When I was in hospital fighting for my life, I was told that Kim Siak had died. I was very upset and regretted that I was not even in a position to attend his funeral. I felt miserable as once again, I was unable to attend the funeral of another dear friend because of my own ill health. At times like this, I would question, “Why is God so unkind to me? At least He should let me go and pay my last respects.”
Kim Siak was somebody who loved his life, who loved having fun. I would like to think that in some way, I was a part of his life too. I reminisced about all the good times we had. We were neighbours and we were football mates. God bless his soul.
As I narrate these incidents, I do not know why most of the time it’s the tragic events that come into play. One remembers sad occasions and it seems as though there are no happy moments.
This is not true. Underneath all that sadness, there are still happy moments.
TWENTY-TWO
A QUESTION OF FACE
I first met Choo Ker Yong at the Apex Club where we were both members in the 1970s. Apex Club comprises young people who wish to do charity work and is like a younger version of the Rotary Club. Both of us belonged to Apex Club East, Singapore. We were affiliated to the worldwide Apex movement with its headquarters in Australia.
We became friends and every time after a Club dinner, we would go out for drinks. One day, he asked me which area of law practice I was in. At that time I said I was doing general work and would take on anything that came along as I was starting out in my career and couldn’t afford to be choosy as a young lawyer. He laughed and said, “I have a case from my company that I would like you to handle.”
Choo Ker Yong is a director of Cheng Meng Furniture Group (Pte) Ltd. As far as I know, the company does very good interior renovation work for many five-star hotels. So, naturally, I thought that he had a monetary claim against a client who had not settled after work had been done, but he said that it was a landlord and tenant matter. His company was the principal tenant and they had been collecting money from the subtenants all those years. However, one particular subtenant had suddenly refused to pay to them, saying that he would only pay to the landlord directly. The subtenant did not recognise my client as the principal tenant. I said, “Oh, it sounds simple enough. I will ask him to pay the rent directly to your company.” He replied, “Ya, it sounds simple. So can I send someone over to your office with the documents?”
The next day I received the documents. We sent a letter of demand to the subtenant who had stubbornly refused to pay the rent to them. They replied through a lawyer called David Chelliah, who used to be a Senior Partner of Drew & Napier, in a letter that was quite arrogant. So I decided to apply for an order for summary judgement. A summary judgement is a judgement that you try to obtain without a trial, stating to the court that the facts of law are so obvious that the defendant has no defence. I filed the affidavit of Choo Ker Yong’s father, stating the facts as to why he is the principal tenant and why the other side should pay to him.
The response to that affidavit came immediately. It was about 74 pages long, stating the law and facts. Here was a man who’s not educated in law, stating the facts of law. To me this was strange and the matter was getting more intense. Before I could complete reading the defendant’s affidavit, a second affidavit was served. This second affidavit was approximately 90 pages long, stating practically everything that was in the first affidavit with some additional facts. I was getting flustered and worried.
While looking at the file, I thought, “What have I got myself into? This seems to be very complicated.” While I was contemplating the situation, my secretary approached me and said, “There is a Mr Choo Cheng Meng who wants to see you without an appointment.” I told her, “Oh my goodness, this is the man himself, the boss of Cheng Meng Furniture.”
I walked over to the reception, greeted him with a handshake and said, “Mr Choo, what can I do for you?” He said, “You can do a lot for me, dear young man. You are my son’s good friend. He wanted me to give this case to you. I don’t know who you are and I feel you are too young and inexperienced in such matters. We wanted to instruct our company’s solicitors but Ker Yong insisted that we should try out other people, especially young upstarts. This is the reason why I agreed to instruct you.” He asked, “How is the matter coming along?” I assured him that it was going on well.
Mr Choo said to me, “Mr Anandan, I do not want any excuses. I do not want to lose this case because now it is a matter of face. My whole clan is watching to see what is going to happen. If this person doesn’t pay the rent to me, the remaining subtenants will also not pay to me. I don’t mind them paying directly to the landlord because whatever I collect from them I give to the landlord but I want to be recognised as the principal tenant. At least he should make one payment directly to me after which I will make arrangements for him to pay to the landlord. So there is no question of losing. We must win.” I said, “I will do my best.” He replied, “Your best is not good enough. I want you to tell me that you will win.”
Of course it was difficult for me to assure him that we would win the case and I reiterated to him, “It is difficult for me to say that I will win but I will do my best.” With that response, he said to me, “I was told that there are very smart lawyers in England. If necessary, you ask them for help. If not, you can fly to London with my son to consult one of them. I am prepared to give you the money because I don’t want to lose. Is that understood?” I agreed with him. He emphasised, “Money is no issue but my face is very important to me. So you make sure you win the case for me, OK?” He stood up, shook my hand with his big strong hand, reminding me that he was once a great carpenter. Today he is the Chairman of one of the biggest furniture companies in Singapore. You look at the man and you can see his determination but I could also see his warmth and kindness.
After he left, I sat down and tried to contact Ker Yong who was overseas. I told myself that I couldn’t afford to lose this case. Although Mr Choo had instructed me to engage a Queen’s Counsel, I felt that I did not need to do so. Then it struck me, “Ah, Chan Sek Keong, my Pupil Master!” I did my six months’ pupilage training under him. I thought, “I shall seek his advice. He will be able to assist me. He will definitely be able to handle this matter.”
I called his secretary and told her that I would like to brief Sek Keong on this matter. I emphasised the urgency and wanted to meet with him as soon as possible. This was in the afternoon and later that afternoon, she called back to inform me that Sek Keong would see me in the morning the next day. I agreed. She said to me, “Don’t be late!” I assured her that I would be punctual as I take my practice seriously unlike the days when I was a pupil with Chan Sek Kong. She laughed.
At 11 o’clock the next morning, I took the whole file with all the relevant documents to Shook Lin & Bok. I met with Sek Keong and he enquired, “What is the problem?” I handed the file to him and upon seeing the affidavits, he smiled and asked me, “You got frightened by these affidavits?” My reply was, “I’m not frightened but I got confused and worried.” I shared with him what Choo Cheng Meng had said to me. I said I needed him to be the lead counsel and I would be the instructing solicitor. As expected, he assured me, “No problem, we shall do that.” He took over the matter and a date was fixed for an Order 14 application to be heard. Chan Sek Keong and I represented the plaintiffs and David Chelliah and his assistant for the defendant. We all appeared before the Registrar, Roderick Martin, to argue the case for summary judgement.
After listening to the arguments and counter arguments from both sides, Rodrick Martin ordered a summary judgement. He then told David Chelliah that he was actually wasting his time putting up a sham defence. Our clients had been quite reasonable and the defendant only needed to make one payment to them and they would have made arrangements for the defendant to deal directly with the landlord. He also noted that the defendant was being stubborn. David Chelliah stated that it was a matter of face and I replied that it w
as certainly a matter of face for everyone. Anyway, I left the court with Chan Sek Keong feeling very happy that we had won. Immediately, I rang Ker Yong to tell him the good news that the judgement was in our favour. His father came on the line and said, “I am very glad you have won the case for me.”
Before we could really rejoice in our victory, David Chelliah filed a Notice of Appeal against the decision. Our happiness was shortlived. We did not know what the Appellate Judge would do regarding the decision of Roderick Martin. We found out later that the Judge who would be hearing the case was Justice AP Rajah. He would sit as vacation judge because this case was being heard during vacation. Once again we trooped into Justice AP Rajah’s Chambers for arguments. Strangely, he could only recognise David Chelliah and me. I had to introduce Chan Sek Keong to him. If AP Rajah were alive, I don’t think he could ever imagine that Chan Sek Keong would one day be the Chief Justice of Singapore.
The arguments commenced and it went on for the whole morning. AP Rajah dismissed the appeal of David Chelliah and said, “Actually, Mr Chelliah, there is no merit to this appeal at all. I do not know why you bothered to appeal. You make me work during vacation for this. I am ordering costs at the higher scale.”
There were scales of costs then. It was the discretion of the Judge to order the cost and in this case, he ordered the highest scale of costs. We thanked him and as we walked out of court, Sek Keong asked David Chelliah, “Are you going to the Court of Appeal? You are bound to lose again. I am not being arrogant but it is quite clear that you will lose again. So why don’t you discuss this with your client and we will make sure that he pays the money to our clients who will hand the money to the landlord. We will ask the landlord to give everybody who is the subtenant of our clients, separate leases so that they can all deal directly with the landlord.” Our clients were quite happy to relinquish their responsibilities as the principal tenants.
Two days later we received a reply from David Chelliah stating that his client was prepared to pay the rent to our clients and in return, our clients would negotiate for a new lease for him with the landlord. We managed to obtain a new lease for him and for all the other subtenants as well.
A happy Choo Cheng Meng asked his son, Ker Yong, to take me out for dinner and to ask me to bill for work done. It was not important to settle my fee for work done but it was definitely a must to settle Chan Sek Keong’s bill as he did most part of the work in his office. He also learnt that Sek Keong loved to collect antique wood and they settled the matter with him very amicably.
The reason I include this case is to show how people react and act at times. There was no need for the subtenant to go to court. There was no need for Cheng Meng Furniture to take them to court; but because it was a question of ‘face’ they were prepared to spend thousands of dollars in costs to prove a point and save their faces. Sometimes I think to myself, “Lawyers can never go hungry in Singapore as long as there are stubborn and proud people, where parties do not exhibit common sense and understanding, and where they just want to prove a point.” I went on to act for Cheng Meng Furniture on many other matters and I became a friend of Choo Cheng Meng. I still see him sometimes at the same restaurant, being helped by his daughter. Each time we meet, he would say that we must have lunch together some day. I, too, would say the same to him. I mentioned to Ker Yong who visits me often that I need to have lunch with his ageing father and he assured me that he would arrange it. I insisted that it should be soon as we were both ailing in health, so let it not be a disappointment if something should happen to one of us. He assured me that both his father and I would live long but he would still arrange lunch as soon as he could.
There was another case where I had to brief Chan Sek Keong again. This was a family dispute involving millions of dollars. I found that it was something I should not handle because I was not experienced or knowledgeable enough to do the case. Sek Keong did it and we succeeded again. Our clients managed to get what they wanted. I thought at the time that Sek Keong was one of the best lawyers you could come across and I knew that he was fated for bigger things but I never thought that he would become the Attorney-General and then the Chief Justice of Singapore.
After his appointment as Chief Justice, I was one of three criminal lawyers he called upon to assess our opinion on the present criminal legal system. I was very candid. I told him which Subordinate Courts judges should be transferred out to somewhere remote so that they could not do harm. The other two lawyers were shocked at my blunt accusations against these judges but Sek Keong laughed and said, “This is something I expect from Subhas. He doesn’t mince his words.” The two lawyers laughed.
TWENTY-THREE
CLASH WITH THE LAW SOCIETY
Ten years ago, in 2004, together with a few other lawyers, we formed the Association of Criminal Lawyers, Singapore (ACLS), an organisation set up to look after the interests of criminal lawyers. We did this as we felt that the Law Society was not doing enough. We started with around 100 members and I was elected the first President of the Association.
When Chan Sek Keong became the Chief Justice of Singapore, he asked Bala Reddy, who was the first Community Court Judge, to see if he could get the ACLS to send volunteers to help those who were not represented by lawyers. Bala Reddy, who is an old friend, called me to convey the Chief Justice’s request. He asked, “Would you help?” I replied, “Sure, we would like to help especially in the Community Courts where they deal with teenage delinquents and mentally challenged individuals.” In a matter of time, ACLS was doing a better job than the Law Society’s Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) which also provided free services.
The Law Society President at the time was Wong Meng Meng. I did not like his arrogance but I admire him for being a brilliant lawyer and for his unwavering principles although I do not agree with them. He stood by his principles and defended them however much you criticised him; and in that sense, I like his courage.
Once, an ExtraOrdinary General Meeting was held to pass a ‘No Confidence Vote’ against him and the Council of the Law Society. This clash came about because during a trial session in the High Court, a member of the Law Society had produced a letter from the psychiatrist of M Ravi, another lawyer, casting doubts on his ability to practise because of a relapse of his bipolar disorder. No action was taken against the member for his unethical conduct. We wanted Wong Meng Meng to be removed as President. He said that he didn’t have to step down. He would show by his conduct that he was not biased. While the arguments were going on, many of us spoke for his removal. At the same time, there were others who spoke in support of him.
The clash between Wong Meng Meng and me led to dire consequences. The newspapers got out of hand, publishing all sorts of stories. One day at a function, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong saw me and said, “You know, Subhas, I don’t care who is wrong or who is right. This war in the newspapers must stop.” When I tried to explain to him, he said, “No, please, I am not interested in any explanation. There shouldn’t be anymore bad references that allow the public to have a bad image of the legal fraternity.” He walked away after saying that.
I looked at him and thought, “Here is the Chief Justice who seems to be more interested in keeping the newspapers away than finding out what is the root cause of the problem between me and the Law Society President who happens to be his good friend.” It seemed as though transparency did not exist here.
The Chief Justice was not the same person I knew when I was his pupil. Furthermore, he was also not in favour of the ACLS taking a permanent role in some aspects of criminal law. It was decided at one time that there would be four lunches per year, each one hosted by the Law Society, ACLS, the Judiciary and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC). However, at the first lunch, the Chief Justice mentioned in his speech that there would only be three lunches, and they were to be hosted by the Law Society, the Judiciary and the AGC.
At an ACLS lunch, September 2011. From left: Justice Choo Han Teck, Chief Justice Chan
Sek Keong and Subhas.
ACLS was quietly kicked out. He didn’t want to give us any importance but it didn’t matter to us as our main focus and commitment was pro bono work and we saved money by not hosting a lunch. However, we were not happy with his attitude. We never tried to compete with any other associations and ACLS did its best to supplement the actions of the Law Society. There was a healthy relationship between the two associations until Wong Meng Meng became President of the Law Society.
Anyway, sadly and with some regret, my clashes with Wong Meng Meng created inconvenience to quite a lot of people because in his personal life he was well-liked with a section of lawyers and so was I. He stood down after his term was over and passed on the baton to his vice-president, Loke Vi Meng.
In my opinion, the Law Society has become a defunct and lost organisation. When I was first called to the Bar in 1971, it was a prestigious organisation comprising Council Members who were illustrious people. It was a small Secretariat and the then President ran it well. He managed with what he had. Now the membership of the Law Society has flourished and it has become an organisation run by many employed directors.
It is one of those bad days for me during dialysis. I just feel depressed because I’ve been told that there may be a blockage in my vein and I may need to go for ballooning. The consequences may not be that good. I seem to get bad news all the time and I don’t know why. I am being punished for my sins. I think the punishment is exceeding whatever sins I may have committed in my life. I have come to the conclusion that God is not really fair. He is, after all, just a God. I feel sometimes that He doesn’t have the ability and strength that I thought He had in righting all wrongs in this world.
It's Easy to Cry Page 10