|
|
Gandhi
Ambalam
|
Vantage
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 country’s 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 Government’s
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 Lee’s 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.
|
|
