Insights
young State Counsel, I got to know almost all the litigation lawyers at the Bar.
Another difference was the difficulty in getting lawyers in both AGC and the private sector to embrace the use of IT in the 1980s. The Legislation Division staff officers like Yvette Rodrigues and Jefry Mohd had to manually scour through the statutes to check for consequential amendments arising from amendment Bills. When we first introduced email in AGC in 1989 called All In One, officers preferred to speak over the phone than use emails.
Q: If you could rewind the years and be something else besides PC (or a legislation drafter), what would you be?
A: I think that being a legislative drafter is my calling and I wouldn’t have exchanged it for anything else. I was inspired by the life of William Wilberforce who abolished slavery not by revolution but through 2 pieces of legislation (Slave Trade Act 1807 and Slavery Abolition Act 1833).
When I was in Civil Division, I actually conducted one prosecution in the District Court as a young DPP which was partially upheld by CJ Wee Chong Jin on appeal. But I don’t think I am cut out for the cut and thrust of a prosecutor, although I enjoy drafting criminal legislation. If I thought the Government had a good case, I would choose to contest an accident claim made against the Government rather than settle out of court. I even won a few cases involving SAF vehicles with NSF drivers. Given the NSF drivers’ inexperience, I am rather proud of this. Choosing to fight rather than settle would have been frowned upon today, but fortunately the Civil Division head and my seniors, the late S Tiwari and Jeffrey Chan didn’t object. But I don’t think I would have enjoyed civil litigation as much as legislative drafting.
Q: Other than being PC, what has been the most fulfilling part of the past years?
A; When I was barely 2 years in Service, I assisted the late S Tiwari in the Sentosa Cable Car Tragedy Commission of Inquiry chaired by the late Justice Lai Kew Chai. I was able to watch at close sight the advocacy skills of some of the best QCs and local counsel such as Michael Beloff QC, Joseph Grimberg SC, Christopher Lau SC and the late Howard Cashin. Justice Choo Han Teck and Davinder Singh SC were then assisting counsel.
In 1989, Justice Lee Seiu Kin and I birthed this ambition of transforming the use of IT in the legal services sector by sharing the AGC Statutes Database with the whole legal profession through LawNet. The fact that Justice Lee was also a civil engineer did help. In 1987, we jointly steered the development of VLDB. In the 1990s I learned a lot about technology and technology law from my younger techie colleagues, Tan Ken Hwee, Pang Khang Chau, G Kannan and Christopher Ong. We had a great adventure putting together the Electronic Transactions Act in 1998.
I was also privileged to be involved in formulating and drafting the GST Bill in 1993 and both the International Arbitration Act 1994 and the domestic Arbitration Act 2001. I had the opportunity to mould not only the legislation but also the policies underlining these Acts. The GST working group comprising members from IRAS, MOF and PMO was so close that we used to have annual reunions but we haven’t had one for many years now. A few of us took up AG Chan Sek Keong’s suggestion to share our insights and experiences on GST law in a book published by Lexis Nexis.
Q: Do you think civil servants have the luxury of strong personal convictions or is there a paramount need to defer to the greater public interest? Any legislation that you were strongly against, but had to do anyway?
A: From my personal experience, we do have a fair and credible Government which is sensitive to public opinion. In 1998, I drafted section 33A of the Misuse of Drugs Act which introduced long term imprisonment (LTI) and mandatory caning for repeat “hard core” drug offenders. I personally thought that it was harsh to impose such heavy sentences, in particular minimum 3 strokes caning for repeated drug consumption offences as opposed to drug trafficking. Although I understood that the justification was to save these addicts from a worse fate, I still thought the sentence was harsh.
Q: How do you reconcile your personal convictions with the laws you are asked to draft if they are at odds?
A: As a professional, I will ultimately give effect to drafting instructions even though they are against my personal convictions. There is a certain line I would not cross but I have yet to come to it. I perceive that my role is to advise and draft and not to determine policy. I would however first assess if there is any objection on legal grounds. I would also draw on my experience to cite the possibilities of adverse reaction from the courts, the court of public opinion, parliamentarians, and the international audience. If possible, I would suggest more reasonable alternatives that would still achieve the policy objectives. Former DPM Prof Jayakumar would remind us that policy makers want to know how their policy objectives can still be achieved through alternative options. I might also surface the issue to AG who, if he shares the same concerns, might personally advise the relevant Minister.
If I still have to draft, I will try to ensure that the draft Bill is as fair and just as possible. For example, I will suggest that adequate checks and balances be incorporated into the Bill.
Q: What 3 words would you use to describe each of the SGs?
A: Friend. They are both my friends. And for SG – understanding, and very efficient. A superb administrator, she brings order wherever she goes, including to the Supreme Court Registry. She was also in charge of the new Supreme Court building before becoming SG. That was probably why she had the requisite experience when it came to Upper Pickering Street!
As for Jeffrey, he is fun. He’s always got something to say! And the last word – connection. Jeffrey has lots of friends and connections all over the world, both personal and professional. I think he even said once that Sumiko Tan of the Straits Times is related to him!
Q: What advice would you give to a young drafter?
A: Don’t look upon yourself as a mere wordsmith or technician. You are more like an architect. You not only build, but you design and apply the aesthetics in terms of elegance of language and structure. More importantly, you uphold the rule of law and ensure that, within your capability, your work does not result in injustice or unfairness. It’s like being a doctor, more of a calling than a profession.