How the Law Society was, and remains,
castrated
Gandhi Ambalam
17 Dec 07
The Law Society of Singapore is impotent and largely irrelevant to
society. It was not always like that.
Younger Singaporeans may not know about or remember the events
surrounding the castration of the organisation in 1987. In view of
the fact that lawyers and bar associations around the world, in
particular, Malaysia and Pakistan are vigorously resisting
authoritarian tendencies, it is timely to remind Singaporeans of
how our countrys Law Society has failed us.
Established in 1967 the organization, according to its mission
statement, is dedicated to serving its members and the community,
sustaining a competent and independent Bar, upholding the rule of
law and ensuring access to justice for all. Lofty ideals
undoubtedly.
In 1986 Mr Francis Seow, urged on by his compatriots, decided to
run for the presidency and was duly elected. Speaking at the
opening of the legal year in Jan 1987, Mr Seow served notice of a
sea change instead of the usual "exchange of congratulatory
messages and pious platitudes between bench and bar".
He demanded for his members more respect from the bench, which,
together with the attorney-general and his chambers, had been
treating lawyers in shoddy fashion.
Mr Seow, himself a former solicitor general, had "plans for a more
assertive and caring bar, that the Law Society should be consulted
on the selection and appointments, promotions, and transfers of
subordinate judicial and legal officers by the Legal Service
Commission."
Mr Seow also wanted the Society to be more vocal in lawmaking. In
early 1986, Mr Lee Kuan Yew wanted to introduce Newspaper and
Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill, which would enable the
Government to restrict the circulation of foreign publications that
are "deemed" to have interfered in the domestic politics of
Singapore.
The Law Society appointed a committee, chaired by Ms Teo Soh Lung,
to look into the Bill. A report critical of the Governments
intentions was later released.
Then Prime Minister Lee could take it no longer. He had Ms Teo and
a few other members of the Law Society detained under the Internal
Security Act. Together with other church workers and social
activists the Government spun a tale about the conspiracy of a
Marxist plot out to wreak havoc in the country, and had the whole
lot arrested.
To ensure that lawyers could not repeat their acts of disobedience,
Mr Lee introduced amendments to the Legal Profession Act that
barred the Law Society from commenting on existing or proposed
legislation, unless its views were specifically sought by
government.
In addition amendments ensured that "errant lawyers would be
disqualified being elected as officers of the Society. Mr Seow
noted in his book To Catch a Tartar that "It was apparent to the
most obtuse observer that the main thrust of the amendments was
directed towards my ouster as president of the Law Society and to
still the voices of dissent."
Sufficiently antagonized the Law Society called for an EGM and
almost unanimously voted to deplore Mr Lees amendment to the Legal
Profession Act.
Undeterred, the prime minister summoned a parliamentary select
committee hearing to "solicit" feedback on the proposed
legislation. He used the televised forum to try to discredit Mr
Seow and his colleagues.
It backfired. By all accounts, Mr Lee came across as petty and
vindictive out for his pound of flesh against lawyers who were
opposed to his machinations. Mr Lee like with everything else
pushed through the amendment.
As a result, Mr Seow was removed as president of the Law Society
and his allies were arrested. From then on the association, having
been cleansed of "trouble makers", became yet another
PAP-sanctioned body.
For years the Society remained a nonentity, preferring to bury its
head in the sand. Successive presidents honed their skills at
organising annual Dinner & Dances and road runs, but took pains
to avoid anything remotely important to society.
There was some glimmer of hope in 2004, however, when Mr Philip
Jeyaretnam, son of opposition warhorse Mr J B Jeyaretnam, was
elected president of the Society. But all hopes for a more caring
and conscientious bar were dashed as Mr Jeyaretnam turned out to be
no different from his predecessors. Disappointingly under his
presidency the Society was determined to remain as one of the many
good boys of the PAP.
Jeyaretnam Jr is succeeded by Senior Counsel Mr Michael Hwang. Can
we expect anything different from this president? Not unless you
live in Disneyland.
Unlike its counterpart in Malaysia where the Bar has been
courageously championing the cause of democracy and the
independence of the judiciary, the Law Society of Singapore is
resigned to being a decorative vase to further adorn the rule of
law display window of Singapore.
The Law Society and the Malaysian Bar Council meet annually for the
Bench and Bar Games, an occasion for both organizations to come
together and get to know each other better.
I wonder what they talk about.
Mr Ambalam is Chairman of the Singapore Democrats. He is a former
journalist.
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/Vantage_Gandhi%20Ambalam2.html