Choo Zheng Xi / Editor-in-Chief
23 year old amendments to the Legal Profession Act curtailing the Law Society’s powers continues to be a hindrance to the perception of the legal profession’s independence.
This was the view put forward yesterday by Ex-Law Society President Philip Jeyaretnam at the Institute of Policy Studies’ (IPS) annual seminar, Singapore Perspectives.
Mr Jeyaretnam recounted the difficulty he had explaining to the China Bar Association why the Minister of Law continued to have the power to appoint members of the Law Society’s executive committee. He noted that “even China has abolished government appointment to the Chinese Bar Association.”
Section 48 (1) (c) of the Legal Profession Act (LPA) allows ‘3 advocates and solicitors appointed by the Minister to sit on the Council’. The full executive committee consists of 21 members.
Another section of the LPA that Mr Jeyaretnam viewed as a “serious misstep” was Section 38 (1) (c), which limits the Law Society to commenting only on legislation ‘submitted to it’.
Both amendments were introduced as part of a group of amendments to the Legal Profession Act in August 1986 as a government reaction against the then President of the Law Society Francis Seow’s criticism of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act. The government at that time accused Seow of using the Law Society as a political vehicle.
Mr Jeyaretnam raised these two laws in the context of the panel titled “Can Government Do Less, and Singaporeans Do More?”
He used these as examples of what he identified as an attitude in government that “political competition is not a good thing” and a “fear that citizen groups might evolve into an alternative political entity”. As a result, he said, “citizens become fearful of being associated with such groups.”
Touching on the importance of the need to provide space for contrary views in the legal profession, Mr Jeyaretnam said that “an independent judiciary depends on the independence of the legal profession.”
In relation to the restrictions on the Law Society, he said that “if you don’t provide that space, you’re shortchanging the profession.”
In contrast to the limitations in Singapore, Mr Jeyaretnam cited the Law Council of Australia’s vocal opposition to the Australian government’s detention without trial of Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef on flimsy terrorism charges.
“The LCA was first off the bat in criticizing the detention, and they were vindicated when [Haneef] the Australian courts ruled that his detention was illegal.”
Returning to the broader theme of the balance between state intervention and citizenship participation, Mr Jeyaretnam concluded by urging a paradigm shift in mindsets.
“The mantra that Singapore is too small for us to rock the boat should be changed. Singapore is too small for people not to row their own boats.”
———–
Read about Philip Jeyaretnam here. http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_453_2005-01-14.html
———–
Mr Michael Hwang, President of the Law Society made this comment on the Society’s newsletter:
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/297353.asp
“We cannot continue to put our heads in the sand and hide important social facts which need serious study by objective scholars in order to improve our society.”
Here is the Law Minister’s comment on Mr Hwang’s comment:
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/297773.asp
“(But) sound bites and sweeping statements which are contrary to the facts and which show a basic lack of understanding over our criminal laws and procedure and approach to sentencing is not really constructive or helpful,”
How on earth can Mr Michael Hwang, a Senior Counsel, and the President of the Law Society, be so incompetent as to “show a basic lack of understanding over our criminal laws and procedure and approach to sentencing”?
It is really astonishing that such comment come from the Law Minister. This is all the more so when not long ago he is a senior partner of a law firm and is a prominent member of the Law Society, one may presume.
We Can Change!
The basic rights of the people must be reinstated.
Remove all so called laws that restrict human dignity.
People’s voice must be heard.
Human Rights Day: 3 Singapore Lawyers petition to Law Society
December 10, 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC8oEuAW1zQ
Yeah right! its time to put all the right things in their right place now. Let it be heard by all and make the neccessary changes to do what is right.
but what’s the probability of having change here? We wish, we hope, we try, but will it happen?
Why do you think those two coffers, Attorney general and law ministers work in tandem ? Why do you think Lee regime choose those youngs who lack international experience (did they ever fight a international case ?) to be high position other because they are willing to do the bidding of their master ? Their performance speak for themselves, don’t they ?
Kangaroo law officials ? Frankly,what can I say ?
“Remove perception of government intervention in legal profession” Is it perception or is it reality ? Which is which ? Can be more clear ?
After reading post by SDP, I totally shock at the subservience of the law society to abide to their ultimate master rather than doing the right thing.
This is Singapore – and unlike the Decadent Western Societies, we have ‘Responsible” journalist who report what they’re told …..ops I mean the facts that they’re presented and we also have “Responsible” lawyers and more importantly judges who know which way to give the verdict. There, how can you be critical of such an “efficient” system.
I carried out a survey in my blog. Here is the feedback from 21 replies.
Singapore practices “a democratic society based on equality and justice” Score: 1.76
Singapore treats all citizens equally before the laws of the land. Score: 1.76
Score: 1=strongly disagree, 3=neutral, 5 = strongly agree
These two points have the lowest scores, i.e. most people disagree with the statements.
One key message in Obama’s inauguration speech is the importance of freedom and justice. These points are relevant to Singapore. Someone I feel that he may have some negative opinion about Singapore. I hope that my perception is wrong.
Another strong message from the inauguration ceremony is that Americans accept and welcome the “transition of power”. It seems to make a democracy stronger.
To take off the shackles? Which man in power and in his right mind would do that? Over my dead body, he would say. So be patient………
I recall PM Lee Pre-inaugural Speech about fixing opposition.
Young Jeyaratnam can now expect the full weight of the PAP machinery on him.
Of course Singapore must chart its own course. independant of China’s influence…Tee hee.
‘To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.’
———
Not bad, PAP also made it to the list of addressee during Obama Inauguration.
Congrat for the job well done.
i think we should discard the spore pledge.
Dont compare PM lee with Obama, the former leads a country of 4.6 million population. He is just like a mayor of a province in China,how to compare with Obama
If just 10 ,000 citizen chant , Yes We Can!
what would it feel like?
regards
Borlin Wors
And if 10,000 citizens chant and actually do it, what would be the outcome?
Singapore population 4.6million
USA population 303million.
difference : 66 times
Obama promise to create 3 million jobs.
I hope to see Sg create 45454 jobs (66 times less).
But when the newspaper shows x number of jobs created, how to know scientifically without any atom of a doubt that this is figure is correct to the nearest whole number ?
Even if y number of these x number of jobs is reportedly taken up or filled up,
how can mere mortals know without an atom of a doubt that this is scientifically accurate to the nearest whole number?
Where is the answer to above questions?
I went to a job fair that shows x number of jobs.
I wonder what process validates the truthfulness of these job vacancies?
What if a company says they need 1 engineer but never hires quoting any reason from the air?
get my point? impression is good. But what is Reality?
jeez, i thought the word bastard was flagged. that was why I moderated my post subsequently, but thanks any way TOC!
Shu Mui, that’s what PAP is good at:- marketing and creating false perception and make everyone think that Singapore is the 1st world country. Their agent, our national paper StraitTimes, has been feeding its citizen with propaganda and twisted reports. They selectively choose to report good news and avoid negative comments and report on singapore.
In addition to the perception mentioned by Mr Philip,
I would like to also suggest another kind of Perception.
That is, the Perception that CHANGE is far fetched idea.
To put it simply,
CHANGE is AS EASY as the PEOPLE saying ‘YES, We Can! CHANGE NOW.”
it should not be Perceived as CHANGE is too distant or takes time. It can be now.
Instant. That is as fast as CHANGE can be.
think about it. ;)
Wee Shu Mui job fairs are just a lot of hot air.
The employers just want to take the young and strong and at low prices.
When they see an old fellow asking for a job they will say they want this speciality and that specialty and so on and so forth and that since you do not have it and they cannot hire you.
Just do not go as it will upset you even more.
Its all the garmen and it tells you to be positive and go to job fairs and put on your best and you stand a chance of getting a job.
My alternative. I just leave the country to see the world with the little money that I still have. I looked for teaching English jobs in China but the Chinese want native speaking ang moh and so in a way they are just as bad as our Sing employers.
So, I left China and went elsewhere.
Then I taught English in Indochina.
At another stage I became a farmer.
Now, Sing is such a depressed place and I might just as well stay in a country where I can joke with its people because joking is a way of life here. I am still in Indochina.
At least I do not have to think and be depressed by job fairs.
Philip Jeyaretnam speaks up. Michael Hwang is speaking up. Precious few are speaking up. Little wonder when you see a ton of bricks crashing down on those who do speak up.
Philip J said: “if you don’t provide that space, you’re shortchanging the profession.” The PAP has shortchanged more than the profession, They have shortchanged Singapore.
Having said that, it takes two hands to clap. For as long as Singaporeans don’t stand up for themselves, this “shortchange” will persist.
In 2008, white Americans voted in a black man as their 44th President . Put this in the context where black Americans actually gained their right to vote only in 1966! All this in the space of 42 years.
Pray, tell me: What CAN’T Singaporeans do for Singapore in the next General Election? Bear in mind that we got our independence in 1965, 44 years to date.
Addendum to my above comment:
Where the Americans have said: “Yes, We Can”,
I wonder if Singaporeans will continue to say “No, We Cannot”.
Members and readers of TOC, what else can we expect the Minister for Law to say? Whatever he has said, it is something he has to say. He is paid a handsome sum to say all that he has said. If it is indeed out of a clear conscience, then I applaud that man. But what if it is out of a muddled conscience?
When a top civil wrote about his splurge in Paris, he got a good chide for his ‘insensitivity’. Wow, bravo! There is care and concern for how we feel.
But this whole legal perception issue that Philip Jeyaretnam talks about is as clear as crystal to even a lay person like me. And there are tons of people like me who feel the same. So what is the law ministry doing about this perception? Like as though they would really care.
The only change we can expect. The only self respect we are going to get from people of the rest of the world is to effect a serious change at the next GE. And it is all a matter of mind over matter. When enough votes are lost to the ruling party, then perhaps, and maybe, the rightful owners of this tiny land will be heard. Until that happens, it will all be a good charade. And if that doesn’t happen again, then we all deserves to continue this wallowing in this mud hole.
But I personally believe change is at hand.
A government that does not listen to the voices of its own people and follow the general flow of their wishes but instead forces, coerces or manipulates its people’s mind to constantly and continuously listen to its half-truths and insincere explanations of policies (leading to even its own members of parliament not being able to fully understand and grasp what those policies are about) is a government doomed in due course. It is just a matter of time!
IT would be good if Philip would come out to speak up for the people of singapore. Most of us folks are just laymen and thus our weakness would lightly be taken for granted by the papees in their usual twisting and turning tactics of using their laws against us. With due respect to his dad, our late JBJ, I just hope that his capable son can do something for the country and for the people.
I’ve always thought that removing a person’s fundamental right to speak is justified if he is deemed not responsible enough to have that right. If he cannot exercise his freedoms responsibly, he should be denied them. So a person who has been legally gagged is one who is unfit to have freedom of speech.
The Law Society was legally gagged by Section 38 (1) (c) of the Legal Profession Act in 1986. Since then, the Law Society cannot comment on legal issues unless asked by the Government – i.e. speak only when spoken to. I suppose the Government muzzled the Law Society because it had behaved in such a way that it could not be trusted to exercise its freedom of speech responsibly.
23 years later in July 2008, the President of the Law Society Mr Michael Hwang asked the Govt if it could consider removing this humiliating shackle, but Govt said that it was still necessary to restrain the Law Society in this way. This implies that the Law Society remains marked as unfit to have freedom of speech. Why after all these years is the Law Society still regarded as unworthy to have its freedom of speech restored?
If a person is discouraged if not barred from speaking up, he risks becoming insular, lapsing into passivity, one content to mind his own business only. In an inspiring article by Ms Lee Wei Ling and published in Sunday Times on 18 January 2009, the author spoke against the sin of omission and says that active citizenry is good for Singapore. She says if someone sees something wrong and does nothing about it, he is guilty of omission.
So this certainly puts the Law Society in a moral dilemma. The Law Society, which represents all Singapore lawyers who are in private practice, is standing in a vantage spot where it often see things that others cannot. If the Law Society notices something amiss, should it practice active citizenry to speak up and thereby act in breach of its legal restrain? Or should the Law Society observe its legal restrain to remain mute (unless spoken to) and be thereby morally guilty of the sin of omission?
To borrow Philip Jeyaretnam’s boat analogy, in a boat race, every oar must be engaged. How far can a nation progress if its citizens are reluctant to speak up, don’t take their own initatives and act only in response to request?
The impression I get is that it’s always easier to simply say no, from a position of hegemonic discourse, because it does not benefit the centre of power to allow for “challenges to the centre”, so to speak.
In one word, Kiasu.
#26) Jeannette,
Very enlightening.
Now we know why our courts are as kangaroo as kangaroo can be.
it’s the right direction toc is going.
jeannette,
judge not and thou shall not be judged < applies to the house of balance..or imbalance
I am glad Philip spoke up after Michael got a bashing from the Law Minister.
I am ashamed that our fellow countrymen all are kuaisi when it comes to speaking up. Wll they jail us if we speak up sensibly with facts and figures?
So far, those whom they jailed are all dissidents who broke the law by demonstrating illegally in the public.
There is none that is jailed for speaking up with proper decorum.
Lawyers worldwide are all outspoken people as maybe due to their trade they need to. However, here, we see lawyers are all very quiet and submissive for obvious reasons.
Is this what the govt wants to see in Singapore? By suppressing people from speaking up, the govt and country are the losers as we miss out on precious input from those on the ground.
Unless we change the way we are being governed, Singapore will continue to lose ground to other countries in the future.
[#26]
“So this certainly puts the Law Society in a moral dilemma. The Law Society, which represents all Singapore lawyers who are in private practice, is standing in a vantage spot where it often see things that others cannot. If the Law Society notices something amiss, should it practice active citizenry to speak up and thereby act in breach of its legal restrain? Or should the Law Society observe its legal restrain to remain mute (unless spoken to) and be thereby morally guilty of the sin of omission?”
Jeannette, do you personally think that the law should be amended to allow the Law Society or its members to speak or comment on legal issues?
If you ask me, my answer is yes.
WKC,
Throwing legislation to mute people is as good as telling people they can sit in a kopitiam, but not talk too loudly.
It’s ludicrous really.. what more, it is a professional body whose members practice in the field that is in question..
those who kill with the sword must be killed similarly. well,that’s what the book say. anyone want to argue with that?
Was in my 20s when I saw LKY on tv “bullying” the lawyers who spoke up against the Newspaper n Printing Presses Act. Will never forget the disbelief I felt – that he had “spied” on lawyers and probably tapped their phones. If only people can see a video of that ….That was the moment that I got disillusioned with the Singapore government. Sad to say , things have got worse over the years… Having watched the Obama inauguration and seen comments like “lesser mortals” etc, I can only say that I await the day that Singapore can be delivered “from the exploitation of the poor, of the least of these, and from favoritism toward the rich, the elite of these” (Joseph Lowery’s benediction for Obama), and that the government shows respect for its citizens and not treat them as “lesser mortals”…Having seen Teo Soh Lung, Tang Liang Hong, Francis Seow , Michael Hwang get slammed for speaking up, I won’t be surprised that Philip J gets slammed for his comments as well… Nothing has changed since 1986. The “perception” (?) of intervention… heck , wish it was just a perception…..
How can anyone in the world respect Singapore law if the law only works for the partisan party regardless whether there is justice and fairness ? How can anyone feel proud to work as a law professional when they could betray justice and truth just to appease the emperor and his henchmen ,and to get faster promotion ? How can anyone trust Singapore law that can be changed and introduced at will to fit the political interest and agenda of world-famous oppressive party ?
So who will their name to be marred because of entering into law profession that could not administer and speak up for justice and fairness ? Or do they want their face to be world-recognised when they cahoot with the kangaroos ?
“How can anyone in the world respect Singapore law if the law only works for the partisan party regardless whether there is justice and fairness ?”
Fully agree!
“Singapore is too small for people not to row their own boats.”
Agree too!
Laws need to be reviewed! The government bodies themselves need to be reviewed too. SPF getting shoddy for example! Evidence left behind by loanshark still with me after almost a week. They never came after I called them. (My neighbourhood harrassed by unhappy loanshark after the lender moved away.) And later they sent ME my neighbour’s letter. lol wtf
The USA has a Department of Justice. Singapore has a Ministry of Law.
Perhaps there is a difference in emphasis between the USA and Singapore? The USA is clear about the goal, i.e. justice. Singapore has a stronger emphasis on the means, i.e.law, which can be used for other goals (not justice?)
Tan Kin Lian’s poser about USA’s Dept of Justice vis-a-vis SIN’s MinLaw is interesting.
http://singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com/2008/08/greek-mythology-themis-and-source.html
As I put in my 2008 National Day blog, do we have:
(1) Just Injustice;
(2) Unjust Justice; or
(3) Just Justice???
Why do you think they created the Law Academy? It’s to shunt out the Law Society!
This may be history as it happened more than 10 years ago but it shows that justice and law is pretty funny in Singapore.
The letter below (extracted from http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm) shows that in our 1st world Singapore, laws can be interpreted in every which way but lose (or is it loose?)
After reading the Acts, I initially thought that the Returning Officer must have authorised in writing to allow Mr Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony Tan and Brigadier-General (NS) Lee Hsien Loong to be in the Cheng San Polling Station.
But I was perplexed by Chan Sek Keong’s conclusion, “Accordingly, those unauthorised persons who only wait or loiter inside a polling station on polling day do not commit any offence under the Act.”
Loiter outside is an offence but loiter inside is ok?
And who allowed the loiterers to be loitering inside in the first place?
Have I been dazzled by legalese or have I been baffled by bullshit?
As I’m no lawyer but a heartlander peasant trying to understand better, I’d appreciate if some legal experts can enlighten me on this classic.
- – - THE LETTER – - –
Unauthorised persons inside polling stations: Attorney General’s letter
Text of a letter from Singapore’s attorney general to law minister S. Jayakumar on the presence of unauthorised persons inside polling stations. The minister summarised the attorney general’s opinion when he replied to a query in parliament from non-constituency MP and Workers’ Party chief J. B. Jeyaretnam July 30.
The Workers’ Party had complained to the police that Mr Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony Tan and Brigadier-General (NS) Lee Hsien Loong had been inside a Cheng San GRC polling station on Polling Day.
But the Public Prosecutor recently advised the police that the PAP leaders had not broken the law.
21 Jul 97
Prof S Jayakumar
Minister for Law
PRESENCE OF UNAUTHORISED PERSONS INSIDE POLLING STATIONS
On 14 July l997, THE Workers’ Party issued a press release expressing “amazement” that the public prosecutor had advised police that no offence was disclosed in the reports made by it leaders against the prime minister, the two deputy prime ministers and Dr S Vasoo that they had been present inside polling stations when they were not candidates for the relevant constituencies. The Workers’ Party queried why such conduct was not an offence under paragraph (d) or (e) of section 82(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
2. On 15 July 1997, the Singapore Democratic Party also called on the attorney general to explain his “truly befuddling” decision and to state clearly if it was an offence for unauthorised persons to enter polling stations.
3. You have asked me for my formal opinion on the question raised in these two statements. My opinion is set out below.
Opinion
4. The question is whether it is an offence under the Parliamentary Elections Act for an unauthorised person to enter and be present in a polling station.
5. For this purpose, the authorised persons are the candidates, the polling agent or agents of each candidate, the Returning Officer, and persons authorised in writing by the returning officer, the police officers on duty and other persons officially employed at the polling station; see section 39 (4) of the Act (quoted below)
Activities Outside Polling Stations
6. The relevant sections of the Parliamentary Elections Act to be considered are sections 82 (1)(d) and 82 (1)(e). These provisions were enacted m 1959 pursuant to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections, Cmd 7 of 1968 (hereinafter called “the Elias Report)”
7. Section 82 (1)(d) provides that – “No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote”.
8. Plainly, persons found waiting inside the polling stations do not come within the ambit of this section. Similarly, those who enter or have entered the polling station cannot be said to be waiting outside it. Only those who wait outside the polling station commit an offence under this section unless they are waiting to enter the polling station to cast their votes.
9. Section 82 (1)(e) provides that -
“No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day.”
10. The relevant question is whether any person who is inside a polling station can be sad to be “within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station”. The answer to this question will also answer any question on loitering inside a polling station.
11. Plainly, a person inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station. A polling station must have adequate space for the voting to be carried out. Any space has a perimeter. The words “within a radius of 200 metres” ‘ therefore mean “200 metres from the perimeter of” any polling station. This point is illustrated in the diagrams in the Appendix. (Editor’s note: Diagrams not available).
12. The above interpretation is fortified by the context of the provision. The polling station, as a place, is distinguished from a street or public place. It is not a street or a public place. Hence, being inside a polling station cannot amount to being in a street or in a public place. By parity of reasoning, loitering in a street or public place cannot possibly include loitering in the polling station itself and vice versa.
13. There is no ambiguity in section 82 (1)(e). If the legislature had intended to make it an offence for unauthorised persons to wait or loiter inside a polling station, it could have easily provided for it. It did not. The mischief that section 82 (1)(e) is intended to address is found in paragraph 99 of the Elias Report. It reads:
“In order to prevent voters being made subject to my form of undue influence or harassment at the approaches to polling stations, we recommend that it should be made an offence for any person to establish any desk or table near the entrance to any polling station, or to wait outside any polling station on polling day except for the purpose of gaining entry into the polling station to cast his vote; and that it should be an offence for any person to loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 yards of any polling station on polling day .”
14 . Paragraph 99 of the Elias Report appears under the heading “Activity OUTSIDE POLLING STATIONS”. The Commission of Inquiry was addressing the possibility of voters being subject to undue influence and harassment as they approach the polling stations. There is therefore no doubt whatever that this provision was never intended to cover any activity inside the polling station as there would be officials and election agents in attendance.
15. The legislative history makes the provision so clear that it is not even necessary to consider the application of an established principle of interpretation that any ambiguity in a penal provision should, whenever possible, be resolved favour of the accused.
Activities Inside Polling Stations
16 Activities inside polling stations were made subject to a different regime under the Act. Section 39(4) provides that -
“the presiding officer shall keep order in his station and shall regulate the number of voters to be admitted a time, and shall exclude all other persons except the polling agent or agents of each candidate, the Returning Officer and persons authorised in writing by the Returning Officer, the police officers on duty and other persons officially employed at the polling station.”
17. Under section 39(7), any person who misconducts himself in the polling station, or fails to obey the lawful orders of the presiding officer may be removed from the polling station by a police officer acting under the orders of the presiding officer. If an unauthorised person refuses to leave the polling station when told to do so by the public officer, he commits an offence under section 186 of the Penal Code for obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his duty.
18. There is a consistency in the rationales of the regulatory schemes governing activities inside and those outside polling stations on election day. Waiting outside a polling station is made an offence because it gives rise to opportunities to influence or intimidate voters: see paragraph 99 of the Elias Report. Hence, the Act has provided a safety zone which stretches outwards for 200 metres from the polling station. In contrast, the possibility of a person inside a polling station influencing or intimidating voters in the presence of the presiding officer and his officials, the polling agents etc was considered so remote that it was discounted by the Act.
19. I therefore confirm my opinion that the Parliamentary Elections Act does not provide for any offence of unauthorised entry into or presence within a polling station. Accordingly, those unauthorised persons who only wait or loiter inside a polling station on polling day do not commit any offence under the Act.
20. You are at liberty to publish this opinion.
Signed:
Chan Sek Keong
Attorney General.
— End of Letter- – -
feedmetothefish,
that is why our law is known as Kangaroo Law, interpretation that can only go the way of kangaroo and no one else.
They will interpret the laws according to their warp logic and liking
5 persons protesting is call illegal assembly.
4 persons protesting peacefully outside MAS or 2 persons outside MOM is
call disturbing the peace or trespassing athough its public area, but if
your neighbour has a mahjong session all night, it’s call family and friends
bonding.
we will tread carefully and interprete the law that will ensure safety of the people – not beholden to western democracy or Eastern / Chinese pressure.
Long Live pap….
@#40 Feedmetothefish Very good example of double standards I must say!
The following Straits Times article by K.C. Vijayan was published on 28 Oct 2006:
LAW SOCIETY SEEKS VOICE ON NON-LEGAL ISSUES
LAW Society president Philip Jeyaretnam has called for the body to be given the freedom to speak out on issues outside the legal profession, but the Law Ministry does not look likely to agree.
Since 1986, the society has been bound by tight laws limiting its scope to comment on matters like civil liberties, after it went head-to-head with the in a tussle over the issue.
The Law Society had sparked the row with its outspoken opposition to, among other things, laws curbing foreign publications that commented negatively on Singapore’s domestic politics.
At the time, Mr Wong Kan Seng, who was acting community development minister, criticised the society for getting involved in issues of public policy not directly related to the profession.
A clause in the Legal Profession Act was then added, so that the society would be permitted to comment on only legislation ’submitted to it’.
The clause had previously empowered the group to speak on all legislative matters.
Malaysia and Brunei subsequently imposed similar restrictions on their own legal associations.
In the latest issue of the society’s journal, Law Gazette, Mr Jeyaretnam said the profession ‘ought to be freed to express its views on civil liberties while keeping out of partisan politics”.
He described the restriction as being ‘at odds with the proper role of the legal profession in society’.
Mr Jeyaretnam said the society’s work record over the past few years had demonstrated that it has a special role to play in the justice system, including seeking reform and change ‘even on such contentious matters as police custody’.
He also pointed out that professional law bodies in Britain and Australia had recently spoken out on proposed anti- terrorism measures, regardless of whether their views were sought by theirs.
‘Lawyers do have special expertise that justifies having a voice on constitutional and civil liberty issues,’ he said.
Lawyers welcomed his views, arguing that the present climate is different from that in the 1980s.
Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore president Subhas Anandan said he did not support the 1986 changes in the first place, but added that he doubted whether lawyers would speak out even if the law was changed.
The Law Ministry does not appear to share the society’s views.
Contacted by The Straits Times, a ministry spokesman said ‘the rationale for the 1986 amendment still stands’.
The spokesman said the Law Society’s activities should stay within the specific purposes set out in the Legal Profession Act, which concern the regulation of the legal profession, maintaining professional standards and advancing lawyers’ professional interests.
She said the Law Society was not meant to serve as a ’special interest group to speak out collectively on any particular issue unconnected with these purposes’.
‘There is no restriction on lawyers expressing their views in their individual capacity on any matter and many have in fact done so,’ she said.
‘When the Law Society submitted views and suggestions on its own accord to the Ministry of Law relating to the administration of justice and practice of law in Singapore, which are matters within its statutory powers, the Ministry of Law has considered them carefully.’
______________________________________________________________
The above article caught my attention for MinLaw’s intriguing statements:
1. “the rationale for the 1986 amendment still stands” – What is that rationale? I’m puzzled. I cannot figure it out. Who will suffer detriment if the Law Society is allowed to speak up?
2. “The Law Society’s activities should stay within the specific purposes set out in the Legal Profession Act, which concern the regulation of the legal profession, maintaining professional standards and advancing lawyers’ professional interests.” Sounds like the Law Society is chastised for not being insular enough! Our Government wants the Law Society to direct its collective talents, efforts and resources towards its own domestic issues and self-interests and not to concern itself with “any particular issue unconnected with these purposes”. I don’t understand how it serves the nation’s interest, the general public and the common good to bar (no pun intended) the Law Society from the public square and from active citizenry. If the Law Society cannot comment on matters of civil liberties and constitutional law (except when asked), who else in Singapore (apart from those in Government service) can be equal to the task?
3. ‘There is no restriction on lawyers expressing their views in their individual capacity on any matter and many have in fact done so.’- So lawyers can speak up on an individual basis but speaking as collective group is a different matter. Why?
Say I believe that my country is a parliamentary democracy in which the Constitution is supreme. Say I have faith in the system that the Rule of Law will be upheld and my fundamental rights guaranteed. Those are statements of faith and belief. But politics is not a religion and the relationship between citizen and Government cannot be a matter of faith and belief. Reality must correspond to beliefs, otherwise I’m plainly mistaken and possibly deluded.
If I tell you something is a spade but that thing does not serve or function as spade, then it is not a spade and calling it “a spade” does not make it one. To be a democracy, there has to exist practices and rules in our public square by which to identify our system of Government as a democracy.
For those who detract from the view that we are a democracy, the continued existence of laws which curb the voices of the articulate is for such detractors, evidence of the regime’s intolerance to alternative or opposing views and fear of dissent by an influential collective, and nicely serves to prove their case.
Philip Jeyaretnam,go on and speak up.You have mine and alot of people’s support.Our MPs dont even have 1% of your guts and intelligence(and your father’s,of course) They have sacrificed their principals(if they had any to start with).Shame on them! Maybe somebody can tell me how many MPs actually haven’t said a single word in parliament all these years.
i agreed totally with #25. he is the one who more than qualify to rep for singaporean and its about time……………… bravo!!!!
Yes Mikey, and if Philip decided to come into politics to carry on with his daddy’s legacy in the name of justice and human rights for the people of singapore, this should be the right time now since the peeps already had so many undeniable screwed ups and continue to do so, making so many singaporeans so sick of them. Am pretty sure with his capability and professional legal expertise, he can easily win over the supporters anytime, most probably even so a tsunami victory can be possible too. Count me in for sure.
Count me in too!
Now, he is a member of the Public Service Commission.