Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
w
hen one is in the legal profession but is unable to practice it to do good as the laws are problematic to begin with, or when one knows there is no way to win simple judicial reviews, one can expect mental stress to one’s well-being. This is among the reasons why every single year in Singapore, between 300 and 400 lawyers give up their licenses to practice. But you won’t see that cited in stories about lawyers who have been quitting in droves each year in the city-state. Instead, the reports attribute the resignations to toxic work culture, sexism, and burnout – and even the pandemic and the Great Resignation global trend that has been going on for the last few years.
Then again, some of the stories did mention “mismatched expectations” among young lawyers. Another lawyer also told the state-owned Channel News Asia that the resignations could also be happening because there must be “something about the profession they find unacceptable or unsuitable.” Or as one lawyer bluntly put it to Asia Democracy Chronicles (ADC): “I was one of the few who specialized in the constitutional challenge as I find our constitution being the foundation of our laws. It was when our constitution was amended without any debate in parliament that made me wake up up to the fact that practicing law may not be practicing what is morally right. I quit and am in the financial industry now, tapping on my knowledge in business law.”
The Singaporean parliament, of course, has been dominated by a single political party since way before independence. At present, the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) has more than 80 percent of the seats in the legislature, which means it can pass any law it wants. But there is a way to raise questions on the laws passed in parliament: go to court and have judges rule on them. This is known as a ‘judicial review.’ Filing a judicial review, though, is challenging and costly, so most Singaporeans simply give up on fighting for their rights. In many cases, putting up a legal challenge against the government and its many rules can lead to even more laws blocking any attempt for citizen redress.
In 2013, for example, a statutory board under Singapore’s Ministry of Education threatened to sue a student for defamation for raising questions regarding the country’s education system. Under the law, taxpayers’ money should never be used by the government to sue a citizen in the first place. The case eventually did not proceed as the student had intended to go to the high court to raise a constitutional challenge as to whether a government agency can sue a citizen for defamation. What did push through were the Singapore government’s amendments to the Sedition Act (Chapter 290) on 31 August 2013 and Defamation Act (Chapter 75) on 28 February 2014. These two laws allowed the government to have more power especially if Singaporeans were to question discriminatory state policies in the racial and religious aspects.
The student’s case was handled by famous human-rights lawyer Ravi Madasamy, who stood for election in 2015 against the Prime Minister. M Ravi, as he is more popularly known, has not been spared from the Singapore government’s habitual clampdown on people who dare raise questions. Ravi has represented both Singaporeans and foreigners in cases tackling issues ranging from freedom of expression to freedom of assembly, as well as the death penalty. He is determined to help the people on death row. When asked what made him help the drug traffickers, Ravi’s reply was simply, “Who are we to play God and take people’s lives?”
Serial suspensions
M Ravi has already been suspended a few times from practicing law. Just last March, a Singapore Court of Three Judges suspended him for five years for making “baseless” accusations against the Attorney General, Attorney General’s Chambers prosecutors, and the Law Society. Unable to practice law in Singapore at the moment, Ravi is now traveling around the world to speak on how repressive Singapore’s death penalty law is. A day after his suspension, he posted this on Facebook: “I have choices. I chose to dedicate my 20 years to the cause of human rights and access to justice in Singapore at a huge personal cost. I have no regrets. I have my international law practice in a few countries. I will continue to positively contribute to these countries through my ESG (environment, social, and governance) work whilst I enjoy the support of fellow lawyers and the love of the people in these countries.”
Lawyer Lim Tean sometimes takes over the cases M Ravi is forced to let go of whenever he is suspended. But Lim has also mounted legal challenges on his own. During the pandemic, for instance, Lim filed for a judicial review to raise questions on discriminatory policies that the government came up with against the unvaccinated in Singapore — such as making unvaccinated Singaporeans lose their jobs due to their refusal to take the vaccine. The judge dismissed the case, stating among other things that the Ministry of Manpower did not force employers to terminate workers.
But then the court also told Lim Tean that for filing the judicial review, the Attorney General’s Chambers will be entitled to a cost of SGD 22,504.90 (US$16,647.48). Lim later commented, “The AGC — every single lawyer in there, including the Attorney General — is paid by the citizens of Singapore. The AGC doesn’t have to go and spend money, hiring lawyers to defend judicial reviews. There are public interest litigations; why should human rights defenders pay the cost to the AGC on public interest litigations?
Why, indeed. But then this is Singapore, where in 2014, thousands of Singaporeans who spoke up against the state pension scheme were harassed by the police with very late-night visits to their homes and long interviews without any meals at the police station. The alleged organizer of the protest underwent a total of eight hours of police interrogation. She was denied legal assistance and had her paper notebook where she took down notes seized from her. Her supporters campaigned on social media for the return of her notebook; photos, as well as videos of the police harassing the participants, went viral. Eventually, the notebook was returned. On 31 May 2015, though, the Singapore government implemented the Protection from Harassment Act (Chapter 256A), which says in part that members of the public are not allowed to film public officers such as the police.
Those who spoke up against the pension scheme were charged with public nuisance and illegal assembly. All of them went to court without any legal representation. Not a single lawyer dared to step forward and represent them in court after seeing how M Ravi got his license suspended when he tried to take up their case. There were, however, lawyers who assisted in the research for their defense.
Legal and moral questions
Charles Yeo Yao Hui was among those lawyers; he was 24 years old at the time. In 2020, he stood for election against the Prime Minister in Singapore. The political party that he is chairman of did not win any seat in parliament. In 2022, Yeo sought asylum in the United Kingdom. His petition is still being deliberated. Should he fail to get asylum, he may be deported back to Singapore.
Yeo faces three counts of threatening and abusive communication against public servants under Section 6(3) of the Protection from Harassment Act. According to the police, these were concerning his posting of a series of Instagram Stories on 3 November 2020 and 1 January 2021 that allegedly made “threatening, abusive, and insulting remarks against a police officer who had been carrying out his duties,” and two counts of attempted offenses of uttering words allegedly “with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any persons under Section 298 of the Penal Code,” and one count of the same offense, about his remarks on his Instagram and Facebook pages on 13 November 2020, 23 February 2021, and 26 February 2021, that supposedly wounded the “feelings of the Christian community.” That Yeo felt the need to flee instead of facing the charges speaks volumes of his apparent belief that he would not be getting a fair trial.
A year before Yeo threw up his hands and packed his bags, the Singapore government noted that there was “a record low number of new lawyers being called to the Bar,” without revealing what that number was. In 2020, the Straits Times also reported that “the number of lawyers who exited the profession hit a five-year high of 538.” So why are fewer people taking up law while those already in the profession are leaving it even though lawyering is lucrative in Singapore?
It could well be because of the reasons cited in the stories about lawyer resignations – burnout, awful work conditions, and all that. Yet for sure, there are also the cases like that of Yeo and several others who have simply come to believe that they are working in a system in which what is legal is becoming increasingly unjust.
“I became a lawyer because I know the law is a powerful tool and one should be equipped with knowledge of the law,” one young lawyer told ADC. “As we all know, it’s easier to fight a case when you are morally right than to manipulate the laws unethically. (But) there are so many cases where people can see that there are double standards in the system. Thus, to fight such a system, one will need strong determination and great courage.”
“I am not quitting any moment as I have just started,” said the lawyer, “but I won’t guarantee that I can stay for a decade long.” ◉