Insights
13
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.
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.
Don’t forget that your work will affect a cross-section of the population more than the individual client, or the individual accused, as in the case of the prosecutor.
Q: What do you think of the new national day song?
A: Just heard it online. It is very catchy and grows on you. I think the theme of unity and the multi-generational rapping is significant. Singaporeans are in danger of becoming cynical and critical. (Ed: O, touché!) But I am still fond of the evergreen Home performed by Kit Chan and Stand Up for Singapore as re-arranged by Zubin Mehta when the New York Philharmonic Orchestra performed it in the National Stadium in 1984.