement/white paper that details everything, but is so objective that the paper does not pick a side.

In such a scenario, the Law Society is not challenging the government. It is merely clarifying the situation by presenting to the public the outcomes of each decision, in a highly objective fashion, and letting the people take action. It is not against Section 38(1)(c), and in line with Section 38(1)(f).

In fact, if all else fails, the Law Society’ future role in public discussion on the law may well be just that: presenting all the facts and predicting the outcome based on the decisions taken by the powers that be, not explicitly challenging the government and aiding the people. This will of course requires some very sharp minds, very wise lawyers, and very vivid pens. But, given the composition of the Law Society, and the qualification and educational background of the average lawyer, I believe that it is not too difficult to find the necessary people and talent amongst its ranks. Given the propensity of certain Singaporeans and groups of Singaporeans to seize on facts, it will not be long before a chain reaction sets off.

But what the Law Society cannot do, I believe, is do nothing.

la nausee,

The main difference would lie in political allegiance. The lawyers in Parliament are members of a political party. The lawyers in the Law Society are, for the most part, not affiliated to any political party. This inherent independence frees them from any unwitting (or not) political bias in their future actions.

For example, the lawyers in Parliament may argue for a specific change in the law. But regular lawyers, without the crack of the Party Whip to worry about, can point out that the change may not be needed or is even harmful.

Cynics may argue that this will not change the final result when Parliament votes. But they are being short sighted. More lawyers could very well mean that more people are able to better grasp the complexity of various situations. Every additional Singaporean talking, and thinking, about current affairs is one more Singaporean empowered to take charge of the destiny of Singapore, instead of leaving it to the hands of the government. Every Singaporean who takes action based on those thoughts and words is another step towards the realisation of a better society.

The journey is long and hard. But it can be smoothened and accelerated by a body of hnourable lawyers with clear vision and silver tongues.

You seriously believe there is a possibility?

All this while, I dare say ONLY one person and no one else, not even our PM Lee, no need mentioned Law Minister, AG or MPs, would has a say of such possibility.

Must I spell out for you, lim?

LKY, there is your answer.

So, what’s the point of calling oneself association with a great sounding name of LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE then, when they are being treated like a group of six years old kids, instead as a learned professional with a mind of their own.

What I’m not so sure is how the above will be performed in each case. I fail to see how the law society is muzzled from raising justified concerns about legislation and at the same time I fail to see any concrete and realistic proposals beyond “deregister the society”-type of suggestions. Does the problem lie in that no one is truly and really interested in the mechanism and the objective?

Regarding SC Michael Hwang “NO VIEWS” comment, it was as good an admission and acknowledgment to what IBA said about our judiciary independence.

When it comes to political presecution, even if SC Darvinder Singh will to represent the Chees, Darvinder will suffered a defeat in the court, regardless of facts and reasonings.

Trial of political nature, there is only one outcome and one winner always, the Govt!

So Law Society of Singapore, please stop making yourself a laughing stock for the world to see lah.

Disband the society and once a month, just organise a get together for lawyers to talk cock and sing song in a pub instead.

Sub sub section (f) is a general clause the law society’s powers regarding members of the public and areas that are “touching or ancillary or incidental to the law”. Sub sub section (c), in contrast, spells out a specific power that the Law Society can exercise, which is to “to assist the Government and the courts in all matters affecting legislation submitted to it”. The phrase “submitted to it” is crucial, and indeed this was the exact change made in 1986. s. 38(1)(c) simply means that the Law Society can comment on the legislation only if its submitted to it.

A commonly used rule of thumb is that it is assumed (rightly or not) that the legislature does not contradict itself, and hence the interpretation of statutes should be consistent in themselves. s. 38(1)(f) can simply be read to mean things like the legal aid scheme etc, and this would be consistent with s. 38(1)(g), where it is specifically provided for that assistance is given to those who faces capital charges.

Try as you might, there is no escaping the conclusion that the restriction in s. 38(1)(c) is real and not self-imposed.

perhaps the statute was specifically enacted to deal with, for lack of a better word, “meddlesome lawyers” (someone needs to check this out in Hansard though). Therefore while the literal interpretation of the statute does not say that the lawyers cannot make comments, the court cannot take this interpretation if it contravenes the purpose of the statute itself.

Perhaps an even clearer explication of the Law Society’s deliberative role amid wider civil society can be found in section 38(1)(k), where the Society’s purposes expressly includes “promot[ing] good relations and social intercourse among members and between members and other persons concerned in the administration of law and justice in Singapore.” The phrase, “social intercourse”, is particularly telling.

To expand further on a point raised in previous comments… unfortunately, I’m not sure if allowing the Law Society a greater participatory role in ‘politics’ would actually improve public discourse. Already, Parliament can boast of quite a few lawyers or legally-trained individuals: of the non-Minister MPs who come to mind just now, Siew Kum Hong, Alvin Yeo, Hri Kumar, Christopher de Souza, Indranee Rajah, Sylvia Lim, Chiam See Tong, Sin Boon Ann… Lawyers are already grossly over-represented in Parliament. Would enlarging the Law Society’s role really result in any noticeable difference?