The Forum of Senior Counsel

Reflects on the Late Dr Wee Chong Jin

The Senior Counsel Forum, an informal gathering of all Senior Counsel practising at the Bar, 

has gathered some reminiscences of the late Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin.

The Chief Justice as Disciplinarian

Leslie Chew

I remember the late Chief Justice for his efforts to try and instil a good grounding amongst young lawyers. In those days, summonses for directions in the High Court were heard by the Chief Justice himself, usually on Friday mornings. It was the late Dr Wee’s habit to quiz young lawyers on the files they were mentioning before him, knowing full well that they had gone to Court, sent by their seniors without preparation and little knowledge about the files they were handling. Frequently, these lawyers were unfamiliar with the details of the cases they were mentioning beyond the requested directions set out in the summonses. When these lawyers were unable to give him the details he asked for, the late Chief Justice would then launch into his familiar (almost annual) lecture thus, ‘I have told all you lawyers, you are not mere conduit pipes. You must be familiar with the files you are handling.’ His passion for the profession was apparent, and I well remember him for his efforts at getting young lawyers to start on the right foot.

Molly Lim

My first hearing was before the late Chief Justice in the early 80s. It was a simple matter and an ex parte application. The late Chief Justice was aware that I was the ‘new kid on the block’. He made it a point to ask me some questions on the file in his stern and no-nonsense voice and demeanour. I was of course nervous and extremely anxious to be able to answer the questions. Needless to say, I was greatly relieved when the hearing was over, and yet felt good that that I was able to answer the questions posed by no less than the Chief Justice.

Later, after several more hearings before the late Chief Justice and comparing notes with other lawyers, I realised that first encounter was the late Chief Justice’s way of teaching new lawyers a valuable lesson: no matter what the matter is — simple, complicated or even ex parte — we must know our work well so as to be able to discharge our duties to the Court, to the clients and to ourselves. Each of us is expected to perform to the best of our ability and seniority. As that was my first application and I was only a junior lawyer, his ‘testing’ of my ability and knowledge was appropriate for someone of that level. Looking back, I realised that the main reason I was able to answer the late Chief Justice’s questions was that he had posed relatively simple questions and, to make sure that I was able to answer them, some of the questions posed were leading questions where the answers were obvious. No wonder I could answer those questions. That first hearing helped to increase my confidence, and that stood me in good stead for my later cases.

Michael Hwang

My first encounter before Wee Chong Jin CJ was not so serendipitous as Molly’s. When I was a pupil, I was sent down by a partner on an application by three persons to be appointed guardians of two infants. I was told that it was a straightforward application, but the Chief Justice asked me if I had any authority for this unusual application. I had not been told by the instructing partner that there was anything unusual, and had not done any getting up, and was therefore unable to answer the question.

From then on, I prepared for every application, however simple, even to the extent of looking up authorities for the power to grant an adjournment! The Chief Justice had achieved what he set out to do — make me (and every young lawyer) prepare for every appearance in Court. A few months later, I was at the same dinner table as the Chief Justice and his wife. His wife asked me, ‘Are you nervous when you appear before my husband?’ I had learnt my lesson by then and answered: ‘Only when I come unprepared.’

When I subsequently took charge of the Litigation department in my firm, I made sure that, not only should all lawyers going for Chambers applications or mentions know the history of files entrusted to them, the partners or other lawyers delegating the task of advocacy to another lawyer had to prepare a note for that other lawyer so that he or she would be able to answer any question that the Court was likely to put. All this was due to that first encounter with Chief Justice Wee.

Christopher Lau

He expected counsel to be in complete mastery of his brief. In return, counsel always received a carefully-thought through, balanced and first-class judgment.

The Chief Justice as the Fountain of Justice

Wong Meng Meng

Four boys who were camping in Changi chanced upon the remains of a motor-bike which had been involved in an accident the night before. As boys would, they stripped the bike, since nobody was around, and the bike was apparently abandoned.

They were arrested, and charged with theft. They pleaded guilty and admitted the facts. Two (the alleged leaders) were sent to jail, and the other two were sent to the Reformative Training Centre (RTC) for three years each. (I cannot remember the full details, but I do remember that two were sent to RTC.) The upset parents came to see me (this was about 1976). On the facts I felt that there was no theft, at best Criminal Misappropriation of Property. But how to reverse 
the decision?

I did quite a lot of research and filed a criminal motion — probably the first time a criminal motion had been filed — to ask the High Court to review the matter. (I could have asked for review by a letter, but there would be no right of appeal over a letter, so I had filed a Motion, in an attempt to keep open the technical possibility of an appeal.) The matter was fixed on the usual Friday Motion day, and I was pleased to note that it was the Chief Justice who would be hearing the matter.

However, on the day of the Motion, the Chief Justice could not hear the matter, and another Judge heard it. He had not heard of a criminal motion before (despite such an application being expressly mentioned in the Criminal Procedure Code), and the DPP objected on the ground that, as there was an admission of guilt, the matter could not be looked into and reversed. Despite my show of authorities, the Judge agreed with the DPP, and my Motion was dismissed.

I was of course very upset by the result, and was preparing to do further research into whether there was a right of appeal in a situation such as this. Just after lunch, the Chief Justice’s PA called and said that the Chief Justice wanted to see me about ‘this morning’s matter’. I was to bring the papers.

Upon arrival, I found that the DPP was already there and, when we went in, before we even sat down, the Chief Justice said, ‘Something has to be done about these four boys’ or something like that. The DPP did not say a word.

The Chief Justice asked what I thought the correct legal position was. I said that the facts did not support a conviction for theft and, despite the plea of guilt, the High Court had the power to set aside the convictions. I started to show him the cases, but he said that was all right, that he knew he had the review powers. I also told him that, even if he would not set aside the conviction, he could still revise the sentences, despite the appeal having expired.

The Chief Justice then turned to the DPP and said, ‘Obviously these decisions cannot stand. Is there anything you want to say?’ And the DPP said, ‘I shall leave it to your Lordship.’

The Chief Justice then tore out the page of the morning’s proceedings, crumpled it and threw it into the wastepaper basket! He wrote the new decision as if he had heard the matter: the convictions set aside and substituted for one of Criminal Misappropriation of Property; the two jail sentences reduced to (I think) probation or shorter jail sentences, and the RTC sentences set aside and the two boys set free.

I left the Chief Justice’s Chambers very elated and very satisfied with the turn of events. I was very impressed with:

a.  the fact that Chief Justice had read the files;

b.  the fact that he was obviously sufficiently upset to remember the matter, and to check on the outcome;

c.  the fact that he was sufficiently upset to do something about it, and damn the formalities.

One can of course think of the abuse that could be perpetrated by a corrupt Chief Justice if things were regularly done the way he did it. But I was thinking of the grief and the expense that the boys and their parents would have to go through with an appeal, an appeal which was totally unnecessary in the first place. Perhaps he had also already taken the view that there was no right of appeal.

The Chief Justice as Sportsman

Joe Grimberg

It may not be generally known that he was a fine cricketer, played for the Singapore Chinese Recreation Club for many years before and after the war, and captained The Rest against The Europeans. He played as a Judge in the Annual Bench and Bar matches, but never as Chief Justice.

The Chief Justice and the Law Society

Harry Elias

I was President of the Law Society in 1984/1986. A reluctance to mingle had set in between the Bar and the Bench in Singapore. I visited the Chief at his No 1 Nassim Road home and asked for his help to organise a function to thaw this icy situation. A mingling of Bar and Bench was the tonic needed! His immediate reaction was to accept the role of host. He suggested using No 1 Nassim Road as the venue with buses ferrying the invitees. Eventually he organised an evening at Tanah Merah Country Club, paid in its entirety by the Judges of the High Court. The guests included the then Council, and selected members of the Bar.

He was ready and willing at all times to cement the relationship between Bar and Bench. It was unkind therefore to see him and his Judges chided at the Opening of the Legal Year in 1986 by the President of Law Society (for details, please see the article by the Attorney-General at page 19 of the May-June 2005 issue of Inter Se). His response to the Trinity speech was delivered with reason, aplomb and courtesy such that the impact of the incident was forgotten but his 
response remembered.

The Chief Justice and Pupils

Michael Hwang

I recount an anecdote the truth of which has never been confirmed. When s 32(3) of the Legal Profession Act was introduced, allowing pupils to apply for permission to appear in Chambers or for mentions after four months of pupillage, petitions for part-call were made by the Pupil-Master, and the Pupil concerned was originally not required to attend. Subsequently, the Chief Justice issued a Practice Direction that he required each Pupil who was being part-called to appear before him on the hearing of the Petition for part-call.

It was rumoured that this arose from the following incident. A Pupil who had been part-called without having seen the Chief Justice before had to appear before the Chief Justice for a Chambers application. The Chief Justice then had a Personal Assistant called Ng Peck Chuan, a gentleman who had an extremely distinguished appearance and silver-white hair, who used to sit next to the Chief Justice when the latter heard Chambers applications. The hapless Pupil walked into the Chief Justice’s Chambers for an ex-parte application and was so impressed by Mr Ng’s appearance that he addressed Mr Ng as the Chief Justice.

It was believed that the subsequent Practice Direction was introduced so that this mistake would never occur again.

Ave Et Vale

The Forum of Senior Counsel remembers the late Chief Justice as an outstanding jurist who contributed, not only to the development of Singapore’s legal system, but to the personal and professional development of all lawyers who had the privilege of appearing before him. The Forum mourns the passing of a legal giant, and extends its deepest sympathies to the members of his family.

Edited by Michael Hwang, SC