Marshalling the Future

I first met David Saul Marshall when he and my father were partners. My father had just left Service, and before setting up his own firm he spent a year with David Marshall. I was only a tot then, but I do remember our family visiting him at his old house, Temasek, out at Changi Point, and my following the older kids down to the beach to pick up sea shells in the moonlight. A bluff, larger than life character, he was full of fire and love of life.

As I grew older, it struck me as interesting that his parents had given him both names of a pair that had such a tangled biblical history. Saul was the king of Israel when David slew Goliath. After an initial period of gratitude, Saul became jealous of David and repeatedly tried to have him killed. Saul’s son, Jonathan, was David’s great friend, and managed to warn David just in time, earning his father’s wrath. Remarkably, David despite having opportunities to kill Saul, chose not to do so, as Saul after all was the anointed king. I have often wondered whether the tension between his two names ever had any impact on Marshall’s own life, but I do remember thinking when he chose to become an ambassador on behalf of a government with which he had such a deep difference of philosophy that this decision perhaps sprang from the David in him.

Many years later, I used this device of paired and opposing names for the protagonist in my novel Abraham’s Promise, in the latter case the names of Abraham and Isaac, father and son. The conjunction yielded hints of ambivalence that enriched the novel, playing off its themes of sacrifice and submission, independence and choice. By way of exegesis, I should mention that Sri Lankan Tamils (after conversion to American Methodism) displayed a predilection for biblical names similar to that of Iraqi Jews.

These personal reasons join with numerous public ones to make it a great privilege to publish Dharmendra Yadav’s 1994 interview with David Marshall. This interview came from the period of Marshall’s life following his return to Singapore, when he was a consultant with Drew & Napier. It reveals that he had not lost his fire, nor his ability to find the right words to express what he wanted to say. He certainly had a great deal to say of relevance to us today. His way of practising – dramatic, determined and tenacious – remains a part of our legal heritage, and must be celebrated as such. The interview is filled with feelings of being in the doghouse, of not being listened to, of being passed by. Such feelings are natural, but I hope finally unjustified, because in the long run Singapore must and will draw upon and cherish its history of people ready to take up an unpopular cause or speak their minds at whatever personal risk – a lineage that traces from David Marshall through JBJ (as my father is apparently known these days) to others yet to come. To understand where one is, and where one might go, it is critical to consider not just the road behind, but the paths not taken.

I don’t want to steal the thunder from the interview, but I must highlight this exhortation – ‘It’s an exciting country, Singapore. It’s a lovely country. And you have to make your own space for your own spiritual and intellectual needs and have the courage. Have the courage to serve your fellow men with integrity.’

These are words that are filled with optimism and power, in such contrast to the cynicism and alienation that all too often grip people, breeding apathy and disinterest.

Apart from the interview with Marshall, the theme of this issue is China. It certainly offers tremendous business opportunities at the moment. But it has yet to find a system that would enable it to manage or resolve deep-seated differences of economic and political interests. Unlike India, which already has such a system in place – sometimes frustrating investors’ immediate financial concerns, but in the long run offering the promise of stability – this remains China’s biggest challenge. But that should not stop our law firms from facilitating inward or outward investment in the middle of the great boom that is occurring today.

Let me end with some words of thanks.

Council is grateful for the tremendous support shown to us at this year’s Annual General Meeting. We were all very heartened that the membership understands the importance of building a strong Society as the voice of the profession, and is ready and willing to stand behind us in this task. Our work in and for the Society is all about making space for our spiritual and intellectual needs, for demonstrating and asserting that the profession is not just about business but ultimately about justice. Thank you.

Philip Jeyaretnam, SC

President

The Law Society of Singapore