See Part 1 here.
REPLY RECEIVED FROM BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NTUC INCOME INSURANCE COOPERATIVE LIMITED ON 28 MAY 2008
Thank you for your e-mail dated 27 May 2008 addressed to our Chairman. Your feedback has been noted.
We appreciate the interest shown by our members to attend our 38th Annual General Meeting (AGM) on 30 May 2008. Bearing this in mind, we have in fact changed the AGM venue from the Auditorium at NTUC Income Centre to the Auditorium at Level 7, NTUC Centre, One Marina Boulevard, Singapore 018989. The new venue has a capacity of 550 which is more than twice that of the Auditorium at NTUC Income Centre. The venue was changed to accommodate the increased attendance this year.
NTUC Income has more than 500,000 ordinary members. You have suggested that Income should enable all its members to attend the AGM. Looking at the numbers, you must agree that it would be quite impossible to accommodate everyone at any one location. By changing the venue to a larger auditorium we have accommodated the interest shown by our members to attend this year's AGM up to reasonable limits.
As we have reached the capacity of the new venue, we are unable to accommodate more attendees. We have explained this to members who have contacted us and most have accepted our explanation.
We wish to thank you once again for your feedback. Please be assured that NTUC Income is mindful of the rights of its members and will ensure that members' interests are respected and accommodated up to reasonable limits.
We note that you have registered to attend the AGM and look forward to your presence at the meeting.
Jeffrey Lee
Chief Financial Officer
NTUC Income
RESPONSE TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NTUC INCOME INSURANCE COOPERATIVE LIMITED ON 30 MAY 2008
Thank you for assuring "that NTUC Income is mindful of the rights of its members and will ensure that members' interests are respected and accommodated up to reasonable limits".
Unfortunately, I cannot agree with your position. With all due respect to your good office, it appears driven more by pragmatic ideals rather than the position reflected in the Cooperative Societies Act.
Section 50 of the Cooperative Societies Act provides that "the supreme authority of a society shall be vested in the general meeting of its members, at which every member has a right to attend and to vote" (emphasis added).
Lack of capacity or "reasonable limits" does not seem to be a strong enough reason to limit this supreme authority and a member's right to attend.
There are many societies and companies in the world over which have as many members as NTUC Income, if not more.
One good example in Singapore is Singtel, which has over 300,000 shareholders and whose Corporate Governance Committee is headed by a top legal thinker, the Honourable Professor Tommy Koh. Despite its large shareholder base, Singtel, to the best of my knowledge, does not have a similar practice of turning away its ordinary shareholders from its AGM.
It is not unheard of organisations with membership numbers as large as NTUC Income to hold such events in even venues like stadiums. This is because a member's right to attend the AGM is sacrosanct. Such members cannot be turned away from attending the meeting simply due to lack of capacity.
Clearly, those members, who have expressed an interest to attend your AGM, should not have been turned away in the first place. I note, however, that most of have accepted your explanation and may have, unfortunately, waived their right to attend the AGM.
My concern is for those who continue not to accept your explanation. Surely, they continue to hold the right to attend the AGM and cannot be turned away.
However, if you can assure me that your position is based on the advice of your General Counsel to the Board of Directors and that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies is in agreement with the advice of your General Counsel, I am happy to defer to the view of your General Counsel.
Wishing you a fruitful AGM.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Friday, May 30, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
NTUC Income AGM: Let All Members Attend
LETTER SENT TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NTUC INCOME INSURANCE COOPERATIVE LIMITED ON 27 MAY 2008
A number of your members have expressed a desire to attend NTUC Income's Annual General Meeting on 30 May 2008 at 6pm at the Auditorium, 7th Floor, NTUC Income Centre, 75 Bras Basah Road, Singapore 189557. I understand from them that they are being turned away due to lack of capacity.
Such a development is unfortunate for several reasons.
Members are the cornerstone of any successful cooperative society. NTUC Income is a key cooperative of not just the National Trades Union Congress but also of Singapore.
Indeed, it plays an influential role in the Singapore landscape. For example, NTUC Income has a decisive stake in the management shares of the national press.
Under your leadership and that of your predecessor, NTUC Income has been a leading light in championing transparency and accountability in the financial sector and the insurance industry.
I am sure you will appreciate that such meetings are an important opportunity for your members, especially your members in the minority, to hold the cooperative society and its management accountable.
Members also get to exercise their rights, as provided in the By-Laws of NTUC Income, at such meetings.
The gravity of this is only enhanced in light of recent decisions by your team, which have received much publicity in the media and will affect a majority of your ordinary members.
I am sending this feedback, as the members, who have been declined the opportunity to attend your AGM, would prefer to remain anonymous. I hope it can be looked into.
NTUC Income has crucially represented in its latest annual report that "it is committed to maintaining the highest standards of corporate governance".
As such, please enable all your members to attend NTUC Income's Annual General Meeting, in particular those who have expressed a desire to do so. Let your members exercise their rights.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
A number of your members have expressed a desire to attend NTUC Income's Annual General Meeting on 30 May 2008 at 6pm at the Auditorium, 7th Floor, NTUC Income Centre, 75 Bras Basah Road, Singapore 189557. I understand from them that they are being turned away due to lack of capacity.
Such a development is unfortunate for several reasons.
Members are the cornerstone of any successful cooperative society. NTUC Income is a key cooperative of not just the National Trades Union Congress but also of Singapore.
Indeed, it plays an influential role in the Singapore landscape. For example, NTUC Income has a decisive stake in the management shares of the national press.
Under your leadership and that of your predecessor, NTUC Income has been a leading light in championing transparency and accountability in the financial sector and the insurance industry.
I am sure you will appreciate that such meetings are an important opportunity for your members, especially your members in the minority, to hold the cooperative society and its management accountable.
Members also get to exercise their rights, as provided in the By-Laws of NTUC Income, at such meetings.
The gravity of this is only enhanced in light of recent decisions by your team, which have received much publicity in the media and will affect a majority of your ordinary members.
I am sending this feedback, as the members, who have been declined the opportunity to attend your AGM, would prefer to remain anonymous. I hope it can be looked into.
NTUC Income has crucially represented in its latest annual report that "it is committed to maintaining the highest standards of corporate governance".
As such, please enable all your members to attend NTUC Income's Annual General Meeting, in particular those who have expressed a desire to do so. Let your members exercise their rights.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Saturday, April 26, 2008
The Silence of Low Thia Khiang
ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN TODAY (SINGAPORE) ON 26 APRIL 2008
Those who have been following the media coverage of the Prime Minister's statement and his subsequent responses to MPs over the Mas Selamat affair would have come away with the impression that the two representatives of the Workers' Party were doing what Opposition politicians should be doing in Parliament.
To borrow a phrase from Nominated Member of Parliament Gautam Banerjee, the two — Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim — were "stress-testing". In doing so, they did not hold back. They asked difficult questions. They raised sensitive concerns.
Mr Low, in particular, found it hard to reconcile the view that ministers should be paid high salaries pegged to the best of the private sector with the one that, when an honest mistake is made, ministers, unlike the best of the private sector, should not be held as accountable.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong sought to defend the position by saying that the practice was no different than that in the private sector. He then pointedly asked Mr Low: "Let me ask the member whether he thinks (Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng) ought to resign because of this."
Remarkably, Mr Low chose to respond but with pin-drop silence — leading the Prime Minister to remark: "No answer. So I think that settles the point."
In the constituency of public opinion, that silence of Mr Low has now been replaced by a complaining chorus: "Why, Mr Low? Why?"
After all, there was no parliamentary procedure that stopped Mr Low from answering Mr Lee in a similar point-blank manner.
Mr Low has attempted to position the Workers' Party as a serious and responsible party that provides solutions. Yet, when the crucial time came to provide an alternative solution by putting himself in the shoes of the Prime Minister, Mr Low elected to remain silent.
Would a serious and responsible Opposition have shied away from such a moment, when the perfect opportunity arose to seize the bull by the horns?
Of course, one is also reminded of recent observations made by Mr Lee in an interview with Lianhe Zaobao. Among other things, he said: "Although Low Thia Khiang is very smart, he seldom debates on the core substance of policies. He seems more keen on catching the Government on its shortcomings, so as to embarrass the Government … His attitude is that his responsibility is just to criticise Government policies and not to propose alternatives."
Is this incident representative of what Mr Lee had in mind?
Then again, did Mr Low stay silent because he did not wish to embarrass the Government?
Indeed, various justifications have been forwarded by Mr Low's supporters.
Maybe Mr Low did not want to incur the Government's wrath and end up having to face a defamation suit. This holds no water since Mr Low would be protected by the defence of parliamentary privilege.
Perhaps Mr Low did not understand that Mr Lee was asking him a question, since he does not have as good a grasp of English as the Prime Minister. But how could this be the case when Mr Low had, in English, quite candidly put forward his question to Mr Lee?
A more credible justification appears to be that Mr Low might have thought that Mr Lee was asking a rhetorical question — and thus merited no reply.
Nevertheless, one can argue that Mr Low could have taken the cue from Mr Lee's pregnant pause.
This then begs the question: Assuming Mr Low elected to answer the question, what could he have said?
He could have answered in the affirmative and said: "Yes, as Minister Wong had direct oversight of the Internal Security Department, he should lead by example and he ought to resign."
On the other hand, Mr Low could have opted to reply in the negative: "No, out of respect for the Prime Minister, I am willing to give Minister Wong a chance and trust the Prime Minister's call. Nevertheless, Minister Wong has categorically given his word to Parliament that his team will eventually track Mas Selamat down and arrest him. I am willing to give Minister Wong time. If he fails to deliver, he ought to resign."
If Mr Low could not make up his mind between the affirmative and negative, he could have responded: "Maybe. But I am not the Prime Minister. And, unlike the Prime Minister, I have not read the detailed reports. If the Prime Minister discloses that information fully to me, I will be happy to provide a more definitive answer ."
Alas, when putting oneself in Mr Low's shoes, one is only speculating.
The unfortunate irony of this whole event is that a matter of Executive Accountability has now become an issue of Opposition Accountability.
As an Opposition MP, Mr Low owes Singaporeans an explanation as to why he chose to remain silent in the face of an opportunity to be decisive and to show what a leader can and should do.
Why, Mr Low? Why?
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Those who have been following the media coverage of the Prime Minister's statement and his subsequent responses to MPs over the Mas Selamat affair would have come away with the impression that the two representatives of the Workers' Party were doing what Opposition politicians should be doing in Parliament.
To borrow a phrase from Nominated Member of Parliament Gautam Banerjee, the two — Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim — were "stress-testing". In doing so, they did not hold back. They asked difficult questions. They raised sensitive concerns.
Mr Low, in particular, found it hard to reconcile the view that ministers should be paid high salaries pegged to the best of the private sector with the one that, when an honest mistake is made, ministers, unlike the best of the private sector, should not be held as accountable.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong sought to defend the position by saying that the practice was no different than that in the private sector. He then pointedly asked Mr Low: "Let me ask the member whether he thinks (Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng) ought to resign because of this."
Remarkably, Mr Low chose to respond but with pin-drop silence — leading the Prime Minister to remark: "No answer. So I think that settles the point."
In the constituency of public opinion, that silence of Mr Low has now been replaced by a complaining chorus: "Why, Mr Low? Why?"
After all, there was no parliamentary procedure that stopped Mr Low from answering Mr Lee in a similar point-blank manner.
Mr Low has attempted to position the Workers' Party as a serious and responsible party that provides solutions. Yet, when the crucial time came to provide an alternative solution by putting himself in the shoes of the Prime Minister, Mr Low elected to remain silent.
Would a serious and responsible Opposition have shied away from such a moment, when the perfect opportunity arose to seize the bull by the horns?
Of course, one is also reminded of recent observations made by Mr Lee in an interview with Lianhe Zaobao. Among other things, he said: "Although Low Thia Khiang is very smart, he seldom debates on the core substance of policies. He seems more keen on catching the Government on its shortcomings, so as to embarrass the Government … His attitude is that his responsibility is just to criticise Government policies and not to propose alternatives."
Is this incident representative of what Mr Lee had in mind?
Then again, did Mr Low stay silent because he did not wish to embarrass the Government?
Indeed, various justifications have been forwarded by Mr Low's supporters.
Maybe Mr Low did not want to incur the Government's wrath and end up having to face a defamation suit. This holds no water since Mr Low would be protected by the defence of parliamentary privilege.
Perhaps Mr Low did not understand that Mr Lee was asking him a question, since he does not have as good a grasp of English as the Prime Minister. But how could this be the case when Mr Low had, in English, quite candidly put forward his question to Mr Lee?
A more credible justification appears to be that Mr Low might have thought that Mr Lee was asking a rhetorical question — and thus merited no reply.
Nevertheless, one can argue that Mr Low could have taken the cue from Mr Lee's pregnant pause.
This then begs the question: Assuming Mr Low elected to answer the question, what could he have said?
He could have answered in the affirmative and said: "Yes, as Minister Wong had direct oversight of the Internal Security Department, he should lead by example and he ought to resign."
On the other hand, Mr Low could have opted to reply in the negative: "No, out of respect for the Prime Minister, I am willing to give Minister Wong a chance and trust the Prime Minister's call. Nevertheless, Minister Wong has categorically given his word to Parliament that his team will eventually track Mas Selamat down and arrest him. I am willing to give Minister Wong time. If he fails to deliver, he ought to resign."
If Mr Low could not make up his mind between the affirmative and negative, he could have responded: "Maybe. But I am not the Prime Minister. And, unlike the Prime Minister, I have not read the detailed reports. If the Prime Minister discloses that information fully to me, I will be happy to provide a more definitive answer ."
Alas, when putting oneself in Mr Low's shoes, one is only speculating.
The unfortunate irony of this whole event is that a matter of Executive Accountability has now become an issue of Opposition Accountability.
As an Opposition MP, Mr Low owes Singaporeans an explanation as to why he chose to remain silent in the face of an opportunity to be decisive and to show what a leader can and should do.
Why, Mr Low? Why?
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Interview: Tourism in Singapore
INTERVIEW WITH DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY, FACULTY OF ARTS & SOCIAL SCIENCES, NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE ON 3 APRIL 2008
Why do you think the state has tried to promote Singapore as a tourist hub?
I think the reasons are pragmatic and economic. Tourists are an important source of income for Singapore. As a result of our geographic location at the centre of Southeast Asia and along major sea lanes, we become a natural stop-over point for tourists to come, spend some time here and then explore the region. Of course, with better aviation technology and flight connections, we appear to be losing that edge.
What do the aims of promoting Singapore as a tourist hub make you feel?
It’s exciting, if you enjoy meeting new people. Many years ago, academic Cherian George referred to Singapore as an ‘air-conditioned nation’. I think an argument can be made in light of our endeavours to attract more tourists and immigrants that we are more an ‘air-conditioned hotel’.
If you were to use one word to describe Singapore with regard to tourism, what would it be?
It’s buzzing. Change is a constant in Singapore, and I noticed that especially when I lived away for 5 years in England. I only returned once or twice a year and it’d amaze how there was something new to see and do. Singapore has become rather adept at reinventing itself.
When you see tourists on their tour bus taking photos of everything they see on the street, what kind of feelings and emotions do you experienced?
I try to put myself in their shoes and figure out what exactly they are trying to capture. I am not a big fan of taking photographs of what I see on streets when on holiday. I take the view the moment is to be captured and savoured in the mind, as it happens. But I guess most photographers would disagree with me on this point.
Why do you think places such as Taman Jurong and Circuit Eoad are not advertised for tourists to visit? What do you feel about the lack of advertising for these areas?
I am not sure what the question is implying. But if the question is about why neighbourhoods are not advertised for tourists to visit, I think such a mindset is changing.
There is a recognition that such neighbourhoods make the Singaporean experience a unique one and more service providers are offering tourist trips to the hinterlands or, as the then PM Goh coined it, Singapore’s heartlands.
Since Taman Jurong was raised in the question and I do live in the area, I can shed some light. Taman Jurong use to have a lot of buzz many years ago but that died with the collapse of the industrial economy in Jurong. It is no surprise that the Tang Dynasty village, which went bust, is now an eyesore in Taman Jurong.
Nonetheless, Taman Jurong is still advertised for tourists to visit since there is the Chinese Garden, Japanese Garden and Jurong Bird Park.
National development planners have also set their sights on the lake, which is found in Taman Jurong. There are major plans afoot to bring Taman Jurong back to its former glory.
Do you feel that tourists visiting Singapore will find their experience real? Real i.e. whether it really depicts what Singapore really is? Why?
There must be some element of reality which keeps drawing tourists to Singapore. But the realities we seek can be quite subjective. Some tourists like beaches. Others like massive shopping centres. A number like nature. What matters is that Singapore has tried in various ways to capture the mind-share of such tourists with varying interests and I think one can conclude that Singapore has been sustainably successful in doing so.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Why do you think the state has tried to promote Singapore as a tourist hub?
I think the reasons are pragmatic and economic. Tourists are an important source of income for Singapore. As a result of our geographic location at the centre of Southeast Asia and along major sea lanes, we become a natural stop-over point for tourists to come, spend some time here and then explore the region. Of course, with better aviation technology and flight connections, we appear to be losing that edge.
What do the aims of promoting Singapore as a tourist hub make you feel?
It’s exciting, if you enjoy meeting new people. Many years ago, academic Cherian George referred to Singapore as an ‘air-conditioned nation’. I think an argument can be made in light of our endeavours to attract more tourists and immigrants that we are more an ‘air-conditioned hotel’.
If you were to use one word to describe Singapore with regard to tourism, what would it be?
It’s buzzing. Change is a constant in Singapore, and I noticed that especially when I lived away for 5 years in England. I only returned once or twice a year and it’d amaze how there was something new to see and do. Singapore has become rather adept at reinventing itself.
When you see tourists on their tour bus taking photos of everything they see on the street, what kind of feelings and emotions do you experienced?
I try to put myself in their shoes and figure out what exactly they are trying to capture. I am not a big fan of taking photographs of what I see on streets when on holiday. I take the view the moment is to be captured and savoured in the mind, as it happens. But I guess most photographers would disagree with me on this point.
Why do you think places such as Taman Jurong and Circuit Eoad are not advertised for tourists to visit? What do you feel about the lack of advertising for these areas?
I am not sure what the question is implying. But if the question is about why neighbourhoods are not advertised for tourists to visit, I think such a mindset is changing.
There is a recognition that such neighbourhoods make the Singaporean experience a unique one and more service providers are offering tourist trips to the hinterlands or, as the then PM Goh coined it, Singapore’s heartlands.
Since Taman Jurong was raised in the question and I do live in the area, I can shed some light. Taman Jurong use to have a lot of buzz many years ago but that died with the collapse of the industrial economy in Jurong. It is no surprise that the Tang Dynasty village, which went bust, is now an eyesore in Taman Jurong.
Nonetheless, Taman Jurong is still advertised for tourists to visit since there is the Chinese Garden, Japanese Garden and Jurong Bird Park.
National development planners have also set their sights on the lake, which is found in Taman Jurong. There are major plans afoot to bring Taman Jurong back to its former glory.
Do you feel that tourists visiting Singapore will find their experience real? Real i.e. whether it really depicts what Singapore really is? Why?
There must be some element of reality which keeps drawing tourists to Singapore. But the realities we seek can be quite subjective. Some tourists like beaches. Others like massive shopping centres. A number like nature. What matters is that Singapore has tried in various ways to capture the mind-share of such tourists with varying interests and I think one can conclude that Singapore has been sustainably successful in doing so.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Senior Counsel Scheme: 10 Years On
ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN TODAY WEEKEND (SINGAPORE) ON 29 MARCH 2008
It has been about a decade since the first batch of Senior Counsel (SC) were appointed by previous Chief Justice Yong Pung How.
If a recent series of articles on advocacy in the Singapore Academy of Law magazine, Inter Se, reflect the undercurrents of the legal fraternity, some serious reflection is taking place about the SC scheme.
When the scheme was launched, it was touted as being the equivalent of the Queen's Counsel (QC) scheme in England. In reality, it was Singapore's response to building a legal system independent from that of its colonial masters.
The Judiciary, taking into account the views of the Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore, has imposed conditions on a Queen's Counsel's appearance in Singapore, even if a QC is willing to represent a person on a pro bono basis in the face of an unwilling SC.
Today, the QC appears in the Singapore courts in very exceptional situations, often involving complex commercial transactions worth millions of dollars raising difficult points of law. This policy appears driven by pragmatism, since the QC based in England is more likely to be exposed to more sophisticated legal problems, in light of London's position as a premier financial centre.
But one can question if such exceptional situations should exist in the first place, when the SC was meant to be on equal footing with the QC.
With the recent announcement that foreign law firms will now be able to practise Singapore law and the fact that such foreign law firms tend to undertake complex commercial law, would it open the door to more such exceptional situations?
Ten years into the SC scheme, it may be fair to argue that it was unfair in the first place to compare the SC to the QC.
The QC scheme in England is now wholly different from what it was a decade ago.
Many changes have been made to the process of appointing a QC. It is no longer a political process but an independent and open one. The QC Selection Panel "comprises a retired senior judge, senior barristers, senior solicitors and lay (not legally qualified) members" and is "chaired by a lay member".
A potential applicant for appointment as QC is assessed for excellence in five areas:
• Understanding and use of the law.
• Oral and written advocacy.
• Ability to work with others.
• Understanding of diversity and cultural issues, and commitment to the promotion of equality of opportunity.
• Level of integrity in dealings with court and all parties.
In essence, the position of QC is now the exclusive enclave of those who have distinguished themselves in practice, as opposed to just those politically favoured.
In the selection of an SC in Singapore, the Selection Committee — comprising the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and the Judges of Appeal — uses a wider selection criteria.
Current Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong reflected on this at the opening of the legal year in January.
"In the past, we have focused on advocacy skills, legal knowledge and professional integrity as qualifying criteria for such appointments. For future appointments, we will also give consideration to the candidate's contributions to the law in the form of academic teaching, writing, research and committee work for the various law institutions, such as the Singapore Academy of Law and the Law Society, and the future Institute of Legal Education," he said.
Once appointed, beyond court work, the SC juggles additional "national service" roles of leading the profession, championing law reform proposals through the Senior Counsel Forum, and being an example through one's advocacy work to younger lawyers.
However, in recent years, this has become difficult. Some SC do less court work and take on other functions in their respective law firms in order to justify their value to these firms. Indeed, several SC juggle non-legal roles within their own law firms.
Thus, it was no surprise that the trend has prompted CJ Chan to recently consider setting up a committee to look into "regular reappraisal or reaccreditations of SC".
Perhaps, the committee will look into encouraging an SC — after he or she is appointed — to set up his or her own independent practice such that the person can stay focused on advocacy work.
For example, this is what Law Society president Michael Hwang SC did when he left his position in a top law firm to set up his own outfit. The move also freed him up to play a greater role in the Law Society.
An independent SC may also be in a better position to serve as mentor to younger lawyers with the interest to do advocacy work, irrespective of the law firms such young lawyers come from.
After all, not many SC are known to have translated into action the view of SC Harry Elias who says: "I would like the day to come when the phone rings, and someone says, 'My name is XYZ, I have a criminal matter, my client is so-and-so ... Can you please come and help on a free basis?' I would say 'yes'."
It is also a moot point if an SC should retain his status on the primary basis of the currency of his advocacy work. What about the number of young lawyers he trains that go on to distinguish themselves as advocates?
For example, it is no secret that SC Joseph Grimberg was instrumental in training several top advocates who helm various law firms or undertake other key legal roles today.
These factors should be taken into account when CJ Chan's committee looks into conditions that may be imposed for an SC to continue remaining an SC.
In the last 10 years, a unique position has been carved out for the SC in the Singapore legal system. That position can only evolve further.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
It has been about a decade since the first batch of Senior Counsel (SC) were appointed by previous Chief Justice Yong Pung How.
If a recent series of articles on advocacy in the Singapore Academy of Law magazine, Inter Se, reflect the undercurrents of the legal fraternity, some serious reflection is taking place about the SC scheme.
When the scheme was launched, it was touted as being the equivalent of the Queen's Counsel (QC) scheme in England. In reality, it was Singapore's response to building a legal system independent from that of its colonial masters.
The Judiciary, taking into account the views of the Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore, has imposed conditions on a Queen's Counsel's appearance in Singapore, even if a QC is willing to represent a person on a pro bono basis in the face of an unwilling SC.
Today, the QC appears in the Singapore courts in very exceptional situations, often involving complex commercial transactions worth millions of dollars raising difficult points of law. This policy appears driven by pragmatism, since the QC based in England is more likely to be exposed to more sophisticated legal problems, in light of London's position as a premier financial centre.
But one can question if such exceptional situations should exist in the first place, when the SC was meant to be on equal footing with the QC.
With the recent announcement that foreign law firms will now be able to practise Singapore law and the fact that such foreign law firms tend to undertake complex commercial law, would it open the door to more such exceptional situations?
Ten years into the SC scheme, it may be fair to argue that it was unfair in the first place to compare the SC to the QC.
The QC scheme in England is now wholly different from what it was a decade ago.
Many changes have been made to the process of appointing a QC. It is no longer a political process but an independent and open one. The QC Selection Panel "comprises a retired senior judge, senior barristers, senior solicitors and lay (not legally qualified) members" and is "chaired by a lay member".
A potential applicant for appointment as QC is assessed for excellence in five areas:
• Understanding and use of the law.
• Oral and written advocacy.
• Ability to work with others.
• Understanding of diversity and cultural issues, and commitment to the promotion of equality of opportunity.
• Level of integrity in dealings with court and all parties.
In essence, the position of QC is now the exclusive enclave of those who have distinguished themselves in practice, as opposed to just those politically favoured.
In the selection of an SC in Singapore, the Selection Committee — comprising the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and the Judges of Appeal — uses a wider selection criteria.
Current Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong reflected on this at the opening of the legal year in January.
"In the past, we have focused on advocacy skills, legal knowledge and professional integrity as qualifying criteria for such appointments. For future appointments, we will also give consideration to the candidate's contributions to the law in the form of academic teaching, writing, research and committee work for the various law institutions, such as the Singapore Academy of Law and the Law Society, and the future Institute of Legal Education," he said.
Once appointed, beyond court work, the SC juggles additional "national service" roles of leading the profession, championing law reform proposals through the Senior Counsel Forum, and being an example through one's advocacy work to younger lawyers.
However, in recent years, this has become difficult. Some SC do less court work and take on other functions in their respective law firms in order to justify their value to these firms. Indeed, several SC juggle non-legal roles within their own law firms.
Thus, it was no surprise that the trend has prompted CJ Chan to recently consider setting up a committee to look into "regular reappraisal or reaccreditations of SC".
Perhaps, the committee will look into encouraging an SC — after he or she is appointed — to set up his or her own independent practice such that the person can stay focused on advocacy work.
For example, this is what Law Society president Michael Hwang SC did when he left his position in a top law firm to set up his own outfit. The move also freed him up to play a greater role in the Law Society.
An independent SC may also be in a better position to serve as mentor to younger lawyers with the interest to do advocacy work, irrespective of the law firms such young lawyers come from.
After all, not many SC are known to have translated into action the view of SC Harry Elias who says: "I would like the day to come when the phone rings, and someone says, 'My name is XYZ, I have a criminal matter, my client is so-and-so ... Can you please come and help on a free basis?' I would say 'yes'."
It is also a moot point if an SC should retain his status on the primary basis of the currency of his advocacy work. What about the number of young lawyers he trains that go on to distinguish themselves as advocates?
For example, it is no secret that SC Joseph Grimberg was instrumental in training several top advocates who helm various law firms or undertake other key legal roles today.
These factors should be taken into account when CJ Chan's committee looks into conditions that may be imposed for an SC to continue remaining an SC.
In the last 10 years, a unique position has been carved out for the SC in the Singapore legal system. That position can only evolve further.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Friday, March 21, 2008
If One Were Dr Choong May Ling
DEDICATED TO CHOO ZHENG XI. PUBLISHED BY THE ONLINE CITIZEN ON 20 MARCH 2008.
The past three weeks have been unprecedented for Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng.
First, Minister Wong had to apologise for alleged terrorist leader Mas Selamat Kastari’s escape from detention.
Then, Minister Wong had to restore the flailing record of his Home Team, who were criticised for their complacency by no less than the respected founding father of independent Singapore, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
Now, Minister Wong finds himself at the edge of a storm having to defend the independence of a Committee of Inquiry (COI) that he appointed to investigate the escape of Mas Selamat; of particular concern is the impartiality of a member of the Committee – a subordinate at the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Dr Choong May Ling.
Minister Wong has sought to assure that the COI, including Dr Choong, will act independently because it comprises “persons who are not about to put their own considerable achievements and good reputations at risk”. He has declared that there are “no grounds to doubt the impartiality or independence” of the COI.
Naturally, some questions follow.
If one were Dr Choong, what would one do in the face of such concerns raised by the public?
Obviously, one would address them. It is imperative in such situations where one has been given an indisputable overriding duty to be accountable for one’s own actions.
Yet, Dr Choong, the eye of the storm and the civil servant who, according to Minister Wong at least, enjoys an independent voice remains pin-drop silent.
If one were Dr Choong, one would also ask: how well can the responsibilities, as outlined by Minister Wong, be carried out?
At the outset, it appears the expectations of the role evolved.
Minister Wong wanted the COI to “conduct a full and comprehensive inquiry” and to “do a balanced and thorough job”. No mention was made of the word “independent” in Minister Wong’s announcement of the COI on 2 March 2008.
As he did inform Parliament earlier that “an independent investigation is underway”, many interpreted this to mean that the COI would act independently.
Thus, to the criteria, Minister Wong had added one more – the need to be impartial or independent, which he confirmed on 16 March 2008.
Arguably, independence requires the absence of any nexus (whether professional or personal) to those being investigated.
The work of the COI will be wide. In Minister Wong’s words, the COI will be “given full and unfettered access to all documents, personnel, whether on open or classified appointments, as well as unrestricted inspection of the Whitley Road Detention Centre”, and will be “examining many witnesses from the lowest to the highest rank”.
The documents and witnesses could possibly include Dr Choong’s colleagues at the MHA and even the Minister himself.
Assuming one successfully manages to keep the nexus separate and the COI’s report arrives at the conclusion that the highest levels of MHA are worthy of criticism, would one be able to return to work, face one’s peers and still carry on with one’s work?
Consider the other extreme – a favourable report that may end up reinforcing the reservations expressed about the COI. This would clearly not be just to the other two members of the COI, who are as independent if not more.
If one were Dr Choong, would one ask Minister Wong to find someone else in light of these circumstances?
It is debatable that a replacement would only be necessary if the perceived conflict of interest could not be mitigated.
Minister Wong was right in defending and justifying Dr Choong’s appointment since he appointed her in the first place.
Minister Wong was also right in disclosing Dr Choong’s relationship to MHA: “she oversees security policy”.
In mitigating the potential conflict of interest, Minister Wong merely had to satisfy himself that the task could be performed by Dr Choong at a reasonable standard of ethics and professional conduct. He has confirmed that she can do so.
Nevertheless, if one were Dr Choong, would one simply accept such a standard or would one uphold a higher standard personally?
The role of a member of the COI is akin to the role of a director holding a position on the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, where one is expected to be whiter than white in upholding the interests of both the company and its stakeholders; and where one, as a compass, sets an example for others to follow.
Resultantly, unlike other directors, an Audit Committee director is expected to personally uphold the highest standard of ethics and professional conduct, even though legally the director’s duty is less onerous.
If such a director is found in a position of a conflict of interest, the director would simply not accept that the perceived conflict of interest has been mitigated or addressed by the person responsible for his appointment.
The director, in being an example to others for the avoidance of any semblance of partiality or bias, would observe the highest standard required in such situations. The director would more appropriately recuse himself, whilst giving due respect to the person who appointed him.
Yes, if one were Dr Choong, one would not be silent to public concerns; one would appreciate the evolving expectations entailing one’s role; and one would, in observance of the highest standards of ethics and professional conduct, recuse oneself.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
The past three weeks have been unprecedented for Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng.
First, Minister Wong had to apologise for alleged terrorist leader Mas Selamat Kastari’s escape from detention.
Then, Minister Wong had to restore the flailing record of his Home Team, who were criticised for their complacency by no less than the respected founding father of independent Singapore, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
Now, Minister Wong finds himself at the edge of a storm having to defend the independence of a Committee of Inquiry (COI) that he appointed to investigate the escape of Mas Selamat; of particular concern is the impartiality of a member of the Committee – a subordinate at the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Dr Choong May Ling.
Minister Wong has sought to assure that the COI, including Dr Choong, will act independently because it comprises “persons who are not about to put their own considerable achievements and good reputations at risk”. He has declared that there are “no grounds to doubt the impartiality or independence” of the COI.
Naturally, some questions follow.
If one were Dr Choong, what would one do in the face of such concerns raised by the public?
Obviously, one would address them. It is imperative in such situations where one has been given an indisputable overriding duty to be accountable for one’s own actions.
Yet, Dr Choong, the eye of the storm and the civil servant who, according to Minister Wong at least, enjoys an independent voice remains pin-drop silent.
If one were Dr Choong, one would also ask: how well can the responsibilities, as outlined by Minister Wong, be carried out?
At the outset, it appears the expectations of the role evolved.
Minister Wong wanted the COI to “conduct a full and comprehensive inquiry” and to “do a balanced and thorough job”. No mention was made of the word “independent” in Minister Wong’s announcement of the COI on 2 March 2008.
As he did inform Parliament earlier that “an independent investigation is underway”, many interpreted this to mean that the COI would act independently.
Thus, to the criteria, Minister Wong had added one more – the need to be impartial or independent, which he confirmed on 16 March 2008.
Arguably, independence requires the absence of any nexus (whether professional or personal) to those being investigated.
The work of the COI will be wide. In Minister Wong’s words, the COI will be “given full and unfettered access to all documents, personnel, whether on open or classified appointments, as well as unrestricted inspection of the Whitley Road Detention Centre”, and will be “examining many witnesses from the lowest to the highest rank”.
The documents and witnesses could possibly include Dr Choong’s colleagues at the MHA and even the Minister himself.
Assuming one successfully manages to keep the nexus separate and the COI’s report arrives at the conclusion that the highest levels of MHA are worthy of criticism, would one be able to return to work, face one’s peers and still carry on with one’s work?
Consider the other extreme – a favourable report that may end up reinforcing the reservations expressed about the COI. This would clearly not be just to the other two members of the COI, who are as independent if not more.
If one were Dr Choong, would one ask Minister Wong to find someone else in light of these circumstances?
It is debatable that a replacement would only be necessary if the perceived conflict of interest could not be mitigated.
Minister Wong was right in defending and justifying Dr Choong’s appointment since he appointed her in the first place.
Minister Wong was also right in disclosing Dr Choong’s relationship to MHA: “she oversees security policy”.
In mitigating the potential conflict of interest, Minister Wong merely had to satisfy himself that the task could be performed by Dr Choong at a reasonable standard of ethics and professional conduct. He has confirmed that she can do so.
Nevertheless, if one were Dr Choong, would one simply accept such a standard or would one uphold a higher standard personally?
The role of a member of the COI is akin to the role of a director holding a position on the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, where one is expected to be whiter than white in upholding the interests of both the company and its stakeholders; and where one, as a compass, sets an example for others to follow.
Resultantly, unlike other directors, an Audit Committee director is expected to personally uphold the highest standard of ethics and professional conduct, even though legally the director’s duty is less onerous.
If such a director is found in a position of a conflict of interest, the director would simply not accept that the perceived conflict of interest has been mitigated or addressed by the person responsible for his appointment.
The director, in being an example to others for the avoidance of any semblance of partiality or bias, would observe the highest standard required in such situations. The director would more appropriately recuse himself, whilst giving due respect to the person who appointed him.
Yes, if one were Dr Choong, one would not be silent to public concerns; one would appreciate the evolving expectations entailing one’s role; and one would, in observance of the highest standards of ethics and professional conduct, recuse oneself.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)