Apathy in Law Society elections: 4 candidates for 8 seats
October 22nd, 2009 | 
Author: From our Correspondent
There were only four nominations for eight available seats during the Singapore Law Society’s annual elections last week.
Law Society president Michael Hwang and Mr Leo Cheng Suan, both incumbents, were returned unopposed in the three seats for the Senior Category which is for lawyers in practice for at least 12 years. Lawyers Anand Nalachandran and Laura Liew were the sole nominees in two other categories for those who have clocked fewer years.
The lack of interest in the Law Society among lawyers and the general public is hardly surprisingly.
Unlike its counterpart across the Causeway, the Malaysian Bar Association which has been active in speaking up on social and political issues of the day, the Singapore Law Society has been relegated to become more of a social club.
The Law Society is a toothless tiger with no bite. The voice of the law profession is muzzled by the Legal Amendment Bill introduced in 1986 to prevent it from commenting on legislative and policy matters unless its opinion is specifically sought after by the government.
In 1986, then Law Society President Francis Seow was staunchly opposed to the Bill and went on a televised debate during a parliament select hearing with Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.
The Bill was subsequently passed in Parliament and Mr Seow was detained for two months under the Internal Security Act for being “implicated” in the controversial “Marxist conspiracy”. He now lives in the United States where he is a visiting professor of Law at Harvard University.
Since then, the Law Society has faded away gradually from public view altogether. Few Singaporeans are remotely aware of its existence.
When Philip Jeyaretnam, a son of the late opposition scion J.B. Jeyaretnam was the Law Society President, he tried to persuade the government to amend the Bill to allow the Law Society more leeway to comment on legislation introduced by the government.
His proposal was shot down almost immediately by the Law Minister K Shan who saw the move as a pretext for the Law Society to “interfere” with domestic politics.
Former Law Society president (1995 to 1997) Chandra Mohan Nair, likened it to political apathy in Singapore which is a result of a systematic “de-politicization” of all segments of society under the draconian rule of the PAP.
Like Singaporeans from other professions, Singapore lawyers are more concerned about making money than getting themselves involved in politics which explains the apathy pervading the entire Law Society.
The Law Society should take a leaf out of the Malaysian Bar Association’s book and do much more to advocate the rule of law, human rights, justice and democracy in Singapore.
Posted in Editorial
Sorry….singaporean lawyers have no choice but to toe the line if they want to maintain their livelihood and pay off their study loans…
other lawyers more established over the years also have to toe the line if they don’t want their careers to end “suddenly”.
For many lawyers…i think they spent more time heading towards the pot that makes more money for them then helping the common men in the street in legal difficulties and fighting for true justice in every way they can legally…
Pity the lawyers currently practising the law profession in singapore is reduce to lame ducks even though the essential ethics of equal rights, legal discourse…etc comes from studying law in-dept past, present and future.
Sad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I feel compelled to say something about this here. I think it is churlish to blame the Law Society for the current state of apathy. Other Bar Councils may be more outspoken, so to speak, or at least more covered than in Singapore, what other Bar Councils do not have is a highly restriction Section 38(1)(c) in the Legal Profession Act that prevents them from speaking out unless consulted (which is almost never), and other Bar Councils do not have such a slavish media underlings that will closely toe the government’s policy of summarily hiding and covering up dissent from the public eye. You can tell them to speak out about democracy and human rights, but as you should know, all that has been legislated against by the government, and if the Law Society were to speak out, they would be considered speaking out on legislation without consultation, thereby violating the law, and let’s don’t begin to think about what could happen to who could possibly be the only remaining dissenting leader of the Law Society (and you know how liberal the government is when applying the law).
To be sure, Michael Hwang has been aware of this a long time ago (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/335673/1/.html) has been using what little political freedom he has left to speak out as vocally as he can against this unfair law, since repealing it would allow the Law Society the ability to comment on other pieces of legislation pertaining to democracy and human rights, but let us remember that the state media is muffling him such that his reach is such that you and I are unaware of his efforts. The only people who know of his efforts are fellow lawyers. When he spoke up about it earlier this year, his criticisms were summarily dismissed and then insulted for “a basic lack of understanding over our criminal laws and procedure and approach to sentencing” by the Minister of Law.
Let us be truthful here. Michael Hwang has been doing all he can, within the confines of what little room he has. The government knows only too well what kind of threat the Law Society is to their facade of peace and propserity, and hence the tight restrictions. If there is anyone responsible for trying to fade the Lawsoc from people’s minds, it is the government and their submissive media. The PAP has seen what they can do, and they’re not going to let them have another chance.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Sometimes I read the articles and I find it funny.
It’s like saying there are a lot of rapists in the street and potential victims should dress like Afgan women to prevent from being raped.
Hello? All aspect of Singapore life : be it law society, press, university etc… have been repeatedly violated by the PAP government and now you expect them to do something? For what? To be violated and tightened their control again?
What really needs to be done is for voters to vote in a substantial number of opposition so that the government cannot just pass stupid laws like the “Legal Amendment Bill” again.
Bills and Laws are being rubber stamped as we speak simply because we do not have more than 1/3 opposition MPs to deny PAP the 2/3 majority.
And you don’t get 1/3 opposition MPs by asking lawyers to speak up or asking student to speak up. You get it by asking voters to vote for opposition and have a 2 party system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I totally agree with btan, don’t rely on others to do it when you don’t dare.
Votes speaks louder then words.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To btan,
We need to vote in at least 28 opposition MPs to break pap’s 2/3 majority.Imagine WP take 2 GRC,SDA 1 GRC, SDP 1 GRC and RP 1 GRC, then only pap will wake up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Consult a civil rights attorney who turns President:
Note: The US President, Mr. Barack H.Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.
Maybe you should send to Mr. Obama, The US President a copy of this news report and a copy of Singapore’s parliamentary Legal Amendment Bill 1986 for his bedside readings before coming to Singapore. He would surely appreciate to be better informed of the little red dot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The only way to change is to change the Government. If we fail, we deserve all the misery we got for our children. It is our free choice.
The minds of dead rats deserve no sympathy if rats continue to vote blindly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How to change ?!?
I live in S’pore for 3 decades and have yet to cast any vote in any of the elections… My GRC is a walkover.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Please forget about changing, this is Singapore not America.
Singaporean will only vote to protect their rice bowl. If their rice bowl is not broken, they will remain faithful.
Outstanding lawyers going into politics of course choose to be in PAP, they are no fools.
Since the best of the best is already in PAP, the choice is simple and clear.
Hate to pour cold water onto your dream but your dream will never come true.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is why Singaporeans must resist GRC, where opposition field candidates in GRC, just vote them in – REGARDLESS of all other considerations.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
is it true that there are now more lawyers in singapore?
If so , why this situation in law society?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@pay when paid
that is because when a bunch of smart alec lawyers decided to speak up and be more concerned about the legal community and society at large, they were branded as marxist conspirators and detained without trial using the Internal Security Act (ISA) .. can you imagine that?? being a lawyer and you are detained without trial?
after that, god in parliament said that “law society you shut up. do not speak unless you are spoken to” haha .. and that became the law because whoever disagreed with the god would be struck down with a bolt of lightning
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Anonymous is correct, Sinkaporeans MUST REALLY wake up and vote ANYONE from the opposition contesting a GRC into parliment.
Now is NOT the time to choose quality, its Quantity thats the pressing issue.
Having said that, EVEN IF 100% of Sinkaporeans voted for Opposition, the PaPies will still control the gahment.
Why? You tell me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@XiSd Tay
“EVEN IF 100% of Sinkaporeans voted for Opposition, the PaPies will still control the gahment.”
becos God of Lightning will send in the army hahaha
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If 100% of the voters voted for the Opposition and PAP can still be in power, that only goes to show that the Opposite does not have what it takes to take over from PAP. Simple as that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
wonder if anyone can obtain a video recording of the debate between Francis Seow and the Old Man in 1986 and upload a link to it? would love to see the Old Man fumble and stumble against the astute FS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No No No, ExPoLiCe. Thats because most of the HUGE GRC’s will be a walkover!
You actually believe what GCT or LHL said about making GRC small and adding more Single Seat Wards?
Sinkaporeans easier to strike 4D than have them put money where their mouth is. Agree not?
Since WHEN did anyone from the famiLEE ever remember what htye said yesterday and kept to their words? Only incidents I remembered was when SOMEONE said: We Will Fix The Opposition! That came true.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
yea, sporeans are goddamn cowards, bitch so much about the PAP but in the end will still vote for them
KNN
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@dude on Thu, 22nd Oct 2009 11:01 pm
[[How to change ?!?
I live in S’pore for 3 decades and have yet to cast any vote in any of the elections… My GRC is a walkover.]]
There are two reasons why your GRC is a walkover.
It is the GRC of GCT or LKY. In that case, good luck, better go move house.
The other reason is that your GRC formerly voted for opposition in the past with very low support rate (around 20%). In that case, it is the fault of the voters in your GRC. Blame them.
The opposition’s resources are very limited. At most they can field 1, 2 or 3 GRC team. The number of credible people willing to step up to contest in election are few and the amount of deposit required to field candidates are hefty.
What you can do is :-
1.) Donate to the opposition party that most likely will run in your GRC
2.) Write letters to the opposition party organising committee to come contest in your ward. Tell them why they should do so.
3.) Help spread awareness to voters around your GRCs about opposition members. If their chance is high, they will try.
So you have two choices now : sit back and do nothing and continue to complain you can’t vote OR you can do the above and hopefully have an opposition party contest in your ward.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Are Singaporeans not aware that GRC is rather dumb? Do they have something similar to our GRC in third world Africa too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Things are changing. Never said never. Only that it takes a little longer to dismantle the old “Berlin Wall.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We can only speak for those who automatically vote for pap with thinking it throughfully….
We cannot speak for those who wants to vote but cannot vote because of the GRC set up by the incumbent gov’t…
No matter how we look at it…if i remember correctly, only 35 – 43% of the populate did participate in GE 2006..the othr 50 – 67% did not get to vote due to the GRC set up ruling..that is where the 66% mandate PAP claim it got from the 35 – 43% who vote for or against PAP…now imagine if the voting is done fairly by removing the GRC set ups, almost 100& of the voting population is allowed to vote fairly….i believe then you will really see how all the voters true support lies for or against the PAP.
I believe singaporeans deep in their hearts are not cowards…but lions and lionesses…it is just that their kids or loved ones maybe “marked” or bar or given many obstacles from living a proper life in singapore directly or indirectly….
the quesition is when will they ask themselves and made the final decision…that is enough is enough and to take real concrete actions not only for their own future generations but fellow singaporeans too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Karl said: that is because when a bunch of smart alec lawyers decided to speak up and be more concerned about the legal community and society at large, they were branded as marxist conspirators and detained without trial using the Internal Security Act (ISA) .. can you imagine that?? being a lawyer and you are detained without trial?
That is true. Lawyer Chia Ti Lik was “fixed” and had to withdraw from being an Opposition candidate or he will be “taken care of” by the system.
This is and will be the norm until someone is 6 feet under.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Maybe its time to allow those imported FT to take over the Law Society and turn it into a social club for migrants instead.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The Law Society is a toothless tiger with no bite” and cannot even be allowed to wear a denture then what for? Only can lick. We, layman helpless so might as well leave it to die of natural death.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But you are not alone, brother. In fact, many Singaporeans are made toothless with no bite when face with walkover and GRCs in previous election.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
With the kind of shit that serves as Secretariat CEO & Professional Standards, that Dhoraisingam bitch, wouldn’t you be apathetic?
http://chiam-see-tong.blogspot.com/2007/02/cant-be-helped-that-law-society-is-lair.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0