In Penang on a short family holiday
during the June school break, I
wandered into the Protestant cemetery,
intrigued by the dilapidation of white tombstones against the
deep green of unmown grass. My initial reward was repeated
dive bombing by hungry mosquitoes but the inscriptions gained
in interest as I battled onward. A number of British inscriptions
spoke of early death, from a mysterious ailment described as
jungle fever. There were too a group of Chinese Christians,
who escaped the Boxer rebellion and found refuge in Penang.
Then, in front of me, appeared a cluster of Rodyk graves, as
well as a memorial tablet to the youngest son of one Bernard
Rodyk of Malacca, who later joined James Guthrie Davidson in
partnership in 1877 to form Rodyk & Davidson.
The night before had been spent at Cecil Rajendra’s home, the
well-known poet and lawyer. It was a fine evening of poetry,
speeches and stories. Among the guests were a number of
heritage and environment enthusiasts, anxious that Penang
not lose its old buildings. They had even put forward a bold
proposal for the return of trams to Georgetown’s streets.
At the end of last year we celebrated the 180th anniversary of the
Second Charter of Justice, the document which followed upon
the grouping together of Singapore, Malacca and Penang as the
Straits Settlements and commenced reception of the common
law to Singapore (for Penang, this had already occurred in
1807). The anniversary was marked by the publication of a
monograph by Justice of Appeal Andrew Phang. As it forms one
of the threads of this message, I should add that it so happens
that the first known decision on the Second Charter of Justice
is the unreported Malacca case of Rodyk v Williamson, which
presumably involved a member of Bernard’s family.
Our Chief Justice in his foreword to the monograph noted the
importance of distinguishing the good in history from the bad,
so that we know what to build on and what to consign to the
heap. One might add that one needs good history rather than
bad – otherwise the present is misled.
I would venture that for the legal profession the ‘sense of
continuity and sense of solidarity … in remembering the
past’1 is especially important. This is the spirit behind much
of the Society’s activities, including the manic party for young
lawyers called to the Bar as well as the more sedate reception
for them and their parents immediately following mass call. We
are seeing and will see in the next few years renewed growth in
numbers at the Bar. This is both because of an increase in the
supply of lawyers as well as rising demand for legal services,
particularly of a commercial nature, not just in Singapore but
regionally. I am aware that some of our members fear that we
have reached saturation point, and that in some fields there is
little sign of rising fee-paying work. There are three areas where
renewal (attracting younger members to this area of work) is
a problem – the criminal bar, the family bar and the personal
injuries and accident bar. These areas of expertise share a
common feature – the clientele are ordinary people, coming to
the law not by choice as commercial clients do but because of
some problem or difficulty that has arisen in their lives.
The expansion of legal aid currently underway that the Society
has supported may in due course assist the family and personal
injuries bars. It may be also that the courts should re-look at
the quantum of costs awarded in personal injuries and other
accident matters. This particular area involves issues of social
policy and it is important that the Bar’s perspective be heard,
and not just that of insurance companies. This has been an area
in which I have taken a particular interest and our Civil Practice
Committee has been active in advocating the importance of a
strong Bar. While a shift to administrative, non-judicial remedies
carries the apparent advantage of lower costs, its attraction
should be recognised to be limited, for administrative schemes
of compensation by design do not provide the same measure of
compensation as the common law, and victims of negligence
may therefore be under-compensated.
Returning to the theme of history and young lawyers, in 1910
there were 30 lawyers and in 1958, 150 lawyers. Singapore was
already a thriving commercial hub, but of course its population
in those days was much smaller than it is today. And government
policy is now structured to increase Singapore’s population to
6.5 million (from its current 4.5 million) within two decades or
so. Add to that the simple fact that legal services support the
cross-border financial flows that are themselves projected to
grow tremendously in Asia over the next two decades, and the
only conclusion is that young lawyers who are ready to make
the effort, who do not expect an immediate pot of gold but who
are ready to build a name and a career, and are prepared to
travel and rough it up a little, have a very bright future ahead of
them. Welcome to the Bar!
Philip
Jeyaretnam, SC
President
The
Law Society of Singapore