Pardon the cliche, but how time has flown! We are now into the fourth issue of The Singapore Law Gazette, and like a young child finding his feet in a strange new world, the words of support and encouragement which we have received so far has played a vital role in our growth and development.

Coincidentally, speaking of children, our ‘Focus’ this month is Family Law. We have a leading Singapore academic opening this subject by drawing our attention to the many moral lessons to be gleaned from family law. This is followed by a discussion on the role of pre-nuptial agreements in Singapore. A practitioner then enlightens us on the recent common law developments in the division of matrimonial property, and two Deputy Registrars in the Family Court examine the provisions for two important aspects in a Singapore divorce: the HDB flat and the children. We conclude this section with a profile of family lawyers.

Our ‘Features’ section this month will keep you updated on three recent areas of development: the Budget, the Parliamentary debates in March and the Madrid Protocol, which Singapore will accede to in May this year.

We hope you enjoy this issue and please do not hesitate to let us have your ideas on how we can make The Singapore Law Gazette a better publication for you!
Welcome to our first Forum column!
Please direct all letters via post, email or fax to:
  Forum The Editor, The Singapore Law Gazette,
Butterworths Asia
No 1 Temasek Avenue
#17-01 Millenia Tower
Siongapore 03192
Fax: 336 9662
Email: slgbutterworths@netscape.net
Non-Lawyer Conveyancers?

I refer to the report ‘In Conversation with Conveyancers’ and the President’s Message in the March 2000 issue.

The President has rightly pointed out that on issues such as whether to allow non-lawyers to practise conveyancing, the public interest is paramount. However, with the imminent freeing of scale fees, what public benefit could there be in allowing non-lawyers to practise conveyancing? The public will pay market rate — with or without non-lawyer conveyancers.

When scale fees are freed, the public interest can best be served by ensuring that the same high standard set by the legal profession is maintained for all conveyancing work. However idealistic some may want to be, opening up conveyancing work to non-lawyers is not the way to do it.

Would anyone call for beauticians and barbers to be allowed to do minor surgery or for non-dentists to be allowed to extract teeth in the hope of reducing fees? Extracting a tooth may appear even simpler than conveyancing work, but no one in Singapore will go to a non-dentist to have his tooth extracted.

We hear incessant calls to Singaporeans for zero defects and high standards in work. Why should conveyancing standards move in the opposite direction?

Soh Gim Chuan
Soh Wong & Yap

Mr Soh wins a Law Society T-shirt courtesy of the President of the Law Society.