June and the first week of July were given over to watching World Cup matches, discussing the performances of individual players, observing the patriotic fervour of the 32 different nations and substituting our own judgment – honed with the benefit of half a dozen replays from all sorts of angles – for that of the men-in-black, who get one chance to see the action, from one angle, usually not the best one. I was most impressed by Benito Archundia, the Mexican referee who took charge of the Germany-Italy semi-final. He happens to be a lawyer by profession, and I was convinced that this helped to make him a great arbiter of the fair and foul. 

After the excitement of the World Cup come the fireworks of National Day. It is great to dream, and, having watched the football teams of nations not much more populous than our own give a good account of themselves (Trinidad and Tobago (one million), Costa Rica (four million), Togo (five million)), perhaps Goal 2010 could be reinvigorated. Why shouldn’t Singapore take its place as a World Cup finalist one day? It is not just about achieving a certain level of sporting performance: it is also about offering the world a story that is not just an economic one. This World Cup saw more nations with players imported for the purpose – for example, Tunisia and Japan both had a Brazilian named Santos in their teams – and this has seemed the obvious shortcut to glory for us. But the squads for both Japan and Tunisia were otherwise homegrown. A national team filled with imports would no longer tell the story of the nation. Imports are different from natural migrants – people whose families come to that country for reasons other than to play football for the national team – and France would not be the truly great team it is without its African and Caribbean strands. Making up a predominantly homegrown team to play at that level remains a big challenge for us – we first need to achieve the prospect of decent sporting careers for our kids (a problem that has its parallel in the arts).

So in all probability we can expect to re-focus on the hum and the drum, business rather than sport: semiconductors, biotechnology, transport and communications.  

Somewhere in the middle, a mix of art and science, creativity and rote application, stand lawyers. The role of the legal profession in facilitating the expansion of trade and investment is clear and compelling. It has been recognised (some might say belatedly) that a services hub like Singapore needs more lawyers. The foundational value of the rule of law is beyond debate, and lawyers must nurture, protect and uphold the rule of law. The profession debated its future in the landmark conference held in February this year. Conclusions from the conference included:

1    how the market requires diverse structures and sizes of law practices, and the future is not just with the big;

2    how the profession must respond to new demands for legal services, locally and regionally;

3    how the profession must take greater responsibility in ensuring access to justice; and

4    how the profession needs to strengthen its own governance and regulation in order to maintain public trust.

Continuing the theme of the future of the profession, the editorial team of this great journal, and our intrepid reporter, Rajan Chettiar in particular, conceived the idea of seeking the insights of the man who could well be Singapore’s most famous lawyer, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. It was something of a journalistic coup to secure this opportunity to hear his views on the profession. What better vantage point from which to survey what lies ahead? I am sure you will not be disappointed when you read the interview.

Philip Jeyaretnam, SC

President

The Law Society of Singapore