- Joined
- Jun 21, 2012
- Messages
- 2,799
- Points
- 0
This is an excerpt of a tribute delivered by Law Minister K. Shanmugam in Parliament on Monday to Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, who retired on Nov 6.
SINGAPORE'S constitutional framework enshrines the rule of law, the independence of the courts and the separation of powers.
The Constitution establishes the Judiciary as a separate and independent institution, and charges it with the responsibility to interpret the law and apply it to cases which come before the courts.
At the head of the Judiciary is the Chief Justice. Through his judgments and extra-judicial writings, his presidency over appellate hearings and even his personal conduct, the Chief Justice sets the tone for the administration of justice in Singapore.
It is a heavy responsibility, and Singapore has been singularly fortunate that, for the past six years, that responsibility has been discharged by Chief Justice Chan.
Humble background
THE Chief Justice came from a humble background. He lived in a communal house in Ipoh, started his education late because of the war, and could not speak English when he first went to school.
But adversity did not slow him down. He was one of the top students in the Senior Cambridge School Certificate in 1955, with eight distinctions.
He could not decide what to read at university. He was not thinking of doing law - he had no idea what a legal career would be like. Happily for Singapore, he was persuaded to do law by his English literature teacher, Dr Etherton, who said that he had a "very crafty mind" - in a good sense.
Chief Justice Chan joined the inaugural LL.B. class of 1961 in the then University of Malaya, and was one of the top students in a class that produced several other students who went on to hold high positions in the law.
Private practice
CHIEF Justice Chan practised briefly in Kuala Lumpur before joining Braddell Brothers in Singapore in 1963. He did so because he wanted to continue to be with then his girlfriend, Elisabeth Eber, whom he later married.
Later, the Chief Justice joined Shook Lin & Bok, where he rose to become the managing partner and one of Singapore's leading banking and corporate lawyers, with a complete mastery of the law and a keen understanding of commercial and practical realities.
He was the counsel of choice for many banks and financial institutions, and drafted many of the standard banking and corporate documents used throughout Singapore in the late 1970s and in the 1980s.
The Chief Justice never hid behind verbiage. I once had to advise on a guarantee which was drafted by the Chief Justice. It comprised two paragraphs, in a telex. The party which challenged the validity of the guarantee - perhaps because it looked too short to be a guarantee! - later backed down. Though brief, the document was clear and accurate. That was the hallmark of the Chief Justice: in the way he gave his advice, in the way he drafted documents and in the way he wrote his judgments.
CHIEF Justice Chan was appointed a Judicial Commissioner in 1986 - the first person to be so appointed. He was later elevated to be a Judge in 1988.
During his first judicial tenure, from 1986 to 1992, the Chief Justice demonstrated the independence of mind and the keenness of analysis that lawyers today are familiar with. In this period, he heard a fair number of public law cases, and, in his own words, "the decisions are fairly divided between those decided for and against the Government".
It was during this period that I started my own career in the law. In 1987, I appeared as a junior, with Mr Joseph Grimberg, in a case before the Chief Justice. The precedents were not clear. While Mr Grimberg was making his arguments, the Chief Justice somehow noticed - I don't know how, perhaps it showed in my face - that I was keen for a point to be made. He asked Mr Grimberg to ask me what the point was. I was quite struck that the Chief Justice noticed everything in his court - he was so alert that he even picked up on the thought processes of a junior, and pursued the point.
His handling of the case, both in the way he conducted the hearing, as well as his legal analysis, left a deep impression on me.
He had an excellent judicial temperament - no flourish, no hyperbole, no drama. He always cut to the chase, succinct. He was usually well ahead of counsel and on top of all the issues - a first-rate, world-class judicial mind.
N 1992, Chief Justice Chan was appointed the third Attorney-General of Singapore.
As Public Prosecutor, he had the constitutional responsibility for instituting and conducting prosecutions. He acted firmly and in the public interest. At the same time, he was fair to the accused.
He enhanced the capabilities of the Attorney-General's Chambers by strengthening the Civil and Criminal Divisions, and setting up the International Affairs Division and the Law Reform and Law Revision Division. His successors have built on this strong foundation, and today the AGC has a full- fledged team of first-rate lawyers, numbering about 250.
As Attorney-General, and later as Chief Justice, Chief Justice Chan played a leading role in the Pedra Branca litigation.
He presented our case before the International Court of Justice in a very clear manner, together with Professor S. Jayakumar, Professor Tommy Koh and others. The ICJ decisively upheld Singapore's sovereignty over Pedra Branca. Chief Justice's personal interests - he is a keen student of history - helped substantially in presenting Singapore's case. His collection of South-east Asian history books, one of the largest in Singapore, was extensively used for the ICJ hearing.
Mr Chan was appointed as Chief Justice in 2006. The appointment was received with great enthusiasm by the legal community.
Chan Sek Keong the Chief Justice was very much like Chan Sek Keong the man - humble, unassuming, with a powerful intellect and a keen sense of integrity.
Outside of the courtroom, Chief Justice Chan demanded that lawyers meet the highest standards of professional conduct, and took decisive measures to safeguard clients' monies from errant lawyers. He constantly encouraged the legal fraternity, from Senior Counsel to law student, to do more pro bono work, to improve access to justice for the less fortunate amongst us.
He started the Young Amicus Curiae scheme where young lawyers could assist Judges hearing Magistrate's Appeals, and expose themselves to criminal work.
He stressed the need for top- tier advocacy in commercial cases. He observed that top Senior Counsel were often retained by large institutions, rendering them unable or unavailable to act against such institutions. The result was that small law firms and individual clients who wanted representation against large institutions could not instruct Senior Counsel. He thus advocated that Queen's Counsel be allowed to appear more freely in our courts, so that small law firms and individual clients can instruct them.
As a judge, Chief Justice believed that "judgments should be expressed in a language that a reasonably educated layman can understand", and indeed his judgments stand out for their clarity and simple elegance.
He believed in procedural fairness, that "litigants must come away from the court with the feeling that even though they lost, they have had their day in court and have been heard".
He believed that the function of judges was to interpret and to apply the law, and not to legislate or make policy in the guise of adjudication. In that sense, he was a legal positivist.
At the same time, he believed that judges had a role in developing the law interstitially, consonant with national values and fundamental principles of the common law.
To promote the practice development of Singapore law, he issued a Practice Direction that Singapore cases should be cited in preference to foreign cases. In the course of his judicial career, he wrote almost 380 judgments, or more than 30 a year. His judgments, which span many areas of the law, will continue to influence our jurisprudence for many years to come.
He believed in justice for the common man. Above all, the Chief Justice was a firm believer in the rule of law and the duty of the court to uphold the law. In a lecture in 2010, he offered a robust rebuke to those who doubted the independence of the Judiciary.
When the boy from Ipoh came to Singapore to study, settle down and start a career in the law, it was Singapore which ultimately benefited.
