Asia Sentinel
Already subscribed? Login here
| Singapore’s Languishing Lawyers |
|
|
| Written by Jed Yoong | |
| Wednesday, 19 March 2008 | |
|
Few people want to be called to the bar in the Lion City
On balance, only about 75 additional lawyers have been added to Singapore’s legal system since 1999. According to the Law Society of Singapore, some 3,401 lawyers were practicing in the island republic in 1999. By March 2006, the last year for which the Law Society maintains figures on its website, only 3,476 lawyers were practicing, a 2 percent increase despite an 11 percent rise in population to 4.4 million. Singapore has only one lawyer per 1,136 people. By comparison, the state of California in the United States, with a population of about 38 million – a place many say is over-lawyered – has more than 200,000 lawyers, or 1 per 190 people, according to the state bar association. “I think the younger generation does not fancy law as a subject anymore,” said one lawyer. “They prefer graphics and computer studies. The legal profession is essentially a service industry. That means you get paid for hard work and most Singaporeans I believe either prefer business or government jobs, not dry boring stressful legal work.” Exorbitant legal costs also have caused litigants to resort to other means of settling disputes, according to Gopalan Singh, a longtime critic of the system who is now practicing law in California. Legal aid, he says, is only available in criminal cases for social welfare recipients. That has led to convicted offenders who are appearing in High Court appeals without lawyers. “People are resorting to unconventional methods to settle scores, such as paying gangsters to recover debts,” Gopalan says. Singapore Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong attributes the lack of lawyers to the low salaries and suggests an upward review. Local media reported last year that junior lawyers are paid more than double in Hong Kong, about S$11,650 a month compared to about S$4,000 in Singapore. According to the Singapore Department of Statistics, the average monthly income among employed residents was S$6,830. A doctorate in law in Singapore takes anywhere from two to five years, according to the National University of Singapore. At an average salary of S$8,775 a month, the legal profession ranks 11th among professions in Singapore, according to the Ministry of Manpower, well behind such occupations as financial futures dealer, at S$13,449 a month (although far above journalists, a profession relatively despised by the Singapore government, and ranked 104th at S$3,711 per month). “Pay them well,” Chan said. “Greed works most of the time, even for the large majority of people in affluent societies.” But there are other reasons as well, says a Kuala Lumpur-based lawyer. “Many of my lawyer friends there who have been in practice for yonks (a long time) have very little work. Corporate work goes mainly to the big connected firms, like those connected to the (family of Singapore patriarch Lee Kuan Yew) or the bigger names with lots of influence. The medium and smaller firms chase after the scraps.” In addition, he says, Singapore’s judicial system is so efficient that everything is done by email. “That means documents and filing papers are done at lightning speed. So when you strike an action you file in your basic documents along with every other legal form from A to Z in one go. Within two days you may get a trial date. All this speed means fantastic stress for lawyers. Justice rushed is justice denied.” While these are certainly reasons for a languishing legal profession, the courts are probably at least a partial cause of the hemorrhage. Lawyers say the emasculation of the Law Society of Singapore in the mid 1980s has contributed. Francis Seow, who became a vocal critic of Lee Kuan Yew, was ultimately elected president of the law society in 1986 and ran for public office only to be arrested and accused, among other things, of taking money from American political interests. He fled the country but was later convicted in absentia of tax evasion. It is not advisable, lawyers say, to practice any kind of law that brings lawyers into conflict with the government. To date, no major judgment has ever gone against them. To be sued in Singapore is as good as being convicted. The Singapore government is attempting to address the shortage with moves like setting up a new law school within the Singapore Management University, increasing the intake for the National University of Singapore (NUS) law faculty and allowing foreign firms and lawyers to practice in the country. Courses include business and corporate law, intellectual property law, financial law and regulation and a variety of others including a course in ethics and social responsibility. The first students were accepted last August. Local media reported earlier this month that Law Minister S Jayakumar is confident that the measures would “ease the supply crunch. ” He announced that he expects “an almost 70 percent increase in the number of law graduates in two to three years' time.” He emphasized that “while we may need more lawyers, I would like to stress that it cannot be at the expense of quality.” The question of quality is one that Gopalan Singh snorts at. “The law is being routinely and blatantly abused for political purposes,” he wrote in his blog, singaporedissident.blogspot.com. Singapore, he says, “has turned into a lawless country, a country run according to the pleasure of Lee Kuan Yew; not according to law. A legal system where if you knew the identities of the litigants, you can predict the outcome of the trial with absolute accuracy. That is if Lee Kuan Yew or his family were parties to an action, the outcome of the litigation is known even before you step into court! Lee wins. Hapless opponent loses.” Comments (11)
  written by terry, March 20, 2008
Singapore is notorious for having a legal system that is manipulated for political advantage. This is especially visible in Minister defamation suits against detractors and political opponents. So yes I believe some lawyers have become disaffected by the system and hence move on to other professions. But I think it is too hyperbolic to blame the shortage of lawyers to this aspect of the system. If that were the case, then Singapore would face a shortage of journalists as well wouldn’t it?
My impression from talking to Singaporean lawyers is that the computerization of the courts is the primary factor for straining already overworked lawyers. Lawyers find themselves with less and less time to prepare for their cases and judges are not going to sympathize with them. As for paying them more, I guess more would be enticing initially but remuneration is a motivating factor of depreciating effect over time.
 written by J Chandran, March 20, 2008
Singapore has no law but that which is made up by Mentor Lee ( new Christian name).Malaysia is worse.In Malaysia you have to employ a bumiputra to receive work as a lawyer.In fact Khir Johari said once at the Selangor club that in India there was a minister of railways but in Malaysia why have a Minister of law.There are no laws in Malaysia but in India has a great network of Railways!
 written by Ah Kow, March 20, 2008
I read with interest that Asia Sentinel decided to quote a KL-based lawyer to talk about Singapore legal system. So can I expect some quotes soon from some Myanmar junta to talk about human rights in Singapore?
One thing's for sure, our lawyers here are not as powerful as our neighbours' in fixing judicial appointments. Secondly about lawyer's renumeration. This should be determine by market forces (i.e. Demand & Supply). Just like private bankers, who are having a good time now due to high demand currently, lawyers also have periods of high demand and low demand which relate directly on how much they are to be paid. If there are insufficient lawyers then the pay would go up to compete for these scarce resources.
 written by Perdro, March 20, 2008
Good story! Sing legal system is a joke. The speed is just a way to reduce the Judiciary to an administrative department of the PAP State, that was LKY's goal since 1959. The gaol has been achieved beyond his own hopes.
 written by Why, March 21, 2008
The problem facing the legal profession is multi-faceted and cannot be pinpointed to a single cause or person, although in the short legal history of Singapore, the former Chief Justice has made a disproportionate contribution to the current situation. I will just point out a few.
First, speed: The maxim “justice hurried (and not ‘rushed, because it does not rhyme) is justice buried” is oftentimes counter with a smug retort: “We don’t want to be like that country’s legal system, do we, where it takes years for a case to be concluded?” The falsity of the argument is that asking for things to be slowed down is not the same as asking for it to be delayed and, for good measure, stopped completely. I think the disagreement here is over what one considers a reasonable period of time. When cases are rushed through the court system, with the sole objective of achieving a world-class time-line clearance record, a few things can and did happen. (a) During the 1990s and first half of the 2000s, the courts’ position was that the moment a party files a case, he must be ready for hearing. Well, it sounds good on paper and may be manageable with one party and one witness. But if you have two, three, or more witnesses, good-luck must be on your side that none of them will be out of town, sick or has previous engagements. So, you either have all your witnesses ready or have your case dismissed. (b) The courts then were also not sympathetic to a lawyer who says that the hearing date given clashes with another case of his that will also be heard on the same day. The lawyer had to give up one of the cases or the party had to look for another lawyer. Unfortunately, this is not how the real commercial world works. (1) The client has chosen the lawyer based on several factors - reputation, expertise etc.- and there is an agreement between the lawyer and client for the lawyer’s services. (2) If a lawyer taking on a case has to make sure that the hearing date will not clash with another case, he has to refuse to take any more work the moment he accepts one. For this kind of exclusivity, clients must be prepared to pay, and pay a lot. The lawyer and his staff have families, with children, to support. Then there are also rental and basic expenses to be paid. Why should market forces work any different for a lawyer, just as if you want the exclusive service of, say, a teacher who will only teach your child and no one else, a doctor who will only treat you, etc. (to be continued … 
 written by Why, March 21, 2008
Second, there is the tone set by the “top” and emulated by those occupying the lower rungs of the organization. If the boss adopts a no-quarters-given and no-prisoners-taken approach, it is a fair bet that many down the career ladder will adopt this philosophy. If the higher judges humiliates and mocks the prisoner, and his/her lawyer, it’s an example set to the juniors of how to manage the people who are before them for one reason or another. Why would anyone want to, or want his wife/her husband, his/her son/daughter to be a lawyer and be humiliated and have his/her sense of self-worth and dignity eroded day by day?
Third, there is the matter of the age of the lower court judges. I don’t know whether it is just in Singapore, but the lower court judges are very, very young, some fresh out of law school, around 25 years old. There is a lot of bottled up resentments by parents (say, in their 50’s) who appear before a young judge because their child got into trouble with the law, and the young judge gives them a tongue-lashing on their responsibilities as parents. What about young judges making grandiose and self-righteous pronouncements in divorce cases? Some of these judges are not even married and do not have children! What do they know about life, the difficulties faced by people who got into trouble or whose marriages are on the rocks? There are also other well-known factors that are besetting the legal profession such as, perceived partiality of the courts in political and semi-political cases, low rewards, and stress. This is not the place for an in-depth analysis. But to look for a solution one must first start with honesty – where have we gone wrong over the years, how to protect the independence of the judiciary from a fundamental level, etc – instead of coming up with something that serves as a good PR job, and then the world moves on. Forget about our courts being the best in the world for case-clearance record, the number of computers we have and an impressive high-tech court (which is only used by those who can afford it). Qualities like civility, fairness, and independence in cases where the might of the state is pitted against an individual were not measured by these reports.
 written by Jose, April 09, 2008
A countries legal system cannot be separated from its social context. In the case of Singapore, the rapid economic growth and the strongly consolidated state has clearly taken its toll. The legal system has not evolved as fast as the economy or the political system. The workforce that are supposed to be part of the legal system has been absorbed by the much more high paying economic and political positions. In addition, the social cohesiveness, the small size and the non-competitive political system of the city-state facilitates clearcut administrative way of conflict resolution rather than a contentious pluralist public debate which require lawyers to articulate rules by assuming a necessarily competitive stance.
 written by Isaac, June 08, 2008
Having worked in law enforcement for years, I know it is absolutely imperative to a fair to trial to have adequate time to find and interview witnesses and records. Also the Singapore bar is hard for foreign lawyers to enter as it has ludicrous restrictions as to which universities are accepted, a mere 4 from the USA despite having many more competent universities and their graduates. As if that were not enough, only the top 40% of that college's students are accepted. Let's say you graduated from Harvard Law in the top 50%, does that mean you are an incompetent lawyer? Or from UofI (top ranked in the inland northwest) in the top 90%, then you must certainly be incompetent! The system is set up to say to everyone "we don't want justice and don't try to bring it here either!" I love Singapore and her people, but it's certainly time to address these issues!
 written by jennifer clarke, December 17, 2009 This site is all about lawyer marketing , how we can solve our legal issues.I loved going through this whole site. Thanks for this wonderful site. ============================ jennifer lawyer marketing
Write comment
|
Although many countries, particularly the United States, might look upon it as a blessing, Singapore is facing a growing shortage of lawyers and is trying to find ways to increase their numbers even as they leave the profession in droves, driven out partly by low pay, long hours and, critics say, a legal straitjacket that prevents them from the effective practice of the law. 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
LATEST BLOGS
China's Cadmium-Tainted Rice ScandalOur Correspondent
•
The latest disaster to hit Chinese foodstuffs could...Full Story |
| Other Articles |
Mockingindian
Donate to Asia Sentinel
John Elliott: Riding the Elephant
Archive
- China's Cadmium-Tainted Rice Scandal
- US Drones Kill Innocent Civilians, Crisis Group says
- Indonesia Police Catch a King-Size Fish
- Indonesia Reaffirms Sovereignty in International Forums
- The Spying Game
- Japan Presses Issue of Kidnapped Citizens
- Storm Disaster Looms for Bangladesh, Myanmar
- Horrific Torture in Myanmar
- How to End the Forever War
- China's Sex Workers Face Routine Abuse
Ah Beng - just another man in the street