Goodbye to the Old Matriarch

Gopalan Raman bids adieu to the old Supreme Court building at 1 St Andrews Road, and also to the favourite haunt of many litigators — the Bar Room and regales us with nuggets of information about the rich past of this historical site and some of the people who have walked through its corridors.

By the time you read this we may have already moved into the new Supreme Court building. We may have sung a lusty Auld Lang Syne to an institution which has been a part of us since 1939. Those of us of the older generation would fondly remember the great judges who adorned the Bench — ex CJ Mr Alan Rose with his charming wit, Justice Tan Ah Tah who was quite a stickler for form and grammar and Justice Victor Winslow whose penchant for the turn of phrase was proverbial.

Perhaps the salubrious air that we breathed yesteryears in the old building was due to it having been built at a site where a hotel once stood. Not to mention the absence of fax machines, EFS and all the gadgetry that information technology has introduced into the judicial process.

The High Court sat at 10.30am and seldom sat beyond 4.30pm. One particular judge made it a point to leave well before 4pm so that he could go to his club, have his tea and a round of golf. In the name of clearing backlog and achieving excellence we have multiplied the number of judges manifold (at one time in the 50s there were only four judges), extended court sitting hours and required attendance at PTCs, Settlement Conferences, and filing of bundles well before the date fixed for hearing. Alas, the price of progress and the pursuit 
of excellence!

The Supreme Court building in the old days housed not only the courts but also the Official Assignee’s and other related departments on the entire fourth level and the Industrial Arbitration Court on the third level. There was a live-in caretaker on the fourth level who supplied drinks before our own Choo ran his 
beverage service.

The present Bar Room where Choo operates used to be the location of Court No 5 which was created very much later. Choo used to operate the Bar Room from a place just next to the Chief Justice’s court. That space is now occupied by the Judges of Appeal. Fridays were his busiest days when Summons-in-Chambers and Motions were heard. Choo also helped many of us don our robes.

A feature in the old Supreme Court used to be the regular References held whenever a judge was elevated to the Bench or if a member of the Bar passed on. References were also held when receiving dignitaries like the Chief Justice or the Lord Chancellor of Britain. Judges and the visiting dignitaries used to be dressed in their regalia and the proceedings were recorded and duly published in the Malayan Law Journal following the Reference. There would be speeches from the Chairman of the Bar, the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice who would preside over such gatherings. The Law Society was not yet formed then. There was true collegiate spirit as there was greater occasion for members of the Bench and the Bar 
to mingle.

Talking about collegiate spirit, I have had some very pleasant experiences with some judges. I remember Mr Choor Singh calling me into his Chambers once and referring me an authority which he said I should have cited in a murder trial over which he and Justice Winslow presided. It was a Malaysian Court of Appeal decision. I pointed out respectfully to the judge that I had in fact cited a Privy Council authority almost on identical facts which I had thought would have greater impact on the two judges being a binding precedent. I can’t imagine today a judge giving counsel for the defence an authority so that counsel could then use it to persuade the Appellate Court to reverse his own decision!

Another pleasant experience was a divorce matter I had before Mr P Coomaraswamy. On the eve of the hearing his secretary telephoned me and mentioned that there was some irregularity in the title of the petition. The secretary pointed out what the judge had said and to my pleasant surprise the judge himself amended the petition and had my messenger pick up the judge’s amended copy for me to engross and re-file the next morning. How many of today’s judges would follow this worthy example?

The Bar had some flamboyant personalities. They added colour and vibrancy to the Bar. The first person that comes to mind is the late David Marshall. During a campaign by the PAP government against yellow culture during the early days, I remember David Marshall coming to court with a yellow tie. He used to have a silver coloured Jaguar. He re-painted it yellow! This act was not so much cocking a snook at the authorities but more his way of declaring, ‘I am my own man.’

Kenneth Hilborne drove his Alfa-Romeo through the checkpoint when a fee had to be paid for entering the CBD (‘Central Business District’). Of course he was promptly summoned and the good magistrate who heard his case agreed with him that the collection of such a fee was a revenue measure and promptly acquitted him because Parliament had not debated and approved the ‘tax’. However, on appeal the good magistrate’s decision was reversed and Hilborne was found guilty. He came out of court beaming with joy. He had made his point and that was what mattered.

One of our Attorney-Generals, Mr Ahmad Ibrahim, was another colossus at the Bar. He had a rare distinction of being the only recipient of a Certificate of Honour at the English Bar examinations. He also graduated from Cambridge with distinction. He was known for his photographic memory and his familiarity with different branches of the law, Islamic law, revenue law, constitutional law, among others. A true polymath 
he was.

Memories are a strange thing. They remain in the inner recesses of the mind only to appear in our mental screens when certain events take place. Moving out of the Supreme Court building has evoked these memories. We are going into a new building which lacks the majesty and the grandeur of the old. The tympanum of the old Supreme Court will testify to the nobility of the spirit of law. The dome, the great columns and the solidity of the structure testify to the enduring power of law and justice.

The new building pales into insignificance. Except for the dome on the top with 360 degree visibility, the building itself is nondescript. I wish the lack of character will be more than compensated by those who will inhabit the building. I hope they will remember what Oliver Wendell Holmes said in another context, ‘Law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky.’

Gopalan Raman

G Raman & Partners

E-mail: graman@cyberway.com.sg