TWENTY-FOUR
CHIEF JUSTICES
I have had the privilege of practising during the terms of four Chief Justices. They are Wee Chong Jin, the first Chief Justice (CJ) when I was called to the Bar in January 1971, Yong Pung How, Chan Sek Keong and currently, Sundaresh Menon.
Let me share with you certain perceptions of these four Chief Justices. They might not like what I have to say but then I have always said what I have felt like saying if I believe it is true.
WEE CHONG JIN (1963 – 1990)
Wee Chong Jin, the first Chief Justice, was a very intelligent person and his knowledge of the law was second to none. His judgements were simple to understand but a Chief Justice’s job is not just writing judgements. He has to be a good administrator, too. In my opinion, CJ Wee Chong Jin was not a good administrator. Some said he tried but when the demands that he made from the authorities for better pay and better people were not met, it seems he became frustrated. He left the administration of the courts to various registrars and the staff and did not bother to look into it. Most of his time was spent playing golf. I believe he loved golf more than law, so much so that there was a backlog of cases as far back as five to six years. Parties had to wait that long before they could hear their civil cases. It was worse for criminal cases as the accused persons had to stay in remand prison for as long as between five and seven years for their trial to be heard, and if they were acquitted for the offence, no compensation was paid for their time in prison. Such was the situation in the system that made many angry. The perception was that the he didn’t seem to bother. In the end, when he was to retire, many said that it was high time that he left and a more efficient system be put in place.
My encounters with Wee Chong Jin were quite funny. In the beginning when I appeared before him, I had good hearings as I was always prepared and he would grant me whatever I wanted. This made Glenn Knight, who was Deputy Public Prosector, comment one day, “With the Chief Justice, we have no chance. Whatever this guy asks for, he gets it.”
However, subsequently, when I was acting for JB Jeyaretnam (JBJ), his whole attitude towards me changed. He was extremely rude to me, extremely unreasonable and for the smallest of faults, he would rebuke me as though I had committed a capital offence. I took it all because as far as I was concerned, I was not going to let the attitude of anybody stop me from doing the best for my client. Subsequently, we won the JBJ case in the Privy Council. The Chief Justice, judges and others involved in the administration of justice were admonished by the Privy Council which had very harsh words to say about some of our High Court Judges. That made matters even worse but the Chief Justice was going to retire.
Before he retired though, Wee Chong Jin wanted to start the Academy of Law and he told the Registrar of the Supreme Court to inform me that he wanted me to be in one of the sub-committees. Together with the then Law Society President, Giam Chin Toon, he invited me for lunch at the Academy of Law Restaurant. He made it quite clear that he was leaving soon and wanted to leave without any misunderstandings between us. He was extremely friendly to me and told me to work hard as this public relations sub-committee was very important. He knew that I was the right person to be in the committee. It was quite a strange coincidence that after the lunch, as the three of us were walking out of the restaurant, we came face to face with JBJ. He looked surprised when he saw me. As soon as I reached my office, I received a phone call from him asking, “What’s happening? Are you changing sides?” I replied, “There is no question of me changing sides, Ben, as I was not on anybody’s side. I was invited for lunch and I went. That was all.”
At the opening of the Academy of Law, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, then Prime Minister of Singapore, was invited. He was mingling with the lawyers and his security noticed that I was in the area that was restricted only to organisers and committee members. His surprised bodyguards asked Lawrence Quahe, then an Assistant Registrar of the Supreme Court, “Isn’t he Subhas?” Lawrence jokingly replied, “Yes, he is but not to worry. Today he’s on our side.” With that, everyone laughed.
YONG PUNG HOW (1990 – 2006)
When Yong Pung How was brought in as a High Court Judge for one year under CJ Wee Chong Jin, we all knew that he would be the next Chief Justice. It was quite clear that he was appointed for a particular purpose. We were also aware that one of the judges who would be disappointed with this appointment would be Justice Lai Kew Chai because he had been tipped to be the next Chief Justice.
There was no doubt CJ Yong Pung How was a very efficient administrator. He revamped the administrative structure of the judiciary and made sure that the backlog of cases was dealt with efficiently and expeditiously. All new cases that were coming up for hearing had a deadline. He also ensured that all cases, from the time of the arrest of an accused person to the time of his trial and conviction or acquittal, would be heard within a span of six months to a year and an appeal thereafter within six months. A far cry from when Wee Chong Jin was the Chief Justice. Singapore suddenly had one of the most efficient legal systems in the world. One could say that the new system worked like clock work.
However, the problem with Yong Pung How was his attitude towards the accused person and counsel. His statements from the Bench could be hurting and sarcastic. He gave the impression that all accused persons who stood before him were guilty; otherwise they wouldn’t be there in the first place. He said many times from the Bench, “The Police don’t simply charge anyone for no reason. The DPP doesn’t come to court to prosecute for nothing. There must be some strong evidence against the accused person.” Counsels who appeared before him were treated very shoddily, especially criminal lawyers.
However, I got along quite well with him and I had a fair amount of success before him. Others would ask me, “How does that happen?” I said, “When you are arguing and he shows disinterest in one of the points, go on to the next point. Don’t waste his time. He appreciates that and if he is interested in the next point you are arguing, he will give it more credit because you have not wasted his time. He expects you to be brief, to the point and don’t try to persuade him by using the wrong tactics.”
One of the cases where I appeared before CJ Yong Pung How was the one that Melanie Ho took over from Edmond Pereira. She wanted me to argue it while we were colleagues in Harry Elias Partnership. The accused, who was the chief of police at the airport, had been convicted and sent to jail for charges under the Police Act. We were briefed to quash the conviction but more importantly to ensure that he didn’t have to go to jail. Just before my turn came to argue, the counsel for the earlier appeal made Yong Pung How angry. The CJ said to him, “I don’t care what your client or your client’s family think, but let it be known that I am a hardhearted Justice who stands for no nonsense. I have no compassion for this sort of cases.” He dismissed the appeal.
So when it was my turn, I started arguing on the conviction part. The Chief Justice quite clearly told me that he was not with me on this argument and insisted that I should move on to the next point. I said, “If your Honour is not with me on the appeal on the conviction, then may I start with my appeal against sentence.” He allowed me to go ahead. I continued, “Your Honour, I heard what you said to the other counsel about you being a hard-nosed hardhearted Judge with no compassion. I think you definitely said it out of anger because…” As I tried to explain further, he retorted, “Of course, I have compassion. You should know since I have heard so many of your clients’ appeals.” I replied, “That was what I wanted to say. You have shown compassion to my other clients. I hope that you will look at this case in a very sympathetic manner.” I put forward my case. He then told me, “I don’t think this man deserves to go to jail. I will convert it to a fine.” He gave a fine for each of the offences for which my client was sentenced — that was two offences at $500 each. My client and I left the court feeling very happy. He said to me, “You were flattering the Judge just now.” I denied it and explained, “I was just stating a fact. Anyway, it d
oesn’t matter even if I was praising him or not, he allowed the appeal.”
You see, Chief Justice Yong Pung How had his own unique way of thinking. There were certain cases where he was adamant about not allowing the appeal. I have noticed that he was least sympathetic towards sexual offenders. In another case where I appeared before him, I told him that the Judge had called for both probation and reformative training. Both were recommended but he decided to send my client to the Reformative Training Centre. I felt it was not fair. I argued and tried to persuade the Chief Justice by pleading my case as to why probation was necessary. After listening to me, he said, “Mr Anandan, I came this morning to dismiss your appeal and to scold you for this appeal, but you have persuaded me otherwise. I am allowing probation. You are one of those quick-witted Advocates who have appeared before me.” I thanked him and walked out of court.
When I got back to the office, our Senior Partner, Harry Elias, was there. He was pleased to see me and said, “Hey, I heard what the Chief Justice said about you. It’s high time for you to apply for Senior Counsel.” I replied, “Ah, it really doesn’t matter.”
This brings to mind a day in December 1987 when, along with Vimi and a few other lawyers and their spouses, I was invited to the Istana to have lunch with President Wee Kim Wee and Mrs Wee. I was assigned a seat beside President Wee. He asked me, “Is it true that in Singapore you have to prove that you are innocent and until then you are deemed to be guilty?” I looked at him and thought, “Is this man serious or is he joking?” I then realised that he was completely serious about the question. I assured him, “No, Mr President. The presumption of innocence is still there but somehow because of certain judgements and certain pronouncements by members of the Bench, the public seems to think that the burden has shifted.” With eyes wide, he replied, “Wow, I am very happy that they are still presumed innocent till they are proven guilty.”
CHAN SEK KEONG (2006 – 2012)
The third appointed Chief Justice was Chan Sek Keong. He was first appointed Attorney-General in 1992. He held that appointment till 2006 when he took over as CJ from CJ Yong Pung How.
In addition to what I have shared in the earlier chapters, my opinion of Chan Sek Keong is that out of all the Chief Justices, he was the most well informed. He was an intellectual, well read and very knowledgeable in many aspects of the law. He was an external examiner in the National University of Singapore and his reputation as a Jurist was known far and wide. He was respected abroad and did well in arguing Singapore’s case against Malaysia in the dispute of the Pedra Branca Island.
He was very capable and his experience as Attorney-General and later on the Bench as a High Court Judge made him an all-rounder. He was exceptionally good in his law and was equipped with the right judicial temperament. So when he left, we were quite upset as we thought that we were losing a very capable and moderate Chief Justice.
However, he did little to improve the judicial system and only maintained it as it was, simply because of the efficiency of his predecessor. He just continued with the same system and fine-tuned the judgements of the High Court Judges. Suddenly, lawyers found that the Magistrate’s Court Appeals, which were once deemed a frightening experience, were becoming better in the sense that lawyers were given full hearings without interruption and without sarcastic remarks. We found that the Appellate Court Judges were serious in their consideration of the Appeals and most of them wrote good judgements although some judges wrote judgements that were too short. Notable judgements were from the present Attorney-General, VK Rajah, who was then Justice of Appeal. His judgements showed compassion and wisdom. Appellate Court decisions were becoming more respected because of the quality of the judgements.
SUNDARESH MENON (current, since 2012)
Members of the Bar thought that VK Rajah, Justice of Appeal, would succeed CJ Chan Sek Keong as the new Chief Justice but it was not to be. In 2012, CJ Chan Sek Keong was succeeded by Sundaresh Menon, who was the Attorney-General and was later appointed Justice of Appeal for a few months before becoming Chief Justice.
The moment Sundaresh Menon was transferred to the Judiciary from his position as the Attorney-General, we all knew that he would be the next Chief Justice because the writing on the wall was quite clear.
I thought that VK Rajah would be the automatic choice for the position as he had all the qualities and he was very popular with the Bar because of his fair decisions. So it naturally came as a surprise when he was bypassed. I actually felt quite unhappy that he was bypassed, but then in our system there are situations that cannot be explained, situations that you had better not try to explain as it could lead you into trouble.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon continued the work of CJ Chan Sek Keong. He brought in a lot of changes and while, up till now, we still have not seen exactly what improvements he will be providing, one thing is certain: he gave the Subordinate Court Judges a sense of importance. He changed the name to The State Courts of Singapore. He also made the judges wear robes, I think with the hope that they will take their responsibilities very seriously.
An editorial in the ACLS magazine, Pro Bono, questioned why the Subordinate Court Judges had to wear robes, when everywhere else the robes were being taken off. Furthermore the stature of the man did not depend on his robes but the quality of the judgement he gave. Before the magazine was circulated, it was sent to Chief District Judge Tan Siong Thye for his comments. All hell broke loose with Jennifer Marie, the Deputy Chief District Judge. She called me and insisted that I should go to the Subordinate Courts that evening at 5:00 pm. I wanted to know what all the urgency was about and she replied, “Don’t tell me you don’t know?” I replied, “Yes, I don’t.” She explained further, “Your editorial in the Pro Bono. We need to discuss it.” At that point, I honestly was not aware of what she was referring to but I didn’t want to let her know that too.
I called up some of the ACLS committee members and we went to see Tan Siong Thye. He was a little flustered and asked me, “What is this all about?” He said CJ Sundaresh Menon was very angry with me. By then I had learnt that it was about the editorial and I defended it. I said, “What is wrong with the contents of the article? We are entitled to speak our mind.” He replied, “The Chief Justice wants to know what we have to say on this and to speak to you about it.” I explained that we had nothing more to add and were entitled to comment if there was any change, even if it was a change in the dress code of the Bench. We were afraid that soon the Bar would be required to wear robes in the Subordinate Courts too.
The arguments continued and I told him that I would think about it. I went back and discussed the matter with the ACLS committee. I told them, “We have been trying to build up a good rapport between the Judiciary and the Bar and this article is not going to help.” We decided that we would stop circulating that particular edition.
CJ Sundaresh Menon’s anger was obvious when he practically ignored me at a function, but it didn’t bother me. Sometimes you please some people, sometimes you don’t. I think he did not know that I had already decided not to circulate that edition. At another function I happened to be at the same table as the Chief Justice. (By then, I had told the Chief Justice that I had ordered for that edition of the magazine to be withdrawn.) He tapped me on the shoulder and said, “You know, Subhas, we worked very hard on our Bench and Bar relationship with so many committees and that article would have set us back a few steps.” I agreed and said, “That’s exactly why I decided not to circulate it.” He laughed and said, “Very wise decision.”
A few days after that, I had lunch with K. Shanmugam, the Minister for Law. He asked me, “Why are you giving the Chief Justice a headache?” I denied it and explained the situation to him. The Honourable Minister laughed and said, “There must be some excitement sometimes.”
So I realised one thing. For Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, the rapport between the Judiciary and the Bar is more important than whether it is fair to comment or whether you have the right to
comment. What means more to him is that everyone works well together to make the system more effective. I certainly do not have any complaints about that.
On the whole, my experiences with CJ Sundaresh Menon have been good. When he was Attorney-General, I had lunches with him to discuss certain aspects of the law that had to be changed. He was a very reasonable man, very intelligent and quick to grasp whatever you are saying. When he was appointed the Chief Justice, I wrote a congratulatory letter to him to which he graciously replied.
TWENTY-FIVE
ATTORNEY-GENERALS
I have also had the privilege of practising during the appointments of several Attorney-Generals (AG). Here are my recollections of some of them.
TAN BOON TEIK (1969 – 1992)
Tan Boon Teik was the first Attorney-General of Singapore when I first started practice in January 1971. He was the longest serving AG, holding the office first as Acting Attorney-General from 1967 to 1968 and then as Attorney-General from 1969 to 1992. Members of the Criminal Bar were not particularly fond of him but for some reason, he was maintained in office for a long time.
There was nothing outstanding about the man and there are many situations that I could comment on him. However, the man is gone and I wish to let it be but I must mention that he tried to complain against me to the Law Society. He said that I should be struck off for misconduct when I handled JB Jeyaretnam’s case.
The Inquiry Committee found that some of the allegations needed to go before the Disciplinary Committee, which was then chaired by the retired Supreme Court Judge Choor Singh. I was represented earlier on by Chong Yuen Hee, a very senior lawyer. Subsequently, I appointed Francis Seow, the ex-Solicitor-General and the then-to-be President of the Law Society. I must also point out that when Francis Seow was the Solicitor-General, he could not see eye to eye with Tan Boon Teik.
It's Easy to Cry Page 11