Official Publication of The Law Society of Singapore | December 2014

Transcription

Official Publication of The Law Society of Singapore | December 2014
CBD Strata Offices for Sale
2 Havelock Road, Singapore 059763
Choice Units: From 312 sq ft onwards (From $7xxK)
ACTUAL VIEW FROM UNIT
Opposite State Courts & Attorney
General Chambers office
Next to Clarke Quay MRT Station
Covered access leading to Chinatown
MRT Station
No restrictions on foreign ownership
Raised floors, waterpoints & discharge
outlets provided in all units
Vibrant precinct with major landmarks
(Hotels, Malls, F&B, Banks)
Independent flexible air-conditioning
system
Basement carpark with approx
100 lots
Ideal for legal firms and financial
institutions
No additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty
No Seller’s Stamp Duty
All images stated are Artist’s Impressions.
FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION,
PLEASE CONTACT
SAMMI LIM
+65 9368 9803
LOW CHOON SIN
+65 9841 0006
E: [email protected]
E: [email protected]
CEA Reg. No.: R003899J
Appointed Agent
CEA Reg. No.: R027985H
While every reasonable care has been taken in preparing this marketing collateral, neither this marketing collateral nor any of its contents shall constitute part of an offer or contract, and neither the Developer nor its
agents are warranting the accuracy of any information contained therein nor will the Developer or any of its agents be held responsible for any inaccuracies or omissions. All statements and information are believed
to be correct but are not to be regarded as or relied upon as statements or representation of facts. All information and specifications are current at the time of going to the press and are subject to such changes
as may be required or approved by the Developer. All plans are not to scale unless expressly stated and are subject to any amendments which are required or approved by the relevant authorities. Renderings and
illustrations are artist’s impressions only and photographs are only décor suggestions and cannot be regarded as representation of facts. All areas and other measurements are approximate only and subject to final
survey. The Sale and Purchase agreement embodies all the terms and conditions between the Developer and the purchaser and supersedes and cancels in all respects all or any representations, warranties, promises,
inducements or statements of intention, whether written or oral made by the Developer and/or its agents which are not embodied in the Sale and Purchase Agreement.
NIT
01
President’s
Message
Thank You
How time flies! It seemed only a short while ago when I took
office as President and observed at my 2013 Opening of
Legal Year speech that the profession had grown by leaps
and bounds to reach 4,000 (local lawyers) for the first time
in 2012, growing by 915 between the years 2007 and 2012,
a 27 per cent jump over those six years. Up till then, that
growth rate was unprecedented. Since then, it has gathered
even more pace. At last count at end November 2014, the
total number of local Practising Certificate holders stood a
whisker away from 5,000. In absolute numbers, we took just
two years to add another 1,000 lawyers to the profession
when it took six to add the last 1,000 between 2007 and
2012.
The increase in numbers is apparently not good news to
all. It has caused some concern amongst new lawyers
of a possible glut in the profession. Feedback was also
received from members of difficulties encountered by
some graduates in securing training contracts. Council
discussed this and approved changes that will allow senior
and experienced practitioners to take up to four trainees
each (up from the current two) and for a practice trainee to
be able to satisfy his training obligation at up to three law
practices (up from the current two as well). The situation
continues to be monitored by Council but as stated in my
2014 Mass Call speech, I am confident that Singapore’s
and the region’s vibrant economy, together with the big
developments in the legal landscape, namely the recent
launch of the SIMC in November 2014 and the imminent
launch of the SICC, continue to hold out exciting prospects
for practitioners here. The new lawyer, to my mind, has less
to fear from the portends of an overcrowded legal market
than the risks to personal happiness and contentment from
an overcrowded life.
These little steps we took were an example of what my
colleagues and I tried to do in Council – to make a difference
for members. It got me reminiscing about some of the things
we did and tried to do for members during our time in office.
Changes for Members
From the outset, we encouraged more members to join our
Committees. Direct involvement in Committee work infuses
a sense of ownership in a member of the Society’s work. At
the very least, it eliminates a sense of detachment from what
the Society aims to be doing. We also organised bi-monthly
lunches with practitioners at the State Courts Bar Room so
that we could interact more and have more opportunities to
hear the issues that concern or terrify members. I am glad
we took these steps. Communication builds trust. I have
learnt that making time to hear out issues and suggestions
for solutions is an important first step to putting things right.
I have often wondered why our State Court practitioners
do not get a hearing break in the way the High Court
practitioners enjoy a breather from Court hearings during
the June and December Court vacations each year. We
felt that we should try to get something for our State Court
practitioners and I am grateful to Presiding Judge, See Kee
Oon JC, for agreeing to a one week pilot on 17 November
2014 during which no hearing would be fixed. A number of
practitioners appreciated this initiative and I am delighted
that this has helped. From what I have heard, the plusses
do outweigh any downside risks.
Promoting our members’ well-being and welfare has
always been one of our important objectives. Sometimes
it takes only a little effort. One incident reminded me of
this. On a particularly hazy morning on 21 June 2013, the
PSI score soared well past 400 into unhealthy levels. A
concerned member Mr Yeh Siang Hui, sent me an e-mail
suggesting that Council should do something to safeguard
the health and well-being of lawyers and their staff. I was
just in the vicinity of the Supreme Court when I received his
message and was growing increasingly concerned with the
thickness of the haze blanketing the city. The suggestion
was a timely one. Immediately I was on the phone with
Ambika Rajendram of the Law Society, dictating a note
to be broadcast to all members urgently, requesting them
to extend accommodation to one another or by extending
deadlines where possible so that members and their support
staff would not be unduly exposed to the hazardous haze
conditions. I am told many members responded positively
to the request. Quite a number called to personally thank
me for the initiative, prompting me to issue a note of
appreciation (July 2013 Singapore Law Gazette) to point
Singapore Law Gazette December 2014
Continued on page 4
Contents
President’s
Message
News
Features
Columns
Lifestyle
Notices
Appointments
Thank You
01
Annual Dinner and Dance 2014
A New Look for Our Old Home
07
16
F
A Tale of Two Real Estate Agents (Lessons in Structuring an Offer to Purchase)
The Implied Term of Mutual Trust and Confidence
Jail Term as New Benchmark Sentence for Careless Driving Causing Death
– PP v Hue An Li: A Case Commentary
21
30
34
C
Pro Bono Publico — The Law Society of Singapore and YLBHI Workshop
on Advocacy Knowledge and Skills for Legal Aid Lawyers in Indonesia
The Young Lawyer — A Lyrical Love Affair – The Bösendorfer 225
42
L
Alter Ego — Wishes of Change
Food — Shabu Shabu at Shima
Bookshelf — Costs in International Arbitration,
by Colin Y.C. Ong and Michael Patrick O’Reilly
49
51
53
Professional Moves
Information on Wills
54
55
M
N
N
56
A
The Singapore Law Gazette
The Law Society’s Mission Statement
To serve our members and the
communitty by sustaining a
competent and independent Bar
which upholds the rule of law and
ensures access to justice.
An Official Publication of The Law Society of Singapore
The Law Society of Singapore
39 South Bridge Road, Singapore 058673
Tel: (65) 6538 2500
Fax: (65) 6533 5700
Website: http://www.lawsociety.org.sg
E-mail: [email protected]
The Council of The Law Society of Singapore
President
Mr Lok Vi Ming, SC
Vice Presidents Mr Thio Shen Yi, SC
Mr Kelvin Wong
Treasurer
Mr Gregory Vijayendran
Mr Lim Seng Siew, Ms Kuah Boon Theng, Ms Rachel Eng,
Mr Adrian Tan, Mr Steven Lam, Ms Sunita Sonya Parhar,
46
Ms Lisa Sam, Mr Anand Nalachandran, Mr Lee Terk Yang,
Ms Usha Ranee Chandradas, Mr Chiam Tao Koon,
Mr See Chern Yang, Mr Yeo Chuan Tat, Mr Paul Tan,
Mr Josephus Tan, Ms Simran Kaur Toor, Mr Grismond Tien
Editorial Board
Ms Malathi Das, Mr Prakash Pillai, Mr Chua Sui Tong, Mr Gregory
Vijayendran, Ms Alicia Zhuang, Mr Benjamin Teo, Mr Cameron
Ford, Ms Celeste Ang, Ms Crystal Ma, Ms Debby Lim, Ms Lye
Huixian, Mr M Lukshumayeh, Mr Marcus Yip, Mr Rajan Chettiar,
Ms Supreeta Suman, Mr Vincent Leow
The Law Society Secretariat
Chief Executive Officer Ms Tan Su-Yin
Communications & Membership Interests Mr Shawn Toh
Compliance Mr Kenneth Goh
Conduct Ms Ambika Rajendram, Mr K Gopalan
Continuing Professional Development Ms Jean Wong
Finance Ms Jasmine Liew, Mr Clifford Hang
Information Technology Mr Michael Ho
Pro Bono Services Mr Tanguy Lim, Ms Babara Seet, Mr Choy
Weng Leong
Publications Ms Sharmaine Lau
Representation & Law Reform Ms Delphine Loo Tan,
Mr K Gopalan
Publishing Reed Elsevier (Singapore) Pte Ltd
trading as LexisNexis
Associate Director, Publishing, Singapore Terence Lim
Director, Sales, Singapore and OSEA Angie Ong
Editor Chandranie
Cover Design Mohd Khairil Johari
Designer Mohd Khairil Johari
Web Administrator Jessica Wang
Advertising Account Managers Wendy Tan, Perry Tan
For Advertising Enquiries
Tel: (65) 6349 0172
Email: [email protected]
Printing Markono Print Media Pte Ltd
LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier (Singapore) Pte Ltd, is a
leading provider of legal and professional information in Asia,
with offices in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, India, England,
Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa.
The complete range of works published by LexisNexis include law
reports, legal indexes, major works, looseleaf services, textbooks,
electronice products and other reference works for Asia.
LexisNexis
3 Killiney Road, # 08-08, Winsland House 1, Singapore
239519
Tel: (65) 6733 1380
Fax: (65) 6733 1719
http://www.lawgazette.com.sg
ISSN 1019-942X
The Singapore Law Gazette is the official publication of the
Law Society of singapore. Copyright in all material published
in journal is retained by the Law Society. no part of this journal
may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
including recording and photocopying without the written
permission of the copyright holder, application for which should
be addressed to the law society. Written permission must also
be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a
retrieval system of any nature. the journal does not accept
liability for any views, opinions, or advice given in the journal.
Further, the contents of the journal do not necessarily reflect the
views or opinions of the publisher, the Law Society or members
of the Law Society and no liability is accepted or members of
the Law Society and no liability is accepted in relation thereto.
Advertisements appearing within this publication should not
be taken to imply any direct support for, or sympathy with the
views and aims of the publisher or the Law Society.
Circulation 5,000
Subscription Fee S$228.00 (inclusive of GST) for 12 issues
Legal & Compliance In-House
L1214 - 2326 – Company Secretary -> 10+ years -> A SGX listed company is
looking for a senior corporate secretariat personnel with strong listed experience
to lead the team and be the named Company Secretary. Suitable candidates
would have in house and boardroom experience. Contact Helmi
L0914 - 2276 – VP Legal – Construction & Infrastructure - > 8 + PQE An
established multinational company is in search of a senior counsel to provide
effective and efficient legal advisory services and ensuring effective management
of legal and contractual risks for the group globally. The ideal candidate will be
commercially savvy, with strong interpersonal skills and confidence in dealing
with senior management. Contact Claire for a private discussion.
L1114-2309-Head of Legal and Compliance - Trust - >8PQE. My client, a
specialist in the incorporation of international and local companies and a
provider of trust services, is looking for a Head of Legal and Compliance to lead
a team. You should have an LLB and be familiar with fiduciary services and trust
products, with experience drafting trust documents and reviewing vendor
contracts. You should also be conversant with AML/KYC compliance
requirements. Contact Yasmeen for a confidential discussion.
L1214-2315- Legal Counsel – Shipping -> 8 PQE An established US MNC is
currently looking for a Associate General Counsel to base in Singapore. You
should have international experience in the maritime or shipping industry and
have at least 8 years of PQE. You will also be expected to lead a small team.
Frequent travelling is required. Interested candidates please contact Eileen
L1215 - 2327 – Compliance Vice president-> 8 years A renowned financial
institution is hiring a Compliance, VP for the Compliance & Inspection
Department. This growing Asian institution has coverage in all parts of Asia and
the hire would be sitting under the Asia and Oceania Division. You would be
required to lead the Compliance team on sanction matters and provide training
on risk matters. You should possess at least 8 years of experience, preferably in a
financial setting. Contact Jane
L0914-2278 - Legal Counsel – Engineering & Infrastructure – 6-12 PQE A
leading environmental solutions company, headquartered in Singapore, is
seeking a competent construction lawyer to join their team. Being part of their
aggressively expanding business, exposure to international work is guaranteed.
Contact Claire if interested.
L1214 - 2325 - Counsel - Technology - > 6-10 PQE A regional IT company
with strong market presence in the solutions domain is looking to have a IT
counsel join their experienced team. Lawyers from both private practice and in
house with IT experience can apply. Contact Helmi
L0514 - 2326 - Legal Counsel – Real Estate -> 6 PQE A listed real estate
company is looking for mid-level corporate lawyers with strong regulatory
experience. Suitable candidates would have a general exposure to corporate & commercial
matters plus a strong track record in private practice or in house. Contact Helmi
L1214-2312 - Legal Counsel - Insurance - 5-8 PQE-> A leader in the insurance
industry, is looking for a legal counsel to join their claims department.
Candidates called to the Singapore Bar or any recognized court with experience
in insurance claims and litigation will be considered favourably. Contact Janelle
L1214 - 2316 - Legal Counsel – Tourism -> 5 PQE A leading tourism
organisation is currently seeking for a Legal Counsel. You will be responsible for
all contracts drafting and reviewing while providing legal support to the
organization. You must possess a Law Degree and have had a minimum of 5
years of legal working experience. This role will require you to work
independently with frequent interaction with the Senior Management.
Interested candidates please contact Eileen
L1214 - 2318 - Legal Counsel - Tourism - >5 PQE. My client, a major player in
the tourism sector in Singapore, is looking for a Legal Counsel. You will manage
a broad range of legal matters, including litigation, legislation and intellectual
property matters, and be responsible for contract administration and ensuring
compliance with contracting procedures. You should have at least 5 years of
legal experience, with some experience dealing with corporate work in an
in-house environment. Contact Yasmeen for a confidential discussion.
L1214 - 2323 - Legal Manager - Engineering - > 5PQE A company in the port
management industry is seeking a Legal Manager to join their expanding team.
Candidates with corporate secretarial experience will be considered favourably. Contact Adeline
L1214 - 2324 - Legal Counsel - Education -> 5PQE One of the leading
institutions of the region is seeking a Legal Counsel to join their expanding
team. Candidates with inhouse experience will be considered favourably.
Contact Adeline
L1214-2314 - Head of Corp Sec – Listed Company-> 5 PQE A
well-established organization is currently seeking for a Senior Corporate
Secretariat (Lead role) to manage a team of direct reports to be in charge of
corporate secretarial portfolios of its both listed and unlisted entities. You
should have at least 10 years of experience and also be ICSA-qualified. Good
knowledge of Companies Act, Singapore Listing Manual and relevant laws and
regulations is required. Interested candidates please contact Eileen
L0914-2274 - Claims Executive - P&I Club - > 4 PQE. A highly-reputable P&I
Club is looking for a Claims Executive. You should have a minimum of 4-5 years
post qualification marine litigation experience either with a top rated shipping
law firm or P&I club in London, Hong Kong or Singapore. Contact Yasmeen for
a confidential discussion.
L1214-2317 - Legal Counsel - Bank -> 3 PQE. My client, a European Bank, is
looking for a Legal Counsel for its Commodity Derivatives business.
Responsibilities include the provision of structuring, documentation, execution
management and legal support in respect of all commodity derivative products.
The ability to review documents written in Mandarin will be an advantage. The
ideal candidate should have a minimum of 3 years of relevant experience in a
leading financial institution or international firm. Contact Yasmeen for a
confidential discussion.
L0914-2281 - Legal Counsel - Infocomms - 3-8 PQE My client, a renowned
organization within the info communication industry, is in search of a
Singapore qualified lawyer to join their established legal team. The ideal
candidate should have a keen interest in the industry, with legal experience
gained in a reputable law firm. Litigation experience is an added advantage.
Contact Claire
L1214-2313 - Legal Counsel - Bank - 3-5 PQE -> An international bank is
looking for a legal counsel to join their investment banking team. Candidates
called to the Singapore Bar with experience in M&A and equity capital markets
will be considered favourably. Contact Janelle
L1214-2319 – Legal & Compliance Manager - Healthcare – 3-5 PQE My
client, in the healthcare sector is seeking a Legal & Compliance manager.
Candidates with contract drafting and reviewing experience, and have keen
interest in the healthcare industry is welcome to apply. Contact Kate if interested.
L1214-2320 – IP Counsel - Technology – 3-5 PQE An established technology
company is looking for candidates with strong trademarks and IP experience to
join the legal team. Interested applicants, please contact Kate.
L1214-2321 – Contracts Manager - Insurance – >3 PQE A leading insurance
provider is looking for contract managers to join the contracts team to assist
with review and preparation of contracts. Contact Kate if interested.
Interested? Please contact Claire Lin Xiuxin (R1103711) at [email protected], Muhammad Helmi Ali (R1113285) at [email protected],
Eileen Low Yi Lin (R1330643) at [email protected], Yasmeen Fatmah Hussain (R1327217) at [email protected], Daniel Yoong
Jiarong (R1332481) at [email protected], Adeline Lim Chan Yin (R1324939) at [email protected], Michelle Lee Wenyan (R1436938) at
[email protected], Janelle Foo Kah Yen (R1441540) at [email protected], or Kate Chang Chu Yan (R1332479) at [email protected], or Jane See Si Hui (R1332480) at [email protected] or (65) 6535 8255 for more information
Please visit www.recruit-legal.com for a full list of our positions
Alternatively, contact us at (65) 6535 8255 or 391A Orchard Road, #11-03 Ngee Ann City Tower A, Singapore 238873
Recruit Legal
391A Orchard Road
#11-03 Ngee Ann City Tower A
Singapore 238873
President’s
Message
04
Continued from page 1
out that it was Mr Yeh who had suggested this move and to
thank members for their accommodation to fellow members
and their staff.
Well-being and welfare at work also means having a
comfortable and healthy work place. Many present (and
former) Council members, Committee members, volunteers
and visitors to the Law Society’s premises have often
commented on how crowded our South Bridge Road office
is. Our staff members appear to have perfected the art of
safely navigating the crowded passageways without injuring
a colleague or stepping on each other’s belongings. Council
felt we should do better for our staff. After discussions and
consultations within Council and with members, we finally
decided to shelve any plans to acquire new premises in
the near future due to the current uncertain economic and
property market conditions, opting to renovate the existing
premises instead. Photos of the newly (and in my view,
nicely) renovated premises are found in this issue. We now
have more rooms (six compared to the previous three) and
an open air timber decked roof top with unobstructed views
of the iconic Marina Bay Sands complex on one side and
the amazing backdrop of skyscrapers rising dramatically
from the banks of the Singapore River on the other.
These new facilities can be booked by members for business
meetings or for personal purposes. The premises were
purchased and renovated with members’ contributions. It is
right that, as far as we can, we should allow as much of the
premises to be used by the many members, as often as
possible.
We also refreshed the State Courts Bar Room rather simply
with new furniture, new air conditioners and a fresh coat of
paint. We didn’t do much because we weren’t quite sure
how much longer the present premises were going to be
available for our use, pending the completion of the State
Courts Complex. The modest scale of the improvements
were brought home to me after one of my guests (a nonmember attending a talk/meeting there) whom I proudly
invited to survey the improvements turned to me and said,
“But it looks as if nothing much has changed.” That was no
doubt an accurate and astute observation, but our members
are impressed and appreciative not for the scale (or lack of
it) of the renovations, but for trouble we took to refresh the
Bar Room. The generous compliments continued even after
I apologised at the launch of the renovated Bar Room for
the choke affecting the toilet plumbing! I pulled Shawn Toh
from the Secretariat aside and told him we did right by trying
to make a difference there.
Initiatives for Members
We also tried to help members by supporting CPD for
members as best as we could. In 2014, we introduced
subsidies for attendance at some of our CPD events,
particularly those events with elements of practice
management and legal skills, starting with our excellent
Litigation Conference and Workshop in April 2014. The
response to the Conference was overwhelming; testament
no doubt to the quality of the programme and the trainers
we got on board. From feedback, we also realised that,
unsurprisingly, the subsidies helped a great deal. Thus
encouraged, we will work to increase the number of
subsidised CPD events to benefit more members from
small practices in 2015 and in this regard, I am grateful
for the support from Lockton, our PI brokers, for the use of
funds from the Education Fund, for this purpose.
And talking about the compulsory PI scheme, the Council
realises that this is, for some especially in the smaller
practices, a substantial cost each year. Here is the good
news. Council has been able to secure a massive 12.5 per
cent premium reduction under the compulsory PI scheme
for next year with further discounts for 2016, depending
on our claims record. Whatever happens, there will be no
increase in premiums for the next two years. There will be
fantastic cost savings for all!
I also believe that more members can benefit from
opportunities from emerging markets regionally and in Asia.
In October 2014, I joined SMS Indranee Rajah on a trip to
Myanmar with a group of local practitioners. The response
from these members to the trip was extremely positive.
Another trip to Myanmar is now organised for March 2015
to follow-up on contacts made and relationships established
there. In November 2014, I signed an MOU between the
Society and the Guangxi Lawyers Association, followed by
another MOU with the Shenzhen Lawyers Association. In
late December, I will sign an agreement of friendship and
co-operation with the Korean Bar Association. Friendly bar
associations amongst others in Taipei, Tokyo, Hong Kong
are also keen to continue to explore further collaboration
and co-operation with us. We will be organising more study
as well as marketing trips for our members at least to visit
our friends in these jurisdictions. I believe these friendship
and co-operation agreements and the trips we organise
for members are useful. They allow our members to see,
appreciate and consider the potential risks and benefits of
regional work. Such work need not be the province of midsized and larger practices only. I know of enough lawyers
in small practices doing remarkably well serving regional
05
clients to know that such success stories can be told of
many more of our practitioners, and we should facilitate
that.
At the Opening of the Legal Year 2014, I also mentioned
that the Society will review contingency fees in the areas
of access to justice and international arbitration and
mediation matters. The Society completed its Report in July
2014. This was circulated to members, and discussed by
numerous committees and at a town hall discussion with
members on 20 November 2014. I am happy to note that
most members, though not all, welcome changes to at least
these two categories of access to justice and international
dispute resolution matters. The changes signal an intent on
the part of the Society to move in step with practice changes
in jurisdictions elsewhere. It also signals that members are
well aware of the changes taking place, and that they are
prepared to embrace the changes if necessary.
I wish I can be forgiven for this uncharacteristically long
message and hasten to clarify that the above is raised only
to give members an idea of the simple things we tried to
do to make a difference and to honour my colleagues in
the Council, our volunteers on the various Committees
and the staff within the Secretariat who all served with
such a generous spirit. Did we succeed in everything we
undertook? I do not think so. But we tried our best. There
were hits and there were misses. Some members have
asked me which projects or moments have stood out for
me in the last two years. I can think of two. The first is our
involvement in pro bono.
Pro Bono
On pro bono, we have had a tremendously busy but fulfilling
year. Lim Tanguy and his pro bono team worked their guts
out. We thrashed and then fleshed out the guidelines
and the structure for enhanced CLAS (Criminal Legal Aid
Scheme); we increased the reach of the Community Legal
Clinics (“CLCs”) and signed an agreement with the Mayors
of all districts in Singapore to extend the CLCs to all districts
in Singapore; and in September 2014 we launched the
Justice for All Project as the profession’s contribution to the
SG50 celebrations. This Project will include the CLCs and
enhanced CLAS and much more. The idea is to signal the
profession’s commitment to the cause of pro bono and to
bring this message, not just to the ears of members of the
public, but also the hearts of our members. We hope by this
Project to raise the awareness of pro bono and stir the spirit
of generosity within the profession as much as we can.
One of the highlight events of the Justice for All Project is
Just Walk taking place on 10 January 2015. Details of this
event were first announced in the press in September 2014
President’s
Message
together with headlines screaming that the Society aimed
to raise $2m for pro bono work. We appealed to members
for funds and to take part in the Walk. Members responded
with a resounding “yes”! I am pleased to report that as at
the time of this message, we have received pledges and
commitments amounting to over $900,000, putting more
than $1.8m into the pro bono kitty with the dollar for dollar
matching offered by the Government through the Care and
Share Scheme. Over 1,000 lawyers, Judges, prosecutors,
in-house counsel, professors and law students have signed
up to walk on 10 January 2015. It will be a rare coming
together by all stakeholders of the profession in track shoes
and athletic gear - for the community.
The support from members is not only generous but broad
based as well. They come from those well connected to
the pro bono cause, and those not so. Mrs Arfat Selvam,
a past President of the Law Society, Chairperson of our
Pro Bono Committee and a pillar for pro bono support of
the Law Society, together with her husband contributed
$50,000 to the event. One of my long-time partners at
Rodyk & Davidson, Mrs Lee Ai Ming, a relative newbie
to the Society’s pro bono initiatives, rallied to the cause
when I spoke to her about it. She raised $30,000 through
her clients. Last I heard, she is still banging on tables and
kicking doors for more.
Response to the event has been reflective of the way the
profession has warmed up to and supported most of Council’s
initiatives. Such support encourages us because it helps to
know that the work of Council is not often undertaken alone.
I have found out that our work is sometimes acknowledged,
frequently appreciated, and almost always well supported.
Bench & Bar Games – Victory at Last in 2013
And the second special project or moment for me? It has
to go back to May 2013, when we seized on our home
advantage and secured the Judge’s Cup at the 2013 edition
of the Bench & Bar Games. It was quite a feeling having
the Cup back after seven long losing years! But what made
it even more special was the camaraderie and friendship
which bound together all who took part in the Games. I
recorded in my message in the June 2013 edition of the
Singapore Law Gazette this observation:
What made an indelible impression on me was the
sight I beheld as I surveyed the ballroom just as
our CJ was handed the Judge’s Cup; all across
the ballroom, Judges, convenors, captains and
players from both sides shared tables, goodwill
and laughter. And as CJ lifted the Cup, everyone
cheered. High fives and hugs were exchanged.
President’s
Message
06
I could remember that incredible scene as if it happened only
yesterday evening. For a moment then, we all celebrated the
triumph of sports and we celebrated our unity; no distinction
between big firms or small firms, no distinction between
dispute or transactional lawyers, no distinction between old
or young lawyers. We celebrated the fact that we are all
lawyers trying to outdo other lawyers, not in the Courts or
boardrooms, but in sports. And the fun we all had in doing
so was celebrated as much as the result!
My Gratitude
I leave office at the end of this year after two years as
President following my decision not to seek re-election.
They were two wonderful, immensely satisfying and fulfilling
years! I must say from the outset that I owe so much to
the Secretariat team led by Tan Su-Yin. I am aware and
am appreciative of the fact that every Director and staff
member gave their all and worked as best as they could for
the Society and our members. Much of their hard work is
unseen, something many of us in Council and in the general
membership have taken for granted. It has also been a
pleasure writing these messages and I thank Sharmaine
Lau and her team for their patience and excellent editorial
support.
I record my deepest appreciation too to my fellow Council
members, all of whom have served faithfully, many
sacrificially, at the expense of their own precious time and
convenience. I thank them for keeping faith with me and for
their support.
Finally, I thank you all, the members for your support, your
kind words of encouragement and from time to time, your
expressions of appreciation. It has been an honour and
privilege to be your President. I have not been materially
enriched by the office you have entrusted to me, but I have
been immensely enriched by the precious friendships and
wonderful memories associated with it.
I now ask that you extend to my good friend and successor
Thio Shen Yi, his excellent Vice-Presidents Kelvin Wong
and Gregory Vijayendran, and his team the same faith,
support and friendship you extended to me and to my team
the last two years.
A blessed 2015 to all!
► Lok Vi Ming, Senior Counsel
President
The Singapore Law Gazette Awards 2015
Qualifying Period: July 2014 to June 2015
In 2013, the Publications Committee of the Law Society
inaugurated the Singapore Law Gazette (the “Law Gazette”)
Awards for best feature articles.
The qualifying period for the 2015 awards is from July 2014
to June 2015 (for articles published in the Features section of
the Law Gazette during this period). If you are interested in
contributing an article on substantive law or a case commentary
for the Features section, please write to the Publications
Director, Sharmaine Lau, at [email protected].
Articles received between now till 10 May 2015 will be considered
for publication in the qualifying period for the awards. However,
notice should be given to the Publications Director of your
interest to submit an article by no later than 15 March 2015.
Two awards may be awarded, subject to the decision of the
judges and the Publications Committee: “Best Feature Article
and “Best Feature Article by a Young Lawyer”*. Articles jointly
written by two or more writers will also qualify.
All qualifying articles will be judged based on the following
criteria:
1. Depth of analysis, display of thought leadership and
whether cited in a judgment;
2. Depth of research; and
3. Writing style.
We welcome article contributions from members of the legal
profession, including practising lawyers, law academics, inhouse counsel and those in the legal service. Apart from the
opportunity to share your views on an area of law of interest to
you, you might stand a chance to win the coveted award. If you
are interested in contributing an article, write in today!
* "Best Feature Article by a Young Lawyer" is a person 35 years of age or below at the
time of submission of the article.
07
News
Dinner and Dance
Annual Dinner and Dance 2014
The Law Society of Singapore held its annual Dinner and
Dance at Marriott Hotel on Friday, 14 November 2014.
Friend of the Law Society:
Approximately 500 guests attended the dinner, including
the Attorney-General, Judges and Judicial Commissioners
of the Supreme Court as well as other distinguished guests.
Law Gazette Awards:
The emcee for the night was our own member, Mr Adrian
Tan.
At the Dinner, the C C Tan Award 2014 was conferred on
Dr Gopalan Raman and the Pro Bono Ambassador Award
2014/2015 was conferred on Mr Suresh Damodara.
Mr Patrick Nathan, Singapore Institute of Legal Education
Prof Low Kee Yang, Mr Choo Zheng Xi and Mr Fong Wei Li
Fund-raising activities to raise funds for the Pro Bono
Services Office’s upcoming initiatives namely “Justice for
All” and “Just Walk”, included a silent ballot at the Dinner as
well as sales of charity tables.
The Law Society would like to thank the following firms who
purchased the Silver tables:
Other award recipients for 2014 included the following:
1. Ashurst LLP
Volunteer of the Year Award:
2. Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow
Large-sized law practice: Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Medium-sized law practice: Anthony Law Corporation
Small-sized law practice: S T Chelvan & Company
Sole-practitioner law practice: Lisa Sam & Company
Contributor of the Year Award:
4. Sidley Austin LLP
The Law Society would also like to thank sponsor Yamaha
Music (Asia) Private Limited, our official media partner The
Peak Magazine and our emcee Mr Adrian Tan.
TSMP Law Corporation
Plaque of Appreciation:
3. Harry Elias Partnership LLP
Mr Chan Leng Sun, SC, Ms Mimi Oh Kim Heoh, Mr Peter
Keith Fernando and Mr Tham Lijing
News
08
Dinner and Dance
Citation for C C Tan Award 2014
This citation was read by Vice-President Mr Thio Shen Yi, SC.
other party. He does so however with grace, reason and
respect, all in the best traditions of a senior advocate. He has
a reputation of a senior lawyer possessed of magnanimity
and integrity, who also happens to be the leading authority
on Probate, Wills and Trusts in Singapore. I remember that
during my years serving as CPD Chair, we could always
count on Dr Raman, “Mr Reliable”, to share his knowledge
by helming extensive seminars and workshops on probate
for the benefit of our members.
Vice-President Mr Thio Shen Yi, SC, reading the citation
It is my privilege to read the citation of the C C Tan award
2014.
For members of the profession who have had the privilege
of knowing Mr Tan Chye Cheng, or C C Tan as he is
fondly remembered by the Bar, they would say that he
had throughout his long professional life embodied and
exemplified the virtues of the legal profession – honesty,
fair play, gentlemanliness and personal integrity.
The Council of the Law Society inaugurated the C C Tan
award in 2003 in his memory and presents this award
annually to a member of the Bar who exemplifies these
qualities.
I am pleased to announce that this year’s recipient of the C
C Tan Award is Dr Gopalan Raman.
Dr. Raman completed his LL.B. in 1966 and qualified as
Barrister-at-Law in 1968 at Lincoln’s Inn. Clearly committed
to lifelong learning, he obtained a Ph.D from the University of
London in December 2003. He began practice in Singapore
in 1969, has persevered in practice for 45 years, and is
currently a Senior Consultant with KhattarWong LLP. Dr.
Raman was also a Council Member of the Law Society of
Singapore in 2004 and was elected Vice-President in 2005.
Known for his forthrightness and candor, he has no qualms
in articulating his views, regardless of the identity of the
Dr Raman has chosen to specialize in probate practice, an
area which some consider as less sexy or glamorous. Upon
being asked in an interview why he found probate practice
so fulfilling, he said, with his typical clarity and empathy, that
his cases offered “a revelation on what motivates certain
people - Greed, vindictiveness in challenging what is not
challengeable and a callous indifference to the feelings of
beneficiaries inter se constitute the regular fare in probate
work.” (If I may be permitted a digression from this citation,
Dr Raman, you seem to have a fascination with the less
salubrious aspects of the human condition!)
Piercing beyond his reputation as an expert on probate
law, his gentlemanly demeanour makes him eminently
approachable. I also have irrefutable hearsay evidence that
he does not hesitate to render assistance when requested,
particularly to younger members of the Bar. A member of
this Council once remarked that in his first year of practice,
he was assigned to defend a hopeless summary judgment
application, and after he lost the hearing, opposing counsel
Dr Raman took pains to speak to him to commend and
compliment the effort. That encouraged a defeated newbie
and made a lasting impression on him. It is Dr Raman’s
spirit of generosity which has motivated and continues to
motivate those around him.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Dr Raman personifies a role model
for younger lawyers to aspire to (and I hope to include myself
amongst them), and exemplifies the values celebrated by
the CC Tan Award.
For his personal integrity, honesty and contributions to
the legal fraternity in Singapore, the Council is pleased to
present Dr Gopalan Raman .with the 2014 C C Tan Award.
It is my privilege to welcome Dr Raman on stage to receive
the Award, and to invite the President of the Law Society to
present it on our behalf.
09
News
Dinner and Dance
Acceptance Speech by Dr Gopalan Raman
Strictures were placed on what the Society can do. Imagine
a provision that the Society can only deal with legislation
referred to it and that we could not comment on any law
unless invited to do so. With the passing of time the anxieties
we had of a takeover of the Law Society’s functions by the
Academy were laid to rest.
But we now have another worry. This is the proposed
amendments to the Legal Profession Act under which all
professional matters of both local and foreign lawyers will be
brought under the aegis of the Ministry of Law. A Director of
Legal Services will oversee professional matters including
disciplinary actions.
Dr Gopalan Raman receiving the CC Tan Award from President Mr Lok Vi
Ming, SC
The Honourable Attorney-General, Judges and Judicial
Commissioners, President of the Law Society, Ladies and
Gentlemen.
I am privileged to be the recipient of this year’s C C Tan
Award. It is indeed a challenging task to live up to the ideals
of Mr Tan. I say “challenging” because in today’s material
world where everyone is focusing on the bottom line, it is
difficult to balance ideals with reality.
But balance we must. To-day’s event is a call for pro bono
work and volunteering for civic work that the society is
embarked on. Despite our affluence and belonging to the
First World and a GDP anyone would be envious of, we
have the disadvantaged in our society.
There is now a group of dedicated lawyers who have
unstintingly given their time and labour to improve the lot
of the underprivileged. These dedicated volunteers deserve
our appreciation and gratitude.
There has also been a sea change in the Society’s relations
with the government. The government is forthcoming in
extending a helping hand. The spirit of co-operation is
manifest. Our bond with the Academy of Law is strong.
There is a collegiate spirit between the two professional
bodies although Singapore has the distinction of having two
professional bodies representing the same profession.
Older members of the Bar saw something ominous when
the idea of the Academy was initially mooted. It came at a
time when there was ferment in the profession which led
to the government amending the Legal Profession Act.
I am a passionate believer in the autonomy of the Law
Society. An independent Bar is a pre-requisite for an
independent Judiciary. In fact we once had an AG, Dr
Ahmad Ibrahim, Singapore’s 1st AG, who was against
the nomination by the Law Minister of unelected council
members. He was vetoed. Dr Ahmad Ibrahim was a lawyer
worthy of that name. He brings to mind what Albert Einstein
once said:
“Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition
from weak minds.”
We do not want our fate to be in the hands of some unseen
functionary who may owe loyalty to his appointor and not to
the profession especially in today’s legal environment where
business considerations may trump professional ideals.
We have bold spirits in our midst especially among the
younger members of the Bar who nurture ideals to serve
society. Some have been disillusioned and chose to quit the
profession and pursue careers which do not clash with their
ideals. Let me send this appeal to them and to everyone
else,
“The future of the profession is in your hands. Rally round
and realize your ideals.”
It is my earnest hope that we would one day be able to
translate into reality, more effectively, the objectives set out
in the Professional Conduct Rules:
“To maintain the Rule of Law” and
“The independence and integrity of the profession.”
Thank you.
News
10
Dinner and Dance
President Mr Lok Vi Ming, SC, giving a speech at the dinner
Mr Suresh Damodara receiving the
Pro Bono Ambassador award from
President Mr Lok Vi Ming, SC
Emcee for the evening, Mr Adrian Tan
Award winners and guests (L to R): Tham Lijing, Choo Zheng Xi, Fong Wei Li,
Thio Shen Yi, SC, Melvin Chan, Patrick Nathan, Lok Vi Ming, SC, Kelvin Wong,
Prof Low Kee Yang, Dr Gopalan Raman, Peter Fernando, M Lukshumayeh
News
12
Dinner and Dance
13
Professional Services
zette’s
a
G
w
a
the L
under
n
n
i
o
e
i
t
s
i
c
t
e
r
s
Adve
irectory
ces”
d
i
v
w
r
e
n
e
S
all
l
a
sio
s
e
f
o
r
P
“
n
bers
ty mem count
e
i
c
o
S
is
Law
a 30% d ct
o
t
d
e
l
t
are enti months contra
for a 12
Please call +65 6349 0172 or
send your queries to [email protected]
Expert Witnesses for Vehicle Collisions
Specialising in:
Collision Simulation and Animation
Occupant Dynamics and Driver Identification
Pedestrian and Low Speed Impact Reconstruction
Crash Data Retrieval
Serving the legal profession for over 30 years
Harry Aust
Charles Aust
B.Tech. (Eng), M.I.E.Aust, M ITAI-UK,
M ASPACI, M SAE-INT, M ANZFSS
B.E. (Mech), Grad. I. E.Aust, AM SAE-A
PO Box 6000, Linden Park, South Australia, 5065, Australia
Tel: +61 8 8338 2382
[email protected]
[email protected]
14
World’s leading
restructuring firm
The Corporate Finance/Restructuring practice of
FTI Consulting provides the full spectrum of support with
respect to distressed situations including restructuring,
turnaround and corporate recovery services. The practice
has a reputation for taking on challenging and complex
assignments that require exceptional strategic and
technical capabilities.
Contact: Mark Chadwick
Senior Managing Director
[email protected]
Tel: +65 6831 7824
8 Shenton Way, #12-02, AXA Tower
Singapore 068811
Tel: +65 6831 7820
www.fticonsulting.com
CRITICAL THINKING AT THE CRITICAL TIME™
15
Invitation
for Contribution of Articles
The Singapore Law Gazette (“SLG¹HUVMÄJPHSW\ISPJH[PVUVM[OL3H^:VJPL[`HPTZ
[V IL HU LK\JH[PVUHS YLZV\YJL MVY IV[O WYHJ[PZPUN SH^`LYZ HUK PUOV\ZL JV\UZLS
H MVY\T MVY KLIH[L HUK H \ZLM\S YLMLYLUJL VM OPNO X\HSP[` JVTTPZZPVULK HY[PJSLZ
JV]LYPUNHSSSLNHSZWLJPHS[PLZ
4LTILYZ VM [OL 3H^ :VJPL[` UVUWYHJ[PZPUN SLNHS WYVMLZZPVUHSZ HUK WYVMLZZPVUHSZ
PU YLSH[LK ÄLSKZ HYL ^LSJVTL [V Z\ITP[ ^LSSYLZLHYJOLK THU\ZJYPW[Z [OH[ HYL VM
LK\JH[PVUHSTLYP[HUKSPRLS`[VILVMPU[LYLZ[[VH^PKLYHUNPUNSLNHSH\KPLUJL
:\ITPZZPVUZ HYL ^LSJVTL [OYV\NOV\[ [OL `LHY (SS Z\ITPZZPVUZ ZOV\SK IL
\UW\ISPZOLK ^VYRZ IL[^LLU [V ^VYKZ HUK HYL Z\IQLJ[ [V [OL 3H^
:VJPL[`»ZYL]PL^
;OL:3.PZ[OLWYLTPLYSLNHSQV\YUHSMVYHSSSH^`LYZHUKV[OLYYLSH[LKWYVMLZZPVUHSZ
WYHJ[PZPUN PU :PUNHWVYL 6\Y HY[PJSLZ HYL YLHK I` YLHKLYZ PUJS\KPUN
WYHJ[P[PVULYZ[OLQ\KPJPHY`[OLSLNHSZLY]PJL[OLHJHKLTPHSPIYHYPLZV]LYZLHZIHY
HZZVJPH[PVUZHUKHZPNUPÄJHU[U\TILYVMPUOV\ZLJV\UZLSPU:PUNHWVYL
We look forward to hearing from you!
Please e-mail all enquiries,
suggestions and submissions to
Chandranie at
[email protected]
News
16
Law Society Office Renovations
A New Look for Our Old Home
After three months during which the Secretariat staff relocated
to a serviced office, the renovations were completed and we
moved back on 1 November 2014. A simple launch of the
renovated premises was held on 18 November 2014 with
past Presidents, Council members and staff witnessing the
ribbon cutting ceremony presided by President Mr Lok Vi
Ming, SC. Thereafter, an open house was held for the rest
of the day where all members were invited to drop in.
The reception area looking modern and sleek
Over three months from 1 August to 31 October 2014,
the Law Society’s Secretariat headquarters at 39 South
Bridge Road underwent extensive renovations. The office,
a four-storey shophouse, was purchased in 1998 and
initially housed only about 20 staff. Over the years, as the
Secretariat strength grew to 65 staff to support the Society’s
growing membership and increased activities, space
increasingly became a challenge.
Council, after considering several options including the
purchase or rental of larger premises, eventually concluded
that it would be most cost effective to renovate the existing
premises to provide for a more efficient utilisation of space
which could yield bigger conference and meeting rooms,
two additional meeting rooms and an almost doubling of
work stations.
Said Mr Lok, “There are many people I need to thank
for the renewed and refreshed premises. Firstly the
members, for empowering our decision to renovate the
premises with many among us providing good counsel to
us on this decision; the Secretariat for putting up with the
inconvenience of moving out, operating from temporary
premises and then moving back again, all within three
months. Last but not least, I must thank Mr Kenneth Liang of
Ban Soon Heng Engineering Pte Ltd; they did a marvellous
job completing the entire job within a very tight time frame
and accommodated changes and additions as best as they
could; and to Mr Melvin Tan and Ms Karen Wong of Laud
Architects, who, together with Mr Christopher Chong of Pod
Design Studio, conceptualised, developed and executed
the design concept with great creativity and efficiency. Laud
were runners up in the design concept for the State Courts
Complex and were in high demand when we approached
them to consider our renovation job. They gallantly
responded to our invitation to conceptualise a design for
our premises that will be nice and yield more rooms within
the budget of $800,000. We were also running on a very
tight time frame, but Laud took everything in stride; they
succeeded in giving us more rooms, a modern and classy
entrance foyer and the arty and rather expensive looking
aged look of the walls which complement the shop-house
structure of the premises perfectly.”
Conceptualising the Design – Views from
Our Architect, Interior Designer and Main
Contractor
It was indeed a privilege to be chosen to undertake
the design and renovation works for the existing Law
Society premises at South Bridge Road.
Since the premises serve not only the members of the
law fraternity but also the public, we sought to design a
space that would be warm yet professional, exuding a
sense of understated elegance.
President Mr Lok Vi Ming, SC, cutting the ribbon at the launch ceremony
The ground floor now houses a large welcome foyer
where guests and members are received.
17
News
This space comprises a waiting area as well as the
main reception, which was designed as a monolithic
travertine block, carved out to house the signage and
lighting features. This is contrasted with the simple black
backdrop, made interesting by the choice of a roughfinish steel plate and exposed joints.
The theme of the timber laminate ceilings is carried
consistently through the lift lobbies on all floors.
On the second storey, this ceiling feature houses a cove
light that signifies the entrance to the main conference
room.
Inside the conference room, an operable wall was
added, allowing a cosy corner to be created whilst
maintaining a still sizeable meeting area that can house
20 persons. When the operable wall is tucked away, the
conference room can easily take up to 35-40 persons for
larger meetings.
The wall finish on the 1st and 2nd storeys are primarily
made of plaster and paint, imprinted by hand, with timber
strips, to create a rustic yet elegant pattern. This rough
finish is pleasantly offset by the timber laminates used
for the doors and cabinets alike. Similarly, a textured
carpet was chosen to complement the walls, whilst
ensuring low maintenance with its varied design.
The 3rd and 4th storeys house the main workstations
of the staff, with a marked increase in the number of
workstations accommodated. The separating panels of
the workstations were designed to be low so that the
overall space feels bright and airy.
The walls were clad with wall paper that allows a softer
touch and feel to the otherwise utilitarian space.
Externally, the paint colour choices were matched to the
corporate colours of the Law Society logo.
As no alterations were allowed to the facade due to
conservation guidelines, the grid pattern was retained
and finished in simple white paint, with only restricted
portions highlighted with the grey and maroon tones.
Design Architect: LAUD Architects Pte Ltd
Interior Designer: POD Design Studio
Main Contractor: Ban Soon Heng Engineering Pte Ltd
What Our Presidents Have to Say
“Council has achieved much with such limited space
and, I’m sure limited funds, but the result is wonderful!”
Mr Chelva Rajah, SC
Past President (1990-1992)
“I’m delighted to learn of the enhanced use of space to
accommodate more support staff, and especially that
members can also use the meeting rooms. Wow.”
Mr Peter Cuthbert Low
“I have always advocated that it is preferable and
important to own, and to maintain and upgrade one’s
‘home’ so as to spark a constant flow of positive energy
and enthusiasm in our legal profession.
The renovated premises of the Law Society of
Singapore (“LSS”) will, I am sure create an exciting
‘buzz’ and renewed energy for the organisation and its
stakeholders. More importantly, it is a reminder of the
progress an important institution like the LSS has made.
The timely renovated office of the LSS is a marked
improvement and I am very happy for the Management
and Staff, who will no doubt work well in a more
conducive work environment.
How the LSS has progressed since the 1960s and over
the last five decades of its existence! From a humble
professional organisation originally operating with only
two staff members in a small room on the ground floor
of the Supreme Court licensed to LSS with the blessings
and encouragement of the then and late Honourable
Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin, to what it is today. The
LSS Council had a challenging time then, in terms
of membership support, space, staff and finances.
How we have progressed and faced and overcome
many challenges. It is the spirit of the Bar that is most
essential and crucial, and hopefully today’s generation
will continue to lift the spirit of LSS to greater heights.
And no doubt in the next few decades we will go on to
greater and more ambitious goals!
The LSS in the 1980s slowly ventured and leased a
small and humble unit at Colombo Court, next to the old
Supreme Court building. With the leased premises being
too small as we in LSS Council progressed, we then
News
18
opened up our minds to being a little more ambitious
to acquire our own LSS premises, and purchased the
current premises at South Bridge Road in the late 1990s.
When we have our own home the spirit and passion for
the Bar intensifies.
We have come a long way and the spirit, love and affection
for the Bar by its members cannot be taken for granted.
All of us members, senior and new entrants must play
our part and the oneness as a united family and wanting
to strengthen this very important democratic institution
in Singapore must be the duty and responsibility of all
LSS members and not just the Law Society Council
Members and the sub-committee members.
A strong Law Society must always be part and parcel of
the legal profession and the legal fraternity, forever.
And I hope with the more spacious and renovated
premises the members would be encouraged to be
much more proactive and ensure a more vibrant LSS.”
Mr Chandra Mohan K. Nair
“I’m delighted to see the new look for the Society’s
premises. Visitors will get a good first impression of the
Society from the well-lit and bright foyer. I especially
like how the Council meeting room has been re-done.
This is where the real business of the Society is done,
Guests admiring the premises
over long hours of deliberation, and it is important that
Council members have a good environment to work in.”
Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, SC
“The renovated office is bright and pleasant. Space use
is maximised. It is very functional but with a touch of
aesthetic in the interior decor.”
Dr Gopalan Raman
Past Vice-President (2005)
“I loved the spaciousness of the design, and the practical
way in which the architects had made best use of the
limited space available. I am sure that the secretariat will
enjoy their work much more in this new environment, and
our visitors will likewise be impressed with the warm and
welcoming atmosphere of our new conference room.”
Mr Michael Hwang, SC
Past President (2008-July 2010)
“We are fortunate to be the beneficiaries of the courage
of earlier leaders like the late Palakrishnan who, together
with then President of the Law Society, Chandra Mohan
K. Nair, took the tough and not entirely popular decision
to buy premises that the Law Society can own and use.”
Mr Lok Vi Ming, SC
President (2013-2014)
Presidents, present and past
19
News
The Post-Renovation Look
Work stations on the 3rd level in orange tones
Work stations on the 4th level in cheery yellow tones
The cosy Relex Lounge
Another meeting room sized ideally for committee meetings
The main conference room aptly named Amicus
The open air timber decked roof top
News
20
Launch Ceremony Cum Open House
(L to R): Mr C R Rajah, SC, Mr Wong Meng Meng, SC, Mr Michael
Hwang, SC, Mr Lok Vi Ming, SC, Mr Thio Shen Yi, SC, Mr Peter
Cuthbert Low, Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair
(L to R): Mr Lok Vi Ming, SC, Mr Peter Cuthbert Low, Dr Gopalan Raman and
Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, SC
21
Feature
The Option to Purchase is frequently used to initiate the sale of a property. Less
frequently and therefore less understood is the Offer to Purchase and the lack of
familiarity with it led to a sale breaking down and to the court case which this article
discusses and extracts lessons from.
A Tale of Two Real Estate Agents
(Lessons in Structuring an Offer to Purchase)
The comment of the learned Judicial Commissioner –
whose judgment in all aspects was upheld by the Court
of Appeal – was well made but as the case shows what
needs to be given dissemination in the real estate agent
industry is rather more than just the method of calculating
option periods. There are other principles of contract law,
besides, which the real estate industry, or for that matter
anyone who has to craft an Offer to Purchase or Option to
Purchase, may usefully note so as not to fall into the errors
that occurred in Chew v Woo.
In the High Court case of Chew Ai Hua, Sandra v Woo
Kah Wai and another (Chesney Real Estate Pte Ltd, third
party) [2013] SGHC 12, (on appeal sub nom Woo Kah Wai
and another v Chew Ai Hua Sandra and another, [2014]
SGCA 41), (“Chew v Woo”), the defendants/appellants (“the
Woos”) received from the plaintiff/respondent (“Sandra”) a
written offer to take an option to purchase from them to
buy their apartment. They were pleased with the price and
other terms Sandra offered and issued to her an option to
purchase. But when Sandra sought to exercise the option,
they rejected her on the ground that she had exceeded
the deadline for exercising the option and forfeited to
themselves the option fee she had paid.
Sandra’s real estate agent had prepared for her the offer (or
the Offer to Purchase) and the Woos’ real estate agent had
prepared for them the option (or the Option to Purchase).
In the ensuing litigation, both the agents testified before
the High Court. After hearing them, the learned Judicial
Commissioner, Lionel Yee JC, observed that there might
be some real estate agents who do not fully appreciate how
option periods should be calculated and said, “It may well
be that the proper interpretation needs to be given proper
dissemination in the industry.”
The first and foremost of these principles is that an
agreement, contractually binding on the seller, to grant
an Option to Purchase to the buyer arises if the following
conditions are met: (i) the offeror (buyer) makes the offer
to pay for and take an option to purchase; (ii) the offeree
(seller) accepts the offer; (iii) consideration is furnished in
the form of the Option Fee proffered to and accepted by the
offeree (seller); (iv) there is sufficient certainty with regard
to the terms of the proposed sale; and (v) the evidentiary
requirements of s 6 (d) of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43) are
satisfied. This principle was set by the Court of Appeal in
Joseph Mathew and another v Singh Chiranjeev and another
[2010] 1 SLR 338 (“Joseph Mathew v Singh Chiranjeev”).
A seller who accepts an Offer to Purchase may, therefore,
be ensnared in a legal bind even before the seller gets
round to issuing the Option to Purchase – a case of being
bound by a contract before a contract. This is contrary to the
mistaken notion, all too common, that despite accepting the
Offer to Purchase, the seller has no contractual obligation of
any sort to the buyer who made the offer until the seller has
actually issued the Option to Purchase.
In Joseph Mathew v Singh Chiranjeev, the appellants, a
husband and wife (the sellers) put their property on the
market. While they were in India, the husband exchanged
e-mails with their real estate agent in Singapore who
informed him that the respondents (the buyers) had made
an offer to purchase their property at a certain price and on
certain other terms. She also told him that the buyers were
Feature
22
requesting for an Option to Purchase to be issued on the
terms offered and they had placed with her a cheque for
the Option Fee in exchange for the Option to Purchase. He
confirmed to her by e-mail his and his wife’s agreement to
sell at the price offered and instructed the agent to bank
in the buyers’ cheque. These e-mails were copied to the
buyers. The agent then prepared the Option to Purchase
and couriered it to him and his wife for them to sign. But
they changed their mind about selling and declined to sign
the Option to Purchase. They offered to return the Option
Fee to the buyers, who rejected the offer and sued.
The sellers argued that until they signed the Option to
Purchase there was no binding contract of any kind between
them and the buyers. The Court of Appeal dismissed the
sellers’ argument and decided in favour of the buyers, laying
down the rule which has been mentioned above. The Court
held that all the ingredients from (i) to (v) were met and this
gave rise to an agreement to grant the Option to Purchase
which was a fully formed contract enforceable on its own
terms, independently of the Option to Purchase which
might or might not, as a matter of fact, follow. Delivering the
judgment of the Court, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA said
at para 19, “The need to courier the Option to Purchase to
the appellants for their signature was merely a necessary
part of the process of giving effect to a binding agreement (to
grant an option) that had already been entered into between
the appellants and the respondents” (emphasis added).
Joseph Mathew v Singh Chiranjeev was followed in
Chew v Woo.
The Woos engaged the real estate agent named Chesney
Real Estate Pte Ltd (“Chesney”) to market the sale of their
apartment. Chesney was run by a director named Ms Cindy
Lim (“Cindy”). Sandra was prepared to buy the apartment at
the price of $920,000 and her real estate agent Mr Adrian
Thoo (“Adrian”) held preliminary discussions with Cindy who
confirmed to him that the Woos were agreeable to the price
and asked him to get his client to make an offer to purchase.
What then followed was a frenzied burst of activity,
astonishingly all in the space of a week, during which a sale
was done and undone and the seeds of litigation were sown:
1. 10 February 2010. Adrian prepared the Offer to
Purchase which Sandra signed with instructions to give
it, together with her cheque for the Option Fee, to the
Woos.
2. 11 February. At Chesney’s office Adrian delivered
the Offer to Purchase and Sandra’s cheque to one
Ms Masila binte Kamis (“Masila”) who was assisting
Cindy in the matter. The Offer to Purchase stipulated
that the owner of the property was to issue an Option
to Purchase and deliver it to the offeror “within three
days (ie 4pm 13 February 2010)” failing which the Offer
would lapse and the option money tendered was to be
refunded immediately. This tight deadline set Masila
scrambling to prepare the Option to Purchase on 11
February itself. She planned for her clients to sign
the Option later that day and told Adrian to return to
Chesney’s office the next day (12 February) to collect
the signed Option to Purchase from her. In the evening
of 11 February at Chesney’s office, Mr. Woo signed the
Option to Purchase, which was dated 11 February, and
took delivery of Sandra’s cheque which he promptly
banked in.
3. 12 February. Adrian was at Chesney’s office to take
delivery of the Option to Purchase. The Offer to
Purchase had a condition which said that the “Option
Period” was “3 days”, which led Masila (wrongly and
fatally as will be seen) to set the Option Period in the
Option to Purchase to expire on 13 February, 4pm.
When Adrian saw the date he asked Masila to have the
Option Period extended. Cindy was not present then,
but on being informed by Masila, Cindy spoke to the
Woos.
4. 13 February (Saturday). This was the eve of Chinese
New Year’s Day.
5. Around noon. The Woos told Cindy they were not
agreeable to any change. According to Cindy, she then
immediately telephoned Adrian and told him accordingly.
But Adrian said she had told him, in that telephone
conversation, that despite the Woos’ decision that the
Option Period was not to be expressly amended, he
could take it that the Woos had agreed to extend the
deadline to three working days, which would expire on
19 February.
6. Late afternoon. By prior arrangement with Masila,
Adrian met up with her at a bus stop in Toa Payoh and
took the signed Option to Purchase from her.
7. 6 pm. Adrian handed the Option to Purchase to Sandra.
8. 14 February (Sunday). This was Chinese New Year’s
Day.
9. 15 February (Monday). This was a Chinese New Year
public holiday.
10. 16 February (Tuesday). This was also a Chinese New
Year public holiday.
23
11. 17 February (Wednesday). To exercise the Option
to Purchase, Sandra was to sign and return it with a
deposit to the Woos’ solicitors before the Option Period
expired. Having been advised by Adrian that the Option
Period was three working days, Sandra’s solicitors
were at the Woos’ solicitors’ office to deliver the signed
Option to Purchase and the deposit but the office was
still closed to business.
12. 18 February (Thursday). Sandra’s solicitors were at the
Woos’ solicitors’ office again to exercise the Option.
The office was open but the Woos’ solicitors refused
to accept delivery on the ground that the Option Period
had already lapsed.
13. Both parties fought much of the case over the factual
issue whether the Woos had at all times insisted that
the expiry date of the Option was to be as stated on
the face of the Option which was 4pm 13 February or
whether they had relented and authorised Cindy to tell
Adrian that he could take it that the expiry date was
changed to three working days thereby effectively
extending it to 19 February. But the Court led them
back to the earlier stage when the Offer to Purchase
was made and accepted.
Feature
Following Joseph Mathew v Singh Chiranjeev, the Court
ruled that when the Woos accepted this Offer to Purchase,
they bound themselves to an agreement with Sandra to
grant her an Option to Purchase in conformity with the terms
set out in her Offer to Purchase and that the remaining issue
was whether the setting of the Option Period to end at 4pm
on 13 February breached the agreement.
The Woos argued against this, submitting that the Offer to
Purchase was in effect an offer to purchase the property
subject to contract and they had accepted it on that basis.
Therefore, there was no contract until they had actually
signed and released the Option to Purchase and the only
issue was whether Sandra had breached it in failing to
exercise it within the Option Period.
To argue as the Woos did is to fail to understand that the
“Offer to Purchase” which Adrian and other real estate
agents regularly use is not an offer to buy the property but
an offer to buy an option for the offeror to buy the property.
(See the Court of Appeal, per Chao Hick Tin JA at Para 47).
The true nature of the beast tends to be masked by the label
“Offer to Purchase”.
The operative part of the Offer to Purchase read as follows:
“We the undersigned hereby offer to purchase [the Property]
… at the purchase price of S$920,000/- … subject to the
following terms and conditions:
1. Option Period: 3 days
2. Completion Period: 12 weeks
3. The sale of [the Property] is subject to signing the
Option to Purchase.
4. Within three (3) Days (i.e. by 4p.m. 13th February
2010), the Owner of [the Property] must either accept
or reject this offer failing which this offer shall lapse. If
rejected, the option money tendered herewith will be
refunded to us within the time stipulated above without
any interest thereon and thereafter neither party shall
have any claim against each other. If accepted, the
Owner shall deliver to the undersigned the Option duly
signed by the Owner within the stipulated time above.
…
Enclosed herewith [cheque] for the amount of S$9,200/- …
made payable to Woo Kah Wai … being Option Money for
the purchase of [the Property].”
Feature
24
The learned Judicial Commissioner therefore rejected the
Woos’ submission, and went on to find that the Woos had
breached the agreement. The Option to Purchase did not
conform in one material aspect – Masila informed Adrian
to collect the signed Option from her on 12 February. The
Offer to Purchase stipulated that the Option Period was to
be “3 days”. Yet the Option required Sandra to exercise
the Option to Purchase by 4pm on 13 February. Since the
Option was to be in Sandra’s hands on 12 February at the
earliest, she would have only a day or so and not three
days, if she had to exercise the Option by 4pm of the next
day. This clearly did not conform to the stipulation in the
Offer for three days. The learned Judicial Commissioner
applied what he described as the general rule that in the
absence of clear evidence that the parties have intended
otherwise, the Option Period does not start on the date the
Option to Purchase is signed but when it is delivered or at
the very earliest when the prospective buyer or the agent
for the prospective buyer is notified that it is available for
collection. The Woos did not comply with this rule and were,
therefore, in breach of the agreement to grant the Option to
Purchase.
From the foregoing, we can see that what ought to have
been an occasion for mutual celebration by the Woos and
Sandra – they because they had managed to dispose of
their apartment at the price they wanted and she because
she had managed to acquire an apartment she liked at a
price she was satisfied was a reasonable price to pay –
descended swiftly into a distressing and destructive game
of forfeit for the lack of draftsmanship. What then, are the
lessons we can learn from Chew v Woo to apply when
drafting an Offer to Purchase? Some of them are as follows.
1. Get the names of the owners right
The Offer to Purchase in Chew v Woo was addressed
to only Mr Woo when Mrs Woo was a joint owner. This
mistake was perpetuated by Masila when she drafted
the Option to Purchase. Since only Mr Woo was
named as the issuer of the Option to Purchase, the
learned Judicial Commissioner noted that in theory (at
least) Sandra could have failed to enforce the Option
against Mrs Woo in view of s 6 (d) of the Civil Law
Act (Cap 43). Section 6(d) effectively provides that no
action can be brought against a person on a promise
or agreement under a contract for the sale or other
disposition of immovable property (or any interest in
such property) unless the promise or agreement or a
note or memorandum of such promise or agreement
is in writing and signed by the person or the person’s
authorised representative. Citing Joseph Mathew v
Singh Chiranjeev, his Honour observed that an Option
to Purchase creates in favour of the option holder an
equitable interest in the land – the contract before him
was of such a nature and, therefore, needed to comply
with s 6 (d).
As it turned out, Adrian was saved an embarrassment
because the fact that Mrs Woo was not named in the
Option and did not sign it was not an issue in the case
– Mrs Woo had chosen not to plead it and as his honour
pointed out, citing the authority of Midlink Development
Pte Ltd v The Stansfield Group Pte Ltd [2004] 4 SLR (R)
258, s 6(d) must be expressly pleaded to be deployed in
legal proceedings.
It has to be said, though, that the circumstances
disclosed at the hearing show that Sandra might not
necessarily have failed in her claim, or been without
other remedies against Mrs Woo had the latter pleaded
a defence based on s 6 (d). But certainly, if Mrs Woo
had pleaded the defence, Sandra would have had
an unnecessary additional hurdle to surmount as
illustrated by Tay Joo Sing v Ku Yu Sang [1994] 3 SLR
719 and Mookka Pillai Rajagopal v Khusvinder Singh
Chopra [1996] 3 SLR (R) 210, two of the several cases
where the issue of missing signatories was vigorously
litigated.
To avoid this potentially sticky problem of the missing coowner’s signature, the drafter of the Offer to Purchase
could, and should unfailingly, carry out an online title
search, a facility provided by Singapore Land Authority
for as little as $18 (at the time of writing), and obtain
instantaneously, among other things, the owner or
owners’ names.
2. Set reasonable and practical deadlines
The Offer to Purchase required the Woos to issue the
Option to Purchase by 4pm 13 February 2010, which
gave Chesney just a day or so to get out the Option to
Purchase, have it signed by the Woos and delivered to
Adrian. This difficult and stressful deadline apparently
caused Chesney to be so confused as to wrongly
set Sandra the same ridiculously short time span to
exercise the Option to Purchase. To anyone who gave it
half a thought, 13 February was a bad day to choose to
do business on because it was a Saturday when most
offices, including Government departments and law
firms, would have closed their doors for the weekend
and even more so because this particular Saturday
was the eve of Chinese New Year’s Day, a day when
those who would not customarily close for business on
a Saturday would probably have done so to begin the
festivities for the Chinese New Year.
25
3. Be precise about dates
The Offer to Purchase stated that the Option Period
was “three days”. The statement “three days” set the
Court the task of having to decide from which date the
countdown of the three days ought to start, and if the
last day fell on a public holiday, what then?
The learned Judicial Commissioner rejected Sandra’s
submission to read it as three “working days”. His
honour construed it to read three “calendar days” which,
in the circumstances of the case, meant that the last
day fell on 15 February (which as we have seen was a
public holiday) and asked – would it be an implied term
that the expiry date was extended to the first working
day? He did not feel compelled to decide the issue
because he was deciding the case on another ground.
However, the Court of Appeal (per Chao Hick Tin JA at
para 86) observed that in such a case, the Woos would
have been bound to ensure that their solicitors’ office
was open on 15 February for Sandra to exercise the
Option to Purchase, notwithstanding that it was a public
holiday.
This would have imposed on not only the Woos’ solicitors
but also Sandra’s solicitors the inconvenience of having
to open their offices when the rest of the community
had taken the day off to enjoy the Chinese New Year
public holidays. It seemed futile to set 4pm, Saturday
as Sandra’s deadline to exercise the Option because if
she really was minded to exercise the Option on or just
before 4pm that day, the Woos would not have been
able to cash in her cheque until the next working day.
No reason was given and there seemed none for the
parties to chase this quick fire schedule without any
regard for the interests of the solicitors and their staff.
Probably insufficient or no thought was given to this
matter by the agents involved.
Feature
holder has to pay a deposit to the seller. Joseph Mathew
v Singh Chiranjeev is an illustration of this. The sellers’
agent told the sellers that the buyers had asked for an
Option to Purchase to be issued in the first instance and
that they had offered to buy the property at the price of
$506,000 and on the following other terms:
1. Option Fee: One per cent.
2. Three weeks to exercise the Option to Purchase ie
from [stated date] to [stated date].
3. Next 9% will be paid to your Lawyer by [stated
date].
4. Completion date: 10 weeks after [stated date].
The Offer to Purchase in Chew v Woo – whilst identifying
the property and stating the offered price, the Option
Fee, the Option Period and the completion date of the
sale – was silent on the payment of a deposit and its
amount. This omission caused the Court of Appeal, on
its own initiative, to ask whether the Offer to Purchase
was sufficiently certain in all its terms to be capable of
being converted, on acceptance by the Woos, into a
contractual agreement to grant an Option to Purchase.
The problem would have been avoided if Adrian had
checked his calendar and stated a specific date which
was a working day rather than state generally “3 days”.
If not a specific date, he could alternatively have written
“3 working days” and defined the term “working day”
as a day that is not a public holiday or a Saturday.
Expressly excluding Saturday is necessary to prevent
unnecessary dispute since Saturday is not universally
adopted as a public holiday. Careful drafters do this.
4. State the deposit payable on the exercising of the
Option to Purchase
An essential feature that makes an Option to Purchase
what it is, is that to exercise the Option to bring into
existence a sale and purchase agreement, the Option
Feature
26
The Court said, “For a valid contract for the grant of an
OTP (ie Option to Purchase) to arise, the parties, the
property, the purchase price as well as the amount
payable upon the purchaser’s exercise of the OTP
to be granted must be agreed on … there is genuine
doubt as to whether the OTP was sufficiently
complete to give rise, upon its acceptance, to a valid
contract for the grant of an OTP without stipulating
the sum that was payable upon the exercise of
the OTP to be granted. Without such a stipulation
in a contract for the grant of an OTP, there would be
uncertainty as to what sum of money the vendor may
require from the purchaser upon the latter’s exercise of
the OTP”(emphasis added).
The Option to Purchase issued by the Woos provided
that on exercising the Option, Sandra was to pay a
deposit equivalent to five per cent of the sale price
(inclusive of the Option Fee paid.) Although she had not
said anything about the payment of a deposit in her Offer
to Purchase, Sandra was completely happy to go along
with that. On the Woos’ part, they, too, did not seek to
make an issue of the fact that the Offer to Purchase had
been silent on the amount of the deposit Sandra was
willing to pay. The Court concluded from this that the
parties, probably influenced by the industry norm, had
at all times shared the same assumption that a five per
cent deposit (inclusive of the Option Fee) was payable.
Given this common understanding (albeit unspoken)
between the parties, there was never any question of
any uncertainty. The Court, therefore, decided to let the
issue rest.
But the Court went on to warn, “We would, however,
caution that our conclusion on this issue is tied to the
specific facts of this case. If contracts for the grant of
an OTP become more prevalent and if a similar dispute
is argued more comprehensively before this court in
a future case, there may be a different answer to the
question of whether the absence of a term in a contract
for the grant of an OTP (or a document setting out the
terms of such a contract) stipulating the amount payable
on the exercise of the OTP to be granted is fatal to the
completeness of that contract”.
5. Ask for longer rather than shorter Option Period
The Offer to Purchase stated that the Option Period
was to be three days. In inviting the Owner to give
his own client just three days to exercise the Option,
Adrian was doing her a great disfavour. Adrian testified
that he meant three “working” days (which the Court
did not accept.) But even then, the industry standard
for an Option Period is two to three weeks and not
to take advantage of this was a missed opportunity.
The decision to ask for only three days or even three
working days when a longer period would probably
have been agreed by the Owner was seemingly due
to a lack of appreciation why a buyer might prefer to
secure an Option to Purchase in the first instance rather
than entering straightaway into a bilateral sale and
purchase agreement. The Option Period is time that
can be fruitfully used by the buyer to make preliminary
arrangements for financing for the purchase, including
getting the cash to pay for the deposit payable on
the exercising of the Option to Purchase, and by the
buyer’s solicitors to make important investigations on
the property. If the buyer and the solicitors are satisfied
with the results well before the expiry of the Option
Period, the buyer may proceed to exercise the Option
– the buyer is not compelled to wait until the last day of
the Option Period to exercise the Option. It therefore
serves the buyer to have a longer Option Period rather
than a shorter one.
6. Offeror - Prepare the Option to Purchase
In most cases, the parties proceed immediately to settle
an Option to Purchase or even an outright bilateral sale
agreement. In these cases, the seller drafts the Option
to Purchase or the bilateral sale agreement for the
buyer’s consideration. This is a convention, a sensible
one based on practical reasons and convenience but
nevertheless a convention at best, not an iron-clad rule,
and there are occasionally instances where the buyer
prepares the Option or the agreement for the seller’s
consideration.
In an Offer to Purchase situation, there is no such
convention. On the contrary, in a situation similar
to Chew v Woo, the buyer would be well advised to
seize the initiative to prepare the Option to Purchase
to accompany the Offer to Purchase. This is because
in as much as the seller becomes contractually bound
to issue an Option to Purchase to the buyer once the
seller accepts the buyer’s Offer to Purchase without
qualification, equally the buyer is contractually bound
to accept the Option as issued by the seller (so long as
the Option conforms to the terms stated in the Offer) on
pain of having the Option Fee forfeited otherwise.
Therefore, the buyer who leaves things half unsaid,
impliedly yielding the right to the seller to decide on
the rest of the terms of the sale, puts himself or herself
at peril. To illustrate the potential problems this could
cause, we return to Chew v Woo.
27
a. In her Offer to Purchase, Sandra did not state the
sum of the deposit she had in mind to pay on the
exercise of the Option and left it to the Woos to
decide. As it turned out, the Woos were restrained
and required a deposit of only five per cent of the
sale price (including the Option Fee) and this suited
Sandra. As the Court of Appeal observed, this
concurrence might have had something to do with
the industry norm.
But what if the Woos had required a 10 per cent
deposit?
In Joseph Mathew v Singh Chiranjeev, where the
negotiations took place in mid- 2007, the parties
agreed to a 10 per cent deposit. So five per cent
for a deposit is by no means the one and only
percentage that the industry sees. In fact, before
2005, 10 per cent was pretty much the norm because
most buyers would have to pay at least 10 per cent
of the sale price with their own cash. In July 2005,
by a combination of rule-changes by the Monetary
Authority of Singapore and the Central Provident
Fund, a buyer of private residential property, if
eligible, could take a 90 per cent loan and pay the
remaining 10 per cent through a combination of at
least five per cent in cash and the remainder with
CPF. Since, in theory, the buyer had to pay only five
per cent with the buyer’s own cash, the trend in the
industry began to shift toward the taking of a five
per cent deposit. Though there are suggestions that
the 10 per cent deposit could face extinction, it has
not quite gone the way of the dodo yet and indeed
could acquire a new lease of life whenever it is a
rabid sellers’ market.
Feature
not have been able to refund the money to Sandra.
In fact, in the majority of cases the sellers would be
able to discharge their liability to make the refund.
But speaking generally, it is conceivable that a
seller could become insolvent even during the
relatively short time between the date of the sale
agreement and the completion date; if a stubborn
seller is based outside Singapore, it may take costly
court proceedings before the buyer can recover the
money; if the property is mortgaged to the hilt, there
would be no surplus to satisfy the buyer’s lien over
the property for the deposit. In each of these sets
of circumstances the buyer might not be able to
recover the deposit quickly without incurring costs
or worse, might not be able to recover the deposit
at all.
It is always a concern for the buyer’s solicitor to see,
for the first time, the non-stakeholding provision
when shown by the happy but unsuspecting client
the signed Option to Purchase secured without the
benefit of the solicitor’s input. The buyer’s solicitor
can only fervently hope that all will be well up to the
time that completion is scheduled and completion
is effected without incident – hope because the
buyer cannot change any of the terms in the Option
b. In not addressing the issue of the deposit, Sandra
also left open the question whether the balance four
per cent (which together with the Option Fee made
up the deposit) was to be paid to the Woos or to the
Woos’ solicitors to hold as stakeholders pending
completion. The Woos were, therefore, at liberty to
provide that the four per cent was to be paid directly
to them. In the circumstances of the case the four
per cent was not paid for the reasons we have
seen earlier, but if Sandra had paid the deposit
to the Woos (and not to their solicitors to hold as
stakeholders), it would have meant that the Woos
could have used the money as they liked subject to
their refunding it if the sale was aborted or to their
crediting Sandra with it if the sale was completed.
There was no suggestion that in this hypothetical
situation, if the sale was aborted the Woos would
Feature
28
without the consent of the seller. Any attempt to
unilaterally impose an obligation on the seller’s
solicitor to hold the deposit as stakeholder would
result in the buyer losing the Option Fee as a forfeit
to the seller and, perhaps more painfully, losing the
opportunity to own the property. This was precisely
what happened in Zain Asif Fancy v Soon Chia
Chuen (alias Sun Jiajun) [2010] 1 SLR 1192 where
the Option provided that to exercise the Option the
buyer had to pay a deposit to the seller. Nothing
was said about the deposit being paid to the seller’s
solicitor for the latter to hold as stakeholder pending
completion. But when the buyer exercised the
Option, he paid the deposit through his solicitor who
paid it to the seller’s solicitor with the direction to
the latter to hold the deposit as stakeholder pending
completion. The seller declared this a breach by the
buyer causing the Option to lapse and the Option
Fee forfeited to him, and he was upheld by the
Court.
7. List out all required terms of the sale
Should the buyer be unable to prepare a formal Option
to Purchase to accompany the Offer, and has to leave
it to the seller to prepare the Option, the buyer should
at least list out briefly in the Offer the conditions of sale
which the buyer requires to see in the Option. These
conditions do not have to be expressed in formal, legal
phraseology as long as the language used is clear
enough.
In addition to the three Ps (Parties, Property and Price)
which are the minimum terms that need to be captured
in writing for any enforceable sale agreement of real
estate to arise, there are also other important terms
that need to be agreed upfront to prevent any disputes
breaking out before the sale can be successfully
completed.
An important term for the buyer is that which is commonly
known as a satisfactory legal requisitions-clause by
which the buyer may withdraw from the sale without
penalty if the authorities’ replies to the legal requisitions
sent to them by the buyer (or the buyer’s solicitors) are
unsatisfactory. This is particularly important to have
where the property is a landed property fronting a busy
road or is at the corner of two busy roads. The buyer
might want to discontinue with the sale if the authorities
advise that there are future or possible plans to widen the
road into part of the property. Or if the buyer has plans to
redevelop the property involving deep piling, the buyer
would want to know whether the property is within what
is known as an MRT safeguarded corridor where such
deep piling may be prohibited. And of course, the buyer
would want to know whether the building or substantial
parts of it have been erected without the approval of the
authorities and are illegal structures, and so on. If the
seller is given the right to draft the Option to Purchase
and it is not a term of the Offer to Purchase that such
a clause is to be included in the Option to Purchase,
the seller will in all probability not include the clause
and then, when the Option to Purchase is issued and
delivered to the buyer it becomes a case of caveat
emptor and the buyer takes the risks.
There are a host of other terms which are important not
only to the buyer but to the seller as well. These are
required to ensure that as far as possible there are no
open ends in the sale agreement which might cause the
parties to squabble. For example, if the property is sold
subject to an existing tenancy, is the security deposit in
the hands of the seller to be transferred to the buyer?
What is to be done if the seller or the buyer fails to
complete the sale on time or at all? Are the property tax
and other outgoings (eg in the case of an apartment in
a condominium, the management corporation’s levies
for maintenance and sinking fund charges) covering
a certain period after the completion date, which the
seller has already paid, to be clawed back by the
seller and if so how should the apportioning be carried
out? Fortunately, most of these nitty gritty details are
captured in the standard terms of sale known as The
Law Society of Singapore’s Conditions of Sale 2012
and these Conditions can easily be included in the Offer
to Purchase by a brief statement that these Conditions
are to apply but that they are general conditions and
apply to the extent that they are not inconsistent with
the other terms that are expressly set out in the Offer.
A possible downside of the approach advocated is that
the parties might not be able to cut a deal extra speedily
since it takes time to plan and prepare a proper Offer
to Purchase and Option to Purchase and to negotiate
and settle the preliminary drafts. But what is the point
of adopting an approach like that in Chew v Woo
where the parties, hoping to tie each other to a binding
commitment immediately, act with undue haste and end
up selling and buying not property but litigation?
► Gan Hiang Chye
Consultant
Corporate – Real Estate
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
LexisNexis CounselLink
®
A tool specially designed for in-house counsel to
manage matter information, spend and
documents
Matter Management
> Track all matter information within a single, robust
solution—all within Outlook
> Update matter data, contents, status notes and
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
templates, across multiple matters—all at the same
time
Manage matters you own or wish to track in a My
Matters queue, where you can access them with
one click
Create and assign budgets for each matter
Collaborate more effectively with outside counsel
Attach relevant documents and notes
Track outside counsel performance across the
board—and view it at a glance
Manage important milestone dates and reminders
Tailor matter data capture to the needs of
individual practice areas
Re-use matter contacts
Legal Hold
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Execute legal hold notifications quickly—and with confidence
Track custodian acknowledgements to ensure accuracy and
compliance
Easily gather survey responses from custodians
Automate the legal hold notification process—and monitor it
from end to end
View all actions related to a hold
Demonstrate that appropriate steps were taken to avoid
spoliation of evidence
View the holds for any and all custodians—and their status
e-billing
>
>
>
>
>
>
Process all invoices (LEDES, paper or email format) to capture 100
percent of your spend and report on invoice charge-level data
Use SmartReview® technology to have your invoice charge details
reviewed and automatically categorized, compared and adjusted against
billing guidelines
Allocate costs to appropriate departments, cost center and general
ledger accounts
Automatically route invoices through the approval process with
configurable workflows
Support hourly and alternative fee arrangements
Review work queues for invoices directly from Outlook
Reporting & Analytics
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Identify legal spend across matters or law firms
Track legal spend and resource allocation during the life of the matter
Spot trends over time
View a snapshot of your legal department operations through
management dashboards
Leverage a standard set of pre-built reports and create custom reports
to meet your needs
Recognize optimized—and non-optimized—billing arrangements
Evaluate the productivity and efficiency of your outside counsel
Make better business decisions— and help produce the ideal business
outcome
For enquiries, please contact our Regional Contact Centre at:
MALAYSIA Tel: 1800.88.8856 Email: [email protected]
@HelpLNMY
SINGAPORE Tel: +65.6349.0110 Email: [email protected]
@HelpLNSG
Feature
30
This article explores the Implied Term of Mutual Trust and Confidence (the “Implied
Term”) which was recently considered by the Court of Appeal in Wee Kim San
Lawrence Bernard v Robinson & Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2014] SGCA 43 (“Wee
Kim San”).
The Implied Term of Mutual Trust and
Confidence
The Implied Term in Wee Kim San
The Appellant Wee Kim San sued his former employer,
Robinson & Co (the “Respondent”) for damages for
constructive dismissal. He relied on, inter alia, the breach
of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence (the
"Implied Term"). The Respondent applied to strike out the
claim for being legally unsustainable, ie even if the Appellant
“were to succeed in proving all the facts that he offers to
prove he will not be entitled to the remedy that he seeks”.1
The Respondent denied the allegation of constructive
dismissal but submitted that even if the Appellant had been
constructively dismissed, he would not be entitled to receive
more than the salary in-lieu of the contractual notice period
that was payable to him under his employment contract. This
is the trite principle for damages for constructive dismissal
as set out in Alexander Proudfoot Productivity Services Co
S’pore Pte Ltd v Sim Hua Ngee Alvin and another appeal2
and Teh Guek Ngor Engelin née Tan and others v Chia Ee
Lin Evelyn and another.3 As the Appellant had been paid
more than the salary in-lieu of the contractual notice period,
he was not entitled to receive any further amount. The case
was struck out at first instance. The Appellant appealed to
the High Court which upheld the dismissal. The Appellant
then appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Appellant’s argument was that he had a sustainable
claim on the basis of the Implied Term as enunciated by the
House of Lords in Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce
International SA [1998] AC 20 (“Malik v BCCI”). On appeal
before the Court of Appeal, the Appellant submitted that his
claim for breach of the Implied Term was in respect of the
premature termination of his employment. The Appellant’s
contention was that the orthodox rule that damages for
constructive dismissal should be limited to the contractual
notice period should not apply where the breach was that
of the Implied Term. The Appellant thus argued that he
should be entitled to claim damages on the basis that he
would have remained in the employment of the Respondent
indefinitely.
31
The Court of Appeal however disagreed with the Appellant.
Critically, it held that it could not be assumed that the
Appellant would have stayed on with the Respondent
indefinitely. Rather the legal assumption was that:
“the employer would have exercised any power it might
have to bring the employment contract to an end at the
earliest date at which it could lawfully do so”. 4
In the present case, the earliest date at which the Respondent
could have lawfully ended the Appellant’s termination was
by giving two months’ notice. Since the Respondent had
given the Appellant the required payment in lieu of notice
and more, the Appellant had not suffered any loss and his
claim was rightly struck out.
The Court of Appeal also observed that in cases of an
alleged breach of the Implied Term, a plaintiff may in theory
claim for heads of loss such as: (i) emotional distress; (ii)
impairment of future employment prospects; or financial
loss flowing from psychiatric or other illness.5 The Court of
Appeal observed (at para 22):
It is true that a breach of an applicable notice period will
generally only have one type of consequence, and that,
in contrast, a breach of the implied term of mutual trust
and confidence can have one or more of a variety of
consequences. A breach of this implied term could give
rise, as it allegedly did here to the premature termination
of the employment contract. But it could also give rise
to an altogether separate category of injury or loss
such as emotional distress or impairment of future
employment prospects (emphasis added).
The Ambit of the Implied Term
Wee Kim San is significant because it accepts and explains
the Implied Term in employment contracts. The Implied
Term as defined in Malik v BCCI is “a portmanteau, general
obligation not to engage in conduct likely to undermine
the trust and confidence required if the employment
relationship is to continue”.6
The proposition of the Implied Term is tempting as it appears
to cover all manner of conduct which the employee finds
objectionable. However, it is suggested that it is important
to guard against the possible abuse of the Implied Term.
While the Implied Term has been in existence even before
Malik v BCCI, it was in Malik v BCCI where its application
attracted attention due to the promise that it held out of
recovery of substantially larger damages than what was
usually recoverable.
Feature
Malik v BCCI
It is important first to understand Malik v BCCI in its context.
Malik v BCCI concerned the collapse of the Bank of Credit
and Commerce International which revealed that the bank
had carried on a dishonest or corrupt business.
The provisional liquidators of the bank terminated the
employment of the applicants in that case on the grounds
of redundancy. However, the applicants were unable to
obtain any employment in the finance industry due to the
“stigma” associated with their former employment with the
bank. Unable to find employment, the applicants lodged
proofs of debt with the provisional liquidators for significant
amounts as compensation for the loss of employment
prospects caused by the aforementioned stigma. The
proofs of debt were rejected by the liquidators and the
applicants commenced the action but were unsuccessful at
first instance. The English Court of Appeal also agreed with
the liquidators that the evidence disclosed no reasonable
cause of action and the applicants’ case was struck out.7
The applicants, however, succeeded before the House of
Lords. The House of Lords found that the bank was under
an implied obligation of mutual trust and confidence, ie the
Implied Term, not to conduct its business in a dishonest or
corrupt manner. The House of Lords then acknowledged
in principle that the bank could be responsible for the
applicant’s financial losses if it were reasonably foreseeable
that the loss (in terms of the applicants’ handicap in the
financial market) suffered by the applicants was a result
of the breach of trust and confidence. The House of Lords
reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision to strike out the
applicants’ case and the applicants were allowed to proceed
in their action.
In coming to its decision, the House of Lords distinguished
between two forms of losses namely “premature termination
losses” and “continuing financial losses”:8
1. Premature termination losses: the benefits the employee
would have received had the contract been performed
by the employer.
2. Continuing financial losses: loss over and above the
loss of pay and other premature termination losses
suffered as a result of the breach of the implied term
of trust and confidence. An employee may find himself
worse off financially than when he entered into the
contract.
Feature
32
It was recognised that the “stigma” suffered by the applicants
in Malik v BCCI and the diminished future employment
prospects of the applicants as a result of the breach of
the Implied Term could potentially result in damages for
continuing financial losses, subject to the applicant’s ability
to prove the same at the trial of the action.
Ultimately, it should be highlighted that Malik v BCCI
was essentially a decision on a preliminary issue only, ie
whether the applicants’ case disclosed a reasonable cause
of action.9 In the trial proceedings that followed Malik v
BCCI, the former employees were unable to attribute their
inability to seek employment to the breach of the Implied
Term and accordingly failed in their claim.
Clarification of Malik v BCCI in Light of Wee Kim
San
In Wee Kim San, the Court of Appeal clarified the distinction
between the two forms of losses recoverable. The key lies
in the consequences that may flow from the breach.10
the defendant. The suit was a consolidated action of two
suits. The second of the two suits involved a claim against
the defendant for wrongful termination as the defendant
had summarily dismissed the plaintiff for engaging in illegal
cash-back arrangements as a financial advisor.
The plaintiff had raised the issue on the basis of Malik
v BCCI that the summary dismissal had handicapped
him in the labour market as he was no longer able to
secure an equivalent position in the finance industry. It
was acknowledged that if the plaintiff could show that: (i)
the defendant had wrongfully dismissed the plaintiff in a
manner which amounted to a breach of the Implied Term;
and (ii) the plaintiff had suffered a “real and provable
financial loss”, then the plaintiff would be entitled to claim
against the defendant for loss beyond the contractual notice
period. This was however a moot point given that the Court
had found that the defendant was entitled to terminate the
plaintiff's employment.
If the breach of the Implied Term brings upon the premature
termination of the employment contract (ie on the alleged
facts of Wee Kim San), then the damages recoverable are
the same as in a case of wrongful dismissal, which is the
amount the employee would have received if the contract
was brought to an end lawfully (ie premature termination
losses only).11
The case of Wong Leong Wei is in essence an affirmation
of the limited proposition in Malik v BCCI. It was similarly
clarified in Wee Kim San that the case of Wong Leong
Wei was focused on a claim for damages arising from the
handicap in the labour market which may therefore result
in damages over and above the payment of salary for the
contractual notice period. Wong Leong Wei was not a claim
whereby the main complaint of the plaintiff was that he had
been wrongfully dismissed.13
An employee may seek damages over and above the
contractual notice period only if the employee can
show that the breach of the Implied Term results in other
consequential losses. An example would be the Malik v
BCCI type of “stigma” damages. Of course, as can be seen
from Malik v BCCI, the question of proof is a whole other
challenge altogether.
The second decision is Cheah Peng Hock v Luzhou Biochem Technology Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 577 (“Cheah Peng
Hock”). In Cheah Peng Hock, the plaintiff was the former
Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the defendant. The
plaintiff relied on the breach of the Implied Term and Malik
v BCCI. The conduct constituting the breach of the Implied
Term included the following:
Previous Decisions on the Applicability of the
Implied Term Clarified in Light of the Court of
Appeal Decision
1. The exclusion of the plaintiff from meetings held to
discuss his decisions as a CEO;
Prior to Wee Kim San, there have been attempts to rely
on the breach of the Implied Term to extend the claim of
damages beyond the contractual notice period.12 The
following are two recent High Court decisions concerning
the reach of Malik v BCCI which have now been clarified in
light of Wee Kim San.
The first decision is the Singapore High Court case of Wong
Leong Wei Edward and another v Acclaim Insurance Brokers
Pte Ltd and Anor [2010] SGHC 352 (“Wong Leong Wei”). In
Wong Leong Wei, the plaintiff was formerly employed by
2. The appointment of another person as a “joint-CEO”;
3. The plaintiff’s ability to command the respect of the
senior management was undermined; and
The withdrawal of the company car and the taking over
of the plaintiff’s CEO office which the Court found was
calculated to cause embarrassment to the plaintiff.
Notwithstanding the adverse conditions the plaintiff was
subjected to, the damages were nonetheless computed
with reference to the contractual termination clause and the
33
Feature
plaintiff was awarded the salary he would have received
had the contract been terminated under the clause.
Notes
1
The “Bunga Melati 5” [2012] 4 SLR 546 at [39].
The case of Cheah Peng Hock demonstrates that no matter
how adverse the conditions which constitute the breach of
the Implied Term, without any further proof of other financial
loss as a result of the said breach, the damages the plaintiff
is entitled to would be limited to what he is contractually
entitled to had the contract been terminated lawfully, ie
premature termination losses.
2
[1992] 3 SLR(R) 933.
3
[2005] 3 SLR(R) 22.
4
[25] of the Grounds of Decision.
5
[22], [26] and [27] of the Grounds of Decision.
6
Malik v BCCI, p 35.
7
The facts of Malik v BCCI were saliently summarised in the High Court Decision at
[25].
Conclusion
8
Malik v BCCI at pp 36-37.
9
See also [26] of the High Court Decision.
10
11
The normal measure of damages in cases for wrongful dismissal has been established in
the Singapore Court of Appeal decisions in Alexander Proudfoot Productivity Services Co
Singapore Pte Ltd v Sim Hua Ngee Alvin and another appeal [1992] 3 SLR(R) 933 and
Teh Guek Ngor Engelin nee Tan and others v Chia Ee Lin Evelyn and another [2005]
3 SLR(R) 22.
12
Malik v BCCI was also recently considered in the Singapore High Court case of Daniel
John Brader v Commerzbank AG [2013] SGHC 284. However, the case did not
pertain to the specific issue of damages flowing from the breach of the Implied Term
beyond the contractual notice period.
13
It has now been clarified that the damages that an employee
is entitled to claim from the breach of the Implied Term
depends on the consequences flowing from the breach. In
most cases, the breach of the Implied Term simply results in
the same outcome as a case of wrongful dismissal. It is only
in limited cases such as emotional distress or loss of future
employment prospects that the damages may be higher.
Even then, the plaintiff in such cases has to prove his loss.
Seen in that light, the Implied Term is not a panacea that
allows employees to claim a larger amount of damages
against their employers. The disgruntled employee must
always refer back to his contract and the actual losses that
he has suffered.
► MK Eusuff Ali *
Tan Rajah & Cheah
► Megan Chia
Tan Rajah & Cheah
► Tham Lijing
Tan Rajah & Cheah
* The authors represented the Respondent in Wee Kim San. The views expressed
in this article are the personal views of the authors.
Feature
34
The High Court in the recent case of PP v Hue An Li held that for an offence of
negligent act causing death under section 304A(b) of the Penal Code, in a road
traffic case, the benchmark sentence will be increased from a fine, to a custodial
term of up to four weeks. This note examines the court’s reasoning in increasing the
benchmark, and briefly discusses the uncertainties in the application and scope of
the new benchmark.
Jail Term as New Benchmark Sentence for Careless
Driving Causing Death – PP v Hue An Li: A Case
Commentary
This case note assesses the Court’s reasoning in increasing
the benchmark sentence, and argues that the express
justification relied on by the Court for the increase is, with
respect, problematic in several ways. Fortunately, the
Court did allude, albeit only in quick passing, to what is a
more satisfactory justification – the need to effect general
deterrence – for the increase. This note will then more fully
explore this justification. Finally, some uncertainties in the
application and scope of the new benchmark will be briefly
discussed. To be sure, the Court in Hue also touched on
other pertinent issues such as the distinction between
rashness and negligence in the context of s 304A,5 the
aggravating factors applicable to s 304A(b) traffic death
cases (eg sleepy driving),6 and when prospective overruling
may be justified.7 The Court’s comments on these issues
certainly also make for extremely appetizing food for
thought, but remain outside the scope of this note.
Introduction
The recent Magistrate’s Appeal case of PP v Hue An Li
(“Hue”)1 is by many measures a landmark decision in
Singapore’s criminal law jurisprudence. Inter alia, the
High Court pronounced that for an offence of negligent act
causing death under s 304A(b) of the Penal Code (“PC”),2
in a road traffic case, the benchmark of a fine – a tariff that
prevailed for over twenty years in Singapore – will no longer
apply. Instead, the new starting point for such an offence
will be a brief imprisonment term of up to four weeks.3 Such
a critical change will no doubt impact a number of criminal
practitioners as the offence is not infrequently encountered
in practice, and will also be of interest to many of us who
drive in our day-to-day lives. The significance of the decision
is underscored by the fact that Hue was heard by a specially
constituted three-member High Court bench, led by the
Chief Justice,4 and an amicus curiae had to be additionally
appointed to assist the bench.
The material facts of Hue are these: the accused, while
travelling in her motorcar along the Pan-Island Expressway,
tried to overtake a lorry on her left that was transporting nine
passengers in its rear cabin. While overtaking, the accused’s
car gradually veered left before its front left collided into
the right rear of the lorry. The collision caused the lorry to
rotate, hit a barricade and flip. The nine passengers were
thrown out of the vehicle, leaving eight injured, and one
dead. The lorry driver and his front passenger were also
injured. In the accused’s mitigation, it was submitted that
the collision occurred as the accused “blanked out due to
her tired mental state”.8 The accused pleaded guilty to a
charge under s 304A(b) of the PC and consented to having
two other charges (one count of negligent act causing
grievous hurt under s 338(b) of the PC and one count of
negligent act causing hurt under s 337(b) of the PC) taken
into consideration in sentencing. At first instance, she was
sentenced to a fine of $10,000 and was disqualified from
35
driving for five years. The Public Prosecutor then appealed
on the basis that a custodial term should have been
imposed. The High Court allowed the appeal and increased
the punishment to four weeks’ imprisonment (with the fine
amount refunded). The five-year disqualification period was
not disturbed.
Analysis of the Court’s Justification for Increasing
the Benchmark
At the outset, it is pertinent to point out that determining
the benchmark sentence, or indeed the sentence in any
particular case involving negligent act causing death, is
probably one of the toughest and most morally complex task
a sentencer can encounter. In my view, this is because for
this offence, the usual two main sentencing considerations,
extent of harm and culpability of the offender,9 are at
complete opposite ends of their respective spectrums.10 On
the one hand, the offence will involve (at least) a death,
indubitably the most severe form of harm anyone can inflict
to another. On the other hand, in terms of mens rea, the
offender was merely negligent, the least serious form of
culpability (relative to rashness, knowledge and intention).
Those who place more weight on an offender’s culpability
may feel that at most a high fine is justified as punishment,
as although a life was lost, it was attributable only to the
offender’s carelessness. Those, in particular the victim’s
next-of-kin, who focus more on the consequence caused will
feel that a harsher punishment should be imposed, because
regardless of the offender’s state of mind, a precious life
was lost. There is, however, no helpful guidance on whether
in such a situation, one should accord more weight to the
former or latter sentencing consideration.
Dissecting the Court’s Reasoning
How then did the High Court in Hue resolve this challenging
tension?11 It first noted that the prevailing benchmark
was set out over two decades ago in PP v Gan Lim Soon
(“Gan”).12 In that case, Yong CJ (as he then was) held that in
a case of rash driving causing death (under s 304A(a) of the
PC), an imprisonment term is generally imposed, whereas
in a case of negligent driving causing death, “it would be
sufficient in most cases to inflict a fine”.13 The Court noted
that Gan was decided prior to the 2008 amendments to the
PC, where s 304A read:14
Whoever causes the death of any person by doing
any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable
homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with
both.
Feature
Following the 2008 amendments, s 304A now reads:
Whoever causes the death of any person by doing
any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable
homicide shall be punished –
a) In the case of a rash act, with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to 5 years, or with fine, or
with both; or
b) In the case of a negligent act, with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or
with both,
The Court then cited PP v Kwong Kok Hing (“Kwong”),15
where the Court of Appeal held that: (i) a sentence close to
or at the statutory maximum would be imposed for conduct
that was amongst the worst conceivable for that particular
offence; and (ii) it was incumbent on a sentencing Court to
take note of the statutory maximum and determine precisely
where a particular offender’s conduct fell within the spectrum
of punishment devised by Parliament. Extrapolating from
this, the Court opined that “the default punitive position for a
particular offence must be determined with reference to the
punishment at the two ends of the spectrum”.16 Given that
the two ends for an offence under s 304A(b) of the PC are,
respectively, two years’ imprisonment and a nominal fine,
two possible approximate midpoints are: a large fine, and a
brief period of incarceration. Crucially, the Court went on to
reason that:17
It seems clear to us that following the 2008 Penal Code
amendments, the positon laid down in Gan Lim Soon is
no longer tenable, given the bifurcation of the old s 304A
into two limbs. Parliament could have chosen to retain
the language of the old s 304A and to merely increase
the statutory maximum term of imprisonment to five
years. That would have left the Gan Lim Soon position
untouched. Instead, Parliament chose to bifurcate the
old s 304A and make it clear that causing death by
negligence and causing death by rashness would each
have its own sentencing range.
In the premises, we are satisfied that the starting point
for sentencing in a s 304A(b) traffic death case is a brief
period of incarceration for up to four weeks.
The above appears to be the Court’s only explicit grounds to
justify the monumental increase18 in the benchmark from a
fine (as expounded in Gan) to a custodial term of up to four
weeks. The Court’s subsequent comments as regards “The
amount of harm caused”, “Special classes of vulnerable
victims”, “Speeding”, “Impaired judgment: drink-driving”
Feature
36
and “Impaired judgment: sleepy driving”19 seek to explain
whether these qualify as aggravating factors in sentencing
a s 304A(b) offender, and do not seem to relate to justifying
the increase in the benchmark sentence.
Careful reading of the Court’s explicit grounds reveals that
there is a leap in its logic. It cannot be that simply because
Parliament decided that causing death by negligence and
causing death by rashness are now to have separate
sentencing ranges, Parliament therefore also intended that
the benchmark for the former offence be increased from a
fine to a brief custodial term. A best estimate of the Court’s
implicit reasoning must thus be something along the lines
of:
a) Prior to the 2008 amendments, the maximum penalty
for causing death by negligence was in effect less than
two years’ imprisonment, since negligence shared the
same punishment provision as its rashness counterpart
and negligence is less serious than rashness. After the
amendments, the maximum penalty for causing death
by negligence was increased to a clear two years’
imprisonment.
b) Prior to the 2008 amendments, the prevailing benchmark
for causing death by negligent act as expounded in Gan
was a mere fine.
c) Because after the 2008 amendments the maximum
penalty for causing death by negligence was increased
from less than two years to two years’ imprisonment,
Parliament therefore also intended for the previous
benchmark of a fine, to be increased to a short custodial
term.
Problems with the Court’s Reasoning
Dissecting in this manner the Court’s underlying premises
reveals the problems in the reasoning. Preliminarily, in
relation to strand (a), on a plain reading of s 304A pre-2008
amendment, the statutory maximums of both causing death
by negligence and rashness were two years’ imprisonment.
While the Courts may have thought that when two mens
rea share the same punishment provision, the less serious
mens rea is to have a lower maximum penalty than is
expressly stated, there is no evidence that in making the
amendments in 2008, Parliament adopted that same
position and proceeded on the assumption that the previous
effective maximum penalty for causing death by negligence
was less than two years’ imprisonment.20 If the previous
maximum penalty for causing death by negligence is two
years’ imprisonment and that is still the case after the 2008
amendments, strand (c) does not follow.
Even if we accept that Parliament had treated the maximum
penalty for causing death by negligence prior to the
amendments as less than two years’ imprisonment, strand
(c) itself remains problematic as it flies against the express
intention of Parliament in effecting the 2008 amendments
to the PC. In the debates, one Member of Parliament, Mr
Lim Biow Chuan, sought affirmation that by amending the
range of penalties prescribed in the PC, “the intention of
Parliament is not for the judges to automatically increase
the punishment nor should the courts interpret the setting
of a higher limit to mean that the crime has become more
serious”.21 To this, the Senior Minister of State for Home
Affairs’ (Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee) categorical response
was:22
… we must leave it to the courts to mete out punishment
… Mr Lim Biow Chuan asks whether what we have done
will lead automatically to fines or punishments going up.
I do not think so. He has mentioned, for example, the
benchmarks, the sentencing guidelines, that the courts
have. I think the guidelines will continue. It does
not mean that automatically when the maximum
punishment is raised, the punishment will go up.
Because every punishment must depend on the facts
of the case. And I think the new Chief Justice has
mentioned that the punishment should fit the crime
as well as the offender. So, let us see what happens
(emphasis added).
In other words, Parliament patently did not have any
intention to automatically increase sentencing benchmarks
when a maximum penalty is raised.23 Its intent was in fact to
leave that decision to the Courts, after the Courts properly
consider the crime and the offender. Yet, the only apparent
justification the Court in Hue resorted to in increasing the
benchmark was to rely on Parliament’s intention. This
cannot be right.
Further, the fact that Parliament could have chosen to
retain the language of the old s 304A and merely increase
the maximum term of imprisonment to five years, but it
instead accorded negligent and rashness its own separate
sentencing range, does not provide any better indication of
its intention to increase the benchmark. It is equally, if not
more, possible that the sole reason Parliament bifurcated
the old s 304A was because it desired to only increase
the maximum penalty for causing death by rash act to five
years’ imprisonment, and to preserve that for causing death
by negligent act at two years’ imprisonment. This is entirely
consistent with some of the considerations Parliament took
into account in deciding to increase maximum sentences.
As explained by the then-Minister of Home Affairs (Mr Wong
Kan Seng), these considerations include (i) the need to
37
maintain proportionality between offence and punishment;
(ii) having the type and quantum of punishment that provide
sufficient flexibility to the Courts to mete out an appropriate
sentence in a case; and (iii) the need to maintain relativity
in the punishment for related offences within the PC.24 The
lattermost consideration may have played the greatest
role; with the bifurcation, the severest punishment for the
different manners of causing death (apart from murder) are
now more neatly and relatively calibrated:
1. Negligent act causing death – maximum imprisonment
of two years (s 304A(b) of the PC);
2. Rash act causing death – maximum imprisonment of
five years (s 304A(a) of the PC);
3. Knowledge that likely to cause death – maximum
imprisonment of 10 years (s 304(b) of the PC); and
4. Intention to cause death – imprisonment for life or up to
20 years (s 304(a) of the PC).
Put simply, it is difficult to see how in bifurcating the old
s 304A, one of Parliament’s intention must have been to
at the same time increase the benchmark for negligent act
causing death as well.
Given how controversial increasing the benchmark for
a s 304A(b) offence is,25 it is arguably unsatisfactory that
the Court in Hue worked off what appears to be vague
and speculative assumptions of Parliament’s intent. Much
clearer intention of Parliament to so increase should have
been necessary. For instance, in the case of Yang Suan
Piau Steven v PP (“Steven”),26 Chan CJ (as he then was)
was not willing to accept that policy considerations call for
a custodial sentence for a first offender of Giving False
Information under s 129 of the Customs Act.27 At [51], he
noted that “Parliament has not evinced such a policy”
(emphasis added). There is no reason why more speculation
and extrapolation is permitted in the context of a negligent
act causing death offence.
Feature
Ultimately, even assuming that the Court in Hue was right
that in the 2008 amendments to the PC, Parliament had
intended that the benchmark sentence for negligent act
causing death be increased, the crucial question remains:
why must the increase be from a fine, to a custodial term?
Can it not be an increase in merely the tariff quantum
of the fine (eg from around $8,000 to around $20,000)?
Currently, the highest fine Courts impose for the offence is
$10,000.28 But that is only because the offence is commonly
classified as a Magistrate Arrest Case, where the maximum
fine a Magistrate Judge may impose is $10,000.29 Certainly,
the Criminal Procedure Code allows such an offence to be
tried in a District Court,30 where the District Judge may then
order a huge fine of up to $30,000.31
The above discussion sought to show that the Hue
Court’s reasoning (see page 36 above) for increasing the
benchmark is quite unjustifiable. A better rationale, which
will be proposed below, is therefore needed to justify the
increase. Even if we accept the Court’s reasoning as valid,
there is still an outstanding issue: the Hue Court’s reasoning
is wholly devoid of explicit consideration of established
sentencing rationales. This ignores the direction of the Court
of Appeal. In Kwong, the Court of Appeal commented that:32
... a court should always endeavour to explain its
sentencing philosophy in the interests of justice and
transparency…
As to the Court’s earlier reference to the approximate
midpoint sentence under s 304A(b), it is not clear at all what
role this played in justifying the increase in the benchmark. It
could not have been an alternative standalone justification
because all it led to was that there are two possible
approximate midpoints: a large fine, and a brief period of
imprisonment. Resort still had to be had to Parliament’s
intention to explain the Court’s decision to prefer the latter.
The other possible purpose for the reference is simply to
show that the two most viable sentencing benchmarks are a
large fine and a brief period of imprisonment. Nonetheless,
referring just to Gan would have achieved the same purpose.
Feature
38
In arriving at an appropriate sentence, a court should
almost invariably consider the relevance of the
sentencing considerations of deterrence, retribution,
prevention and rehabilitation at the outset. It should
assess which of these considerations have the greatest
cogency in any given factual matrix.
Practically speaking, the laying down of a sentencing
benchmark (as did the Court in Hue) will ipso facto likely
improve consistency in sentencing. That should be
welcomed. Nevertheless, it is submitted that when a Court
sets out a sentencing guideline but omits to articulate
which rationale has the foremost cogency for the particular
offence, the likelihood of achieving consistency may be
significantly undermined because another Court which finds
it hard to accept the guideline may readily but unjustifiably
depart from it by: (i) emphasising some other sentencing
rationale(s) to justify the departure; or (ii) according too
much weight to certain mitigating factors. In a similar vein, it
has been explained that:33
[o]ne of the aims of structuring discretion should be to
ensure that it is exercised in a principled manner, and
one essential step must be to decide upon a rationale
for sentencing. A choice should be made between
deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, reparation or
desert as the leading aim … Unless decisions of principle
are taken on priorities … the resultant uncertainty would
be a recipe for disparity,
and more bluntly that “[w]ithout an explicit and wellarticulated guiding aim, consistency is a forlorn hope”.34
Re-rationalising the Increase in Benchmark
The sentencing rationale which best justifies increasing
the benchmark for and which should take centre stage
in an offence of negligent act causing death is general
deterrence.35 To be fair, the Court in Hue did hint at general
deterrence, although only obliquely, in the penultimate
paragraph of the judgment:36
We would like to take this opportunity to signal to
drivers the consequences of the tremendous risks that
they take on, not only to themselves but also to other
innocent road users, when they drive despite not being
in a fit condition to do so.
The lattermost phrase of the paragraph suggests that the
Court was alluding to general deterrence specifically vis-àvis sleepy and drink-drivers. But general deterrence can go
further to justify the benchmark sentence of a short custodial
term, as opposed to a mere fine, for s 304A(b) offenders in
general. As approved by the High Court in Tan Fook Sum:37
What will facilitate more rational and informed
sentencing is recognition that there is a dichotomy
between public interest and aggravating or mitigating
factors. Generally speaking, only the public interest
should affect the type of sentence to be imposed
while only aggravating and mitigating circumstances
affect the duration or severity of the sentence imposed.
(emphasis added).
Our Courts have held that general deterrence is warranted
in offences affecting public safety.38 Driving on the roads,
even if only negligently, seriously jeopardises the lives and
safety of a large segment of the public, that is, road users.
It has been emphasised that “the motor car is a particularly
violent and potentially dangerous instrument”.39 Following
from this, there is thus substantial public interest in the law
signalling that any negligent driving that causes death will
likely be met with a very stiff (though not disproportionate)
sentence such as a brief custodial term, since “the custodial
sentence is the most satisfactory and powerful way of
expressing public disapproval”.40
Of course, it is hard to quibble with the proposition that “the
mere fact that a human life is lost does not in itself justify
the Court in passing a deterrent sentence”.41 However, it
bears highlighting that negligent driving poses much more
tremendous risks than other kinds of negligent acts, eg
medical negligence. For negligent driving, the danger is
not just to one, but potentially to numerous other road
users. A single negligent act in driving can lead to the loss
of many innocent lives. The need to strongly signal this is
the key justification for imposing a short custodial term as
benchmark sentence for s 304A(b) traffic death cases.
The following analogy may help persuade those who remain
unconvinced: imagine a hypothetical jurisdiction where
humans are permitted to carry with them an explosive.
Once dropped, the explosive has a killing radius of a dozen
over metres. Any carelessness on the part of those who
choose to carry the explosive may cause the loss of lives
of multiple persons. In order to encourage maximum care
for those who carry the explosive, it should not be hard to
see that a stiff sentence in the form of a custodial term has
to be imposed on those who drop the explosive and cause
death(s), even if only negligently. The potential and actual
consequences of the act must outweigh the culpability
of the offender. This conclusion should apply with equal
force to negligent driving cause death given the similar
enormous risks posed.
39
The prevalence of fatal road accidents in Singapore may
also go some way to augment the need to effect general
deterrence,42 thereby further justifying a brief custodial
term as starting point for s 304A(b) traffic death cases.
While the number of traffic accident deaths has fallen from
168 in 2012 to 159 in 2013,43 the Courts may note that:
1. the number of such deaths is arguably still hovering at
an undesirable level.44 One life loss in a traffic accident
is one life too many;
2. the number of fatalities arising from accidents that
involve heavy vehicles increased from 32 in 2012 to 44
in 201345; and
3. there is also an increase in traffic violations since 2011.
As observed by the Singapore Police Force, “such a
trend remains a concern as every traffic violation can
potentially result in a fatal or injury accident and the loss
of lives”.46
In sum, the public interest in ensuring sufficient general
deterrence in s 304A(b) traffic death cases is a better
justification for increasing the benchmark to a brief
imprisonment term, at least compared to the Hue Court’s
arguably misplaced reliance on Parliament’s intention.
Admittedly though, even this better justification is some
way from being entirely satisfactory. First, while it has been
observed that “[p]sychologically, the higher the punishment,
the more effective it is as a deterrent to future … general
offending”,47 empirical research by criminlogists has failed
to demonstrate any significant or consistent marginal
deterrence, that is, the relationship between the severity of
a punishment and the crime rate of an offence.48 In other
words, increasing the benchmark sentence for a s 304A(b)
offence from a fine to a custodial term may in fact do little
or nothing to reduce the occurrence of such offences in
future.49 Nonetheless, despite awareness of this deficiency,
our Courts have remained willing, as a matter of judicial
policy, to advance public interest by imposing deterrent
sentences.50 Second, it may be contended that the desire to
effect increased general deterrence for such offences need
not be fulfilled by increasing the starting point sentence from
a fine to a short custodial term. The same can be achieved
by maintaining the benchmark of a fine, but increasing the
tariff disqualification period for the offender to say 10 years.
This appears to be quite an attractive option considering
the observation that disqualification is “the punishment
most feared by the motorist and therefore the most effective
deterrent”.51
Feature
Outstanding Uncertainties in Application and
Scope of New Benchmark
Having dealt with the rationalisation of the new benchmark,
it might be useful to briefly highlight two uncertainties
with its application and scope. The first is that the Courts,
prosecutors and defence counsels are likely to find
considerable difficulty in applying this new benchmark
because the Court in Hue did not provide any guidance at
all on what in its view is the archetypal road traffic negligent
act case that deserves a starting point of four weeks
imprisonment. Unhelpfully, Hue itself was not a case that
involved the usual negligent driving - it involved aggravated
or gross negligence.52 Furthermore, the Court phrased the
new starting point somewhat confusingly as a custodial term
of up to four weeks. So for instance, in a common case
where a driver was negligent for failing to keep a proper
lookout, is the starting point four weeks imprisonment, to be
adjusted for aggravating (eg more than one victim involved)
and mitigating (eg contributory negligence) factors? Or is
the starting point for such relatively low degree negligence
cases perhaps one week or even one day imprisonment,
liable to be adjusted up or down, while the starting point of
four weeks is meant for higher degree negligence cases? It
seems that the Court in Hue was content to leave it to future
Courts to develop this area on a case-by-case basis.
Feature
40
My tentative proposal is for Courts to take reference from
pre-Hue precedents (that applied the Gan benchmark) as
a rough guide, and correspondingly calibrate the sentences
to be imposed in factually similar cases in light of the new
benchmark:
1. Pre-Hue, even simple negligence cases arising from a
failure to keep a proper lookout or to exercise proper
care and caution would usually attract a heavy fine
of $7,000 to $10,000 where death is caused.53 PostHue, these should form the archetypal s 304A(b)
traffic death cases that attract a starting point of four
weeks’ imprisonment. A custodial term lower than four
weeks may be imposed where there are recognised
mitigating factors such as contributory negligence on
the part of the victim, and a high fine should now only
be imposed where there are very exceptional mitigating
circumstances.
2. Pre-Hue, short custodial terms of a week or two were
ordered for negligence cases with aggravating factors,
such as where there is simply no reason for the offender
to have failed to spot the victim.54 Post-Hue, negligence
cases with such aggravating factors (excluding those
highlighted in [67] to [92] in Hue) should generally
attract an imprisonment term slightly higher than the
starting point of four weeks, eg. five to seven weeks.
And as Hue itself clearly decided, in a negligent act causing
death case where there are aggravating factors specifically
analysed in Hue (ie speeding, drink-driving and sleepy
driving), the starting point should be between two to four
months’ imprisonment.55
The second potential uncertainty is whether the new starting
point should also apply generally to non-traffic s 304A(b)
cases, for instance, medical negligence causing death.
While the Court in Hue held that this new benchmark is to
apply to a s 304A(b) traffic death case, if we accept the
Court’s reasoning in having this new benchmark (see page
36 above), then a good argument can be made that the new
benchmark should apply generally to all s 304A(b) cases.
This is because the benchmark expounded in Gan has
previously been applied to non-traffic death by negligence
cases.56 And given that Parliament bifurcated the old s 304A
such that all causing death by negligence cases are to have
a maximum penalty of up to two years, logically, the increase
in benchmark should apply to all such cases as well.
However, it is cautioned that Courts should not unthinkingly
so extend the new benchmark. As argued above, the more
defensible justification for increasing the benchmark is the
need to signal that in traffic negligence cases, tremendous
risks to multiple road users are involved. This rationale may
not apply to non-traffic s 304A(b) cases. Courts should,
therefore, closely examine the specific context of negligent
act causing death before deciding whether to also apply the
new starting point expounded in Hue.
Conclusion
There is little doubt that the increase in benchmark for s
304A(b) traffic death cases from a fine to a brief custodial
term will be viewed as a significant, yet controversial
change. After all, the position that negligent act causing
death offenders would usually meet with a fine has been
accepted and applied for over twenty years in Singapore.57
This well-entrenched position is similar to that adopted in
England, where the Court of Appeal has held that in cases
where a fatal accident has arisen through momentary
inattention or misjudgment, a fine is usually sufficient.58
Indeed, in relation to the proposed amendment in 2008 to s
304A of the PC, the Law Society of Singapore went so far
as to submit that:59
[g]enerally, imprisonment is not a suitable punishment
for negligence and the maximum punishment of 2 years’
imprisonment under s. 304A(b) for negligent causing
of death appears excessive. We recommend that no
imprisonment be prescribed for the negligent causing
of death.
In light of this, it is unfortunate that the Hue Court’s
justification for increasing the benchmark is: (i) premised
on unjustified assumptions of and reliance on Parliament’s
intention; and (ii) lacks transparency vis-à-vis the relevant
sentencing consideration(s). Thankfully, there is a better
justification – the need to effect general deterrence in s
304A(b) traffic death cases. That said, for what it is worth,
even that justification is not fully satisfactory, and there
are uncertainties in the application and scope of the new
benchmark that criminal practitioners and the Courts will
surely have to grapple with. What is clear then, is that how
the Courts henceforth develop sentencing in s 304A(b)
cases, will be very keenly watched by many.
* I am grateful for the helpful comments provided by Jason Nim, Fong Jing Heng
and Vincent Ong on an earlier draft of this case note. All errors are solely mine.
► Benny Tan*
Tutor, Legal Skills Programme
National University of Singapore,
Faculty of Law
41
Notes
Feature
32
Kwong, supra (note 15 above) at [19] and [33].
33
Andrew von Hirsch, Andrew Ashworth and Julian Roberts (eds), Principled Sentencing:
Readings on Theory and Policy (Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2009),
p 231.
Ibid, Andrew Ashworth, “Techniques for Reducing Sentence Disparity”, p 243 at 251.
1
[2014] SGHC 171.
2
(Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).
3
Hue, supra (note1 above) at [61] and [133].
34
4
The other two Judges being Chao Hick Tin JA and Tan Siong Thye JC (as he then was).
35
See also Sentencing Practice, supra (note 28 above), p 1657.
5
Hue, supra (note 1 above) at [30]-[55].
36
Hue, supra (note 1 above) at [135].
6
Ibid at [67]-[92].
37
7
Ibid at [99]-[125].
See generally Kow Keng Siong, Sentencing Principles in Singapore (Singapore: Academy
Publishing, 2009) at [25.025]ff.
8
Ibid at [5], quoting from the accused’s plea in mitigation.
38
See esp PP v Law Aik Meng [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 at [24d] (“Law”).
9
See Tan Kay Beng v PP [2006] 4 SLR(R) 10 at [39], citing R v Howells [1999] 1 WLR
307, an English Court of Appeal decision that considered the relevant factors to be
taken into account in deciding when to mete out custodial sentences.
39
Douglas Acres, “Consistently achieving our sentencing aims” in Donald C. Pennington
and Sally Lloyd-Bostock (eds), The Psychology of Sentencing (Oxford: Centre For SocioLegal Studies, 1987), p 61 at 63. See also Jali bin Mohd Yunos v PP [2014] SGCA 50
at [24] and [36].
10
For a similar view, see PP v Abdul Latiff Bin Maideen Pillay [2006] SGDC 245 at [10]
(“Abdul Latiff”).
40
Ibid, p 61 at 64.
11
See generally Hue, supra (note 1 above) at [56]-[61].
41
See PP v Tiyatun & Anor [2002] 1 SLR(R) 746 at [9].
12
[1993] 2 SLR(R) 67.
42
Law, supra (note 38) at [25a].
13
Ibid at [10].
43
14
(Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed).
Singapore Police Force, “Annual Road Traffic Situation 2013” (10 Feb 2014), online:
Singapore Police Force; available at: <www.police.gov.sg/mic/2014/02/20140210_
others_TP_stats.html>.
15
[2008] 2 SLR(R) 684.
44
C.f Lim Kay Han Irene v PP [2010] 3 SLR 240 at [42].
16
45
Supra (note 43 above).
17
Ibid at [60]-[61].
46
Ibid.
18
That the increase was significant was certainly the view of the Court in Hue as well. See
47
Steven, supra (note 26 above) at [51].
48
19
Ibid at [67]-[92], [134].
20
All we know for certain is that in amending some provisions, Parliament had taken
into account comments made by the Judges in their judgments (Parliamentary Debates
Singapore: Official Report, vol 83 at col 2175 (22 Oct 2007)).
See for eg Andrew von Hirsch et al, Criminal Deterrence and Sentence Severity – An
Analysis of Recent Research (Oxford – Portland Oregon: Hart Publishing, 1999), ch
10.1-10.2.
49
There is also controversy as to whether it is even possible to deter negligent-type
offences (see for eg Leslie Y Garfield, “A More Principled Approach to Criminalising
Negligence: A Prescription for the Legislature” (1997-98) 65 Tennessee Law Rev 875
at 883ff). My view is that it is possible.
21
Parliamentary Debates Singapore: Official Report, vol 83 at col 2418 (23 Oct 2007).
22
Ibid at col 2439.
23
See for eg Lim Ghim Peow v PP [2014] SGCA 52 at [56].
24
See Parliamentary Debates Singapore: Official Report, vol 83 at col 971 (22 May 2007).
See also Ministry of Home Affairs (Singapore), “Consultation Paper On The Proposed
Penal Code Amendments” (8 Nov 2006), online: Ministry of Home Affairs; available
at: <www4.mha.gov.sg/data/NewsFiles/d84_2126_312_Public Consultation Paper on
the proposed penal code amendments in PDF format.pdf> at [21].
50
Law, supra (note 38 above) at [19]. See also Abdul Latiff, supra (note 10 above) at [13].
51
Sentencing Practice, supra (note 28 above) at 71, citing PP v Chiam Liang Kee [1960]
MLJ 163. See also Edwin s/o Suse Nathen v PP [2013] 4 SLR 1139 at [13].
52
53
See Sentencing Practice, supra (note 28 above) at 1659-1665.
54
See for eg Abdul Latiff, supra (note 10 above).
25
See para under the heading “Analysis of the Court’s Justification for increasing the
Benchmark”.
55
26
[2013] 1 SLR 809.
56
Sentencing Practice, supra (note 28 above) at 354.
27
(Cap 70, 2004 Rev Ed).
57
28
See the cases cited in Sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts, (3rd edition,
Singpore: LexisNexis, 2013), pp 1659-1665 (“Sentencing Practice”).
58
Sentencing Practice, supra (note 28 above) at 1657, citing the English case of R v
Guilford [1973] RTR 272.
29
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed), s 303(3)(b).
59
30
Ibid at First Schedule (Tabular Statement of Offences under the Penal Code).
31
Ibid at s 303(2)(b).
The Law Society of Singapore, “Executive Summary of Council’s Report on the Proposed
Amendments to the Penal Code”, online: The Law Society of Singapore; available at: <www.
lawsociety.org.sg/forMembers/ResourceCentre/FeedbackinPublicConsultation/2007/
ExecutiveSummaryProposedAmendmentstothePenal.aspx> at [5.2].
Columns
42
Pro Bono Publico
The Law Society of Singapore and YLBHI
Workshop on Advocacy Knowledge and Skills
for Legal Aid Lawyers in Indonesia
Stephanie Keen, Managing Partner at Hogan Lovells in
Singapore, explains that her firm had been keen to get
involved. “Hogan Lovells Lee & Lee looks for opportunities
like this to support given the limitations foreign firms find
in terms of pro bono opportunities in Singapore, and this
particular opportunity in Indonesia was one we felt we
could actively support. Training lawyers to assist people is
something we strongly believe in, and this workshop clearly
achieved this goal.”
system. At its functional core, legal aid is just a regular
transfer of knowledge between a lawyer and a client; a
meeting of the minds between a person seeking advice
and a person able to provide it. What distinguishes this
particular transaction from many others, however, is the
client’s limited financial means. At legal aid’s conceptual
core rests the recognition that without such clients’
access to the law and Courts, the integrity of a country’s
democratic process is undermined, for while the absence
of money does not guarantee an absence of legal woes,
it often limits the availability of representation – sound or
otherwise. Inevitably, rich and poor people in contact with
the legal system enjoy vastly different experiences, and to
some extent, this results in a lack of equality before the law.
In Indonesia, given the high levels of poverty and illiteracy,
the availability of legal aid must be considered a particular
necessity.
The provision of adequate training for legal aid lawyers is
essential to the extent that legal aid is valued in a judicial
The development of organised legal aid in Indonesia
dates back to the 1970s when a group of young lawyers
August 2014 saw the successful completion of a legal
aid training workshop organised by the Law Society of
Singapore and the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation
(“YLBHI”) in Semarang, Central Java. Conducted over
the course of three days, the workshop was sponsored by
Clifford Chance, Hogan Lovells Lee & Lee and Assegaf,
Hamza & Partners of Indonesia.
43
Columns
Pro Bono Publico
founded the Lumbago Bantuan Hokum (“LBH”)/Legal Aid
Foundation in Jakarta.1 The legal aid movement grew
rapidly from then on, and LBH was able to branch out and
establish a network of offices in many of Indonesia’s major
urban centres, until eventually being incorporated into the
YLBHI as a national organisation in 1981.2 By design,
legal aid providers are supposed to support poor and
underprivileged people facing legal problems, but despite
well-intentioned norms and principles, the Indonesian
legal aid movement was severely constrained in terms of
resources and implementation capacity. A lack of lawyers
in a country of around 250,000,000 people may also have
contributed to operational limitations (UNDP estimates
that there are around 22,000 lawyers in Indonesia,3 with a
mere 1000 providing legal aid4). In the end, this meant that
purveyors of legal aid were only able to scratch the surface
of the need for legal assistance in Indonesia, with many of
the country’s poor continuing to endure negligible access to
legal redress.
Efforts have been made in recent years to introduce a
more responsive, accessible and effective criminal justice
system. In 2011, the Legal Aid Law (Law no 16/2011) was
passed, establishing a Government-funded system of legal
aid provision to the poor. IDR 40.8 billion (around SGD
4.3 million) were allocated from state funds managed by
the Ministry of Law and Human Rights (“MLHR”) through
its National Law Development Agency (“BPHN”) to be
channeled through more than 300 accredited legal aid
providers that meet government requirements for state
funding.5 Concerns remain, however, that despite such
reforms, access to justice has yet to improve in Indonesia.
Yasmin Purba, Program Director at YLBHI, identifies a
lack of funding security as the most challenging part of
providing a high quality of service as a current legal aid
provider in Indonesia. “Even though there is a new law on
legal aid providing a reimbursement mechanism for legal
aid services, the mechanism has been implemented poorly,
creating a lot of confusion from legal aid lawyers as to the
transparency of the reimbursement process.” She warns
that such financial restraints on operations only serve to
further perpetuate the legal aid service’s lack of qualified
lawyers, with “many legal aid lawyers choosing to go for
other job opportunities in order to have a more decent life”.
Other basic obstacles to the provision of legal aid include
the lack of awareness of the poor and illiterate, who often
do not know of the availability of legal aid or how to access
it, as well as the geographical distance between the justice
system and many of its users who live in villages far
beyond the reach of the city-based LBH offices. The new
Government-funded system of legal aid provision relies
on implementation by individual legal aid institutes that
historically have focused as much on ideologically charged
civil rights advocacy as they have on legal counselling and
representation,6 and so as the availability and resources
of these facilities are set to expand, so will hopefully the
awareness of their recipients.
Interview with the Workshop Organisers
With the planned expansion of legal aid in Indonesia, there is
a critical need for the training of Indonesian lawyers as legal
aid providers. In view of this, the Law Society of Singapore,
which this year is scaling up outreach efforts of its own Pro
Bono Services Office (“PBSO”) through the expansion of
its Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (“CLAS”), was approached
by YLBHI to assist in its efforts to improve the capacity of
its lawyers at a regional level. As an organisation that also
provides free legal services to the poor, the Law Society
of Singapore decided that supporting the YLBHI with legal
training would be a good opportunity to establish links with
its foreign counterparts and share knowledge outside of
Singapore’s borders.
In Semarang, 15-20 of YLBHI’s lawyers from Semarang and
Surabaya, East Java, came together to join the workshop
on Singapore’s legal system. The classroom-based
training covered criminal and civil procedure, evidence
rules, advocacy skills and a general overview of the Law
Society of Singapore and Singapore’s bar system. Ms
Purba, who helped organise the event, felt it went well. “All
the trainers [were] very competent and well-experienced in
their fields, making all materials delivered in thorough and
insightful manners.” The Indonesian legal aid lawyers, too,
were pleased with the training they received. Although Ms
Purba admits that not all the training subjects were entirely
applicable in an Indonesian context, they “found the legal
system in Singapore very inspiring and the training gave
them a broader perspective in looking at our legal system.”
The training was conducted by Naresh Mahtani, a Partner
at Eldan Law LLP, and Samuel Chacko, Director of Legis
Point LLC, who both agreed to share their experiences of
the workshop with the Singapore Law Gazette.
SLG: Tell me a little bit about your professional
background.
NM: I have been in practice for a long time, 32 years. My
practice has mainly been in dispute resolution, although I
was a criminal lawyer for the first few years. After that, I
switched to commercial and construction. In 1994, I was
one of the founders of ATMD – I’m the ‘M’ in ATMD – but last
year, I moved to Eldan Law LLP which focuses on dispute
resolution and construction, which are my main areas.
Columns
44
Pro Bono Publico
SC: I have been in practice for 20 years now, mainly doing
commercial litigation. I do not do crime, divorce or shipping,
but anything with a commercial angle I do. I also do a lot of
arbitration, construction and civil litigation.
SLG: What is your involvement with the Law Society of
Singapore and its PBSO?
NM: I used to be on the original committee of CLAS when
it was first started, and was CEO of the Law Society of
Singapore for a couple of years back in 2000-2001. At
that time I needed a break from practice, after 20 years
of dealing with other people’s problems, so for two years
I was CEO. After that I returned to private practice. I now
do two to three pro bono cases a year for the Law Society
of Singapore because of my background in criminal law, so
that’s my association with CLAS and why I was asked to
take part in this project.
SC: Apart from this training workshop in Semarang, I
haven’t really done much in terms of pro bono cases since
I don’t do criminal matters and pro bono is largely criminal
cases. However, almost all of my lawyers are signed up with
the Legal Aid Bureau, where they do pro bono work on civil
matters.
SLG: How did the workshop go?
NM: It was such a great place, and I enjoyed doing it. I hope
the Law Society of Singapore continues to do workshops
in Indonesia. I did an arbitration workshop in Cambodia, so
perhaps the Law Society could do something in surrounding
countries also, maybe Cambodia or Myanmar.
SC: I enjoyed myself, also because we were able to learn
about what they were doing at YLBHI. They seemed to be a
lot more established as a pro bono office. Their law goes a
lot further than Singapore law.
SLG: What was your impression of the Indonesian legal
aid lawyers?
NM: [They] were great. Keen and very co-operative.
SC: The lawyers were a very engaged bunch, wanting to do
the good and right thing. They were all keen, but the junior
lawyers were perhaps a little more reticent than the more
vocal and expressive older ones.
SLG: How was the workshop organised?
NM: We did whole day sessions in “criminal procedure”,
“civil procedure” and “evidence”. We also had a mock Court
room scene, both for civil and criminal.
SC: We prepared our own materials, because we were
doing Powerpoint presentations. To a large extent, we
had to simplify it because of language difficulties. Both
Naresh and I speak a bit of Bahasa, so that helped with the
translations. Translation of legal terminology can be difficult,
but we managed eventually.
SLG: Did you encounter any difficulties or challenges
in training lawyers from a different jurisdiction, and
are there any key lessons you would share with other
lawyers developing or implementing similar projects?
NM: It was mainly challenging because the workshops
we were teaching were conducted in English and had
to be translated into Bahasa for the students. It was like
translating medical words from one language to another.
Concepts like corroboration, relevance and admissibility of
evidence. On the first day we had a translator, who was
doing fine. On the second day she didn’t turn up, so they
had to bring in a substitute translator from the Ministry of
Tourism. I remember conducting a lesson in “evidence”, and
at the beginning the new translator was very nervous. I told
him to try his best, but after 20 minutes or half an hour, he
just put his hands up and couldn’t go on. It was too difficult,
and the poor fellow just couldn’t cope. Luckily, there were
students in the class who could translate and everything
went well. There’s perhaps a lesson to be learned. Next
time, we should get some Bahasa speaking lawyers from
Singapore to come along with us.
SC: The main challenge was the language barrier. Apart
from that, they were a keen bunch, willing to learn, asking
intelligent questions. They would contribute by telling us how
their scheme worked, and how they operated in Indonesia.
It wasn’t a one-way street. It was a decent two-way traffic
of information.
SLG: What type of disputes do Indonesian legal aid
lawyers most commonly have to deal with, and do
you think these differ from those most commonly
encountered by legal aid lawyers in Singapore?
NM: The lawyers did talk to us about some of the challenges
they face. Many are involved in human rights cases, as
well as criminal and some civil and commercial cases. In
essence, it’s similar, however. We were conducting lessons
and workshops, and the feedback from students was that
they understood what we were talking about.
SC: They have a lot of cases related to civil rights, and a lot
of environmental and social issues that you don’t get a lot
of in Singapore.
45
Columns
Pro Bono Publico
SLG: How can pro bono lawyers be effective volunteers
and advocates, and what would you say to encourage
others getting involved in legal aid?
place to turn to. There are a lot of broken families, families
with problems, gambling issues … . Those are on the
increase. So I think you can never stop publicising that sort
of information – the availability of legal aid.
NM: We do it as a duty. A duty both to the public as well as
to the Law Society. It’s very hard to say no. I also try to get
juniors involved, who can learn and also get training from it.
SC: You need to have a sense of a need that needs to be
filled, and of your ability to fill that need. It’s not something
that a lawyer would do if he didn’t have an interest in the
well-being of others, and I think that’s important. Maybe
it starts at university, or maybe within the law firms when
lawyers first start to practice. But if you lose sight of the
day-to-day, man on the street issues, then you can lose
perspective of the issues of pro bono work and the need
for pro bono work. I guess it’s just education. People need
to be reminded that some are not as well off, and people
can fall down the cracks of our society, and especially in
Singapore. You don’t see it so often, but if you do volunteer
at the free legal clinics, you realise that there are a lot of
people out there who need advising and very often have no
► Trine Odin
Volunteer, Pro Bono Services Office
Notes
1
http://tcdc2.undp.org/GSSDAcademy/SIE/Docs/Vol6/indonesian_legal.pdf p 223.
2
http://tcdc2.undp.org/GSSDAcademy/SIE/Docs/Vol6/indonesian_legal.pdf p 226.
3
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/indonesia/docs/gover/2013%2008%2013%20
SAJI%20Result%20Sheet.pdf,
http://www.nichibenren.or.jp/library/ja/bar_association/word/data/Indonesia.pdf.
4
http://www.indonesia.embassy.gov.au/jakt/MR13_029.html.
5
http://www.ucanews.com/news/indonesia-to-bring-better-legal-aid-to-thepoor/68871.
6
E. Aspinall, Opposing Suharto: Compromise, Resistance, and Regime Change in
Indonesia, p 103. (Stanford University Press, 2005)
Naresh conducting a lesson
Tanguy Lim, PBSO Director (left), Naresh (2nd far from left) and Samuel (right)
present a certificate of attendance to an Indonesian legal aid lawyer
Court proceedings role play, with Samuel and a student acting as
Judges
Samuel giving the participants pointers at the workshop
Court proceedings role play, opposing counsel
Court proceedings role play, witness giving evidence to
the Court
Columns
46
The Young Lawyer
A Lyrical Love Affair – The Bösendorfer 225
The Bösendorfer Experience … and Safekeeping
for the Next Generations!
In fact, the purchasing of a Bösendorfer is an experience that
goes beyond having a musical instrument delivered to your
doorstep. You will be flown to Vienna to visit the skilled artisans
and specialist craftsmen in the Bösendorfer piano factory in
Wiener Neustadt, located south of Vienna, which provides
insights into the astounding sound forge. You will also be able
to customise the aesthetics of the cabinet, as Bösendorfer
does many “Art cases”. Each model comes with a veneered
surface and in three different versions – high gloss, semi-gloss
and open pore.
Wong Yi, Vice-Chairperson, Young Lawyers Committee 2014
I am a classical trained pianist, and I also enjoy playing both
contemporary and modern pieces. I had the honour of being
invited to play on the Bösendorfer 225, which is also the
masterpiece of a piano that Yamaha Music (Asia) Private
Limited most kindly sponsored for this year’s Dinner and Dance
of the Law Society of Singapore.
With a history dating back to 1828, Austrian piano maker
Bösendorfer is one of the world’s oldest, most revered and
celebrated. Bösendorfer is synonymous with the Austrian
(and in particular, Viennese) musical culture, and with their
characteristic warmth, richness of tone and pleasant musicality,
Bösendorfer pianos are incredible both to play and to listen to.
The Austrian Spruce
Bösendorfers are built to last, and the special construction
techniques employed, including having an independent capo
bar, ensures its consistency and overall playability for a century
at least. This is quite a feat considering modern printed ink is
meant to last 100 years as well, so your printed musical scores
may have faded while the piano is still in playing condition!
The Resonance Case Principle
The resonance case principle is also unique as Bösendorfer is
the only piano manufacturer to build according to the Viennese
piano making tradition, and using massive resonance spruce
exclusively. While other competitors press the soundboard into
a hardwood-veneered, rigid case (resulting in some soundinhibiting limitations) and thereby maintain the curvature of
the soundboard, the crown bow of the Bösendorfer is itself
supporting and integrates the case and inner rim into the total
sound. This principle is one of the most important secrets of the
unique Bösendorfer sound, with its incomparable beauty of its
tone and vivacity of tone colours a result of this principle.
Hand Strung Bass Strings
Dubbed the Rolls Royce of pianos by Garrick Ohlsson,
flamboyant and extravagant in sound and looks, each
Bösendorfer is hand-crafted in Vienna and takes more than a
year to construct. Bösendorfer uses air dried wood – all of the
spruce wood used is first seasoned for a minimum of five years
in a large 4500 metre square lumberyard before construction
begins, and no technology-based drying is employed.
Ever since its founding, Bösendorfer has had a clear goal:
the touching sound. The Austrian spruce tonewood exhibits
especially close and sonically ideal tree ring structures, and is
harvested exclusively from trees in the European Alps that have
grown at an altitude of over 800 metres above sea level. They
are specially harvested in winter for its low humidity during this
season, has an ideal ability to carry sound along the grain, at a
sound velocity of about 4000 to 5000 metres per second.
Another unique feature is this – Bösendorfer uses the complex
system of single stringing for all its grand pianos, rather than
the simple looped stringing. Each string is looped by hand. The
bass strings, produced in their own string manufacturing facility,
are also made by hand and exclusively for Bösendorfer only.
At the beginning of the bass string, the core wire is wound in
the opposing direction by hand with flatly rolled copper wire.
This special method of bass string production ensures unique
sonic properties, and makes optimal tonability possible and
ensures improved tuning and stability.
Ultimately, this ensures that Bösendorfers produce the specific
and distinct Bösendorfer sound qualities (which blew my mind
away!).
47
Columns
The Young Lawyer
Although I have never been a concert pianist myself, it is no
wonder the Bösendorfer 225 is considered by critics as one of
the best chamber music instrument of its size and is also highly
valued for private use, despite its suitability for the concert
stage.
Notable Modern Luminaries
Hand strung bass strings
Story of a Certain Young Franz Liszt
Bösendorfer grand pianos rank up there as the preference of
many established concert pianists. Notable performers in the
earlier days include Hungarian composer and virtuoso pianist
Franz Liszt, German composer and pianist Johannes Brahms,
Czech composer and pianist Antonín Dvořák and American
composer, conductor and pianist Leonard Bernstein. A famous
tale has it that a young Franz Liszt, with his impulsive playing
technique, wrecked nearly every piano made available to
him. Upon the advice of several friends, he tried this with a
Bösendorfer grand piano – which held up his playing! At a single
blow, the “Bösendorfer” became famous as a concert grand.
In 1830, the Emperor of Austria named Ignaz Bösendorfer,
the founder, as the “Imperial and Royal Piano Purveyor to the
Court” – the first piano maker to be bestowed this honour.
Wong Yi revelling in the Bösendorfer experience
Today, world acclaimed musician Tori Amos, American jazz and
fusion pianist Chick Corea, Singaporean singer-songwriter and
composer JJ Lin, Jazz pianist Keith Jarrett, Ukrainian classical
pianist Valentina Lisitsa, Canadian Jazz pianist and composer
Oscar Peterson, minimalist composer, performer and visual
artist Charlemagne Palestine are all notable performers of the
Bösendorfer.
Marquetry at its Modern Best – The Bösendorfer
Hummingbird
Sub-bass
Bösendorfer key sticks are made of spruce (horizontal grain
orientation) and the key plate made of spruce and oak.
Uniquely, the extra sub-bass keys extend the bass range to a
bottom F. The Bösendorfer 225 is a 92-note scale, adding four
extra bass notes to your typical scale. These extra notes add
fullness and clarity to the bass register that is a hallmark of the
Bösendorfer 225.
My Humble Experience
Playing on the Bösendorfer 225, the first thing that struck me
was the expressive diversity and inimitably rich palette of sound
colours, from the loudest fortissimo to the softest pianissimo.
The control was excellent, dynamic and responsive. It was an
uplifting experience, a sheer joy to run my fingers over the keys
and to listen to the music that follows.
I played simple classical pieces, modern contemporary pieces,
and hit the full range of the piano and consistently, the sounds
produced were a melody, vibrant, distinct and thoroughly
expressive.
The Bösendorfer Hummingbird
Columns
48
The Young Lawyer
Bösendorfer’s Marquetry Series of Grand Pianos, the
Hummingbird range, pays special homage and tribute to the
exotic world of the Austrian empire, its fantasies and it is a
contemporary reinterpretation of traditional images of nature
found in the Imperial Palaces of Vienna. While many historical
pianos have included marquetry designs, they are seldom reenvisioned for the 21st century. There are only nine units in the
world, and all have been snapped up.
Gustav Klimt, in Memoriam
lines in the music desk and top of the legs. These lines are
inlaid with gold leaves.
Concluding Tunes
As a piano aficionado, it was an honour to be able to play on
one of the most distinguished grand pianos of not just our time,
but of many generations. The unparalled control, expressive
and emotive dynamism and distinctive Bösendorfer sound
and tone will be etched in my mind (and ear drums!) for a long
while, till the day perhaps when I can own one myself.
Many thanks again to Yamaha for their kind sponsorship, and
for the experience of a lifetime!
Bösendorfer showroom: Yamaha Premium Piano Gallery,
68 Orchard Road #06-02 Plaza Singapura. Tel: 67409327/
67409841
Klimt design elements
Launched in 2012, on the 150th anniversary of famous Austrian
painter Gustav Klimt, only 25 units of the Bösendorfer Klimt
model have been produced in the world, with just one more
piece remaining for order.
Made in cooperation with the Belvedore museum in Vienna,
which has the most extensive collection of Klimt paintings in
the world, including the world famous “Kiss”, the Bösendorfer
Klimt is produced using a high resolution image of the “Kiss”
and through advanced reprographic techniques, reproducing it
onto the inside of the lid of the piano.
Prior to spraying high gloss polyester onto the image, craftsmen
further customise it by applying additional elements of real gold
leaves.
As homage to Klimt and his love of using gold, further Klimt
design elements are added. Inspired by Klimt’s use of
asymmetrical organic lines, Bösendorfer has created special
(L to R): Krystel Ee from Law Society, Jessica Chan from Yamaha Music
and Wong Yi
► Wong Yi
Vice-Chairperson
Young Lawyers Committee
49
Lifestyle
Alter Ego
Wishes of Change
My new young friends, Luke and Liam Tan in Seattle
It was the best three weeks of my life in the past 11 years.
Finally we went on a long holiday to Vancouver and Seattle.
No major worries except what to do and what to eat each
day. Rainy and cold weather; oh please, l can take that any
day after drenching in my own sweat from the time I get
ready for work till when I leave home in Singapore. It is a
happy experience matching autumn clothes, jackets and
scarves each day.
I have been going to the United States annually since last
year to attend the International Academy Collaborative
Professionals Forum during the fall season. This year it
was held in Vancouver. It will be rainy and cold with nothing
much to do, I was told. We spent over two weeks there and
found interesting things to do from walking in Stanley Park,
Vancouver’s Central Park, visiting the Capillano Suspension
Bridge, enjoying a hike in the rainforest, watching grizzly
bears in the Grouse Mountain, to whale watching and
gourmet food tours.
The Wife and I went on many hikes, something we do only
in the United States. We walked at dusk along a lonely
hilly trail in Bowen Island, one of the many small islands
in Vancouver Island to visit the Artisan Village. In rain, we
hunted down the Deer Lake Park in suburban Burnaby just
to hike around its lake.
I felt the same sensation during this vacation as I had when
I was travelling as a student in Europe in 1995 – there is
more to life than what I know of it.
Going on holiday is what we all want to do. For Singaporeans,
going on annual leave means taking a holiday overseas.
Often in many casual conversations, the topic of travel
always comes up. Why travel? It is a period for rest and
relaxation and time spent with loved ones. Holidays are
supposed to be treated lightly, not to be worried and fussed
too much over; one should just let oneself go and enjoy it.
I have stopped doing meticulous planning of our holidays.
I have stopped going with tightly planned travel groups. I
usually have lots of information on hand and just do what
we feel like doing each day. In this way, I get to spend
quality time with people, be in the places I want to be and
just simply do what I want.
Many of us think that we should do a lot during a holiday –
we must “max” out the holiday, I hear often. Holidays are not
spent well if we do not complete the “must do” list. What did
you really accomplish if you did not go to place X, some ask.
For me, holidays are truly a time for rest, restoration and
to feel, hear myself and reflect. It gives me time to review
my life, my relationships and my future. I like to meet new
people, talk to them and learn from them.
50
Lifestyle
Alter Ego
that he was going to stop litigating and focus on solving his
clients’ marital problems through negotiation. He just wanted
to make a difference for himself, and he did not look back. It
takes courage, an ability to take risks and a willingness
to change. And in Singapore, changes do take place topdown style and after a long passage of time and with much
patience. Take for example the emphasis on mediation
over litigation. Another example would be the changes to
the family judicial process – such as introducing a robust
case management system, Judge-led approach, reducing
acrimony, becoming more child-centric and contemplating
pre-Court mediation. These have been some of my pet
peeves for a very long time and I am delighted that these
changes are now taking place.
Rajan with Stu Webb at the forum
Our food tour guide in Vancouver, Nadia, is an interesting
woman. She is a private chef who trained at the Blue
Elephant Cooking School in Bangkok and has worked in
a Gordon Ramsay restaurant in London. She just simply
loves life. Her spontaneous sharing about her city and
her life was infectious. She is full of confidence and finds
lightness and positivity in everything. I saw life through the
eyes our friend’s six-year-old twin sons, Luke and Liam,
in Seattle. Liam is serious looking, reflective, intellectual
yet funny. I will never forget his theory of the relationship
between fortunate and unfortunate things.
Like my first holiday to Europe, this recent holiday made
me think what life is really supposed to be about and how it
is in Singapore. I returned to Singapore a different person
with different eyes and a new way of thinking. Our lives are
packed full with activities every day. What do some of these
activities really count towards? Are we busy for the sake of
being busy? What does it all amount to? What do we have
to show for it, at the end of the day? There is so much to do
yet so little time to do it. What are we really chasing after?
Recently, Mediacorp actor Gurmit Singh announced that he
is quitting full time work to spend more time with his family.
He bemoaned how he had to be away from his family on
many special occasions due to the nature of his work.
Some of us may be cautious and feel that I am popping
the champagne too quickly. The long awaited changes in
themselves are a cause for celebration and let us consider
the effects of the changes later on, at a different day and
time in the future.
For me, my New Year wish is to become like my many
enlightened collaborative professionals in America – a
full-time ADR practitioner. My other wish is to follow in the
footsteps of Gurmit and many others who have taken the
plunge and dared to transform their lives. If my many other
previous wishes have come true, then these ones will too, I
am certain. But can they come true much quicker, please?
► Rajan Chettiar
Rajan Chettiar LLC
We cannot go on like this; some changes have to be made,
the Wife and I agreed. We need to really enjoy the essence
of life and not live just on its surface.
In America, alternate dispute resolution has reached a level
where lawyers practise collaborative law exclusively or at
worse, mix it with private mediation only. I see a lot of value
in being part of a breed of such lawyers.
This is what Stu Webb, the father of collaborative law did
in early 1990 in Minnesota. One day, he wrote to the Court
Rajan with his wise little friend Liam
51
Lifestyle
Food
Shabu Shabu at Shima
importantly, it is now equipped with a new ventilation system.
Patrons of the restaurant no longer have to worry about
walking out smelling of food. This is certainly an important
consideration in selecting a lunch place.
Shabu Shabu
Shima has been around since 1980, making it one of
Singapore’s oldest Japanese Restaurants and the first to
offer teppenyaki. In fact, the restaurant’s Indonesian sister
(also called Shima) is even older and is still regarded as
one of the best teppenyaki restaurants in Jakarta. I am told
that the Indonesian Shima’s skillful chefs are even invited to
cook for the President every year at Istana Negara. While
many Japanese restaurants have come and gone, with
many pretenders to the throne, Shima is still regarded as
an institution. Over the years, its position as a destination
for reliably authentic Japanese cuisine and a pioneer of the
teppanyaki-style of cooking has ensured that the restaurant
can boast of having loyal regulars that include the who’s who
in the world as well as royals, politicians and celebrities. The
founder of Shinzo, Katsuhiro Watanabe retired last year and
the restaurant has been taken over by JR Group Holdings
who also own Imperial Feast. While the owners may be
new, the main chefs (that’s the Executive Chef and the Sous
Chef) who trained under the original Japanese chefs have
stayed at this one restaurant for over three decades.
Located at the first level of Goodwood Park Hotel,
the restaurant has two private dining rooms, each
accommodating up to 10 people. As such, it is an ideal
location for both business meetings and cosy private
functions. We were greeted by a kimono-clad host,
reminiscent of 90s nostalgia. Having recently revamped
its premises, the restaurant exudes a sophisticated aura,
with dark wood accented by crimson upholstery and bronze
finishes at the counters. Yet at the same time, the quietly
elegant decor evokes a traditional Japanese ambience.
Indeed a charming juxtaposition of past and present. More
We sampled the US Prime Ribeye Shabu Shabu Set. The
marbling of the beef was decent and it is sourced and
imported from the best farms in America. Other than US
Ribeye, it is possible to choose Australian Wagyu, and
Japanese Wagyu. One serving gets you eight slices of beef.
This came with a smorgasbord of vegetables, an appetizer,
steamed rice, udon and fruit for dessert. The vegetable
selection consisted of bamboo shoots, Enoki and Shimeji
mushrooms, tofu, Japanese Garland Chrysanthemum (also
known as “Tang-O” 茼蒿 that was imported from Japan),
cabbage and carrots shaped into flowers. The service was
impeccable as the Japanese host meticulously explained
each ingredient to us.
For the uninitiated, Tang-O is a herb-leaf-vegetable with
medical benefits, good not only for reducing phlegm and
relieving coughs, but also serves to moisten the lungs
and strengthen the liver. Apparently, it can even calm our
nerves, help us sleep better and balance the energy (qi) in
our body. The bitter and astringent taste of the Tang-O and
the sweetness of the mushrooms suitably balanced out the
meat, making it less heavy.
The term “shabu shabu” is an onomatopœia, derived from
the sound emitted when the ingredients are stirred in the
cooking pot. Its origins are traced back to the Chinese
hot pot known as shuanyang rou. The conqueror Genghis
Khan supposedly used this dish to fuel his soldiers. There
Shima's interior
52
Lifestyle
Food
are key distinctions between the Chinese and Japanese
versions. Chinese hotpots offer a multitude of vegetables,
meat, seafood and other add-ons to dump into your broth.
In contrast, Japanese shabu shabu is more minimalist,
typically offering only one choice of meat to go along with
a set of vegetables and rice or udon noodles. Also, shabu
shabu should not be confused with sukiyaki. The latter
involves ingredients swimming in a soy sauce based sweet
sauce in a smaller amount in a shallower pot.
The shabu shabu dashi broth was light-tasting without any
hint of MSG. This was the perfect comfort food for a rainy
afternoon. One tip though would be to lower the temperature
to let the broth simmer after it has come to a boil. This will
ensure that the vegetables, especially the Tang-O, are not
overcooked. Chinese hotpot on the other hand is usually
kept at a rolling boil. Basically, the thinly-sliced beef was
cooked briefly in the boiling broth by lightly waving the beef
back and forth. Ten seconds should do the trick so as not to
overcook the slivers of beef.
Once the beef is cooked, it is dipped into the array of
sauces. Shima’s specialty Goma sauce takes over half a
day to prepare, from the fine milling of sesame seeds to the
adding of stock, double straining and reducing the mixture
over low heat for a smooth, creamy result. Together with
the piquant citrus flavoured ponzu sauce, the Goma sauce
complemented the beef well. The litmus test of good shabu
shabu is actually the accompanying sauces. The folks at
Shima are obviously aware of that because both dipping
sauces are prepared in-house to ensure consistency and
quality-control. In addition, patrons are also offered minced
garlic and chilli to complete their dining experience. For the
purists, do alternate the ponzu and Goma sauces to avoid
a clash of flavours.
With prices starting at $80++ for the US Ribeye set, Shima
is probably premium. However, one can be assured of the
quality of the ingredients. Shima also offers teppenyaki,
which it is probably more famous for as well as sashimi
which is air-flown twice a week from Japan’s Tsukiji Market
to ensure quality and freshness. To avoid a food coma
though, I would recommend having the shabu shabu on
weekdays and saving the teppenyaki for weekends! In
fact, I will probably go back for the teppenyaki lunch buffet
(inclusive of salmon sashimi) which is priced at $59.90 on
weekends ($49.90 on weekdays). Considering that the
average price per person mentioned in a review circa1981
was S$50 then, the buffet is probably value-for-money.
► Debby Lim
Shook Lin & Bok LLP
Shima's private room
53
Lifestyle
Bookshelf
Costs in International Arbitration
by Colin Y.C. Ong and Michael Patrick O’Reilly
This is such a useful book that one wonders why it has
taken so long for such a work to come into the market.
Michael O’Reilly has of course written two editions of his
pioneer work on “Costs in Arbitration Proceedings”, but that
was mainly dealing with domestic arbitration in England
and Wales under the Arbitration Act 1996, whereas this is
essentially a new work on the role of costs in international
arbitration. Given the lack of easily discoverable materials
on this topic, this book may be characterised as an “oasis
in a desert” simply by being the only major work in this field.
However, the uniqueness of this offering is not its only
selling point.
First, it is a work of considerable research with a generous
list of cases from the major common law jurisdictions which
have a tradition of hearing cases in international arbitration.
The range of case law cited is impressive with cases from
England and Wales, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia,
Malaysia, New Zealand, Canada and even Sweden.
Second, there is a whole chapter devoted to the subject
of costs in ICSID arbitration, with a long appendix of costs
awards in ICSID cases (with a sprinkling of references
to NAFTA case law), which makes this a particularly rare
resource.
Third, this is good value for money as it packs an incredible
amount of valuable information and knowledge into its 253
pages (albeit mainly from a common law view point).
Fourth, the authors’ practical insights are a bonus as they
not only describe their understanding of the current legal
position, but also offer their views as to what the preferred
solutions should be in areas which are not covered by blackletter rules or case law.
Fifth, the book is also provocative in revisiting some wellestablished views which are often taken as gospel, and
challenges the assumptions on which those views are held.
Finally, the book is highly readable and could almost be
read cover to cover on a long plane flight (if the movies are
not particularly interesting).
Although it is customary to end a book review by an
exhortation to buy the book, this reviewer’s opinion is
that there can be no sensible reason why practitioners in
international arbitration (both Counsel and Arbitrators)
should not immediately acquire this book for their libraries,
and perhaps even to have it on their desk when (as must
happen at some or other) they need to draft or review a
costs submission.
► Michael Hwang, SC
Michael Hwang Chambers
Notices
54
Professional Moves
New Law Practices
Mr Rayner Gooi (formerly of Samuel
Seow Law Corporation) has commenced
practice under the name and style of
Panzer Law Corporation on 31 October
2014 at the following address and
contact numbers:
2 Kallang Avenue
#08-19 CT Hub
Singapore 339407
Tel: 6444 7845
Fax: 6444 5847
Ms Quek Hui Kee Jasmine (formerly of
Via Law Corporation) has commenced
practice under the name and style of
JusJuris Law LLC on 1 November 2014
at the following address and contact
numbers:
9 Temasek Boulevard
#09-01 Suntec Tower 2
Singapore 038989
Tel: 6407 1408
Website: www.jusjuris.com.sg
Conversion of Law Practices
Kalamohan & Co has converted to a law
corporation, R Kalamohan Law LLC, on
1 November 2014 and is operating at the
following address and contact numbers:
The following are Directors of
R Kalamohan Law LLC: Mr R.
Kalamohan and Ms Shanthi Elavarasi
d/o R Kalamohan (both formerly of
Kalamohan & Co).
Change of Law Practices’ Addresses
Arlene Tan
105 Cecil Street
#12-04 The Octagon
Singapore 069534
Tel: 6337 6191
Fax: 6337 5131
(wef 28 October 2014)
Apex Law LLP
(CBD Office)
101 Cecil Street
#19-11 Tong Eng Building
Singapore 069533
Tel: 6324 8385
Fax: 6324 1455
Apex Law LLP
(Toa Payoh Office)
Blk 185 Toa Payoh Central
#02-346/348
Singapore 310185
Tel: 6717 3131
Fax: 6717 3138
101-A Upper Cross Street
#09-17 People’s Park Centre
Singapore 058358
Tel: 6227 9377
Fax: 6227 8098
Website: www.kalamohan.com
Singapore
Sin
SSi
iin
ngap
ggaap
pore
pore
ore
re La
L
Law
aw Gazette
Gaaz
aze
zzeette
tte D
December
Dec
eeccemb
ceemb
em
mber
mb
er 2014
20
2
014
14
CSP Legal LLP
6 Raffles Quay
#14-06
Singapore 048580
Tel: 6372 1392
Fax: 6372 1493
(wef 6 November 2014)
Linus Law Chambers
101 Upper Cross Street
#05-26 People's Park Centre
Singapore 058357
Tel: 6536 4885
Fax: 6536 5013
Email: [email protected]
(wef 7 November 2014)
LSH Law Corporation
9 Temasek Boulevard
#19-05 Suntec Tower 2
Singapore 038989
Tel: 6258 3100
Fax: 6733 8022
E-mail: werner.tsu@lshlawcorporation.
com
Website: www.lshlawcorporation.com
(wef 1 December 2014)
Robin Law Corporation
7500A Beach Road
#04-322 The Plaza
Singapore 199591
Tel: 6536 8266
Fax: 6538 1882
55
Notices
Name of Deceased (Sex)
NRIC
Date of Death
Last Known Address
Solicitors/Contact
Person
Reference
How Geok Yean (F)
S0650393D
8 October 2014
24 Jalam Rukam
Singapore 576960
Tito Isaac & Co LLP
6533 0288
TIC.JC.990M.2014.sl
Koh Chong Phye (M)
S0263308F
19 October 2014
Blk 140 Yishun Ring Road
#09-70
Singapore 760140
Hoh Law Corporation
6553 4800
YM/P20730/14/at(jj)
Chu Teck Sin (M)
S0587367C
20 September 2014
67 Jalan Asas
Singapore 678821
Sam & Associates
6225 6309
RS.lw.2014.00431.0
Seet Yew Jim (M)
S1354300C
11 October 2014
2 Petir Road
#12-09
Singapore 678265
P. Tan & Company
6538 5263
PT/Probate/5372.114
Foo Soo Jeowg (M)
S0175375D
3 October 2014
63 Jalan Setia
Singapore 368481
Summit Law Corporation
6597 8363
201410648/11
Ong Peng Kiak (M)
S1610459J
17 October 2014
Blk 88 Bedok North Street 4
#03-159
Singapore 460088
Lim Swee Tee & Company
6438 2788
LST/A0602
Radius Prawiro (M)
Passport No. M094858
26 May 2005
Taman Darmawangsa
No. 11 Jakarta 12160
Indonesia
Tito Isaac & Co LLP
6533 0288
TIC.TI.JC.L9567.2014.
sl
Ho Chee Cheong (M)
S0356105D
1 November 2014
Blk 13 Holland Drive
#14-68
Singapore 271013
Tan Chye Kwee
6538 3330
CK wn 7522 2014 223
Michinori Sakata (M)
Passport No. TE3884388
23 January 2013
117-109 Kitsuneyama
Yokone-machi, Obu City
Aichi, Japan
Tito Isaac & Co LLP
6533 0288
TIC.TI.JC.L9566.2014.
sl
Suppiah s/o Karupiah (M)
S0974507F
27 September 2014
Blk 440 Fajar Road
#03-446
Singapore 670446
APL Law Corporation
6225 4589
AG.APL.134.14.PRO
Ma Catherine C Reyes Mrs
Ma Catherine Reyes Potter
(F)
S7377015G
8 November 2014
2 Ardmore Park
#21-03 Ardmore II
Singapore 259947
GSM Law LLP
6988 3011 / 6969 7667
20140910-134
Sanjeev s/o R Arulpragasam (M)
S7441610A
10 November 2014
Blk 604 Yishun Street 61
#04-329
Singapore 760604
Fortis Law Corporation
6535 8100
PT/GT/
PROB/20140500.il
Kwok Keng Choy (M)
S0122568E
13 October 2014
Blk 95 Havelock Road
#17-579
Singapore 160095
K S Loo & Co
6225 0311
LKS/2014-714
Lim Boon Lau (M)
S0712175Z
12 December 2004
26 Kim Yam Road
#04-32
Singapore 239335
Hilborne Law LLC
6336 2882
GHS 237 2014 Est sjc
To place a notice in this section, please write to the Publications Department at The Law Society of Singapore, 39 South Bridge Road, Singapore 058673, Fax: 6533 5700,
with the deceased’s particulars, a copy of the death certificate and cheque payment of S$85.60 per notice made in favour of ‘The Law Society of Singapore‘. All
submissions must reach us by the 5th day of the preceding month.
Appointments
56
57
Appointments
Appointments
58
IN-HOUSE
Regulatory Expert (Financial Markets) (9-12 PQE),
Singapore
PRIVATE PRACTICE
ECM Partner (8+ PQE), Singapore
A derivatives exchange is looking for a lawyer to join
them as sole legal counsel in Singapore. The successful
candidate will provide legal support, advise on
regulatory requirements applicable to the group’s
business activities in the region, and work closely with the
group’s stakeholders and lawyers. Strong derivatives
experience and knowledge of Asia financial markets
regulations is required. [S37122]
A fast-growing local law firm in partnership with an
international law firm seeks a lawyer to join their
ECM practice as a partner. The successful candidate
will advise local and foreign clients on a range
of equity transactions including IPOs, reverse
takeovers and listings on the Singapore Exchange.
This is an excellent opportunity for a lawyer keen
on building or further developing a book of
business and working with a dynamic team of lawyers.
[S19703]
Head of Legal, East-Asia Pacific (8+ PQE),
Singapore
Employment Law Partner (8+ PQE), Singapore
A leading European MNC in the infrastructure industry
seeks a senior lawyer to join them as Head of Legal
for East Asia Pacific. The successful candidate will
support sales teams with all tender activities and
advise business units on claims management, dispute
settlement, and other legal issues, as well as advise
on compliance and regulatory matters. Interested
candidates must have a strong background from the
construction or infrastructure industry. Prior experience
dealing with government-related tenders and contracts
would be advantageous. [S37118]
Our client, a well-known international law firm,
is seeking to add an experienced employment
lawyer to their team. The ideal candidate should be
Singapore called and have extensive experience
managing both contentious and non-contentious
employment and labour matters. In particular,
knowledge and experience gained advising clients on
HR and employment issues across multiple jurisdictions
would be looked upon favourably. [S24800]
Vice President (Counsel) (6+ PQE), Singapore
Leading local law firm with international ties
is looking for an IP Partner to join their fast-growing
practice. Supporting clients from a wide range
of industries including IT, media and manufacturing,
responsibilities
entail
advising
on
commercial
agreements, acquisition and protection of copyright
works, development and licensing of information
technology, as well as supporting technology
companies with their financing and reorganisation
efforts. Singapore-qualified candidates with strong
backgrounds in IP are welcome to apply. [S24898]
Our client, a global investor, is looking for a lawyer to
provide legal support for its wide range of investment
activities. The new hire will advise on legal issues and
documentation relating to direct private equity
investments and structured public equity investments as
well as monitor, review and advise on regulatory
compliance issues. Relevant legal experience in
investment funds, private equity and/or M&A work
preferred. [S37121]
Legal Counsel (5-8 PQE), Singapore
Multi-billion euro information technology company seeks
a mid-level lawyer for their fast expanding business. The
successful candidate will cover Asia Pacific, with primary
responsibility for Singapore and Philippines, and will be
expected to play a pro-active role engaging with the
business leaders in formulating legally sound and
commercially viable strategies and solutions. Experience
in the IT services sector, ideally gained in-house with a
major MNC, would be a plus. [S37117]
Senior Legal Advisor (4+ PQE), Singapore
A leading European MNC in the IT industry seeks a
mid-level lawyer to join them in a standalone role. This is a
regional position and will be an exciting challenge for a
lawyer keen on working closely with business units to
understand customers' needs and shape and drive
strategy. The successful candidate will draft and review a
range of commercial agreements and advise on
compliance and corporate governance. Interested
candidates must be qualified in a common law
jurisdiction and have some IT experience. [S36243]
IP Counsel (4-6 PQE), Singapore
A fantastic opportunity for a qualified IP lawyer to join a
dynamic technology company which develops
cutting-edge consumer products. You will be responsible
for day-to-day management of the company’s global
trademark portfolio, including new filings and office
actions/opposition proceedings worldwide. You will also
carry out and advise on preliminary name searches,
provide litigation support on intellectual property
disputes, advise R&D teams and business units on a wide
variety of intellectual property issues (including patents,
trademark, copyright, design, domain names), and help
establish systems and processes for IP good practices.
The ideal candidate would be admitted in an Asian
jurisdiction and have a demonstrable track record of 2
solid years’ experience managing a worldwide portfolio,
including office actions. [S36629]
IP Partner (7+ PQE), Singapore
Banking & Finance Senior Associate (6-10 PQE),
Singapore
Exciting opportunity to join a prestigious international
law firm’s Banking & Finance team. This is one of
the most well-regarded corporate finance practices
in the region. The practice acts for both borrowers
and lenders across a broad range of local and
cross-border transactions including syndicated and
bilateral loans, securitized debt, as well as asset
and project financing matters. The ideal candidate
would be Singapore called with prior experience
gained from a top local or international Banking &
Finance practice. Extensive experience leading
multi-party, cross-border transactions would be looked
upon highly favourably. [S31991]
Japanese Counsel (5+ PQE), Singapore
Unique opportunity for a Japanese lawyer to join
a respected firm in Singapore with an international
client base. The successful candidate will work closely
with the firm's blue chip clientele, assisting with their
cross-border investments. Excellent interpersonal skills,
flexibility and a willingness to be a team player in
a dynamic environment are key. Some travel can
be expected. Candidates who have obtained a JD
from an American university are preferred. [S37125]
Financial Regulatory
Singapore
Associate
(2-5
PQE),
A well-known offshore law firm is expanding its
financial regulatory practice in Singapore. The firm
is seeking a junior to mid-level associate, with strong
Banking and Financial Services regulatory experience,
to join them. The candidate should be a Singapore
called lawyer with particular experience advising
on SGX/MAS rules, regulations, and reporting
requirements, for both listed and private companies.
Familiarity with investment funds and their structures
would also be preferred. [S34317]
Private Practice Roles
Aviation Litigation . Singapore
'ůŽďĂůůĂǁĮƌŵƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƚǁŽĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞƐĨŽƌŝƚƐĞǆƉĂŶĚŝŶŐĂǀŝĂƟŽŶƉƌĂĐƟĐĞ͘
^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝƐƚĂǀŝĂƟŽŶĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞŝƐƉƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚďƵƚƚŚŽƐĞǁŝƚŚŐĞŶĞƌĂůĚĞĨĞŶĚĂŶƚŝŶƐƵƌĂŶĐĞ
ůŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĂƌĞĂůƐŽŝŶǀŝƚĞĚƚŽĂƉƉůǇ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϵϰϲϭ
EYͲϮнǇĞĂƌƐ
Corporate . Singapore
>ĞĂĚŝŶŐ ŝŶƚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂů Įƌŵ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐ Ă ĚǇŶĂŵŝĐ ũƵŶŝŽƌ ĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞ ůĂǁǇĞƌ ĨŽƌ Ă
ƚƌĂŶƐĂĐƟŽŶĂůƌŽůĞ͘zŽƵǁŝůůŚĂŶĚůĞĂƌĂŶŐĞŽĨDΘĂŶĚƉƌŝǀĂƚĞĞƋƵŝƚǇŵĂƩĞƌƐǁŽƌŬŝŶŐ
ĂůŽŶŐƐŝĚĞƐŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞƌĞŐŝŽŶ͛ƐŵŽƐƚŚŝŐŚůǇƌĞŐĂƌĚĞĚĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϵϯϵϭ
ϭͲϯнǇĞĂƌƐ
Regulatory . Singapore
DĂũŽƌŝŶƚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂůůĂǁĮƌŵǁŝƐŚĞƐƚŽƌĞĐƌƵŝƚĂŶĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌǇůĂǁǇĞƌĨŽƌ
ŝƚƐ ĮŶĂŶĐŝĂů ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ƚĞĂŵ͘ ƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶƐ ĂƌĞ ŝŶǀŝƚĞĚ ĨƌŽŵ ďŽƚŚ ƉƌŝǀĂƚĞ ƉƌĂĐƟĐĞ ĂŶĚ
ŝŶͲŚŽƵƐĞĐĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞƐǁŝƚŚƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĂŶĚƐƚƌŽŶŐĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐƐ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϴϮϴϭ
ϱͲϳнǇĞĂƌƐ
TMT . Singapore
'ůŽďĂůůĂǁĮƌŵǁŝƐŚĞƐƚŽƌĞĐƌƵŝƚĂƚůĞĂƐƚŽŶĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůdDdůĂǁǇĞƌĨŽƌŝƚƐĞǆƉĂŶĚŝŶŐ
ƉƌĂĐƟĐĞ͘ tŽƌŬŝŶŐ ĂůŽŶŐƐŝĚĞ Ă ůĞĂĚŝŶŐ ŶĂŵĞ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ƚŚĞ ŝŶĚƵƐƚƌǇ͕ ǇŽƵ ǁŝůů ĂƐƐŝƐƚ ŽŶ
ĐŽŵƉůĞǆĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂů/dĂŶĚŽƵƚƐŽƵƌĐŝŶŐŵĂƩĞƌƐĨŽƌƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůĐůŝĞŶƚƐ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϴϲϳϭ
ϭͲϯнǇĞĂƌƐ
Disputes/Investigations . Singapore
KŶĞŽĨƚŚĞǁŽƌůĚ͛ƐŵŽƐƚƉƌĞƐƟŐŝŽƵƐŝŶƚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂůůĂǁĮƌŵƐŝƐŬĞĞŶƚŽŚŝƌĞĂŶĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞ
ŝŶƚŽ ŝƚƐ ĚŝƐƉƵƚĞƐ ƚĞĂŵ͘ /ĚĞĂůůǇ ǇŽƵ ǁŝůů ŚĂǀĞ ŚĂĚ ƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐ ĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞ Žƌ ďĂŶŬŝŶŐ
ŝŶǀĞƐƟŐĂƟŽŶƐĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ͕ďƵƚƚŚŝƐŝƐŶŽƚĂĐĂƐƚŝƌŽŶƉƌĞƌĞƋƵŝƐŝƚĞ͘
orem
Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϲϵϳϭ
ϱнǇĞĂƌƐ
typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the in. Singaporedummy text ever since the 1500s,
Banking standard
dustry’s
hŶƵƐƵĂůƌŽůĞĂƚƚŚŝƐůĞĂĚŝŶŐŝŶƚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂůůĂǁĮƌŵǁŚŽĂƌĞŬĞĞŶƚŽŚŝƌĞĂ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞͲ
when
an unknown printer took a galley of type and
ƋƵĂůŝĮĞĚƐĞŶŝŽƌďĂŶŬŝŶŐůĂǁǇĞƌƚŽũŽŝŶŝƚƐĞǆƉĂŶĚŝŶŐƚĞĂŵĂƐĂƉĂƌƚŶĞƌŽƌĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂŶƚ͘
scrambled
it to make a type specimen book. It has
EŽĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͕ũƵƐƚĂƐƚƌŽŶŐƚƌĂĐŬƌĞĐŽƌĚĂŶĚƚŚĞĂďŝůŝƚǇƚŽĞǆĞĐƵƚĞ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϴϵϳϭ not only five centuries, but also the leap
WĂƌƚŶĞƌ
survived
into electronic typesetting,
remaining essentially un.
Project Finance Singapore
changed.
It was popularised in the 1960s with the
dŚŝƐŵĂũŽƌŐůŽďĂůůĂǁĮƌŵŚĂƐĂǀĞƌǇǁĞůůĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚƉƌĞƐĞŶĐĞŝŶ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞ͘dŚĞǇĂƌĞ
release
of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum
ŬĞĞŶƚŽŚŝƌĞĂ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞŽƌh<ͲƋƵĂůŝĮĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚĮŶĂŶĐĞƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƚŽũŽŝŶƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƟŶŐ
ƚĞĂŵǁŝƚŚƐƚƌŽŶŐĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞŝŶƚŚĞƌĞŐŝŽŶŽŶďŽƚŚƚŚĞďĂŶŬĂŶĚďŽƌƌŽǁĞƌƐŝĚĞ͘
passages,
and more recently with desktop publishing
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϵϱϮϭ
WĂƌƚŶĞƌ
software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of
.
Arbitration/Corporate
Singapore
Lorem
Ipsum.
tĞĂƌĞǁŽƌŬŝŶŐĞǆĐůƵƐŝǀĞůǇǁŝƚŚĂůĞĂĚŝŶŐŝŶƚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂůůĂǁĮƌŵǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĚƵĞƚŽŽƉĞŶ
ŝƚƐ ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞ ŽĸĐĞ ŝŶ ϮϬϭϱ͘ KƵƌ ƐĞĂƌĐŚ ŝƐ ƵŶĚĞƌǁĂǇ ĨŽƌ ůĞĂĚŝŶŐ ĂƌďŝƚƌĂƟŽŶ ĂŶĚ
ĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐ͕ƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌůǇƚŚŽƐĞǁŝƚŚĞŶĞƌŐǇƐĞĐƚŽƌĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϬϭϮϭ
WĂƌƚŶĞƌ
In-House Roles
Tax/Private Client . Singapore
LNG Counsel . Singapore
/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂůďĂŶŬŝŶ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞƐĞĞŬƐĂŵŝĚͲůĞǀĞůůĂǁǇĞƌƚŽũŽŝŶŝƚƐǁĞĂůƚŚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ
ƚĞĂŵŝŶƐŝĂ͘zŽƵǁŝůůŚĂǀĞĂƐƚƌŽŶŐƚĂǆĂĚǀŝƐŽƌǇďĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ;ŝŶƐŝĂͿĂŶĚĞǆƉŽƐƵƌĞ
ƚŽƚƌƵƐƚƐƌĞůĂƚĞĚŵĂƩĞƌƐ͕ǁŝƚŚƚĂǆĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞďĞŝŶŐŵŽƌĞŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϴϯϰϭ
ϯнǇĞĂƌƐ
dŚŝƐ Žŝů Θ ŐĂƐ ĐŽŵƉĂŶǇ ŝƐ ůŽŽŬŝŶŐ ĨŽƌ ĂŶ ĞŶĞƌŐǇ ůĂǁǇĞƌ ǁŝƚŚ >E' ĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ ƚŽ
ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŚĞŝƌ>E'ƚƌĂĚŝŶŐĂŶĚŵĂƌŬĞƟŶŐďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐŝŶ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞ͘ĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚ
ŝĚĞĂůůǇŚĂǀĞĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞŚĂŶĚůŝŶŐďĞƐƉŽŬĞ>E'ĂŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϴϵϵϭ
ϰͲϭϬнǇĞĂƌƐ
Commodity Derivatives . Singapore
Junior Legal Counsel . Singapore
ǆĐĞůůĞŶƚŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚǇƚŽũŽŝŶƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵŽĚŝƚǇĨŽĐƵƐĞĚůĞŐĂůƚĞĂŵ͘/ĚĞĂůůǇǇŽƵǁŝůůŚĂǀĞ
ĞǆƉŽƐƵƌĞƚŽKdŚĞĚŐŝŶŐĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚƚƌĂĚĞĮŶĂŶĐĞĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐΘǁŝƚŚƐǇŶĚŝĐĂƚĞĚͬ
ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĚůŽĂŶĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐ͘ĞƌŝǀĂƟǀĞƐĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞƉƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϵϯϮϭ
ϯнǇĞĂƌƐ
>ĞĂĚŝŶŐ ŚĞĂůƚŚĐĂƌĞ ĐŽŵƉĂŶǇ ƐĞĞŬŝŶŐ Ă ũƵŶŝŽƌ ůĞŐĂů ĐŽƵŶƐĞů ƚŽ ĐŽŵĞ ŽŶ ďŽĂƌĚ͘
ĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞƐ ƐŚŽƵůĚ ŚĂǀĞ Ă ŬĞĞŶ ůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐ ĂƫƚƵĚĞ ĂŶĚ ďĞ ŽƉĞŶ ƚŽ ǁŽƌŬŝŶŐ ŝŶ ĂŶ
ŝŶĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚ ƉŽƐŝƟŽŶ͕ ƌĞŵŽƚĞůǇ ƌĞƉŽƌƟŶŐ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ 'ĞŶĞƌĂů ŽƵŶƐĞů ďĂƐĞĚ ŝŶ dŽŬǇŽ͕
:ĂƉĂŶ͘ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϵϯϭϭ
ϯнǇĞĂƌƐ
Regulatory Counsel . Singapore
FMCG . Singapore
'ůŽďĂůĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƌƐĞĞŬƐƌĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌǇůĂǁǇĞƌƚŽĂĚǀŝƐĞƚŚĞŝƌďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐŝŶ
ƐŝĂ͘ zŽƵ ǁŝůů ŚĂǀĞ Ă ƐƚƌŽŶŐ ŽǀĞƌǀŝĞǁ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞ ƌĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌǇ ĨƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬ͕
ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůǇĂƐŝƚƌĞůĂƚĞƐƚŽĮŶĂŶĐŝĂůŵĂƌŬĞƚŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĂŶĚĞǆĐŚĂŶŐĞƐ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϵϮϱϭ
ϱнǇĞĂƌƐ
dŚŝƐůĞĂĚŝŶŐ&D'ĐŽŵƉĂŶǇƐĞĞŬƐĂŶŝŶƚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂů>ĞŐĂůŽƵŶƐĞůƚŽůŽŽŬĂŌĞƌŽŶĞŽĨ
ƚŚĞŝƌĐŽƌĞĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶƐ͘ĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚŝĚĞĂůůǇĐŽŵĞĨƌŽŵĂƐŝŵŝůĂƌďĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚ͕ŽƌĂ
ƌĞŐƵůĂƚĞĚŝŶĚƵƐƚƌǇĂŶĚŚĂǀĞǁŽƌŬĞĚŝŶŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶŽŶĞũƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƟŽŶ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϴϲϰϭ
ϴнǇĞĂƌƐ
Contracts Counsel . Singapore
SEA Counsel . Singapore
h^DEƐĞĞŬƐĂũƵŶŝŽƌůĂǁǇĞƌƚŽũŽŝŶƚŚĞŝƌůĞŐĂůƚĞĂŵŝŶ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞ͘ZĞƉŽƌƟŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ
>ĞŐĂůŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ͕ǇŽƵǁŝůůĐŽǀĞƌƚŚĞƐŝĂƌĞŐŝŽŶǁŝƚŚƐƉĞĐŝĂůĨŽĐƵƐŽŶŚŝŶĂ͘ĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞƐ
ŵƵƐƚďĞĂďůĞƚŽƌĞǀŝĞǁĂŶĚŶĞŐŽƟĂƚĞĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚƐ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϵϰϭϭ
ϯͲϱнǇĞĂƌƐ
dŚŝƐ ƵƌŽƉĞĂŶ ŵƵůƟŶĂƟŽŶĂů ĐŽŵƉĂŶǇ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ ŝŶĚƵƐƚƌǇ ŝƐ ůŽŽŬŝŶŐ ĨŽƌ Ă
ƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůĐŽƵŶƐĞůƚŽĐŽŵĞŽŶďŽĂƌĚ͘ĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞƐŶĞĞĚƚŽŚĂǀĞƉƌŝŽƌĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞŝŶĂŶ
ŝŶͲŚŽƵƐĞŽƵƞŝƚĂŶĚŚĂǀĞĂƚůĞĂƐƚϱǇĞĂƌƐ͛ůĞŐĂůĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϴϮϰϭ
ϱнǇĞĂƌƐ
Welcome Back!
dĂǇůŽƌZŽŽƚŝƐƉůĞĂƐĞĚƚŽǁĞůĐŽŵĞďĂĐŬƌĞĐƌƵŝƚŵĞŶƚ
ĐŽŶƐƵůƚĂŶƚ :ĞƌĞŵǇ WŽŚ͕ ǁŚŽ ƌĞƚƵƌŶƐ ƚŽ ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞ
ĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĂŶϭϴŵŽŶƚŚƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞŶƚƚŽŽƵƌ>ŽŶĚŽŶ
ŽĸĐĞ͘:ĞƌĞŵǇƌĞĐƌƵŝƚƐĨŽƌĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞƌŽůĞƐ͘
&ŽƌWƌŝǀĂƚĞWƌĂĐƟĐĞƌŽůĞƐŝŶ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞĂŶĚ^ŽƵƚŚĂƐƚƐŝĂĐŽŶƚĂĐƚůĞǆtŝƐĞŵĂŶ
ŽŶ+65 6420 0500 or [email protected]
&Žƌ/ŶͲ,ŽƵƐĞƌŽůĞƐŝŶ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞĂŶĚ^ŽƵƚŚĂƐƚƐŝĂĐŽŶƚĂĐƚ'ůĂĚǇƐŚĞǁ
ŽŶ+65 6420 0500 or [email protected]
WůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞŽƵƌĂĚǀĞƌƟƐĞŵĞŶƚƐƵƐĞWYƉƵƌĞůǇĂƐĂŐƵŝĚĞ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ǁĞĂƌĞŚĂƉƉǇƚŽĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌ
ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶƐĨƌŽŵĂůůĐĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞƐǁŚŽĂƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞ
ƚŚĞƐŬŝůůƐŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽĨƵůĮůƚŚĞƌŽůĞ͘
taylorroot.com
@TaylorRootLegal
PART OF THE SR GROUP
Brewer Morris | Carter Murray | Frazer Jones | SR Search | Taylor Root
UK | EUROPE | MIDDLE EAST | Asia | AUSTRALIA | OFFSHORE
taylor-root
EA Licence Number: 12C6222
Appointments
60
YOUR PROFESSION
OUR PASSION
Passionate Bengoshi
Singapore – Minimum 3 years of relevant experience
Junior Energy Lawyer
Singapore – Minimum 4 years of relevant experience
A top tier Japanese law firm is seeking a Japanese qualified lawyer
(bengoshi) to join their elite team. You will be working closely with
senior management and be an integral member within their close
knit working environment. Their growing presence in Singapore
makes them a strong player in the market, hence they are seeking a
bengoshi who likewise shares their passion in working in South East
Asia. Travel will be required and initial training in their Tokyo head
office may be required.
A leading corporate giant is seeking a Legal Counsel to join their team
to focus on their power, gas and energy management division. While
you will be working as an integral part of a team, each team member
is predominantly involved in matters that relate to a particular division
of the business, hence, you must work well autonomously with little
guidance. You will be responsible or providing commercial focused
legal advice to support the power, gas and energy team as well as
support them in their deals and projects. You will also be responsible
for managing the disputes and litigious matters as well as any
additional responsibilities reasonably issued by the General Counsel.
You must be Japanese qualified and have a minimum of three years
post qualification experience. Completion of a degree from a top
Japanese university and prior experience in top tier Japanese law
firms will be highly advantageous. Due to the necessity to travel,
flexibility with respect to time will be important. You should be well
versed in English and be an innovative thinker who is keen to work in
a challenging environment.
Experienced Dry Shipping Lawyer
Singapore – Minimum 8 years PQE
One of the strongest shipping teams on the Singapore market is
seeking a Senior Associate or Junior Partner to join their regional
team, focusing on dry shipping. You will be an integral part of an elite
team, working closely with three Partners of the firm in providing first
class service to you clients in the region.
You must be UK qualified and have a minimum of eight years PQE.
While book value is not essential, if you are seeking a Partner
role then book value will be highly advantageous. You must have
experience in a wide range of dry shipping matters, including but
not limited to charter party disputes, cargo clams, ship repairs and
vessel construction. You must have experience in the region and be
prepared to work in a close knit team.
Passionate TMT Senior Associate
Singapore - Minimum 8 years PQE
One of Singapore’s strongest TMT teams has an opportunity for a
Senior Associate to join their elite business. They one of the most
reputable international firms in the market and look to only attract
the highest calibre of individual for this role. You will be working with
a strong team of likeminded TMT specialists who are passionate and
driven in providing the best quality of work for their large blue chip
clients. The bulk of the work focuses on the Australian and UK market
however you will also be assisting clients within the Asian region.
You must be from a top tier law firm, ideally a magic circle, within a
strong TMT practice. You should have a minimum of four years PQE
(UK) or six years PQE (AUS). You should have a solid understanding
of IP, technology and privacy legislation with a keen passion to grow
the business through business development and participation in
various industry events. You should genuinely enjoy working in a fast
paced working environment and have strong time management skills.
This is an excellent opportunity for an ambitious TMT lawyer who is
keen on becoming an inspiring leader of a top tier practice.
hays.com.sg
You must have a law degree from a reputable institution and ideally
be called to the Singapore bar. You should have at least four years of
relevant experience and be genuinely interested in a long term career
in house. Understanding of building and construction matters is an
added advantage. However, experience in energy, power and gas will
be most important. This is an excellent opportunity for a passionate
lawyer keen to work in a booming in house environment.
Contact Judy Liu (Reg ID No. R1333115) at [email protected]
or +65 6303 0725.
Legal Manager – Oil & Gas
Kuala Lumpur – 5 to 10 years of relevant experience
A large multinational entity, very well established in the Oil & Gas
industry, is seeking a senior lawyer to take on the role of a Legal
Manager in its new and growing legal team in Kuala Lumpur. The
role involves working on a broad spectrum of legal matters including
advising the company’s various business units in the fields of litigation,
privacy, anti-bribery, criminal law, anti-corruption and competition.
You will be reporting to the Head of Legal Affairs and work hand in
hand with various business operations towards the ongoing growth in
the South East Asia region.
You must have between 5 to 10 years of relevant legal experience preferably
in either an in-house or private practice role specialising in both offshore and
onshore Oil & Gas matters. You must also be qualified to practice in Malaysia,
and have the ability to work autonomously with strong business acumen.
Contact Armin Hosseinipour (Reg ID No. R1440509) at
[email protected] or +65 6303 0725.
Wishing our clients &
candidates a happy
holiday season.
We would like to thank you for your business this year, and look forward to partnering with you in 2015.
Rebecca Collins
In-house hires
+65 6809 5082 | [email protected]
Jason Ji
Private Practice hires
Shulin Lee
In-house hires
Alexandra Starke
Private Practice hires
Pure Search - leaders in global search & selection | Singapore | Hong Kong | London | New York
puresearch.com

Official Publication of The Law Society of Singapore | December 2014

Transcription

Similar documents

Sure-Win Dip

22-Nov-2012 - Singapore Gaelic Lions

Property Life Media Kit 2013

PDF - Aetius Capital

Night Festival 2012 Sunsilk Academy Fantasia Dole Yonanas

immediate press release 11th aug`2014

waiver guidelines jakarta incident

Read article

12 January 2015 - Singapore betters IB results

(GFC) 2010 breakfast seminar