The Singapore Law Gazette

In Service of Justice and Fairness

Photo: David Tan

Professor David Tan from NUS Law sits down with former Chief Justice and former Attorney General Chan Sek Keong for a chat about his life in the law and his reflections on lawyering and the Law Society.

David Tan (DT): What was life like running the AGC between 1992-2006? What were some of the challenges then, and how did the AGC overcome them? What do you think are some of the challenges for the AGC in the next 10 years?

Chan Sek Keong (CSK): Managing the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) between 1992-2006 was challenging in unexpected ways. Since the office of Attorney-General is constituted under the Constitution, it is an office of State. It was therefore a great honour and privilege to be appointed to that office. Even though the appointment was initially for a term of two (2) years, I accepted it as it would be a refreshing change from judicial work which involved looking at legal issues from the narrow perspective of parties’ individual rights and liabilities, and writing reportable judgments, whenever the occasion called for it, to augment the paucity of case law in the jurisprudence of Singapore. Advising the Government on legal matters would involve looking at legal issues from a much broader perspective of assisting in the governance of Singapore, a more useful way to contribute to the public good.

My passage into the work of AGC was made easier by my wife’s position as a State Counsel in AGC where she had served under the three previous Attorney Generals.¹When Singapore was a State in Malaysia, the AGC was a Federal department under the Federal AG. She was well liked by her colleagues, especially by the junior staff. On her advice, I immediately met the administrative staff on my first day of work to say “hello” to all of them, a gesture which they very much appreciated. It was also with some regret that my first official act as AG was to receive the resignation of my wife as State Counsel, as she could no longer work under me.

In 1992, AGC had just moved its offices to the Adelphi Building. The Chambers was brand new. My office was large and commodious, well-equipped with a computer, a telephone and other paraphernalia. There were bookshelves and also a work table and a small sitting room. The office was larger, and much better furnished than my chambers in the Supreme Court Building. There were computers everywhere for the legal and administrative staff. AGC also had a library that was as good as the Supreme Court library.

AGC was then (and will always be) the life support system of the AG in enabling him to discharge his constitutional duties. AGC’s legal work in 1992 was assigned to three legal divisions, viz., (1) the Crime Division); (2) the Civil Division and (3) the Legislation Division. Administration of AGC was undertaken by the Administration Division (whose work included maintaining the AGC Library and providing IT support services). After receiving a thorough briefing from the Heads of the three Divisions, I decided to take a “hands on” approach to their legal work, to encourage the Legal Officers to provide legal services to the Government effectively, efficiently and expeditiously (3 Es). The briefing led to three changes.

The first change was that all legal advice of the Civil Division would be reviewed by me before it was sent out. The quality of the advice would reflect the standard of legal knowledge and legal reasoning of the officer. I continued this practice until my retirement in 2006. Because of the heavy caseload, I left the Head of Crime to look after the prosecutorial work, but to alert or consult me, whenever necessary, especially in cases of unusual public interest or involving constitutional rights. The Head of Legislation was also left to manage the drafting work since it involved preparing Bills to give legislative effect to Government policies, for which the Legislation Division had great experience, and to consult me only when necessary.

The second change was to carve out (a) commercial and financial crime from the Crime Division and assign it to an independent Commercial Affairs Department (CAD), and (b) international law and affairs from the Civil Division to create a separate International Affairs Division (IAD), each with its own Head to provide better direction and focus. This change was a success as the two new Divisions became highly sought after by legal officers for emplacement.

The third change was to require each Division to have its own mission to accomplish. The Mission Statements, as described in the AGC Annual Report 1994-1996, were as follows:

(1) Civil Division: To Provide Sound Legal Advice and Representation for the Government of Singapore thereby Enhancing the Rule of Law and Principles of Good Government in Singapore.

(2) Crime Division: To Promote a Just Criminal Justice System by Pursuing a Fair and Impartial Policy in the Prosecution of Offenders.

(3) CAD: To Protect the Integrity of our Financial Markets and to Protect our Investors by the Judicious Enforcement of Laws pertaining to Commercial Crime.

(4) IAD: To Protect and Advance the Interests of Singapore Internationally through the Effective Practice and Application of Public International Law.

(5) Legislation Division: To Draft Legislation to give Effect to Parliamentary Intention in a Manner that is Simple, Clear and Concise.

The Mission Statements served to catalyse the legal officers to perform to the best of their ability for their assigned Divisions. The AGC Annual Reports published from 1994 to 2006 give some idea of the challenges faced by AGC. Between 1994 and 1996, AGC had a headcount of between 87 to 94 Legal Officers (Deputy Public Prosecutors and State Counsel). On my retirement in 2006, I left behind an AGC that was lean and fit for purpose, with a headcount of around 150 (including a Solicitor General), a modest increase of around 70% in manpower in 14 years.

AGC had other challenges, such as having to defend the integrity of Singapore’s legal system and administration of law and justice against negative foreign views, and also to protect and defend Singapore’s national rights under international law, e.g., the Pedra Branca claim, the Reclamation case and the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements. It was also, for me, an unenviable experience to have been asked by the Senior Minister (later Minister Mentor), Mr Lee Kuan Yew, for advice on constitutional matters, given his much deeper knowledge of the Constitution, and his vast and great experience in governing Singapore. Discussing legal (especially constitutional) issues with him was always, for me, a learning experience.

A different kind of challenge was in maintaining a proper working relationship with the Chief Justice. He believed in the efficacy of strict punishment in deterring crime. In many appeals against conviction and/or sentence filed by offenders, he would enhance the sentences where he considered that the appeals had no merit or an abuse of the criminal process. This approach was concerning to me as AG/Public Prosecutor as it could give rise to negative impressions of prosecutorial incompetence for not appealing against such sentences. Another kind of challenge was whether, and when, it was appropriate for the AG to seek to review an unappealable judgment of the Chief Justice by the Court of Appeal where I thought that the judgment was not in accordance with law. After all, the AG has a responsibility to safeguard the rule of law as much as the courts.²See Public Prosecutor v Louis Pius Gilbert (2003) 3 SLR(R) 418, CA, and Public Prosecutor v Bridges Christopher (1997) 3 SLR(R) 467, CA.

All in all, my life as AG started well, and ended well. It was very fulfilling career in being able to contribute to and, hopefully, improve the administration of law and justice. At my AGC farewell dinner in 2006, I was able to say, truthfully:

“The last 14 years have been the most fruitful period of my professional life [although] I cannot say that it has been the most enjoyable … My wife doesn’t think so because of the 7/24 demands the email and ever presence of the notebook, on our holidays and visits abroad”.

I cannot pretend to know what challenges will confront AGC in the next 10 years. The vast majority of legal matters on which AGC’s advice would be sought is likely to be of the same nature, such as whether the law permits the Ministry to do this or that. Legislation and its implementation that might touch on constitutional rights are common legal matters on which the AG’s advice is usually sought. The bulk of AGC’s challenges will likely still be in the area of criminal prosecutions in the next decade. With the availability to the criminal Bar of AI assistance, it is likely that criminal lawyers will provide more challenges to AGC in criminal prosecutions.

DT: How was your experience being Chief Justice and heading the judiciary between 2006-2012?

CSK: Life as Chief Justice was a resumption of an interrupted judicial life, this time with an elevated constitutional status. Again, it was a smooth and easy transition. I was going back to work with Judges who were friends in private practice, or colleagues when I was a Judge. I also inherited a Registry that was legendary under a just-retired no-nonsense Registrar for the 3 Es in processing and disposing of court cases. Everything was in shipshape. I only needed to keep it on even keel. I was looking forward to make a fresh start in administering law and justice, and the development of Singapore law.

Upon my appointment as Chief Justice, a law professor commented that my judicial work would likely be to “refocus on the law and its internal values – rather than on its management and measurements by external criteria – with an increased attention to the quality of decisions, a fine tuning of the balance between fairness and efficiency.”³Response of the Chief Justice at the Welcome Reference on 22 April 2006, at (4). It was a perceptive observation. My experience with the law was much greater than management experience or skill. Furthermore, my long tenure as AG, with its pre-occupation with public law issues required me to re-learn many areas of private law, such as trusts, torts, contracts, shipping, and intellectual property law, even company law – in fact all the new developments in private law matters. Surprisingly, two scholars who had studied the work of the Court of Appeal during this period concluded that my tenure as CJ, short as it was, coincided with the period of greatest constitutional litigation activity in the courts,⁴See Kevin YL Tan & Thio Li-Ann: SINGAPORE 50 Constitutional Moment That Defined a Nation (Marshall Cavendish 2015) (“50 Constitutional Moments”) at page 29. involving, inter alia, issues on (a) the legal limit of AG’s prosecutorial power; (b) the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty; (c) the scope of the constitutional right of equality before the law; (d) the legal limit, if any, of the President’s clemency power.

The challenge to the Judiciary in every case is to administer law and justice in accordance with law. Judges have to take an oath of office to do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of Singapore without fear or favour. The law’s end in society is fairness and justice for all. Such end could be accomplished, if there is “integrity of purpose”, a memorable phrase in a memorable speech given at an equally memorable event⁵PM Lee fainted whilst delivering his speech on “Law and Order, Justice and Fair Play” (excerpted in “Lee Kuan Yew – The Man and his Ideas (Times Edition 1998) at page 413). by the then Prime Minster, Mr Lee Kuan Yew on 18 January 1962, where he said,

“Justice and fair play according to predetermined rules of law can be achieved within our situation if there is integrity of purpose and an intelligent search for forms which will work and which will meet the needs of our society.”

DT: What do you think are some of the challenges for the courts in the next 10 years?

CSK: I don’t think the courts will face challenges in public law issues that they are not already facing, or provide answers to them which they have not already done in the last decade. However, what can be expected is that constitutional and administrative law challenges to any legislation that or executive action that restricts the fundamental liberties will not cease, given that it will be the applicant’s life or liberty is at stake. For instance, the constitutionality of the double presumption under the Misuse of Drugs Act the presumption of possession of a controlled drug, and the presumption of knowledge of the nature of the controlled drug in the possession of the possessor) were again recently raised before the Court of Appeal.

Any challenges in the area of civil law, if they occur, are likely to manifest themselves in accretive changes to common law principles by the English courts or the leading Commonwealth courts.

New challenges to the courts are likely to emerge with use of AI (generative and agentive) by counsel or the courts. Achieving the 3 Es (efficiency, efficacy and expedition) in the judicial process, synthesizing principles of law, including judgment writing, will definitely be made easier with the use of AI. With adequate checks and safeguards, AI should be able to assist the courts in developing Singapore law. AI could probably give an overview of the law in 90%+ of the cases, but if not used properly, AI could lead a judge reach an incorrect judgment, if the decision is dependent on findings of fact. AI would not have heard the evidence. Hence, this aspect of judging may elude AI’s power. Another challenge is that if a judge uses AI too often in writing his judgments, he will over time lose his own style of expressing his thoughts and ideas and reasons in composing his judgments.

DT: In your view, how has the legal industry in Singapore changed over the decades?

CSK: Prior to 1963, the size of the legal profession was small and its services parochial, as befit that of a British colony. On my admission to the Bar in 1962, I was listed 125 on the List of Advocates and Solicitors. The legal profession has always been fused. As solicitors, they provided mundane legal services, such as conveyancing, drafting agreements, wills and settlements of property, probate and administration, family law matters under the Women’s Charter issues. As advocates, they provided court representation in civil and criminal matters.

The composition and character of the legal profession has changed very much over the decades. Today, it comprises the large law firms, the medium/small law firms (including many sole-proprietorships, independent litigation and arbitration chambers, corporate counsel, foreign law firms, and even law academics with practising certificates. Each group has its own professional interests to protect. The changes have resulted largely from the globalisation of legal services from the 1970s.

From the early 1960s, the growth of the Eurodollar mark`et in London and the growth of the Asian Dollar Market in Singapore (which was created in 1968 by the Singapore Government) accelerated the growth of global legal services to serve the legal needs of the global banks and investors to consummate their financial transactions. Because the financings were provided by New York and London City Banks, English law evolved as the preferred governing law for such financings, for various reasons, principally because they and their legal advisers were familiar with English law. By the early 1980s, a small number of foreign lawyers had set up practices to service the legal needs of foreign investments in the region. The rapid growth of Singapore as a regional a financial centre in the 1980s spurred the global law firms, especially the English law firms, to lobby the Government for foreign lawyers to be allowed to be qualified as local lawyers to provide legal services in Singapore and also to the region from Singapore. By this time, it was common knowledge that the English commercial law firms, which had unrestricted entry into Hong Kong as a British colony, had captured Hong Kong’s legal services market for finance, investment and corporate matters. Alarmed by this development, the Law Society also lobbied the Government to prevent legal services in commercial matters being dominated by foreign law firms. A period of tension ensued.

In 1997, the Government established the Legal Services Review Committee, headed by the AG, to review the situation and to recommend the best way forward for Singapore as a financial services hub. The Committee recommended that foreign law firms be allowed set up Joint Law Ventures (JLVs) and Foreign Law Alliances (FLAs) with Singapore law firms. The Government accepted the recommendations, resulting in 9 JLVs and 3 FLAs being established in 2001. In 2008, the JLV scheme was expanded to become the Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP), resulting in the issue of 6 QFLP licences in 2009.⁶See Minister for Law and Foreign Affairs, K. Shanmugam: “Singapore’s Legal Profession: Some Thoughts”. AL-Mizam Vol 1 No 2 Nov 2013. The Government viewed these collaborative practice schemes as a win-win solution to strengthening Singapore as a global legal services hub. The 2025 FT’s top law firms in Asia Pacific includes three (3) Singapore law firms. The law firms from other countries are: Australia = 4 (3+2×1/2); China = 1.5; India = 3; Japan = 4; UK = 5.5 (4+3×1/2); US = 3 (2+2×1/2); and Global = 1. If foreign law firms had been allowed unrestricted entry into Singapore’s legal services market, it is unlikely there would be any Singapore law firm on the 2025 FT Index. The performance is really laudable, given the comparable size of Singapore’s economy and its population.⁷As at December 2024, there were 6703 Singapore lawyers qualified to practise Singapore law, and 1374 foreign lawyers registered to practise foreign law in Singapore, of which 46 were qualified to practise Singapore law: see https://ssq.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/An-Update-Report-on-Major-International-Law-Firms-in-Singapore-Jan-2025.pdf.

DT: Is being a lawyer still perceived as a noble or desirable profession?

CSK: Lawyers are indispensable to modern society which cannot exist without laws and a legal system. The legal profession is considered a noble profession as its role is to uphold law and justice by defending the constitutional and civil rights of defendants in civil or criminal proceedings and as a consequence, perhaps, speaking truth to power or advancing political or social causes unacceptable to the government of the day. However, in reality, the vast majority of lawyers are not involved in such causes in their daily work. They do what they have studied and trained for four or five years to do, viz., to provide routine services of a mundane nature to individuals from the womb to the tomb, or to corporate entities from their creation to their dissolution by law. The law is a noble profession when their members devote their services to these causes or when used to advance the welfare of society, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, its democratic principles and the fundamental liberties of the people, if and when the occasion arises. Lawyers should use and apply the law wisely for their clients as a body of ethical and moral principles in achieving such goals. It is the best-qualified profession for this noble task, by virtue of their learning and appreciation of what the purpose of law in society is. Noble acts in law (and in life) are those that involve acting selflessly for clients (or other people) by those who are “exempt from fear” of losing their reputation or social and financial standing.

Nevertheless, the legal profession will always be a desirable profession for many reasons. Besides being generally recognised as a learned and honourable profession by the public, training in law with its emphasis on logical reasoning and discerning signal from the noise, provides a strong intellectual and practical foundation to learn and master other kinds of knowledge, and transit to other kinds of occupations. A lawyer with the right talents can rise to become the Chairman or CEO of a large business enterprise or even the Prime Minister of a State.

Perhaps, it suffices for the Law Society to justify its existence by doing what it can to maintain and preserve the legal profession as an honourable profession, infused with high ethical standards, and a desire to do good for society by providing legal services to all and sundry at affordable fees, or pro bono.

DT: How can the Law Society remain relevant in the coming decades?

CSK: Since the Law Society is a statutory body mandated to carry out certain statutory functions to achieve certain purposes, it will always be relevant so long as it keeps to its mandate. Its first mandate and therefore primary purpose is “to protect and assist the public in Singapore in all matters touching on, or ancillary or incidental to the law”.⁸Section 38(1)(f) of the LPA. This mandate covers a lot of ground. Besides advising clients on their private matters and/or representing them in court or other proceedings in order to advance or protect their interests, it is broad enough to allow the Law Society to protect the integrity of the legal system and its values. In 1986, the Law Society was firmly reminded by the Government that its mandate did not extend to publicly criticising the Government on its policy to regulate the foreign press for meddling in domestic politics. This episode resulted in the Law Society’s function of commenting on proposed legislation being statutorily restricted to one that would be exercisable only at the request of the Government. Nonetheless, this restriction has not prevented the Law Society from functioning as a feedback resource on proposed legislation or governmental measures or policies. Its website⁹https://www.lawsociety.org.sg/news-media/feedback-on-law-reforms/. shows that, from 2002 to 2023, the Law Society has provided or assisted in providing more than a hundred feedbacks in response to the Government’s desire for public consultation in such matters.

Arising from the same episode, the Government saw the need in the long term for an umbrella law institution to enable the legal community as a whole to work together in building a good legal system in the process of nation building. Hence, the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) was established in 1988 as a statutory body that brought within its fold the judiciary, the law academics, the legal profession, corporate or in-house and every legally qualified person. The SAL’s purposes set out in section 4(1)(a) – (g) of the SAL Act encompass practically all the statutory purposes of the Law Society. Since then, the SAL has grown into a dynamic institution and force in the development of Singapore law and the legal system. Its current activities include continuing legal education, research, law publishing, organising forums, seminars and conferences on legal developments in the world. The SAL is the pre-eminent source for the legal community of legal thought and scholarship and research and law practice in Singapore, and legal developments worldwide. It has abundant administrative, financial, professional and technological resources to carry out its mission to make Singapore the legal hub of Asia.

The role of the SAL cannot be rolled back. In this situation, reality dictates that the Law Society will remain relevant in the public life of Singapore by taking a different road to serve the people in a way that the SAL is not designed to do. This means that the Law Society, with its limited financial and manpower resources, should not try to replicate the functions and the activities of the SAL, and focus on its own strength as an independent body in discharging its primary purpose. The public needs legal services at affordable fees in many areas of the law, but not all. Pro bono services continue to be what is said to be the crown jewel of the Law Society, for which it needs more financial resources, which it can try to tap from the large law firms, in addition to the proxy of providing pro bono services that the Law Society itself cannot provide. As with other professions, there will always be lawyers who are not ethical or honest and such members are a disservice to the public. The Law Society must ensure that its disciplinary processes deal effectively with such lawyers and continue to improve such processes as necessary. The public has been given protected constitutional and civil rights under the Constitution. The Law Society has a role in preserving the rule of law in preserving and protecting such rights. The Law Society should be able to take on this role in the public interest without exceeding its statutory remit. For example, if the Law Society considers some aspect of the criminal justice system unfair or unjust to certain classes of society, it can provide feedback to the Government in an appropriate manner. The law is about order in society, but also justice and fairness or equity for its members. Hence, to remain relevant, the Law Society should devote its resources to maintaining the rule of law to enhance the fair and just administration of the law in Singapore.