A couple of weeks ago, news broke that 11 trainee lawyers were caught cheating on their bar exams. When Justice Choo Han Teck initially ruled to redact the identities of the trainee lawyers so as not to jeopardise their legal careers, there was a public uproar. People were outraged at the leniency shown and felt that this was unfair. While Justice Choo has since reversed his decision, Minister for Law, K Shanmugam has since spoken up about this incident. He rightly pointed out that “In this case, the offence of cheating is serious and given that trainee lawyers committed it, it is “doubly serious”.
While Mr Shanmugam stated that he was not able to comment fully on the matter as the trainee lawyers’ applications were still pending in court, I am heartened that the Minister for Law has publicly spoken up about this. Lawyers are an integral part of the legal system in Singapore. It is therefore imperative that they not only uphold the law but are also seen to be doing so. Any hint of rule-breaking and/or anything that could lead to the perception that there was preferential treatment, however unintentional, will no doubt cause public anger and could erode public trust.
In order for any legal system to have credibility, it must be whiter than white. All who are part of the legal system must therefore be held to a higher standard. In view of this, Mr Shanmugam clearly stating that it is doubly wrong for lawyers to break the law is timely and reassuring.
In other legal news, opposition politician and lawyer, Mr Lim Tean has said that the Law Society has withdrawn its charge against him after the complainant had failed to turn up at the tribunal. Mr Lim has stated on social media that he believes that this charge was an attempt to smear his name and alluded to political motivations. There has so far been no official statement by the Law Society on this matter. Whether it will issue an official statement to clarify its position is anyone’s guess.
Human Rights lawyer, Mr M Ravi has given his opinion on the matter: “I just saw the video by Tean Lim that the Law Society had withdrawn it’s charges today against him on the issue of client’s monies. Why is the police so anxious to charge him tomorrow when the law society was conducting its inquiry. Worst of all , his charges have been withdrawn by the Law Society today”.
Perhaps the Law Society, as the regulating body for lawyers, ought to take a leaf from Mr Shanmugam’s book and also make a public statement to ensure public trust?
It is however important to note that while the Law Society has withdrawn its charges against Mr Lim, he is still not off the hook. Mr Lim has been charged with the following offences by the Police:
Criminal Breach of Trust – Sometime in November 2019, Mr Lim Tean was entrusted with a sum of $30,000, awarded to a former client as a settlement in respect of a motor injury civil suit. Mr Lim Tean is alleged to have misappropriated the $30,000.
Unlawful Stalking under Protection from Harassment Act – The offence relates to the alleged harassment of a former employee in 2020 by Mr Lim Tean, while she was working at his law firm.
Unauthorised Person Acting as an Advocate or Solicitor under the Legal Profession Act – Mr Lim Tean is alleged to have acted as an advocate or solicitor without a valid practising certificate on 66 separate occasions between 1 April 2021 and 9 June 2021.
If found guilty of criminal breach of trust, Mr Lim could face jail for life, or jail for up to 20 years and a fine. If convicted of unlawful stalking, Mr Lim could be jailed for up to a year or be given a fine of up to S$5,000 or both. If Mr Lim is found guilty of being an unauthorised person acting as an advocate or a solicitor, he could face up to six months in prison, a fine of up to S$25,000 or both.
This means that he might be disbarred anyway, which may well render superfluous any need for the Law Society to convene a Disciplinary Tribunal.
On the business front, the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) issued a policy paper on Thursday (May 12) saying that more foreign workers are needed in order to combat the manpower shortage in Singapore. This is especially the case in the services industry. How does this gel with the pre-2020 general election hot button topic in relation to jobs?
In 2020, there were concerns that Singaporeans were squeezed out of their jobs by foreign PMETs with similar qualifications. Just 2 years ago, a Senior Human Resource Leader wrote online that she was called out for “insubordination” when she insisted on hiring Singaporean PMETs.
Last year, Leong Mun Wai of the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) brought up the issue of foreign PMETs and their effect on local workers. Among other things, Mr Leong raised the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) as part of the problem.
In this landscape, how will the public react to the SBF report? And, if SBF’s recommendations are to be followed, will this indeed affect Singaporeans on the employment front? Especially in the PMET sectors?
It remains to be seen. Watch this space.