Practising Certificates Go Electronic
We present some interesting facts about the
Practising Certificate (PC) Application Renewal Exercise which
took place in March/April 2000.
As at 13 April 2000, a total of 3,009 PCs were filed. 1423 PCs were filed electronically (e-filed) by practitioners, exceeding the number of PCs filed manually, which numbered 1,422. Over 200 practitioners came to the Law Society’s IT Room to e-file their PCs.
Tracey Yeo
Director, Media & Publications
|
|
The promotional flyer was markedly nondescript. A ‘Debate’ was the rather obvious event name. The venue — the new Parliament House, but it was not Parliament which was sitting on the evening of Friday, 14 April 2000.
Instead, close to 200 lawyers packed the Parliament House auditorium to witness the cut-and-thrust of the finest debating seen for some time. The two teams were comprised of veteran debaters and/or litigators, some of whom had the dubious honour of having been seen on black-and-white television by some of our younger lawyers. The not-so-dubious honour was being remembered as looking exactly as they do now.
Proposing the motion that ‘Law is a Business, not a Calling’ were Ms Deborah Barker (M/s Khattar Wong & Partners), Mr Steven Chong SC (M/s Rajah & Tann), Mr Kenneth Tan SC (M/s Kenneth Tan Kong & Tan) and team leader, Mr Chelva Rajah SC (M/s Tan Rajah & Cheah). Garbed in their gowns and upholding the dignity and solemnity of their calling were the opposition team of Mr Edmond Pereira (M/s Edmond Pereira & Partners), Ms Indranee Rajah (M/s Drew & Napier), Mr Alvin Yeo SC (M/s Wong Partnership) and anchored by Mr Harry Elias SC (M/s Harry Elias Partnership).
The brainchild of Mr Derrick Wong of the Law
Society’s Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Committee last
year, this inaugural debate was executed with much style and
aplomb by the CLE 2000 Committee, chaired by Mr N Sreenivasan,
with even the signature ‘Debates’ theme music thrown
in. Gracing the occasion was the Minister for State (Law and Home
Affairs), Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee.
The piece de resistance, however, was in the choice of Chairman. Mr Warren LH Khoo, formerly Justice Warren LH Khoo, and a former Law Society Vice-President, brought to the Chair the dry and wry wit which has characterised his illustrious legal career. Quick repartee was the order of the day and no one came close to stealing a march on this winsome yet steely Chairman. Even when Mr Harry Elias made an attempt to adjourn the proceedings on a preliminary application, he was summarily dismissed, without hearing arguments, but with costs. When, undaunted, Mr Elias ventured forth to give his reasons, the Chairman cut him short with ‘I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with reasons.’
The evening saw a smorgasboard of debating styles in the offing. Powerpoint presentations of statistics were used, photographs were doctored, stage props in the shape of handphones and firm brochures were produced, and even a live exhibit in the shape of the proposing team’s leader in one case! Some even resorted to ‘lawyer jokes’.
Insults and risque remarks also made their way out into the open. Ms Indranee Rajah of the ‘calling’ team suffered the ignominy of being termed a ‘calling girl’ with a stiff upper lip. Mr Steven Chong SC of the ‘business’ team had it worse — he was called an accountant! It was obvious that the best punch-lines were spontaneous and impromptu. Mr Edmond Pereira showed the traits of his trade when he started referring to the Proposition as the Prosecution. Mr Steven Chong warned Mr Harry Elias that Powerpoint was not an electric outlet. When Mr Chelva Rajah purported to recount a conversation overheard in the office of Mr Edmond Pereira, where the latter was supposed to have shown no sympathy to a client not being able to pay his fees, the latter shot back that the conversation had been with his wife! When Mr Harry Elias gave examples of Lawspeak in a litany of Latin including ‘Mala Fide’, Mr Chelva Rajah reminded him to throw in ‘Mana Wang’.
However, the true camaraderie of the brethren at the Bar was displayed when Mr Harry Elias paid Mr Chelva Rajah the ultimate compliment of being ‘the epitome of an Advocate in the best traditions of the Bar’. Strategic ploy or not, the warm audience applause which this drew was endorsement enough of this well-respected and much-loved Senior at the Bar.
The Debate was also unique in allowing the audience to be the judges of the proceedings. Before the commencement of the debates, a straw-poll was taken of those in favour of the motion — with 50 in favour of the motion and 79 against.
However, as the night wore through, the lure of money or the eloquence of the speakers proved too strong and some 16 members of the audience swung their vote, for the money! The final vote count stood at 66 for the motion and 69 against.
Thereafter, all present adjourned to the Members’ Dining Room for wine and food, a truly satisfying ending to an evening’s entertainment. Many agreed that this evening’s event beat any episode of ‘The Practice’, ‘Ally McBeal’, or ‘Today in Parliament’ for that matter, hands down in sheer legal entertainment value!
However, the last word must go to Associate Professor Ho, who was overheard remarking to the Law Society’s President, Mr Palakrishnan, that notwithstanding the laughter and jibes which peppered the evening’s event, the motion also called for some serious reflection in these threshold times, a message which should not be lost amidst the fun and frolic that followed.
Malathi Das
Palakrishnan & Partners
