What's wrong with you Mr Wong?

During the time that I was practising (and even thereafter), I had not come across any instance where a Law Society representive turned up in a court to raise the issue of the competency of a lawyer to carry on with the proceedings.  As lawyers, we are hung up (more than anything else) on procedural rules.  Being mindful of procedure is second nature to lawyers.  It was, therefore, surprising to find out that Mr Wong Siew Hong (the head of the sub-committee for Member Care in the Law Society), turned up in court with a letter written by a medical professional.  (The propriety of that disclosure by the medical professional is a separate issue and ought to be properly examined by the Singapore Medical Council.  But, there might be justification based on a pre-existing direction for M Ravi to be examined by a medical professional in relation to his condition.)

What shocked me the most was the fact that whilst Mr Wong might be characterised as having had "good intentions" (as stated by the Law Society), it is unpardonable that after being rebuffed by Justice Pillai in the morning, he still proceeded to adopt the same method of interfering with proceedings in two other matters involving M Ravi's firm.  It does not help that the 3 cases that he attempted to intervene in were political cases.  Public perception of the Law Society is bound to get seriously damaged by these actions of Wong. 

The three attempted interventions (based on reports that have surfaced so far):

a)  The Hougang by-election case
b)  The SDP illegal assembly case
c)   The IMF loan judicial review case

Of course, it might have in all probability been a mere coincidence that on the day that Wong received information of M Ravi's condition, there were legal proceedings with political overtones going on.  But, the problem is that as a matter of public perception, Wong's real intention doesn't matter.  He should have addressed his mind to this and not acted hastily.  Fine.  He may have lapsed somewhat when he turned up before Justice Pillai.  He might have sincerely felt that he was duty bound to alert the court of Ravi's condition so as to protect the interest of the litigant.  But, after Justice Pillai had rightly pointed out that Ravi has a valid practising certificate and the Court would not enquire beyond that, Wong should have gotten back to the LS Council to take the proper procedural steps.  Instead, Wong attempted (reportedly) on two further occasions to intervene in Ravi's court proceedings. 

I am glad that the President of the Law Society has come forward to clarify that Wong acted on his own volition.  At this stage I do not expect the Law Society to publicly chastise Wong.  But, after thoroughly investigating this fiasco, the Law Society must in some way take Wong to task.  The legal profession does not look very good when a Law Society representative goes on a frolic of his own to intervene in court proceedings without making any formal application.  The fact that Wong did not cease in his intervention attempt despite a rebuff from Justice Pillai is unacceptable whichever way one might try to justify it as a case of  'good intentions'. 

The Law Society itself got its facts wrong initially (which was itself somewhat comedic).  But, I am willing to cut the Society some slack on that.  But, some action is needed to drive home the point that Wong's repeated attempts at intervention in Ravi's proceedings is not the kind of conduct that the Law Society is willing to condone.

Public and International Law Committee

Following closely on the heels of my blog's renaming from the clumsy 'withandwithouteyes' (that nobody was really reading) to the succinct 'article14' (an attempt at cyber CPR for that unrealised Constitutional right), the Law Society of Singapore has announced the formation of the Public and International Law Committee.... a sort of Human Rights Committee minus teeth and any other sharp objects or objects that, though not sharp, may be sharpened or though not sharpened, may be able to inflict the damage (or a fraction thereof) that could be inflicted by sharp objects or any damage.

Ok... That's clearly not in keeping with the plain English drive...

Incidentally, my blog's name change did not in any way, shape or form (or formless form) influence the Law Society. I have no idea what motivated the Law Society.

Let us hope some constructive work from the Committee.. For now, although it has not been launched yet, this is my favourite committee within the Law Society. That does not say much since I haven't thought of any committees with the Society that I can think of as a point of comparison.

Somehow, I don't think the Committee is going to be all that great. Judging from the inaugral lecture that they have arranged, I can't help but suspect that it will serve as a forum for a competing thesis for human rights based on the less than human values as evisaged by the 'uniquely' Asian perspective. A thesis that human rights is not for us because we are Asians. :-) presumably, the result of that equation would be that we Asians are not humans... well, whatever, nevermind

Anyway, it always helps to be hopeful... that is the way to keep one's sanity... It also helps to be cynical.... that is the way to avoid disappointment... The key to dealing with the work of this Committee and how it would unfold is to follow the middle path between hope and cynicism.

Good luck to the Committee. I wonder what their views are on indefinite detention without trial. That's a good place to start.