CBD Strata Offices for Sale
2 Havelock Road, Singapore 059763
Choice Units: From 312 sq ft onwards (From $7xxK)
ACTUAL VIEW FROM UNIT
‡ Opposite State Courts & Attorney
General Chambers office
‡ Next to Clarke Quay MRT Station
‡ Covered access leading to Chinatown
MRT Station
‡ No restrictions on foreign ownership
‡ Raised floors, waterpoints & discharge
outlets provided in all units
‡ Vibrant precinct with major landmarks
(Hotels, Malls, F&B, Banks)
‡ Independent flexible air-conditioning
system
‡ Basement carpark with approx
100 lots
‡ Ideal for legal firms and financial
institutions
‡ No additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty
‡ No Seller’s Stamp Duty
All images stated are Artist’s Impressions.
FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION,
PLEASE CONTACT
SAMMI LIM
+65 9368 9803
LOW CHOON SIN
+65 9841 0006
E: sammi.lim@cbre.com.sg
E: choonsin.low@cbre.com.sg
CEA Reg. No.: R003899J
Appointed Agent
CEA Reg. No.: R027985H
While every reasonable care has been taken in preparing this marketing collateral, neither this marketing collateral nor any of its contents shall constitute part of an offer or contract, and neither the Developer nor its
agents are warranting the accuracy of any information contained therein nor will the Developer or any of its agents be held responsible for any inaccuracies or omissions. All statements and information are believed
to be correct but are not to be regarded as or relied upon as statements or representation of facts. All information and specifications are current at the time of going to the press and are subject to such changes
as may be required or approved by the Developer. All plans are not to scale unless expressly stated and are subject to any amendments which are required or approved by the relevant authorities. Renderings and
illustrations are artist’s impressions only and photographs are only décor suggestions and cannot be regarded as representation of facts. All areas and other measurements are approximate only and subject to final
survey. The Sale and Purchase agreement embodies all the terms and conditions between the Developer and the purchaser and supersedes and cancels in all respects all or any representations, warranties, promises,
inducements or statements of intention, whether written or oral made by the Developer and/or its agents which are not embodied in the Sale and Purchase Agreement.
01
President’s
Message
The Worth of Your Practice
This speech was delivered by the President at the Mass Call for new advocates and solicitors held on 23 August 2014 at
Nanyang Technological University.
May it please Your Honour, I speak on behalf of the Law
Society to welcome the cohort of 2014 to the Singapore Bar.
I am sure today is an incredibly proud day for all our newly
called lawyers and their loved ones gathered here. You will
remember this day because this is your first Court session as
advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore
and under unique circumstances too, with your loved ones
by your side. The next time you don the gown in Court, it will
probably be with your client by your side. He might not be
looking at you then with the same sense of admiration and
pride with which the gaze of your loved ones is fixed on you
today. Hopefully, his look at you will be one of confidence
and of gratitude. Not of despair.
You have worked long and hard and persevered to get
to where you are today. Yet as you survey this packed
auditorium, one eye on the 429 colleagues joining the
Profession today, the other on the 650 or so coming on next
year, some anxiety might be setting in just as you are setting
out. We hear securing employment with law firms is difficult
for some this year and we have just heard the Law Minister
say that even securing training contracts will be difficult for
some next year. Some of you might be wondering whether
the bright sunshine of optimism surrounding this Profession
in recent years is finally giving way to dark clouds blowing
our way.
Whilst I think there is basis for concern in light of the growing
numbers in terms of lawyers here amidst possibly falling
numbers in terms of economic growth, I should also say
something of the fresh winds in our midst and the resilience
that this profession has to offer.
First, the good news.
Friends, there is reason indeed to take heart. Singapore’s
leadership role in international dispute resolution that is a
result of the excellent pioneering work of the Singapore
International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) is now set to be
augmented by the Singapore International Commercial
Court and the Singapore International Mediation Centre.
These two new and soon to be launched institutions will,
together with the SIAC, provide a holistic approach to the
resolution of huge and complex cross-border disputes.
The opportunities for our young lawyers for exposure to
sophisticated, multi-party and multi-jurisdictional disputes,
for working alongside and pitting skills against the best
practitioners of the law in both common and civil law systems
are greater now than ever before. In Singapore, the dispute
resolution arena is developing at an unprecedented pace
on an unprecedented scale.
Fresh and increased opportunities for our lawyers for
regional and international exposure exist in transactional
work too. We are the leading legal and financial services
centre in ASEAN, and have access through this grouping
alone to a market comprising about half a billion people
generating a combined economic output of US$2.4 trillion
in 2014, representing the third largest collective economic
bloc in Asia, behind only China and Japan. There is no
reason why the practice of a local lawyer should be limited
only to the geographical, political or even the commercial
borders of our tiny island state. The Singapore lawyer is in
great demand, both in as well as outside of ASEAN, for his
technical skills, his language abilities, his diligence and his
reputation for honesty and integrity. In any event, the Law
Society is closely monitoring the situation and is considering
various initiatives to ensure that every graduate eligible for
and who needs a training contract gets a training contract.
Now, the better news.
There is an inherent goodness about our profession that is
greater than the gloom that threatens it. It is that aspect of
the calling of the advocate and solicitor that prospers us,
not necessarily by bulging our wallets but by enriching our
souls. Ours truly is a noble profession. It is noble not just
because we play a role in Court which is unique only to
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
Continued on page 4
Contents
President’s
Message
News
Features
Columns
Lifestyle
Lifestyle
Notices
Appointments
The Worth of Your Practice
01
Diary and Upcoming Events
Mass Call 2014
Update on Secretariat Office Renovations
Legal Leadership Development Programme (“L-Leap”)
Women in Law: Managing it All?
Law Society–PERADI Friendly Games
Legally Bound – Law Grad Night 2014
05
08
12
14
F
The Moneylenders Act and International Syndicated Loans
Casting the Relator Action
Legal Risks in Employee Termination
22
28
32
C
Tea with the Law Gazette — Interview with Dr Gopalan Raman, Chairperson of the
Probate Practice Committee
The Young Lawyer — Amicus Agony
36
In Practice — Legal Updates
44
Alter Ego — Just Singaporean
Food — Eat Right While Pursuing Your Client's Rights – A Review of
Healthy Lunch Options in the CBD
46
48
Professional Moves
Information on Wills
51
53
M
N
I
L
N
An Official Publication of The Law Society of Singapore
The Law Society of Singapore
39 South Bridge Road, Singapore 058673
Tel: (65) 6538 2500
Fax: (65) 6533 5700
Website: http://www.lawsociety.org.sg
E-mail: lawsoc@lawsoc.org.sg
The Council of The Law Society of Singapore
President
Mr Lok Vi Ming, SC
Vice Presidents Mr Thio Shen Yi, SC
Mr Kelvin Wong
Treasurer
Mr Gregory Vijayendran
Mr Lim Seng Siew, Ms Kuah Boon Theng, Ms Rachel Eng,
Mr Adrian Tan, Mr Steven Lam, Ms Sunita Sonya Parhar,
42
54
A
The Singapore Law Gazette
The Law Society’s Mission Statement
To serve our members and the
communitty by sustaining a
competent and independent Bar
which upholds the rule of law and
ensures access to justice.
18
20
Ms Lisa Sam, Mr Anand Nalachandran, Mr Lee Terk Yang,
Ms Usha Ranee Chandradas, Mr Chiam Tao Koon,
Mr See Chern Yang, Mr Paul Tan, Mr Josephus Tan,
Ms Simran Kaur Toor, Mr Grismond Tien
Editorial Board
Ms Malathi Das, Mr Prakash Pillai, Mr Chua Sui Tong,
Mr Gregory Vijayendran, Ms Alicia Zhuang, Mr Benjamin
Teo, Mr Cameron Ford, Ms Celeste Ang, Ms Crystal Ma,
Ms Debby Lim, Ms Lye Huixian, Ms Kannan Malini, Mr
M Lukshumayeh, Mr Marcus Yip, Mr Rajan Chettiar,
Ms Shen Xiaoyin, Ms Supreeta Suman, Mr Vincent Leow
The Law Society Secretariat
Chief Executive Officer Ms Tan Su-Yin
Communications & Membership Interests Mr Shawn Toh
Compliance Mr Kenneth Goh
Conduct Ms Ambika Rajendram, Mr K Gopalan
Continuing Professional Development Ms Jean Wong
Finance Ms Jasmine Liew, Mr Clifford Hang
Information Technology Mr Michael Ho
Pro Bono Services Mr Tanguy Lim, Ms Vimala Chandrarajan,
Mr K Gopalan, Ms Babara Seet
Publications Ms Sharmaine Lau
Representation & Law Reform Mr K Gopalan
Publishing Reed Elsevier (Singapore) Pte Ltd
trading as LexisNexis
Associate Director, Publishing, Singapore Terence Lim
Director, Sales, Singapore and OSEA Angie Ong
Editor Chandranie
Cover Design Mohd Khairil Johari
Designer Mohd Khairil Johari
Web Administrator Jessica Wang
Advertising Account Manager Anthony Eng
For Advertising Enquiries
Tel: (65) 6349 0172
Email: anthony.eng@lexisnexis.com
Printing Markono Print Media Pte Ltd
LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier (Singapore) Pte Ltd, is a
leading provider of legal and professional information in Asia,
with offices in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, India, England,
Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa.
The complete range of works published by LexisNexis include law
reports, legal indexes, major works, looseleaf services, textbooks,
electronice products and other reference works for Asia.
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
LexisNexis
3 Killiney Road, # 08-08, Winsland House 1, Singapore
239519
Tel: (65) 6733 1380
Fax: (65) 6733 1719
http://www.lawgazette.com.sg
ISSN 1019-942X
The Singapore Law Gazette is the official publication of the
Law Society of singapore. Copyright in all material published
in journal is retained by the Law Society. no part of this journal
may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
including recording and photocopying without the written
permission of the copyright holder, application for which should
be addressed to the law society. Written permission must also
be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a
retrieval system of any nature. the journal does not accept
liability for any views, opinions, or advice given in the journal.
Further, the contents of the journal do not necessarily reflect the
views or opinions of the publisher, the Law Society or members
of the Law Society and no liability is accepted or members of
the Law Society and no liability is accepted in relation thereto.
Advertisements appearing within this publication should not
be taken to imply any direct support for, or sympathy with the
views and aims of the publisher or the Law Society.
Circulation 5,000
Subscription Fee S$228.00 (inclusive of GST) for 12 issues
Good case, but concerned
about costs! Why not suggest
insurance AFTER THE EVENT?
Insurance is available to protect your clients’ potential
legal liability to pay the opponents’ litigation costs &
disbursements. It is purchased after the cause of a
legal dispute has arisen, and hence called
After-The-Event (ATE) insurance.
ATE insurance can be bought by both Plaintiffs and
Defendants. Lockton arranges this insurance for
commercial and civil litigants in Singapore.
To find out more call us (65) 62211288
or visit www.lockton-asia.com
Lockton Companies (Singapore) Pte Ltd
1 Raffles Place, #12-62 One Raffles Place, Tower 2
Singapore 048616
Tel: (65) 6221 1288 Fax: (65) 6225 0682
Company Registration No: 197601237N
President’s
Message
04
Continued from page 1
us or that we facilitate deals and help form companies that
build the economy. It is noble by large measure because of
the work that many in our midst are doing to bring justice
and equity within the reach of the weakest and poorest in
our community.
He paused a moment and then, “You know, I cried when you
said you wasn’t going to run no more.”
This is commonly known as pro bono work, goodness
shown in various forms which at its core is the offer of legal
services without the expectation of financial or professional
gain in return. Pro bono is special tonic to all. It helps train
our focus on the sustaining essence of our calling: it makes
us look less at self, more at others; less at gain, more at
service; less at our stress, more at our satisfaction. It helps
to build a sense of mission in the work that we do and
fortifies resilience in the work ethos within us. It makes what
we do and the heavy loads we often carry as lawyers, all
worthwhile.
He paused a few seconds more and then said, “Would you
give me a big hug?”
The story about Dale Bumpers, lawyer, senator and a former
Governor of Arkansas tells us something about investing
your life in a pursuit that is worthwhile. He was in office as
a United States Senator for 24 years and retired from the
Senate in 1998. However, just two weeks into his retirement,
he was asked to make the Closing Speech in President Bill
Clinton’s impeachment trial before the Senate. He made a
speech in defence of the President that has been called a
classic in political oratory.
Some 18 months after making the speech that saved
the Clinton presidency, Dale Bumpers was admitted as a
member of the Bar of the District of Columbia, at the age
of 75. In his memoir, The Best Lawyer in a One Lawyer
Town, he recounts an encounter with a guard at the Federal
Courthouse. He had just set off the sensors to the metal
detectors there.
“I looked up, and immediately in front of me was a black man
about six feet four inches tall and perhaps sixty years old.
He was staring at me with an inscrutable look. He had his
scanner in hand, and I assumed he wanted me to ‘spreadeagle’ in order to be scanned. Instead he said, “Senator
Bumpers?”
“Yes.”
“That may be the highest compliment I have ever received,”
I said.
I said, “I would be honoured to give you a big hug.”
It was an indescribably gratifying moment that made it all
worthwhile.”
We may not be called upon to save presidents and indeed
the work at our pro bono initiatives is far less in the glamour
stakes. But there’s a certain magic that people who are
involved in pro bono work can testify to. It is the gratitude of
the community we help; people who will lament the day you
say you are not going to run anymore, but nonetheless so
grateful for the sacrifices you have made, they express it not
in money terms, but in the genuine and heartfelt way of the
guard at the Courthouse. You see, it was not the President’s
gratitude which told Dale Bumpers of the worth of his work.
It was the common man’s hug.
Today, with your admission to the roll of advocates and
solicitors, you are not just one out of another 429 lawyers
added to the Profession. You can be a lawyer who really
makes a difference to our community, someone able to
recall, 20 or 30 years from now, the special moments when
the person next to you in Court was looking at you, counting
his blessings to have you as his lawyer and wise counsellor;
grateful that you have made the practice of law your chosen
profession. When that happens, you will realise that the
practice of law and the sacrifices you have made, have
been worthwhile.
To all of you once again, my heartiest congratulations on this
proud occasion of your admission to the roll of Advocates
and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore.
► Lok Vi Ming, Senior Counsel
President
The Law Society of Singapore
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
05
News
Diary and Upcoming Events
Diary
12 August 2014
Small Law Firms and State Courts Committees’ Luncheon
Organised by the Small Law Firms and State Courts Committees
12.30pm
State Courts Bar Room
12 August 2014
Seminar on Challenging Clients, Challenged Lawyers
Organised by the Continuing Professional Development Committee
3pm-5pm
55 Market Street
13 August 2014
Seminar on Insurance Fraud in Motor Accident Claims
Organised by the Personal Injury/Property Damage (“PIPD”) Committee
e
2.30pm-5.45pm
55 Market Street
15 August 2014
Annual Lawyer-Doctor Networking Session
Co-organised by the Law Society of Singapore,
Singapore Medical Association, Association of Women Doctors
of Singapore, Singapore Corporate Counsel Association,
Singapore Dental Association and Singapore Institute of Architects
6.30pm
Infiniti Showroom, 45 Leng Kee Road
19 August 2014
Those Who Can, Write!
Organised by the Publications Committee
3.30pm–6.00pm
55 Market Street
20 August 2014
Business Entities for Law Firms: Compliance, Costs and Other Considerations
Organised by the Small Law Firms Committee
3.00pm-5.30pm
55 Market Street
21 August 2014
Council Luncheon with Members
12.30pm-2.30pm
State Courts Bar Room
21 August 2014
Town Hall Discussion on Criminal Legal Aid Scheme Expansion
5.15pm
State Courts Bar Room
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
News
06
Diary and Upcoming Events
23 August 2014
Mass Call 2014
Hosted by the Young Lawyers Committee
9am-1pm
NTU Auditorium
25 August 2014
Regional Insolvency Conference 2014
Organised by the Insolvency Practice Committee
9am-6pm
Supreme Court of Singapore
26 August 2014
Mandatory Ethics Programme for Newly Qualified Lawyers (3rd Run)
Organised by the Continuing Professional Development Department
9.00am-10.30am
Supreme Court of Singapore
Upcoming Events
2-4 October 2014
3rd Annual Asia Pro-Bono Conference 2014
21 October 2014
Seminar on Trust Litigation
5 November 2014
Anti-Money Laundering Seminar
7 November 2014
Day of Conveyancing Highlights 2014
14 November 2014
Law Society Annual Dinner & Dance
20 November 2014
Annual CPD Day 2014
Council Update
Mr Chiam Tao Koon has joined Council with effect from 22 August 2014 while Ms Rajvant Kaur has resigned from
Council with effect from 4 July 2014.
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
News
08
Mass Call 2014
Mass Call 2014
Keep Calm and Carry on Practising
A total of 430 new advocates and solicitors were called
to the Bar at the Mass Call on 23 August 2014. Held for
the first time at the Nanyang Auditorium at the Nanyang
Technological University, this year’s Mass Call was presided
over by The Honourable The Chief Justice Sundaresh
Menon. President of the Law Society, Mr Lok Vi Ming, SC,
also made a speech at the ceremony welcoming the newly
called members of the Bar.
After the ceremony, the Law Society treated the newly
admitted officers of the Court and their proud family members
to a sumptuous reception. The new lawyers also received
a specially commissioned goodie bag made exclusively
from recycled materials containing information on the Law
Society and its initiatives; a copy of a special supplement
of the Law Gazette, and a commemorative portable mobile
phone charger. A free Photo Booth organised by the Law
Society added a touch of fun and ensured that no memories
from the special day were forgotten.
The Law Society warmly welcomes and congratulates all
newly admitted advocates and solicitors. For the full list
of names of the newly admitted advocates and solicitors,
please refer to the Law Society’s website (www.lawsociety.
org.sg> “For Members” > “Admissions and Training
Contracts” > “Admission of Advocates & Solicitors” > “23
August 2014”).
► Vikram Ranjan Ramasamy
Drew & Napier LLC
Member, Young Lawyers Committee
► Archana Chandrasekaran
Kelvin Chia Partnership
Member, Young Lawyers Committee
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
09
News
Mass Call 2014
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
News
10
Mass Call 2014
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
11
News
Mass Call 2014
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
News
12
Secretariat Renovations
Update on Secretariat Office Renovations
It has been over a month since renovations at the Law
Society’s headquarters at South Bridge Road commenced.
Please refer to the August issue of the Law Gazette to read
about why the Society embarked on the renovations and the
changes that can be expected when works are completed
at the end of October.
The renovations are now in full swing and we are
pleased to share with members a pictorial progress of the
transformation.
Scaffolding erected on the exterior
The erstwhile Jus Curio shop removed and flooring on the ground floor
stripped
Reception area torn down
Existing pantry wall extended
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
13
News
Secretariat Renovations
False ceilings installed
Washroom with some of the fittings added
Concealed wiring in walls and floors
Mr Melvin Tan (left) of Laud Architects with Law Society President Mr Lok Vi Ming, SC during a site visit of the premises
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
News
L-Leap Programme
Legal Leadership Development Programme (“L-Leap”)
Women in Law: Managing it All?
(L to R) Mrs Stefanie Yuen Thio (TSMP Law Corporation), Asst Prof Denise Wong (Singapore Management University), Ms Rachel Eng (WongPartnership LLP),
Justice Judith Prakash (Supreme Court of Singapore), Ms Kaya H. Proudian (White & Case LLP) and Ms Natalie Morris (Attorney-General’s Chambers)
Jointly organised by the Singapore Academy of Law and the
Centre for Cross-Border Commercial Law in Asia, Singapore
Management University, supported by White & Case, the
L-Leap series aims to bring together leading thinkers to
discuss pressing issues facing the legal profession.
It would not be an overstatement to say that the issues
discussed in this second L-Leap seminar – its theme
succinctly encapsulated in its title “Women in Law:
Managing it All?” – are not just important for the profession
in the abstract, but an ongoing, everyday struggle for many
in practice.
A full house attendance greeted the panelists on 17 July
2014. At hand to share their insights and experiences were
highly distinguished women from different backgrounds
within the legal profession, whom many of us no doubt look
up to: Justice Judith Prakash from the Supreme Court, Ms
Rachel Eng (Joint Managing Partner, Wong Partnership
LLP), Mrs Stefanie Yuen Thio (Joint Managing Director,
TSMP Law Corporation), and Ms Kaya Proudian (Office
Executive Partner, Singapore, White & Case LLP). Also
present on the panel to direct the discussion were Ms
Natalie Morris (Attorney-General’s Chambers) and Asst
Prof Denise Wong (Singapore Management University).
Is the Man-Woman Distinction Still Relevant?
Are we imagining the divide, and do women already “have it
all”? As an overview of where women stood through history,
Rachel spoke about how in 500BC, Confucius’ view was
that a woman was always subordinate to a man. As a girl,
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
15
News
L-Leap Programme
she was to obey her father, as a wife her husband, and as
a widow her eldest son. The exhortation by Mao Zedong
that “women hold up half the sky”, and the encouragement
of women to enter the workforce, only entered the Asian
psyche in 1968.
It has been only a few decades since then and the panelists’
consensus appeared to be yes – there is a distinction and it
is still relevant. Justice Prakash, who practised for 18 years
in Drew & Napier before joining the Bench, and raised four
daughters through her career, homed in immediately on the
issue of having a family. Even though we talk about equality,
and even though men can (and indeed, should) be good
fathers, the burden of family demands still often falls more
on women. And as Justice Prakash quipped: “A man has a
secretary and a wife. A woman has a secretary and no wife.”
In fact, for the avoidance of doubt, “a maid does not qualify
as a wife!”
How to Manage Aspirations for a Family with a
Successful Practice?
Justice Prakash’s candid assessment was that if a woman
does not want to have children, she can go as far as a
man. If she wants to have children, she will have to give
up some of her practice – or have fewer children. Agreeing
with Justice Prakash that it is difficult to do one’s job “very
well” while raising children, Rachel cited a female lawyer’s
thirties as the most challenging time, when her children
are young and she is a senior associate or junior partner.
The good news according to Rachel is, once she makes it
through that period unscathed, things look up.
Part of what makes it especially difficult for a woman is the
nature of the legal profession; as Kaya pointed out, the
service-driven legal career track is quite linear. Unlike the
jungle gym of the corporate world, where one may jump to
the top by trying different things, there are no shortcuts on
the legal ladder. Progress is step by painstaking step.
For Kaya, she advanced to become a partner before she
became a mother and wife. Now a mother to four children
whom she moved to Singapore after spending time in both
London and New York, she was sanguine in her approach
to balancing work and family, explaining that her children
know that their parents have time for them, and she and her
husband simply find the time.
Other mothers on the panel shared their all-too-common
feelings of guilt, be it over putting children in childcare, or
causing their baby to develop a habit of extra-long afternoon
naps in order to be awake to play with mummy when she
came home at 9pm. However, what emerged from the
discussion is that at the end of the day, everybody needs to
decide what is non-negotiable – and what can be traded off,
as Justice Prakash alluded to.
Rachel, a mother of three said it would be “wishful thinking
to expect to get the best of both worlds”. As a trade-off,
she moved from mergers and acquisitions work to capital
markets, which was also challenging but had different time
demands. Her colleagues reassured her that her kids in
childcare will turn out fine, but she highlighted it is important
to set OB markers. For her and her husband, one nonnegotiable matter was their children must be brought home
to sleep every day.
To help working mothers cope, their support system
is paramount. Rachel cited her husband and in-laws’
willingness to travel to pick up the children and bring them
home. Justice Prakash credited her supportive mother-inlaw – note the caveat that quarrelling with said in-law then
becomes a non-option! Stefanie even roped in her secretary
– she would be in the esteemed company of PepsiCo CEO
Indra Nooyi in doing so, as a recent interview with Nooyi
has revealed. When Stefanie’s son was in primary school,
he used to call her office when he wanted to play on the
computer. Armed with a list of questions, Stefanie’s secretary
would check whether he had done his homework; if yes,
she would turn on his computer remotely from the office and
he would get 30 minutes of computer time! In spite of this
delegation, and in spite of his extra-long afternoon naps,
Stefanie said she is “very close” to her now-teenage son,
who talks to her freely about any subject.
Indeed, Stefanie advocated that we think out of the box,
including what “having it all” meant to each of us. Women
need to take more control of their own destinies, Stefanie
opined, instead of constantly worrying about what their
husbands, mothers-in-law, and bosses were thinking.
She contrasted how women and men respond to say, a
promotion prospect: women probably wouldn’t put their
hands up unless they feel they could fulfill 80-90 per cent
of the stated requirements, whereas men would raise
their hands if they feel they could do 50 per cent. To some
degree, it is up to women in law to put themselves forward,
with the help of the right partner and support network.
Supporting Women in the Workplace
According to a US study, more than 50 per cent of a class
of incoming associates are women, yet only 17 per cent
of equity partnerships are held by women. Citing these
statistics, Kaya commented that it is not just women lawyers
who should be concerned by these figures as indicative
of their career prospects, but law firms too. Increasingly,
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
News
16
L-Leap Programme
clients expect to see diversity, women are wanted on
relationship teams, and the percentage of women partners
could become a recruitment issue in the future, taken into
account by fresh graduates considering which firm to join.
Representing the top management from two major local
firms, Rachel and Stefanie shared their strategies for
retaining female talent in their firms. Both make it clear that
it’s not just the structures and schemes put in place but the
culture which matters most at the end of the day. There is
no conducive environment for mothers if having to take your
kid to the clinic is only met with an impatient “Where is she?”
from a senior partner.
So what exactly could be done to make the law firm
environment more welcoming for women? TSMP Law
Corporation has put quite some thought into this. Stefanie
described what she called a “Girl Power” group initiated
at her firm, which convenes over white wine to talk about
anything from leadership to appropriate nail polish colours.
Another perk at TSMP is a one-month sabbatical offered at
the end of a five year tenure with the firm. The possibility of
burnout is real and recognised; TSMP wants to encourage
its people to rest and come back. WongPartnership, which
proudly counts over 40 per cent female partners, structures
its partnership tiers to cater for those who prefer to spend
more time at home, including a part equity executive
partnership tier. Undoubtedly, many other firms have their
own ways and means of retaining female talent. Yet others
may find it timely to start considering the issue.
While the rigours of private practice, particularly in a big
firm, are well known, is the perception that there is better
work-life balance elsewhere accurate? The panelists as
well as some members of the audience, who hail from
varied backgrounds, attested to this. Justice Prakash found
it easier to manage her family in corporate practice, when
she did not have to be in Court. While she found her rigid
schedule on the Bench also makes things “simpler”, Justice
Prakash observed dryly that by the time one is old enough
to go to the High Court, the assumption is also that one
has put child-rearing days behind them. She invited District
Judge Michelle Elias in the audience to comment on the
situation in the State Courts – to which DJ Elias gave
the heartening response that she has not felt she had to
compromise her family life.
literally! – Justice Prakash often couldn’t hear women when
they spoke across the table from her. (Take heed, litigators.)
Stefanie cut to the chase – does a woman have to be
aggressive and be a [five-letter word starting with B]? As
an associate, Stefanie said, it is easy to be liked. However,
“when there’s work to be divided and you’re a leader, your
associates want a leader whom they can respect.” She
explained that respect means a lack of histrionics, and is
not a popularity contest. Rather than being aggressive,
Rachel also thought that the emphasis should be on being
good at one’s work and being professional. It boiled down
to having confidence.
On a final note, for those with children, Rachel suggested
that something to remember is that mothers who continue
to work can offer their children a role model to look up to –
“my mother does this; my mother appears before the Court!”
While the panel fully respected stay-at-home mothers, and
recognised that homemaking was fulfilling as well, Stefanie
shared that she did not want to give her son the guilt that
she gave up her career for him.
In her book Lean In, Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook,
described the coining of the phrase “having it all” as “perhaps
the greatest trap ever set for women”. The anecdotes,
insights and advice that brimmed from the panelists during
this session indeed proved that the reality of women in law
is complex and marked by trade-offs, far beyond what those
three little words could capture. Nevertheless, the message
was clear, through the panelists’ words and as personified
by their achievements. Every woman can answer the
question of what it means to “manage it all” for herself,
and then make it happen – and employers can help in the
endeavour.
► Hong Jia
Associate
WongPartnership LLP
How Should Women Build a Workplace Persona?
Asked to give practical advice for women in the workplace,
the panelists each gave nuggets of wisdom. Justice
Prakash advised women to be persistent, but “stop being
persistent before you become annoying”. And speak up –
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
17
Professional Services
Internationally recognised
construction industry experts
The Construction Solutions practice of FTI Consulting
assists owners, contractors and construction law firms in the
prevention, mitigation or resolution of complex construction
disputes. Our extensive suite of services range from upfront
contract advisory, project risk management and project
planning to project controls development and monitoring,
dispute resolution and expert witness services. We are a
team of seasoned construction professionals with in-depth
regional and international experience and a wealth of industry
knowledge, which we draw upon to deliver the best outcome
for our clients engaged in construction projects.
For more information, please contact:
Christopher Nunns
christopher.nunns@fticonsulting.com
James Taylor
james.taylor@fticonsulting.com
Tel: +65 6831 7820
www.fticonsulting.com
CRITICAL THINKING AT THE CRITICAL TIME™
News
18
Friendly Games with Indonesia
Law Society–PERADI Friendly Games
We look fondly back at 13 July 2012 as an unforgettable day for
the Law Society badminton team. We have in the past travelled
extensively to play friendly matches with the law associations,
councils and societies around the region. Our travels have taken
us to Hong Kong, Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh, Shanghai and Taipei
just to name a few cities. But on that day, we were in a country
which had produced badminton champions such as Taufik
Hidayat, Heryanto Arbi and Susi Susanti – Indonesia. We were
hosted by the Central Jakarta chapter of the Perhimpunan
Advokat Indonesia (or PERADI) also known as the Advocates
Association of Indonesia. We may have emerged victorious
in that encounter but they overwhelmed us in terms of their
hospitality, the professionalism in organising a friendly, the
courts and the souvenirs provided, the entertainment, the
singing, the dancing, the food and the camaraderie. We left
with fond memories but more importantly, great friends.
We never thought the day would ever come but PERADI, led
by their indomitable President, Mr James Purba, took up our
invitation for a return game in Singapore on 28 June 2014.
This time around, PERADI upped the ante and also brought
along two soccer teams to play with our own premier soccer
team. On a bright and sunny Saturday morning, 46 supporters
and players came and brought the screams and cheers
usually heard at Thomas Cup matches played at the cauldron,
which is Senayan Stadium to our very own Toa Payoh Sports
Hall. The people at the other courts stopped playing for a while
because of the din the Indonesian players and supporters were
creating! PERADI even brought their in-house photographer
and reporter who provided live updates on its website so that
the lawyers in Jakarta could tune in “live” on the action. We
were also informed that their badminton players had organised
several training sessions specifically for the friendly match.
Our players, though seasoned and forged in the inferno of the
Bench & Bar Games, were clearly rattled. It was going to be a
long day in the trenches.
and the Indonesian players came at us with every weapon in
their arsenal. Jumping cross court smashes, backhand drop
shots and in-between-the-legs-retrievals were the order of the
day. Every point was played as if it decided the fate of the
match. But our players remained calm and collected. If Tag
Heuer needed more watch ambassadors, they need not look
further than to our badminton players because they did not
crack under pressure! And though the matches were close, we
emerged victorious with an overall score of 5-1.
Our premier soccer boys sent out two teams to face the
Indonesians. We fought a victorious battle consecutively for
two matches with scores of 7-1 and 8-1 respectively. Scores
aside, good football was played and new friendships were
forged! The soccer team is certainly happy to welcome
PERADI team back to Singapore again or even make a trip up
to Jakarta the next time round.
The day ended with an onslaught of selfies, tagging of pictures
on Facebook, gift exchanges and closing remarks from the
respective badminton convenors. With old acquaintances
renewed and new friendships made, we parted ways not with
a goodbye but a see-you-later.
Jakarta in 2016 anyone?
► Muhamad Imaduddien
Badminton Convenor
The Law Society of Singapore
► Lee Terk Yang
Soccer Convenor
The Law Society of Singapore
We had our game faces on as soon as the first competitive
p y at a high
g tempo
p
shuttle was hit. All the matches were played
Badminton players in action
A post game celebration between the two countries
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
19
News
Friendly Games with Indonesia
Singapore and Indonesian badminton players
The soccer team
The Indonesian contingent
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
News
20
SMU Law Grad Night
Legally Bound – Law Grad Night 2014
Having fun at the event photo booth
The journey through law school takes four long and arduous
years. For the 80 graduating students who attended SMU
Law School’s Graduation Night on 23 July, this journey
has finally come to a close. The night saw both faculty
members and students coming together to celebrate an
important milestone in our graduates’ lives – the completion
of their four years of legal education. We celebrated the
achievements of the graduates over a sumptuous buffet
spread at the iconic Alkaff Mansion. The night marked the
start of a new chapter in our graduates’ lives as they embark
on a journey to build their careers and future. Although law
school is but a prelude to an even longer journey they will
traverse in the coming years, this journey is definitely one
the graduates will hold dear to their hearts.
Packed with our graduates and faculty members and graced
by our school dean, Professor Yeo Tiong Min SC, the
Graduation Night venue was abuzz with excitement. The
night was filled with lively chatter as the graduates spent
the night taking pictures with their peers and professors.
After years of studying together, it was obvious that their
spirit of camaraderie and the friendships they have built will
continue beyond graduation.
The law school is proud of our second batch of graduates.
The graduates have done exceedingly well in many areas
such as the prestigious Philip C. Jessup International Law
Moot Court Competition. In the national round, judged
by then Attorney-General Steven Chong, Justice Judith
Prakash, and Davinder Singh SC, SMU prevailed in the oral
rounds while Nicholas was also named Best Oralist. The
team, consisting of Chua Wei Yuan, Kenny Lau, Nicholas
Liu, Carren Thung, and Yeo Gek Min, fought hard against
675 teams worldwide from 85 countries to become one of
the 124 schools that qualified for the international rounds in
Washington DC. In the final round, our students emerged
first runner-up, doing both our nation and school proud.
The school is also proud of Chua Wei Yuan for emerging
as the overall valedictorian of SMU. Over the course of his
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
21
News
SMU Law Grad Night
studies, he has clinched more than 10 awards, including
the WongPartnership Prize for the Most Outstanding Law
Graduate, Rajah & Tann Prize for The Top Graduating
Law Student and SPH Valedictorian Award supported
by Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. The prestigious SPH
Valedictorian Award is given annually to the highest ranking
student from the graduating cohort. More than just excelling
academically, Wei Yuan also displayed outstanding
leadership and oratorical skills, with significant contributions
to his co-curricular activities and the community at large.
Thank you, Wei Yuan, for your contributions to the school.
We would like to give special mention to our main sponsors
for their generosity. Fraser Hospitality Group for providing a
two-weekend stay at the luxurious Capri by Fraser Studio
Terrace. Royal Plaza on Scotts for providing a three-day
hotel stay with a daily buffet at the award-winning Carousel.
Zurich Insurance Singapore for providing a generous
donation to help realise this event. The graduates are indeed
grateful for the support shown by our gracious sponsors.
Congratulations to the graduates for completing this
journey with the law school. It is our sincerest hope that our
graduates will develop a strong sense of purpose in what
they choose to pursue, and continue to contribute to the
community. Here at SMU School of Law, we celebrate each
of our students who will lead and shape our world. As they
step into a new season of their lives, the faculty members,
staff and students at the School of Law wish them the best
in all their future endeavours.
► Jolene Ng
Daniel Ho
Year 2 Undergraduates
SMU School of Law
Jessup Cup Team: (L to R) Kenny Lau, Wei Yuan, Gek Min, Carren,
Nicholas Liu
As we celebrate the graduation of SMU’s second batch
of law school graduates, we would like to thank our very
generous sponsors for making this event a memorable one.
The event would not have been as memorable if it were
not for Fraser Hospitality Group, Royal Plaza on Scotts,
Zurich Insurance Singapore, Chapter 2, The Escape Artist,
Food Panda, G2000, Dorsett Singapore and the Grand
Copthorne Waterfront Hotel.
Main sponsors: We are grateful to Zurich LIfe Insurance (S) Pte Ltd for
being our event's Silver sponsor
The batch of 2014
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
Feature
22
Can the Moneylenders Act, a piece of social legislation originally intended to curtail
loansharking activities, apply to international syndicated loans made to a Singapore
company? Practitioners appear to be divided.
The Moneylenders Act and International
Syndicated Loans
Introduction
on how they should participate in the loan and how they
may make their exit.
Singapore banking lawyers are experiencing an increase in
mandates to advise on loan financings where a Singapore
company proposes to borrow funds from an international
lending syndicate where some, or all, of the lenders may be
based outside of Singapore. Such financings are typically
driven by a range of pricing, tax and other structuring
considerations. As part of the legal risk analysis, we are often
called on to advise on any local laws which could render
the loan agreement unenforceable. A key issue amongst
practitioners is whether the Moneylenders Act (Cap 188,
Revised Edition 2010) (the “MLA”) applies to a loan made by
a financial institution outside (in the broad sense) Singapore
to a company incorporated in Singapore. The outcome of
the analysis can have significant commercial and structuring
repercussions on potential lenders, including, for example,
Under the MLA, a person is prohibited from carrying on
the business of moneylending in Singapore unless he
is: (i) authorised to do so by a licence; (ii) an “excluded
moneylender”; or (iii) an “exempt moneylender”. A person
would be an “unlicensed moneylender” under the MLA if he
does not fall within any of these three categories. Pursuant
to s 14(2) of the MLA, where any contract for a loan has been
granted by an unlicensed moneylender, or any guarantee or
security has been given for such a loan, the contract for the
loan, and the guarantee or security, as the case may be,
shall be unenforceable and any money paid by or on behalf
of the unlicensed moneylender under the contract for the
loan shall not be recoverable in any Court of law.
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
23
Feature
MARKETING
AD
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
Feature
24
Practitioners advising a syndicate of international lenders
may be required, for various reasons, to focus their analysis
on whether their clients fall within the definition of “excluded
moneylender”.1 This is not a straightforward analysis –
based on the literal wording of s 2 of the MLA, arguably
an offshore lender making a loan to a Singapore company
(hence prima facie falling within paragraph (e)(iii)(A) of
the definition of “excluded moneylender”) would not be an
“excluded moneylender” if it had in the past lent money to an
individual in Singapore who is not an “accredited investor”.
In context, this could mean that a loan made by the London
branch of a British bank to a Singapore company could be
unenforceable if it had, in the past, made loans to individuals
in Singapore.2
This article considers the legislative intent behind the MLA
and a series of recent Singapore cases analysing the MLA,
and argues that the likelihood of a Singapore company
successfully raising a defence under s 14(2) of the MLA is
small.
The Moneylenders Act – Purpose and Legislative
Intent
The MLA was enacted in Singapore in 1936 as the
Moneylenders Ordinance (Cap 193, 1936 Ed) and was
modelled upon the English Moneylenders Acts of 1900 (63
& 64 Vict, c 51) (UK) and 1927 (17 & 18 Geo. 5, c 21) (UK).
In Litchfield v Dreyfus [1906] 1 KB 584, Farwell J observed
that the object of the English legislation was intended “to
save the foolish from the extortion of a certain class of the
community who are called money-lenders as an offensive
term”.
These comments echo the views which the English Select
Committee took into account when enacting the English
Money-lenders Act 1900. The Crowther Committee’s Report
on Consumer Credit (Cmnd 4596, 1971) at para 2.1.22
summarised these views as follows:
… Much of the evidence given to the Committee, and
to its successor appointed in 1898, was concerned
with such victims of the rapacious moneylender as
the widow forced to borrow on a bill of sale of her
household effects, and the young son of the aristocracy
who in the course of sowing his wild oats ran up large
debts, at exorbitant interest, which his family [was] later
blackmailed into paying to avoid the publicity of court
proceedings.
A review of the Singapore parliamentary records on
Bills relating to the predecessors to the current MLA
demonstrates a congruent legislative intent. For example,
in Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (2
September 1959) vol 11 at col 593, Seow Peck Leng made
the following remarks:
This Bill [referring to the Moneylenders Bill] is laudable
for the fact that it protects the poor from the clutches
of unscrupulous moneylenders. This Bill, in my opinion,
should be implemented as soon as possible to ease
the hardship of those already victimised and to prevent
those who, because of financial difficulties, may be
victimised in the future …
It is the very, very poor, Sir, who need protection most,
who usually take loans of less than $100, and I think
that they are the ones who should be protected …
In City Hardware Pte Ltd v Kenrich Electronics Pte Ltd [2005]
1 SLR 733 (“City Hardware”) the High Court noted that the
MLA has “the salutary objective of proscribing rapacious
conduct by unlicensed and unprincipled moneylenders”
who prey on individuals who turn to them out of financial
destitution. It emphasised that the provisions of the MLA
are not intended to apply to transactions made at arm’s
length between commercial entities and it has never been
the objective of the MLA to prohibit or impede legitimate
commercial intercourse between commercial persons.
The High Court further emphasised in City Hardware that
the Courts should not adopt an over-extensive application
of the MLA even though its provisions may be literally
construed to cover most commercial situations, as that
would not advance the legislative purpose of the Act.
The current MLA is based substantially on its 2008
predecessor. At the Second Reading Speech for the 2008
amendments (Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official
Report (18 November 2008) vol 85 at cols 1001-1004), the
policy objectives of the MLA were again acknowledged by
Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, the then Senior Minister
of State for Law:
Sir, the Moneylenders Act was enacted in 1959, about
50 years ago. Amendments have been few and far
between, primarily focusing on enhancing the provisions
that tackle unlicensed moneylender or loansharking.
The Act was intended as a piece of social legislation
to safeguard what we would call “small-time borrowers”
from unscrupulous moneylenders. Hence, its chief
concern was the charging of exorbitant interests.
The lenders then were also essentially small-scale
operators.
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
25
Feature
In discussing the 2008 amendments to the MLA, the
Court of Appeal recently made the following observations
on “excluded moneylenders” in Sheagar s/o T M Veloo v
Belfield International (HongKong) Ltd [2014] SGCA 24
(“Sheagar”):
In our judgment, in passing the 2008 amendments,
Parliament had intended to de-regulate commercial
borrowing by excluding this class from the MLA
in addition to those already excluded prior to
2008. This was to ensure that the flow of credit in
the business domain was not stifled. Furthermore,
insofar as paragraph (e) of the definition of “excluded
moneylender” in s 2 of the MLA is concerned,
Parliament also regarded such borrowers, that is to
say, corporations, limited liability partnerships, business
trusts, real estate trusts and sophisticated investors
as being a less vulnerable class of borrowers that
did not need the protection afforded by a piece of
social legislation. This in turn justified a lower degree
of regulatory oversight over the activities of lenders who
lent exclusively to such borrowers.
This background suggests that the MLA simply does
not apply to lenders who fall within the definition of
“excluded moneylender” under s 2 of the MLA and their
activities therefore do not come within the regulatory
ambit of the MLA at all. (emphasis mine)
The Bill for the current version of the MLA was thoroughly
debated in Parliament in January 2010 at the Second
Reading Speech for the Moneylenders (Amendment)
Bill (Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report
(12 January 2010) vol 86. The entire debate between
several Members of Parliament appears to have focused
on the implementation of enhanced measures to tackle
the “loanshark scourge”, including stiffer penalties under
s 14 of the MLA for unlicensed moneylending. Based on
an electronic search conducted on the said parliamentary
report, the word “syndicate” appeared in the search results
in a total of 52 instances, being in each case contextual
references to “crime syndicate” or “loanshark syndicate”;
there was not one reference to “syndicated loan”.
Threshold Question – Whether the Moneylenders
Act Applies
In Donald McArthy Trading Pte Ltd and Others v Pankaj
s/o Dhirajlal (trading as TopBottom Impex) [2007] 2 SLR
321 (“Donald McArthy”), the Court of Appeal agreed with
the High Court in City Hardware that “The provisions of the
MLA are not intended to apply to transactions made at arm’s
length between commercial entities. It has never been
the objective of the MLA to prohibit or impede legitimate
commercial intercourse between commercial persons” and
emphasised that a Court should give effect to the legislative
purpose when interpreting the MLA.
Although in Donald McArthy the defence based on the MLA
failed on other grounds (notably the Court of Appeal found
that there was no loan of money under the agreements
in question), it appears that the Court of Appeal was
suggesting that the threshold question of whether the
MLA was applicable to the facts should be asked before
embarking on an analysis based on the wording of the MLA.
This approach was applied, in a rather robust manner, by
the High Court in EC Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout
Residence Pte Ltd and another (Orion Oil Ltd and another,
interveners) [2011] 2 SLR 232 (“EC Investment”). In finding
that the transaction in question was not the kind that the
MLA was meant to prohibit, the High Court appears to
have rejected the defence based on the MLA by using a
purposive interpretation and did not explore the concept of
“excluded moneylender” in detail.
In EC Investment, the defendant Ridout Residence Pte.
Ltd. (“Ridout”), a Singapore company, submitted that the
transaction entered into between the plaintiff EC Investment
Holding Pte Ltd, also a Singapore company, and itself, was
caught by the prohibition on unlicensed moneylending in the
MLA. At all material times, Ridout was owned and controlled
by one Agus Anwar (“AA”), an individual accepted by the
High Court as an “experienced businessman”.
In arriving at his decision, Justice Quentin Loh made the
following findings:
… I have come to the conclusion…that this
transaction was not the kind of transaction that
the Moneylenders Act was meant to prohibit.
(a) First I draw guidance from the comments of
Rajah J in City Hardware which was approved
by the Court of Appeal in Donald McArthy. AA is
no babe in the woods, he is an experienced
business entrepreneur and moreover had the
benefit of advice from his lawyer and his CFO
before he signed the 1st Option and the Deed of
Settlement. In my judgment, these two factors
kept this transaction from falling within the
Moneylenders Act. It was in a commercial context
of a loan with security between corporations,
even though it was AA who was the directing
will and mind of the 1st Defendant; it was not the
kind of transactions the Moneylenders Act was
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
Feature
26
meant to catch, nor was AA the kind of person
the Moneylenders Act was meant to protect. He
knew the commercial risk he was taking, but he
miscalculated on his ability to repay the loan …
Based on the approach taken in EC Investment, it would
appear that the key question that must first be asked where
the MLA is raised as a defence is whether the transaction in
question is the type of transaction that the MLA was mean
to prohibit. What is clear from EC Investment is that the
MLA does not apply in the commercial context of a loan
with security between corporations, particularly where the
debtor in question is commercially savvy and has had the
benefit of legal advice. To the Court’s mind, these are not
the type of debtors which the MLA was designed to protect.
The Sheagar Test
The Court of Appeal recently established in Sheagar a
4-step test to determine whether a person has breached s
14(2) of the MLA.
In Sheagar, Belfield International (Hongkong) Ltd (the
“Respondent”), a corporation, claimed against Sheagar
s/o T M Veloo (the “Appellant”) the sum of US$358,000
with contractual interest plus costs on an indemnity basis.
The claim was made pursuant to a guarantee given by
the Appellant in respect of a loan extended to Blue Sea
Engineering Pte Ltd by the Respondent.
The Appellant raised defences based on, among others,
illegality under the MLA. Specifically, the Appellant argued
that the relevant loan and guarantee were unenforceable
pursuant to s 14(2) of the MLA on the basis that the
Respondent was an “unlicensed moneylender”.
he may rely on the presumption contained in s 3 of the
MLA to discharge this burden;
3. The burden then shifts to the lender to prove that he
either does not carry on the business of moneylending or
possesses a moneylending licence or is an “exempted
moneylender”; and
4. If there is an issue as to whether the lender is an
excluded moneylender, the legal burden of proving that
he is not will fall on the borrower.
The Court of Appeal noted that in introducing the concept
of an “excluded moneylender” in 2008, the Singapore
Parliament had intended to de-regulate commercial
borrowing. The Court of Appeal found, as a matter of
fact, that the loans in question bore the very features of
commercial borrowing because such loans entered into
between commercial entities for commercial purposes. In
the circumstances, the Court of Appeal found that the loans
fell within both the letter and spirit of paragraph (e)(iii)
(A) of the definition of “excluded moneylender” and that
the Appellant had not discharged his burden of proof. In the
ultimate analysis, it followed that the disabling provision in
s 14(2) of the MLA did not apply.
While the Sheagar test clarifies the law to a certain extent, it
also, however, arguably introduces an element of ambiguity
– the Court of Appeal appears to be saying that if the loan
is between “commercial entities for commercial purposes”,
the burden of proof would fall on the borrower to show that
the lender is not an excluded moneylender (ostensibly by
On the facts, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, delivering
the findings of the Court of Appeal on the issue of burden of
proof, held (after a relatively lengthy and involved analysis
spanning approximately 40 paragraphs) that the burden
of proving that the lender is not an excluded moneylender
falls on the borrower and found that the borrower/obligor
(ie the Appellant) had not discharged its burden of proof.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
In arriving at its decision, the Court of Appeal established
the following principles in relation to s 14(2) of the MLA:
1. To rely on s 14(2) of the MLA, the borrower must prove
that the lender was an “unlicensed moneylender”;
2. If the borrower can establish that the lender has lent
money in consideration for a higher sum being repaid,
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
27
Feature
adducing evidence to prove that the lender has at some
point made loans to individuals who are not accredited
investors). Taken to its extreme conclusion, this could mean
that a perfectly legitimate commercial transaction could be
rendered unenforceable because a lender had at some
point in time also lent money in unrelated transactions to
individuals in Singapore who are not accredited investors.
Indeed, such a result would appear to be inconsistent
with the mischief which the MLA is intended to address
and it is doubtful that the Singapore Courts would permit
such an argument to succeed in the specific context of an
international syndicated loan to a Singapore company. In
City Hardware, Justice Rajah (as he then was) provided
the following warning to borrowers who may intend to use s
14(2) of the MLA as a defence:
The defence of moneylending is often invoked in
Singapore by unmeritorious defendants who are
desperate to stave off their financial woes. Such
defendants should not regard the MLA as a legal
panacea. It should be viewed as a scheme of social
legislation designed to regulate rapacious and predatory
conduct by unscrupulous unlicensed moneylenders. Its
pro-consumer protection ethos was never intended to
impede legitimate commercial intercourse or to sterilise
the flow of money. It is not meant to curtail the
legitimate financial activity of commercial entities
that are capable of making considered business
decisions. The court has always taken and will
continue to take a pragmatic approach in assessing
situations when this defence is raised. The MLA is
not invariably contravened in transactions where the
object of the transaction is to raise money. In the final
analysis, the economic objective of an arrangement
to provide credit should not be confused with its
legal nature. (emphasis added)
In the ultimate analysis, it is important to note that while the
Court of Appeal in Sheagar had specifically referred to EC
Investment in its deliberations, it did not disapprove of or
overrule the “threshold test” applied by the High Court in EC
Investment. This stands in contrast to the approach taken
by the same Sheagar Court on other issues, notably where
it expressly disapproved of the reasoning in a line of local
cases discussing the burden of proving that a lender is an
“excluded lender”. In an appropriate case, it thus remains
open to a Singapore Court to continue to take a pragmatic
approach by applying the EC Investment “threshold test” to
achieve an outcome consistent with the legislative purpose
of the MLA and avoid an anomalous result.
“Singapore Anti-Loanshark Law Strikes Down
International Syndicated Loan” – a Possible
Headline for the Financial Times?
The MLA is intended as a piece of social
legislation to safeguard “small-time borrowers” from
unscrupulous moneylenders. The Singapore Courts have
held that the MLA is not meant to curtail the legitimate
financial activity of commercial entities that are capable
of making considered business decisions and, to this end,
have taken a pragmatic approach in assessing situations
when a defence under s 14(2) of the MLA is raised. In
the context of an international syndicated loan where the
amounts borrowed are typically in the hundreds of millions
of dollars or more and where the corporate borrower
typically has had the benefit of legal advice, it would appear
unlikely that the Singapore Courts would allow a defence
under s 14(2) of the MLA, without more, to succeed. To
do otherwise would be contrary to the stated purpose of
the MLA and lead to considerable damage to Singapore’s
reputation as an international financial centre.
► Eugene Phua*
Clifford Chance Pte Ltd
E-mail: eugene.phua@cliffordchance.com
* The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and do
not represent the views of Clifford Chance Pte Ltd.
Notes
1
2
Under s 2 of the MLA, “excluded moneylender” includes:
“(e) any person who —
(i)
lends money solely to his employees as a benefit of employment;
(ii) lends money solely to accredited investors within the meaning of section
4A of the Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289);
(iii) lends money solely to —
(A) corporations;
(B) limited liability partnerships;
(C) trustees or trustee-managers, as the case may be, of business trusts
for the purposes of the business trusts;
(D) trustees of real estate investment trusts for the purposes of the real
estate investment trusts…”
This assumes that the London branch does not hold a license under the MLA or the
Banking Act (Cap 19), as is often the case in practice. Generally, the banking license
granted under the Banking Act is branch or territory specific, so the London branch of
a bank would not ordinarily be deemed to be licensed to conduct banking business in
Singapore solely by reason that its Singapore branch is so licensed.
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
Feature
28
This article summarises the nature and role of the relator action in Singapore.
Casting the Relator Action
The relator action is rarely seen here. The last reported
sighting in Singapore was in 1961.1 Over in Malaysia, the
relator action has been glimpsed occasionally, enough to
prevent it from sliding into myth. What is a relator action,
and what role does it have for private individuals (and
companies) in Singapore today?
Introduction
The relator action is briefly, and somewhat mysteriously,
given a passing reference in O 15 r 11 of the Rules of Court,
which states only that “before the name of any person is
used in any action as a relator, that person must give a
written authorisation so as to use his name to his solicitor
and the authorisation must be filed in the Registry”. The
rules do not explain who a relator is, or what a relator action
is for.
The answers are found instead in the forests of the
common law. A relator action, we are given to understand,2
“has existed from the earliest times”, and stems from the
traditional view of the Attorney-General as the guardian of
public rights. Since it was the exclusive right of the AttorneyGeneral to protect the public interest, he was the proper
plaintiff to assert a public right.3
Hence an individual who wanted to assert a public (as
opposed to a private) right would have to apply to the
Attorney-General for his authority to commence an action
in the latter’s name. The individual would be the “relator”
and the Attorney-General would sue on the relation of that
individual. The relator would pay the Attorney-General’s
costs.
If the Attorney-General takes the view that a relator action
would not be in the public interest, he can refuse his consent.
His decision is generally not reviewable by the Courts.4 This
is because, although views may differ on where the balance
of public interest lies, the Attorney-General is ideally placed
to consider and decide what the public interest ultimately
needs.5 But the Attorney-General’s refusal of consent does
not necessarily bar the individual access to the Courts if
that individual would, in his own right, be able to invoke the
Court’s jurisdiction.6
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
29
Feature
The precise role of the Attorney-General in a relator action
in Singapore is not defined. In England, it was said:7
But the Attorney-General’s role has never been
fictional. His position in relator actions is the same as
it is in actions brought without a relator (with the sole
exception that the relator is liable for costs) … He is
entitled to see and approve the statement of claim and
any amendment in the pleadings, he is entitled to be
consulted on discovery, the suit cannot be compromised
without his approval; if the relator dies, the suit does not
abate.
Before the natural habitats of the relator action are explored,
it will first be useful to explain the link between relator actions
and the rules of standing (or locus standi).
Relator Actions and Locus Standi
The doctrine of locus standi is closely linked to that of relator
actions. Relator actions essentially allow an individual with
the fiat of the Attorney-General to enforce a public right. But
if the individual has the locus standi to enforce that public
right in his own name, he no longer needs to start a relator
action. Hence a liberalisation of the rules of locus standi
would be expected to correspond with a marginalisation of
the relator action.8
A private individual has standing to invoke the Courts’
jurisdiction where he either seeks to enforce a private
right, or where he has suffered special injury arising from
the breach of a public right.9 In Malaysia, applicants who
allege a violation of a non-Constitutional law have to either
satisfy the standing requirements or start a relator action.10
But where there is a bona fide complaint by a concerned
citizen that there has been a violation of the Constitution by
the Government or its agent, the principles of locus standi
do not apply (and hence the role of the relator action is
reduced).11
Singapore is slightly different. Locus standi requirements
apply whether or not a Constitutional violation by a public
body has been alleged.12 But to ensure the rule of law, the
Court of Appeal has allowed for the exceptional case where
there has been a manifest and egregious breach of the law
by a public body. In such cases, the Court has the discretion
to grant standing to an applicant who would otherwise
be lacking: “As the guardian of the rule of law, it would
be unthinkable that citizens would have no recourse for
bringing claims against unlawful conduct by public bodies
where there has been an obvious and flagrant disregard for
the law”.13
Relator Action Against Public Bodies
In theory, a private party may take out a relator action against
public bodies. For example, in Government of Malaysia
v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12, the applicant started a
non-relator action to restrain the Malaysian Government
from awarding the North-South Highway project to United
Engineers Malaysia, on the alleged ground of corruption.
A majority of the Malaysian Supreme Court found that the
applicant lacked standing to represent the public interest
and said that a relator action would have been the more
appropriate course.14
But as a matter of practice, since the consent of the AttorneyGeneral is required, a relator action against public bodies
is not always feasible. As Abdoolcader SCJ, dissenting,
pointed out in Lim Kit Siang:15
The contention of the [Government] is that in matters
such as that before us it is only the Attorney-General
himself moving suo moto16 or by the grant of a fiat for
a relator action who has the right to challenge and can
take action and no other. I would think it would be too
much to expect process of this nature involving the
ventilation of a public grievance to proceed only through
this channel, given even the fortitude the incumbent
of the office would presumably be endowed with, in
view of the rebound where the complaint is against
the Government itself and the Attorney-General is its
legal adviser, as it would surely be expected that if the
complaint merited action by the Attorney-General or by
his fiat to a relator, he would himself in the first instance
have had the cause of complaint aborted before its
overt manifestation. For the Attorney-General to have
to proceed himself or by relation in such a case would
only be a deplorable and intolerable reflection as in the
normal course of events such a situation would and
should never be allowed to arise, and so the question
of a relator action must necessarily remain attractive
as a theoretical possibility with no conceivable hope
generally for practicable purposes of advancing to
concrete action beyond that.
The observations of Abdoolcader SCJ are particularly
pertinent in Singapore since “the Ministries, statutory boards
and public authorities have a practice of seeking the advice
of the Attorney-General on the legality of their actions before
implementing policies, making decisions or taking actions
which may affect private rights. They act only when the
green light is given”.17 Further, if the Attorney-General has
rendered advice on a particular course of action, he would
be effectively conflicted from giving his consent to a relator
action that seeks to impugn that very action.18
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
Feature
30
Hence, an individual who seeks to enforce a public right
against a public body has in practice two realistic options.
The first is to satisfy the rules of standing by showing that he
has suffered a special injury. The second exceptional option
is to show that there has been such an obvious and flagrant
disregard of the law that it would be in the public interest for
the Courts to hear the case: Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v
Attorney-General [2014] 1 SLR 345.19 The relator action in
this field is likely to remain rare and forgotten.
Relator Action Against Private Parties
A relator action can also be found where an individual seeks
to enforce a public right in civil proceedings against another
private party.20 A short survey will illustrate the breadth of
cases in which a relator action may be taken out against a
private party.
An old example is where a member of the public seeks
to restrain the misapplication of a charitable trust.21 For
example, in Re Valibhoy, Deceased, a friend of the testator
brought a relator action to enforce the charitable trusts of the
will. As the friend of the testator was neither a beneficiary
nor a trustee of the charitable trust, he had no private rights,
and hence had to invoke the Attorney-General’s authority to
enforce the public rights arising out of the charitable trust.
In modern times, a relator action can be used in cases
where civil remedies are sought to restrain the commission
of a criminal or regulatory offence: for instance, where the
penalties imposed for the offence is a wholly inadequate
deterrence.22 A famous English example is AttorneyGeneral v Chaudry [1971] 1 WLR 1614, a relator action,
where an injunction was granted to restrain the defendant
from using the building as a hotel without first obtaining a
fire safety licence.
Similarly, in Attorney-General v Wan Kam Fo [1967] 2 MLJ
72, a relator action was used to restrain the breach of local
by-laws. The defendant carried on a restaurant business
without a licence from the Commissioner (the Pesurohjaya).
A relator action was commenced for an injunction against
the defendant from carrying out its business.
South Johore Omnibus Sdb Bhd v Damai Ekspres [1983]
1 MLJ 101 is a case where a private company should have
tried a relator action instead of suing in its own name. The
defendant was a bus company operating an express bus
service between Johore Bahru and Air Hitam. The licence
granted to the defendant by the licensing board restricted
the defendant to making only two trips per day on that
route, which was ignored by the defendant. The plaintiff
appears to have been a competitor plying the same route
and applied for an injunction to restrict the defendant to only
two trips per day. One problem the plaintiff faced was that
it could not prove that the defendant’s breach of the licence
had caused it special injury – the plaintiff was unable to
prove a consequent loss of income. In the circumstances,
the plaintiff had no standing and the Malaysian High Court
remarked that it should have commenced a relator action
instead.
Another interesting example is Dewan Pemuda Masjid
Malaysia v SIS Forum (Malaysia) [2012] 1 MLJ 126. The
applicant in that case had been set up to uphold the religion
of Islam. It objected to the respondent’s description of itself
as “Sisters in Islam” and applied for an injunction to prohibit
the respondent from using that description. The Malaysian
High Court held that the crux of the applicant’s complaint
was an alleged contravention of the Companies Act 1965.
The Companies Commission Malaysia was statutorily
empowered to enforce the provisions of the Companies Act,
and hence was the proper authority to do so. In the present
case, the applicant was complaining about a breach of a
public right. Hence it either had to commence a relator
action (with the Attorney-General’s approval) or show that
it had suffered special injury. Neither was done so the
application was dismissed.
These cases suggest that a relator action against a private
party may be considered whenever: (i) the plaintiff seeks
to enforce a public right; and (ii) the plaintiff would have
difficulty showing that he has standing, ie that he has
suffered “special injury”. Seeking the Attorney-General’s fiat
for a relator action might be worth exploring if the alternative
is that the case is dismissed for a lack of standing.23 And
even if the Attorney-General does not give his consent, the
plaintiff is in no worse position than before.24
Conclusion
It is difficult to cast the role of the relator action in Singapore.
In the field of judicial review against public bodies, the relator
action is probably near extinction. But in the pockets of law
where public rights nudge private concerns, there are still
spaces for the relator action to survive. Here, it may be too
early to consign the relator action to the dust heap of history.
► Tham Lijing*
Tan Rajah and Cheah
E-mail: thamlijing@trc.com.sg
* BA (Oxon), BCL
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
31
Feature
Notes
12
Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General [2012] 4 SLR 476 at [78]-[84].
1
Re Valibhoy, Deceased [1961] MLJ 187.
13
Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General [2014] 1 SLR 345 at [60]-[61].
2
Lord Wilberforce in Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435, 477.
14
At 20, 21, 27.
3
Ibid, p 481.
15
At 45.
4
Although see by analogy the Courts’ approach to reviewing prosecutorial discretion:
Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General [2012] 2 SLR 49.
16
Ie, on its own motion.
17
Chan Sek Keong, “Judicial Review – From Angst to Empathy” (2010) 22 SAcLJ 469
at [15].
5
Gouriet, p 495.
6
Gouriet, pp 494-495.
18
Also see ss 3 and 4 of the Attorney-General (Additional Functions) Bill.
7
Ibid, p 478.
19
At [60]-[61] of the judgment.
8
An example is in England, which has adopted more liberal (ie relaxed) standing
requirements. See Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12 where
Salleh Abas LP said (at 22): “However, with the introduction of the new procedure,
not only locus standi ceased to become a threshold requirement, its meaning also
becomes liberated by the use of the words ‘sufficient interest’ and consequently relator
action ceases to have much meaning”.
20
For criminal proceedings, there is the option of a private prosecution.
21
Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General [2014] 1 SLR 345 at [35].
22
Eg Attorney-General v Sharp [1931] 1 Ch 121; Attorney-General v Premier Line Ltd.
[1932] 1 Ch 303.
23
However, the precise roles of the Attorney-General and the plaintiff’s lawyers in a
relator action are unclear.
24
Apart from some time wasted. The procedure for applying for a relator action is found
at Singapore Civil Procedure 2013, para 15/11/4.
9
Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General [2014] 1 SLR 345 at [64].
10
Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang [1988] 2 MLJ 12 (majority), see below.
11
Manoharan a/l Malayam v Dato’ Seri Mohd Najib [2013] 5 MLJ 186 (Court of Appeal);
Robert Linggi v Government of Malaysia [2011] 2 MLJ 741 (High Court).
Invitation
for Contribution of Articles
The Singapore Law Gazette (“SLG¹HUVMÄJPHSW\ISPJH[PVUVM[OL3H^:VJPL[`HPTZ
[V IL HU LK\JH[PVUHS YLZV\YJL MVY IV[O WYHJ[PZPUN SH^`LYZ HUK PUOV\ZL JV\UZLS
H MVY\T MVY KLIH[L HUK H \ZLM\S YLMLYLUJL VM OPNO X\HSP[` JVTTPZZPVULK HY[PJSLZ
JV]LYPUNHSSSLNHSZWLJPHS[PLZ
4LTILYZ VM [OL 3H^ :VJPL[` UVUWYHJ[PZPUN SLNHS WYVMLZZPVUHSZ HUK WYVMLZZPVUHSZ
PU YLSH[LK ÄLSKZ HYL ^LSJVTL [V Z\ITP[ ^LSSYLZLHYJOLK THU\ZJYPW[Z [OH[ HYL VM
LK\JH[PVUHSTLYP[HUKSPRLS`[VILVMPU[LYLZ[[VH^PKLYHUNPUNSLNHSH\KPLUJL
:\ITPZZPVUZ HYL ^LSJVTL [OYV\NOV\[ [OL `LHY (SS Z\ITPZZPVUZ ZOV\SK IL
\UW\ISPZOLK ^VYRZ IL[^LLU [V ^VYKZ HUK HYL Z\IQLJ[ [V [OL 3H^
:VJPL[`»ZYL]PL^
;OL:3.PZ[OLWYLTPLYSLNHSQV\YUHSMVYHSSSH^`LYZHUKV[OLYYLSH[LKWYVMLZZPVUHSZ
WYHJ[PZPUN PU :PUNHWVYL 6\Y HY[PJSLZ HYL YLHK I` YLHKLYZ PUJS\KPUN
WYHJ[P[PVULYZ[OLQ\KPJPHY`[OLSLNHSZLY]PJL[OLHJHKLTPHSPIYHYPLZV]LYZLHZIHY
HZZVJPH[PVUZHUKHZPNUPÄJHU[U\TILYVMPUOV\ZLJV\UZLSPU:PUNHWVYL
We look forward to hearing from you!
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
Please e-mail all enquiries,
suggestions and submissions to
Chandranie at
chandranie@lexisnexis.com
Feature
32
Termination of employees is gradually becoming an issue of challenge in the atwill employment jurisdiction of Singapore. Although notice can generally be given
to terminate an employment, some employees whose employment have been
terminated do nevertheless challenge the validity of the termination alleging
constructive or unfair dismissal instead. This also occurs where the employee has
resigned from his role. Whilst the position at law is seemingly clear, with the recent
Court decision in Wee Kim San Lawrence Bernard v Robinson & Co (Singapore)
Pte Ltd [2014] shedding some light, this article provides that caution is nevertheless
necessary.
Legal Risks in Employee Termination
Introduction
Singapore is an at-will employment jurisdiction, and as a
general rule, employers can terminate the employment
of their respective employees provided the manner of
termination complies with the provisions of the employment
agreement and where applicable, the Employment Act
(Cap 91) (“EA”). Further, under Singapore Law, there is no
legal obligation on the employer to provide the employee
with reasons for the termination. Notwithstanding this, in
recent times, there has been an increase in the number of
employees challenging the termination of their employment,
whether by way of a legal action, or complaints filed with
either the Ministry of Manpower (“MOM”) or the Tripartite
Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices
(“TAFEP”).
One recent example of an employee bringing an action
against his employer and alleging that his termination is
a case of wrongful dismissal is the case of Wee Kim San
Lawrence Bernard v Robinson & Co (Singapore) Pte
Ltd [2014] SGCA 43 (“Wee Kim San”). In this case, the
employee alleged that “he has been forced to resign as
a result of persecution and unreasonable bias that had
been directed towards him by the Company or its officers”
by reason of his sexuality, and sought damages from the
Company. This was an appeal from an earlier decision by
the High Court in Kim San Lawrence Bernard v Robinson &
Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2013] SGHC 279, which held that
“the bare fact of termination cannot be a ground to claim
damages other than what he would have been entitled to
under the employment contract for a lawful termination,
even if he was constructively dismissed”. This finding by the
High Court was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. While this
case did not deal with the issue of whether the employee
had been wrongfully terminated, it suggests that the current
position adopted by the Courts in Singapore may be that
even if the employee had been wrongfully terminated, he/
she is only entitled to payments due under his/her terms of
employment should the termination be carried out lawfully.
This would mean that the employer will not be required to
pay additional damages to the employee even if the Courts
had found that this is a case of wrongful termination.
While this decision by the Court of Appeal makes clear
the above position, it still raises a number of issues that
companies should be aware of, particularly when exercising
its right to terminate the employment of their employees.
Constructive Dismissal
In Wee Kim San, the appellant had argued that he was
entitled to additional damages as he was constructively
dismissed by the company. In summary, the appellant had
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
33
Feature
argued that he was forced to resign from the company as
the company was persecuting him simply because he was
a homosexual. However, given that this was an appeal
against the decision by the High Court to strike out the claim
of constructive dismissal on the ground that the claim was
legally unsustainable, the Court of Appeal did not discuss at
length the concept of constructive dismissal in Singapore.
Nevertheless, the Courts recognised that the concept of
constructive dismissal remains a cause of action available
to employees in Singapore. In brief, constructive dismissal
“refers to a situation where the employer’s repudiatory
breach entitles the employee to treat himself as discharged
from the employment contract; although it is the employee
who terminates the contract, he is considered as having
been ‘constructively dismissed’ by the employer”.
In the case of Cheah Peng Hock v Luzhou Bio-Chem
Technology Limited [2013] SGHC 32 (“Cheah Peng Hock”),
the High Court held that the following elements must be
made out before an action in constructive dismissal can be
founded:
1. The employer must have committed a repudiatory
breach of the employment agreement. This can be by
way of a single action or through a series of acts or
omissions.
2. The employee must have accepted the repudiatory
breach.
3. The repudiatory breach must have caused the employee
to leave his/her employment.
Assuming the above elements are made out, the Courts
will then turn to look at the measure of damages due to
the employee as a result of the repudiatory breach by the
employer. On damages, following the decision of the Court
of Appeal in Wee Kim San, it appears that if the employee
had already been paid all amounts due to him/her under
the contract of employment, no additional sums would be
ordered. This may likely be the case even if the above
elements are clearly made out on the facts of the particular
case.
consultations, his responsibilities as CEO were removed
from him and the decisions he had made as CEO were
unilaterally reversed by the company. The High Court
held that the above acts of the company went to the very
essence of the employment contract and such acts of
repudiation had been accepted by the employee when he
resigned from his position. Consequently, the High Court
ordered the company to pay to the employee his salary for
the remaining term of the employee’s employment contract,
which was a fixed term agreement. This position taken
by the High Court is similar to the position taken by the
Court of Appeal in Wee Kim San, in that in the event of a
finding of wrongful termination, the employee will only be
entitled to sums due to the employee under the terms of the
employment agreement, and no additional compensation is
payable.
While there was no ruling on constructive dismissal by the
Court of Appeal in Wee Kim San, it is clear that constructive
dismissal remains a cause of action available to disgruntled
employees under Singapore Law, and one that companies
must continue to bear in mind during the continuance of the
employment relationship, and in its subsequent termination
thereof. As a general rule, while the employees remain
under the control of their respective employers, companies
must exercise caution when deciding to unilaterally vary the
employee’s conditions of employment, particularly where the
variation results in a deterioration of the employee’s terms
of employment. Nevertheless, and as a source of comfort
for employers, it appears from the above cases that even
if the Court finds that the employee had been wrongfully
terminated, the Court will only order that the employer
pays to the employee sums due to the employee under the
relevant terms of employment, or in the absence of which,
a reasonable sum which represents the amount due to the
employee under his/her employment contract should the
termination be a lawful one. It would only be in the very rare
instance that a Court would order beyond this, and claims
for the likes of distress will be difficult to succeed.
Duty of Mutual Trust and Confidence
Further, the High Court in Cheah Peng Hock affirmed that it
is the employee who bears the burden of establishing that
the breach went to the root of the contract, and that the test
for constructive dismissal is an objective one.
In Wee Kim San, the appellant had argued, in the
alternative, both in the High Court and in the Court of
Appeal that the Company had breached the implied term of
mutual trust and confidence in his contract of employment.
Consequently, the Court should order the Company to pay
additional damages, given that this breach by the Company
was separate and distinct.
In Cheah Peng Hock, the plaintiff had alleged that he had
been constructively dismissed by the Company as he
had, inter alia, been excluded from board meetings and
By way of background, this implied term was recognised as
a part of Singapore law in the High Court case of Chan Miu
Yin v Philip Morris Singapore Pte Ltd [2011] SGHC 161, and
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
Feature
34
affirmed in Cheah Peng Hock. In Cheah Peng Hock, the
High Court had listed the following as situations when the
duty of mutual trust and confidence is applicable:
1. A duty not to act in a corrupt manner which would clearly
undermine the employee’s future job prospects;
2. A duty not to unilaterally and unreasonably vary terms;
3. A duty to redress complaints of discrimination or provide
a grievance procedure;
4. A duty not to suspend an employee for disciplinary
purposes without proper and reasonable cause;
5. A duty to enquire into complaints of sexual harassment;
6. A duty to behave with civility and respect;
7. A duty not to reprimand without merit in humiliating
circumstances; and
a duty of good faith, but includes a narrower duty of fidelity,
which entails that the employer must act honestly and
faithfully. This means that the “employer shall not, without
reasonable and proper cause, conduct itself in a manner
calculated and likely to destroy or seriously damage
relationship of mutual trust and confidence between the
employer and employee”. Further, this duty of fidelity can
be limited or excluded by express terms in the employment
agreement. Hence, it is important that companies review
their existing employment agreements to ensure that this
implied term of mutual trust and confidence is sufficiently
limited in scope.
While the alternative argument by the Appellant in Wee
Kim San failed, and the Court of Appeal did not award
any additional damages to the employee, this duty is one
that companies should be fully aware of, whether during
the maintenance of the employment relationship or in its
subsequent termination thereof. This is primarily because,
unlike in the case of wrongful termination, a breach of this
implied duty may potentially result in the company having to
pay additional damages to the employee.
8. A duty not to behave in a wholly unacceptable way.
On this, the Court of Appeal in Wee Kim San recognised
that a breach of this implied term could “give rise to an
altogether separate category of injury or loss such as
emotional distress or impairment of future of employment
prospects”. However, where wrongful dismissal is the
only consequence of the breach of this implied duty, the
employee will only be entitled to “premature termination
losses flowing from the employer’s failure to give proper
notice or pay salary in lieu of notice”. Essentially, the
employee will only be entitled to additional damages if the
premature termination of the employment contract is not the
only consequence of a breach of this implied term, which
was the case in Wee Kim San.
As a separate but related point, while not expressing a final
view on the subject, the Court of Appeal asked that caution
be exercised in relation to English authority which held
that claims for damages based on a breach of this implied
duty can only be brought if the cause of action accrued
before and existed independently of the cause of action
for wrongful dismissal. This is because, unlike Singapore,
there is an English statutory scheme for compensation in
the event of a wrongful dismissal, and the House of Lords
in Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2003] 1 AC 518 held that allowing
an employee to claim for damages arising from the manner
of his dismissal was inconsistent with this statutory scheme.
The High Court in Cheah Peng Hock also stated that the
implied duty of mutual trust and confidence does not include
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
35
Feature
Discrimination
Conclusion
Apart from the above points, one allegation raised by
the appellant in Wee Kim San was that his employment
was terminated because he was a homosexual. While
the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to
substantiate this allegation, his allegation was essentially
that the company had unfairly discriminated against him by
reason of his sexuality.
While Singapore is an at-will employment jurisdiction, the
trend is that companies terminating their employees are
now subject to greater scrutiny, whether from the MOM, the
Courts or the employee. Given this, companies must ensure
that they are able to objectively justify the termination of
an employee, and that such justifications must be able to
withstand the scrutiny. While companies are not obliged
to inform employees of these justifications at the point of
termination, they will ultimately aid the company in defending
any claim brought by the employee or in responding to
queries from the MOM.
While the claim of discrimination against the company was
not established in this case, it is important for employers to
note that following the introduction of the Fair Consideration
Framework (“FCF”) by the MOM in September 2013,
businesses which have in place discriminatory human
resource practices, whether relating to recruitment or
termination practices, will be subjected to additional scrutiny
from the MOM. In addition, the MOM may ask companies
to provide to the MOM information on the company’s
recruitment, progression and termination processes, which
tend to be highly confidential and sensitive in nature. While
there is no statutory obligation on companies to provide the
above information, companies which remain unresponsive
may have their work pass privileges curtailed for a period
of time, which can be highly disruptive to a company’s
operations. Further, even if a company chooses to
respond to a request for information by the MOM, precious
management time would be wasted.
As an overarching principle under the FCF, companies are
required to put in place fair employment, hiring and staff
development practices that are open, merit-based and nondiscriminatory. Specifically on hiring, companies posting job
advertisements must ensure that their respective selection
criteria is stated clearly in the job advertisements and words
or phrases indicating preferences for candidates of a certain
age, race, language capability, gender, marital status
and religion are strictly prohibited. On this, it is important
that any attributes required by the company is objectively
justified based on the requirements of the relevant position.
This enables the company to effectively defend its position
should a query arise.
Finally, in relation to dismissals, it is important that
companies maintain records of employee’s performance
and conduct, and ensure that such records are true and
accurate. Essentially, the company’s decision to terminate
an employee must be able to withstand scrutiny in the face
of a challenge on discrimination or such other grounds that
a disgruntled employee may potentially raise.
Where the company is unable to successfully defend an
action of wrongful termination brought by the employee,
case law has suggested that the Courts will only order
that the company pay to the employee all sums due to the
employee under the terms of the employment agreement
should the company terminate the employment lawfully.
This means that unless that employee is able to establish
that the company had acted in breach of its duties, and
such breach resulted in a consequence other than wrongful
dismissal, the Courts are unlikely to award any additional
damages to the employee.
Finally, under the FCF, a company who has been found
to have engaged in discriminatory HR practices may be
required by the MOM to provide an undertaking or have
their work pass privileges curtailed for a period of time,
which may potentially be far more damaging than the mere
payment of contractual damages.
► Kala Anandarajah
Partner
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
E-mail: kala.anandarajah@rajahtann.com
► Marcus Teo
Associate
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
E-mail: marcus.teo@rajahtann.com
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
36
Columns
Tea with the Law Gazette
Interview with Dr Gopalan Raman,
Chairperson of the Probate Practice Committee
e-litigation digital systems were introduced, probate work
became complex. When these new-fangled systems came
on board I used to think about the old American saying, “If
it ain’t broken, don’t mend it”. But the forces that determine
procedure and Court work had their own thoughts. The
new systems were introduced to facilitate and smoothen
procedure. Ironically, the effect has just been the opposite
with more paper being churned out and more niggling
notations being made. I say this with the greatest respect
to the Probate Registries of both the Courts because the
Judges and the Registrars who deal with probate matters
are a competent and likeable lot. They oblige if we run into
any problems.
I have had many complaints addressed to me by practitioners
alleging this that or the other and putting the blame on the
Registry staff. My advice to them is to go and see the Duty
Registrar or the particular Judge or Registrar who is dealing
with the matter. In my experience they have been receptive
and helpful.
1. As a practitioner with decades of experience in the
area of Probate practice, do you find your practice
in this area of law personally fulfilling?
I find probate practice fulfilling. There is a human element as
we deal with testators who have passed on trying to decipher
what they meant in their Wills, next-of-kin and beneficiaries
challenging each other and a revelation on what motivates
certain people. Greed, vindictiveness in challenging what is
not challengeable and a callous indifference to the feelings
of beneficiaries inter se constitute the regular fare in probate
work.
2. How has Probate practice evolved over the years?
Probate practice has evolved beyond recognition compared
to what used to be the procedure in my early days of
practice. Forty-five years ago when I started practice,
what had to be done to obtain a grant is to file a petition,
accompanied by a Will and an Estate Duty Affidavit to be
filed with the Commissioner of Estate Duties. All these were
filed manually. There was no OS, no Statement, no Checklist
and no Schedule of Assets. When e-filing and subsequently
The Law Society has set up a Probate Committee and it
has been functioning over the last three years. We have
had regular meetings with both the High Court and the
State Courts probate Judges and we have had guidance
from them. They were kind enough to hold regular dialogue
sessions where members who practice probate work can
attend and learn first hand of the difficulties. The digital age
is with us so there is no turning back. Even though it is not
broken the system has been mended.
3. Do you have any advice for young practitioners
considering practice in this area?
The advice I would give is that if a person died testate,
please read his Will thoroughly. Understand the terms of
the Will so that proper advice can be given to the executors
and trustees.
In drafting Wills, please pay attention to the formal
requirements, that is, the need to appoint an executor
and trustee and if possible, also a substitute executor and
trustee in the event the first named executor and trustee are
not able to prove the Will or pass away. In this regard, it is
essential that we read s 6 of the Wills Act as thoroughly as
possible.
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
37
Columns
Tea with the Law Gazette
One or two features that a Will should contain are important.
Many Wills go without a residuary clause. It is imperative
that there should always be a residuary clause. Also provide
for an alternative if a beneficiary predeceases the testator. If
a house is to be gifted, ask the testator who is to benefit the
contents of the house, eg the furniture, the objets de art etc.
177A). In fact, the Act is based on the major decisions in
the cases of George Abraham Vadakathu vs Jacob George
(2009) 3 SLR (R) pg 631 and Chee Mu Lin Muriel vs Chee
Ka Lin Caroline (2010) SGCA pg 27. Sections 4 and 5 of the
Mental Capacity Act are a consolidation of the ratios in both
these major decisions.
Interview the potential testator and if he is minded to
distribute his assets, ask him whether his entire assets
are to be aggregated and percentages given or whether
he is distributing in species some of his assets leaving the
residue distributed to named persons in shares which he
has to provide. Failure to do this will result in the residue
being administered as an intestacy departing from the
intentions of the testator.
Another change in the law is on the inheritance of CPF
money where no nomination has been made. In the case
of non-Muslims the law has not changed and the law
states that it shall be distributed according to the law on
intestacy. As for the Muslims, there is a change. It used to
be distribution just like distribution for non-Muslims. Now, if
there is no nomination, the money in the CPF belonging to a
Muslim, will have to be distributed according to Islamic law.
If one is dealing with foreign Wills, ensure that provisions
of s 5 of the Wills Act are complied with. Obtain an affidavit
on the foreign law if any doubt arises as to the applicability
of foreign law. For instance, in France, a person can make
a Will when he is 16. In China a Will can be audio-taped
though two witnesses would be needed to prove what the
testator said.
Another amendment is to the Civil Law Act which now
provides in s 27 for a person who can claim CPF funds
on moral or equitable grounds where there has been no
nomination made by a member and where the seven
classes of beneficiaries are not in existence. (Section 27
(1)(b) of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43) and Civil Law (Bona
Vacantia Laws) Order 2013 clause 2(a).
A practitioner will also have to verify the instructions given by
the personal representative particularly in intestate cases.
Please ensure that the list of assets is comprehensive
and all the beneficiaries have been ascertained. If the
beneficiaries in question are resident outside Singapore, it
is essential that they be informed of the procedures. If their
addresses are not available, one has to deal with notifying
them through newspapers circulating in the country where
they are resident.
The High Court Registry has now allowed just plain certified
true copies of a death certificate to be filed instead of
obtaining an extract from the Registry of Deaths. These
changes are a welcome step.
Very often some practitioners make a mistake of requiring
all siblings to sign Renunciations where one of the siblings
is applying. They don’t seem to recall the provisions of O 71
r 22 where members of a class need not obtain the Consent
or Renunciation of the other members of the same class. The
Registrar may sometimes insist on a Renunciation being
obtained if he suspects that there might be a subsequent
challenge to the applicant for the grant. The Registrar will
explain why he would need such a Renunciation or Consent
and it is advisable to accept his guidance.
4. Could you highlight some recent developments in
this area of the law and what trend you see emerging
for practitioners in this area?
There have been some significant changes in the law relating
to probate practice. One significant statement on the law
relating to persons who are not mentally competent to make
a Will had been provided for in the Mental Capacity Act (Cap
5. With the increase in the number of individuals
investing personal wealth across different
jurisdictions, what issues arise for practitioners in
the drafting of wills and in the administration of the
deceased’s estates?
The world is today becoming a borderless world. Gone
are the days of tariff walls and quotas. The World Trade
Organisation has ensured that there will be a free flow of
goods and services.
Therefore, today in our midst we have people from different
countries who carry with them their personal law. Most of
the foreigners who come to Singapore retain their domicil
of origin. Some of course become Singapore citizens and
whether they acquire a domicil of choice or they retain their
domicil of origin is to be determined.
When a person carries his domicil of origin wherever he goes,
his personal affairs must be determined by the law of his
domicil. If such a person makes a Will, it should comply with
the law of his domicil in a general sense. But fortunately, the
Hague Convention of 1961 and the Washington Convention
on Succession of 1988 have facilitated the recognition of
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
38
Columns
Tea with the Law Gazette
Wills of other countries. Our own s 5 is a result of such
international conventions. Section 5 was introduced in 1992.
It provides for recognition of Wills made outside Singapore
as long as the Will complies with the law of domicil or the
place in which the Will was executed or again is where the
testator was resident at the time of the execution of the Will.
In dealing with such persons with a foreign domicil, one has
to understand the law of the country of domicil as well. This
is easily ascertainable because we have the internet access
at the touch of a button in our computer.
There are also different tax regimes in different countries
for taxes arising upon the death of a person whether it is
succession tax, capital transfer tax or inheritance tax. If one
is not familiar with these laws and implications, it would be
advisable to seek the advice of solicitors who may be more
knowledgeable in this field.
6. In cases of succession disputes concerning
wealthy business families where the succession
of family wealth and business profits are closely
associated, what are the critical challenges that a
Probate practitioner will typically encounter?
Succession disputes between members of wealthy families
seem to be a recurring theme. Typical examples are where
a patriarch has joint accounts which are held both for
meeting business expenses as well as personal expenses.
Sometimes some accounts are not demarcated whether
they are for the business or for the personal expenses of
the major account holder.
When the patriarch dies, his shares have to be valued. In
valuing such shares would the money in the bank held in
the name of the patriarch as well as one of his sons be
considered as company’s account or would it be the personal
account of the patriarch? Can the surviving scion of the
family claim that the father had bequeathed his account to
him as a gift? Is there a presumption of advancement?
One has to be careful when dealing with Wills which have
to be secret. There are persons who would not want the
provision they are making in another country for certain
beneficiaries because it may embarrass them or embarrass
other persons who are beneficiaries in the country where he
is residing. Spend good time with potential testators so that
one understands what he has in mind and what his wishes
are. Basic to all this is familiarity with the law of domicil,
the incidence of tax in the jurisdictions in question and
whether there is a statutory requirement that certain nextof-kin, particularly children or spouse, ought to be given
a fixed amount in the estate. An interesting illustration of
a knowledge of foreign law dealing with Wills and domicil
is found in the unreported case of Meyammai Achi vs
Valliammai (OS No 659 of 1992, 8th July 1995). In this case,
an Indian national died in Singapore intestate. Under the
Indian Law of Succession, his mother would be entitled to
one third of the son’s movable assets. It so happened that
the son had contracted to sell some properties which he
owned. He died after the contract but before the completion
of the sale.
There is again the outmoded concept of Chinese and Indian
patriarchs benefitting only the sons in the family and not the
daughters. How is this old-fashioned concept to be related
to today’s reality where we presume there is no gender
inequality?
The equitable doctrine of conversion was dealt with in this
case and it was decided by Chelva Rajah JC, that as the
properties had been converted to movables, the mother was
entitled to one third. This, therefore, qualifies the Intestate
Succession Act provisions where the distribution of landed
property is based on the lex situs. A knowledge of conflict of
laws in such cases is important.
7. Recently, we notice that across jurisdictions there
is a growing trend among law practices to establish
niche areas of practice surrounding personal wealth
management, such as private client practice and art
investment practice. What are your views on how
these areas might shape the image of traditional
Probate practice in the long term?
If it is shown that the money was held for the benefit of the
business, the valuation of the shares of the business will
incorporate the bank account. The scion will not benefit if
this is determined by the Court.
Allegations of undue influence, dementia and testamentary
incapacity are the grist of the contentious probate mill.
Emotions run very high in this type of cases. Especially
where the testator had provided legacies to a lady and a
child who was born to the testator, illegitimate though the
child may be.
Private client practice and art investment practice do not
in any way impact on probate practice. They would add
additional work to the practitioner who has to ascertain what
the relevant documents provided for in the event of the death
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
MARKETING
AD
40
Columns
Tea with the Law Gazette
of the deceased. Upon death of any person, the enquiry is
solely concentrated on what the deceased owned either in
his personal name, through proxies or through nominees
in foreign jurisdictions. Fortunately, estate duty has been
abolished since 15th February 2008. If not for the abolition,
the Estate Duty Commissioner will have to be satisfied on
what the deceased actually held.
Although estate duty has been abolished, the Courts require
a Schedule of Assets which should itemise whatever the
deceased owned locally and overseas. It is also necessary
to set this list out correctly because foreign jurisdictions
where there might have been investments would want to
determine who the rightful person is who can administer
the asset in question and whether the asset appears in the
Schedule.
If the question is whether private client practice and art
investment practice would alter the probate scene, the
answer is “No.” The task of the probate practitioner remains
the same, that is, to ascertain the extent of the asset
holdings of the deceased person and what taxes if any, are
payable on the assets.
8. Do you see any role for mediation and arbitration
in resolving disputes in the area of estate planning
and succession? If yes, then to what extent can
ADR mechanisms be used in this area of practice?
Mediation and arbitration are eminently suitable vehicles for
dispute resolutions. More so in areas of succession and to
a limited extent in the area of estate planning. They help
in lowering the temperature where contending parties are
hostile to each other.
Estate planning may include a deceased having joined
another person in the vehicle that he has used for planning
the eventual administration and distribution of his estate. The
joint holder of such planning vehicles would be answerable
to the beneficiaries in the deceased joint account holder’s
estate and to account for the asset in question. He has
to render proper accounts and if disputes do arise, then
recourse can be had to ADR.
In the area of succession too, the dispute between family
members and between beneficiaries can be resolved
by ADR. Disputes may arise as to the fairness in the
distribution of the estate where dependants are involved
and the ever invocable allegations of undue influence,
mental incompetence and non est factum.
9. When preparing a will, what steps can practitioners
take to ascertain if the testator has oral gifts, which
the testator wants to keep secret?
By “oral gifts” I take it to mean instructions given to the
executor and trustee on certain gifts that he would like to
make but which he wants to be kept secret. This is going to
be a touchy and thorny issue. How does one determine that
the testator has actually made the oral gifts?
Very often this sort of situation arises when a testator gives
entire assets of his estate to the executor and trustee giving
him discretion to distribute the assets to whoever, in his own
sole discretion he thinks fit. This clause in the Will would
have been accompanied by written instructions from the
testator to the executor and trustee.
Can the beneficiary then seek recourse if he thinks he
has a beneficial interest as instructed by the testator? Of
course this involves proof and the potential beneficiary has
a burden of proving that the oral gift that was meant to be
given to him was what the testator intended.
The practitioner will have to interview the executor and
trustee on the administration of the estate and determine
whether any instructions had been given although the Will
states that the executor and trustee may distribute the
estate according to his discretion. The evidence has to be
strong and cogent in order that the beneficiary of the secret
trust can benefit.
10. It is said that with people working and living in
other places other than their domicile, many wills
remain unexecuted. Is there a scope for a worldwide
registry of wills? Can wills executed in foreign
countries be deposited in our Wills registry?
Let me take the first question. There is definitely a scope
for a worldwide registry of Wills. But the practicalities of
establishing such a registry are quite burdensome. The
registry will have to be operated by someone. There must
be consent by the countries of the world to use the registry
as a central base for determining the deposit of Wills with
the registry. In the divided world that we live in, this will be
a complicated matter. But there is scope for co-operation
bearing in mind the two Conventions I have mentioned
above.
On the second question, whether Wills executed in foreign
countries be deposited in our Wills registry, I see no
difficulty. There is no prohibition against such Wills being
referred to. Let me hasten to add that there is no need, as
it stands, for Wills to be deposited with the Wills Registry.
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
41
Columns
Tea with the Law Gazette
Only information on the execution of the Wills is registered.
This may be helpful for expatriates who are living in our
midst where they retain their domicil of origin and have
executed the Will in their own countries.
11. In Singapore, does the lawyer preparing a will
owe a duty of care to the beneficiary or potential
beneficiary under the will? If so what is the extent
of the duty?
The draftsman of the Will definitely owes a duty of care to
both beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries. In the recent
landmark case of AEL vs Cheo Yeoh & Associates LLC
(2014) SGHC 129, a solicitor was sued successfully for
failing to obtain two witnesses as attesting witnesses. He
only had one. The Will was declared invalid and the estate
was directed to be distributed according to the law on
intestacy. This was prejudicial to the beneficiaries named in
the Will. Those not named in the Will benefitted as a result
of the law on intestate succession.
Absolute care is, therefore, necessary when preparing a
Will and having it attested. There are other instances as
well where a solicitor hands over a Will he had prepared
to his client, advising him to have it executed but the client
did not comply with the requirements of signature and
the production of attesting witnesses. In such instances,
beneficiaries mentioned in the Will can sue if the Will is
declared invalid and the distribution of the estate is carried
out under the provisions of intestacy law.
It is perfectly in order for a solicitor to prepare a Will and
hand it over to his client who would have told him that he will
have it executed in accordance with the advice given to him
by the solicitor. The solicitor should be conscious enough
to follow-up the advice he has given orally with a letter
recalling the advice he had given to the client, requiring him
to ensure that the Will will be properly executed. Absence
of advice in writing can amount to a failure of giving such
advice. Therefore, solicitors beware.
► Representation & Law Reform Department
The Law Society of Singapore
MARKETING
AD
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
42
Columns
The Young Lawyer
As the representative body for young lawyers in Singapore, the Young Lawyers
Committee (“YLC”) focuses on issues relevant to those new to legal practice. Stay
tuned to this monthly column for useful tips and advice, features and updates on
YLC’s social and professional events.
Amicus Agony
Dear Amicus Agony
A new legal assistant was appointed to another junior
associate and I. She had previous work experience as a
legal assistant at a law firm, but was unable to keep up with
the work and had difficulty doing basic tasks. After seven
months of fixing her mistakes time and again, I was forced
to be the “bad guy” and take steps to resolve the issue.
This resulted in the firm letting go of her because work was
suffering. Now all the other legal assistants, including my
team head's legal assistant whom I often have to work with
very closely, avoid me like the plague. Have I done anything
wrong? And how do I fix the matter with the other legal
assistants?
Yours sincerely
Bad-guy Associ(h)ate
Dear Bad-guy Associ(h)ate
Whilst it is important to maintain good relationships with
your colleagues, in particular the executive assistants and
staff who take instructions from you, if work suffers because
of a particular team member, relevant action should be
taken for the matter to be resolved.
You are not the reason that the legal assistant was let
go, but mainly because she may have been hindering the
team’s work. Since you had given her sufficient time to
figure things out but she was not meeting expectations, you
had good reason to raise performance issues. By resolving
the issue, you have shown to your team head and the other
lawyers, and staff on your team that you are a decisionmaker. Everyone is looking to get their work done smoothly
without any problems and a problem-solver takes proactive
steps to fix issues.
The other legal assistants will soon understand that
dedication to your work prevailed and that the matter was
not a personal issue. You will move forward to become a
Senior Associate, and soon a Partner, which will require you
to proactively address such concerns. If there is anything
people taking instructions from you should be worried about,
then it should only be about getting work done properly. One
should strive to achieve only a good working relationship in
the workplace because it is not possible to please everyone
and be friends with all your colleagues.
Amicus Agony
Dear Amicus Agony
There is a certain salaried partner in my department who
has been bad-mouthing our department head to other
salaried partners and junior associates. He has the habit
of taking them out to lunch or coffee when they first join the
department and then purports to tell them the “truth” about
the department, which is essentially his skewed view of the
various people that are part of our department.
Recently, it was brought to my attention by one of my
colleagues that he has also been spreading malicious
falsehoods about me to the other junior associates. I feel
that this has led to the junior associates lacking respect for
me. As a result, I have found it difficult to work with them on
some on-going matters that we have.
I have tried to ignore his conduct but recently, I had dinner
with one of the junior associates I am working with and she
told me that this salaried partner was now spreading rumors
about her too and she found his conduct to be unbecoming
of a partner in a reputable law firm.
I just want to be able to do my work in peace. What should
I do?
Yours sincerely
Watercooler Gossip Associate
Dear Watercooler Gossip Associate
Every person is entitled to a workplace environment that
is free from any form of harassment. What the salaried
partner is doing is not encouraged and such conduct should
be avoided. By doing so, it can be detrimental to the overall
well-being of the department and this is something he may
not realise.
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
43
47
Columns
The Young Lawyer
You mentioned that he has been spreading falsehoods
about you to the other members of the department and has
now gone further to include another one of your colleagues.
Perhaps one option could be to approach him to inform him
that you have heard of such rumours associated to him, and
of course you do not believe it’s the truth as such falsehoods
can’t be coming from a gentleman like himself. Hopefully,
that would make him conscious of his ways and refrain from
such conduct in the future.
Should the salaried partner persist, or if you feel that you
would prefer to avoid approaching him, another alternative
may be to approach either your department head or a
representative from your human resource department to
assist you.
All the best!
Amicus Agony
Young lawyers, the solutions to your problems are now just an e-mail away! If you are having difficulties coping with the pressures of practice,
need career advice or would like some perspective on personal matters in the workplace, the Young Lawyers Committee’s Amicus Agony is here
for you. E-mail your problems to communications@lawsoc.org.sg.
The views expressed in “The Young Lawyer” and the “YLC’s Amicus Agony” column are the personal views and opinions of the author(s) in their
individual capacity. They do not reflect the views and opinions of the Law Society of Singapore, the Young Lawyers Committee or the Singapore
Law Gazette and are not sponsored or endorsed by them in any way. The views, opinions expressed and information contained do not amount to
legal advice and the reader is solely responsible for any action taken in reliance of such view, opinion or information.
Misplaced your copy of the Singapore Law Gazette?
Looking for an article on insolvency published 5 years ago?
No idea where to look?
Find it at www.lawgazette.com.sg
Current and archived copies of the Singapore Law Gazette dating back to
year 2000 are avaiable online. A convenient search function allows you to
easily look for articles on various subjects.
Go online today and never lose another copy of the Gazette again!
Former Client Conflicts:
Sword or Shield?
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
In
Practice
44
Legal Updates
Legislation
Land Titles Act Amended from 15 August 2014 to
Implement Changes in Relation to Easements and
Caveats
The Land Titles Act (the “LTA”) has been amended with
effect from 15 August 2014 to facilitate more efficient and
optimal use of registered land through various changes
including the following:
1. Empowering the Court to create easements, and to
vary or extinguish existing easements: The court will
be empowered to make orders to vary or extinguish an
easement if it is satisfied that: (i) the continued existence
of the easement will, unless varied or extinguished,
impede the development of the land for public or private
purposes without securing practical benefits to the
persons entitled to the easement; or (ii) the proposed
variation or extinguishment will not substantially injure
the persons entitled to the easement.
2. Shifting burden from property owner to caveator
to prove interest: The LTA is amended to improve the
remedies available to a property owner in response to
a caveat lodged on his property by shifting the burden
of disproving the caveat from the property owner to the
caveator. This is done by making it a requirement for a
caveator to obtain a court order stating that the caveat
which he filed is valid, failing which the Registrar of
Land Titles will remove the caveat.
3. Introducing a new list of dealings that the terms of
a caveat cannot override: The LTA will be amended
to create two lists of dealings: a mandatory list and a
permissive list. A caveator will not be notified of any
dealings in the mandatory list even if he were to file a
caveat that prohibits all dealings. A “permissive list” will
also be created where a caveator can choose whether
he wishes to be notified of the dealings in this list.
The Land Acquisition Act (the “LAA”) will be amended for
two main purposes:
1. Revised application of betterment levy: When the
Government acquires part of a land owner’s land,
the value of the remaining portion of land held by the
land owner could increase due to the use that the land
acquired will be put. Currently, the LAA requires such
increase in value, known as the betterment levy, to be
deducted from the statutory compensation the land
owner is given for the acquired land. The LAA will be
amended to remove the requirement for such increase
to be deducted. Hence, land owners will receive
compensation equivalent to the full market value of the
acquired land.
2. Enabling the management corporation (the “MC”)
of strata-titled developments to act on behalf of
individual unit owners in acquisitions of common
property: The LAA and the Building Maintenance and
Strata Management Act will be amended to allow the
MC to represent individual unit owners when common
property is acquired by the Government. The MC
will also be able to use the MC’s fund for acquisition
related expenses. This amendment will minimise
inconvenience to individual unit owners, as well as allow
for quicker progress of the acquisition proceedings and
disbursement of compensation. Currently, when small
parcels of common areas in strata-titled developments
are acquired, unit owners must go through the entire
acquisition process individually even if their own units
are not affected by the acquisition, and even if their
share of the compensation is not significant.
► Elizabeth Wong
Allen & Gledhill LLP
Related amendments have also been made to the
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act and the
Conveyancing and Law of Property Act.
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 2014 Passed
in Parliament: Changes Relating to Betterment
Levy and Acquisition of Common Property
On 5 August 2014, the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill
2014 was passed in Parliament.
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
MARKETING
AD
46
Lifestyle
Alter Ego
Just Singaporean
I am often asked by taxi drivers whether I am Singaporean.
My quick response is: “Yes, born and bred here.” With the
large foreign population here, this is an inevitable question.
However, I get indignant at being considered a foreigner in
my own country.
Born to migrant parents in Singapore, I am a Singapore
citizen by birth. My parents had very strong roots in India
and never made us forget that. I grew up in a traditional,
strict South Indian family. We spoke Tamil, ate traditional
Chettinad food, were immersed deeply in Hinduism and
observed all religious festivals.
For some reason, I had very few Indian friends, preferring to
hang out with my Chinese friends since I was a kid. This is
nothing unusual in Singapore with a predominant Chinese
population. I have felt different from the other Indians since
young. Maybe it was my lack of fluency in Tamil or just being
not “Indian” enough. This is surprising as I am a great fan
of Tamil music and movies. My affinity to Indians for some
reason did not go beyond my family.
Living in a multi-racial and multi-cultural country with
seasonal influences of Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese and
not forgetting the omnipresent Western influence, I ask
myself, who am I? A Singaporean? An Indian? An Indian
Singaporean? I do not consider myself Singaporean Indian
or Indian Singaporean. Does race, language and religion
differentiate or define us? Culture seems to differentiate
mainly in the way we celebrate festivals and practise our
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
47
Lifestyle
Alter Ego
religious beliefs. I do not think that these values really
differentiate us from just being Singaporean. Seeing
how Singaporeans travel during festive seasons rather
than spend them with their families to renew kinship, it
appears that such values are being diluted in the light of
modernity and progress. For me, it is not that family ties are
unimportant but the opportunity to travel to have alone-time
with the Wife outweighs the need to be with family during
these significant occasions. Anyway, strengthening ties with
the family should not be relegated to festive seasons only.
So, family upbringing moulds a person in his formative years.
It does not, however, prevent the person from changing his
views or outlook in the course of his life. In fact, I am a
product of all our ethnic races. My friend used to call me a
coconut – brown (Indian) outside and white (Chinese) inside
– referring to my great fascination for Chinese food and
Chinese television dramas. There are times I feel “Malay”
due to my interest in Malay cuisine and its religious values.
So, I conclude that I am just Singaporean.
Living in a seamless world, some say we are global citizens.
What this means is your identity is determined by where
you live. If one lives in Australia, one would feel very
Australian. There is a saying that you can take a person
out of Singapore but you cannot take the Singaporean traits
away from him. So, who you are depends on who you really
are – not where you live or the ethnic group you belong to.
For me, I prefer to evolve and choose to be who I am. Am
I Singaporean? Yes, by birth. My roots are international
– in India because of my extended family; in Melbourne,
where my heart lies; in San Francisco where my brother
and his family live; and in many other countries where fond
memories or meaningful experiences were formed. Unlike
the Japanese or Chinese, we are not one single ethnic
group. With modernisation, inter-racial marriages and the
abundance of modern Singaporean cuisine, why can’t there
be one singular ethnic group in Singapore?
Observing traditions and religious practices is a personal
thing. Religion featured significantly in my growing up years.
We were vegans every Friday, amongst many other religious
days and had to be home for Friday prayers in the evenings.
There were periods in my life where I did not observe such
religious practices due to personal and lifestyle choices.
These choices are quite individualistic and we go through
different phases in our lives where we embrace different
things. It is odd that Hinduism did not play a significant
role in my life despite my upbringing. Unlike Islam and
Christianity, there is no structured teaching in temples and
other religious organisations or communal groups like the
Christian cell groups. The teaching of religion is left largely
to families.
The teaching and education of religion is essential to answer
the many questions one will have, and to fortify one’s
religious education. It is difficult to believe in something just
because you have been told to do so by the elders. That type
of belief will not last throughout one’s life. Religion started
playing a significant role for me in the last few years, to help
me to deal with life challenges and issues which I cannot
answer or deal with by myself. I am not religious in a strict
sense but I rely on religion for inner strength and peace. I
always believe in God, in a universal form. The practices do
not always make sense but I observe them. Religion can
mean many different things. Maybe this is God’s way of
bringing me to him. It seems to work well for me. For now.
► Rajan Chettiar
Rajan Chettiar LLC
E-mail: rajan@rajanchettiar.com
As the years went by, like all things, I began to change
when I went overseas to study, adopted a yuppie lifestyle
and went on travels. We started speaking more English at
home and became modern Singaporeans. Even my migrant
parents who thought that they would have returned to India
years ago now consider Singapore their country. Talk about
returning to India has started to fade. “It is so difficult to
adapt to life in India now. People are so different there,” my
mother remarked to me after her last trip to India. I raised
my eyebrows. So, they have become Singaporean as
well. Singaporean influences have crept into my mother’s
cooking. She has even given up some of the traditional
cooking methods she used when I was a child.
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
48
Lifestyle
Food
Eat Right While Pursuing Your Client's Rights
– A Review of Healthy Lunch Options in the
CBD
Deadlines are approaching and there just does not seem
to be enough time for the basics, lunch being one of them.
Opting to eat at your desk often becomes the inevitable
choice. Eating at one’s desk has been recognised as
being unhealthy as it leads to lost opportunities to socialise
and to move around during your lunch hour to stretch
those legs and get the blood pumping; limited choices of
food, often resulting in the consumption of fast food; and
over-consumption of food due to a focus on work-related
activities.
Fret not! Essentially, it is all about making the right choices,
and if you find yourself having to elect (or are compelled)
to have lunch at your desk, at the very least, try to choose
the right foods to keep you company as you plough through
that affidavit, or tear through those submissions. And in
this regard, we bring you some alternatives that can help
you mitigate against the perils set out above for your
consideration and necessary action.
Be! Everything.You.Want.2.Be
Delivery Tel: 8500 8777
www.facebook.com/Everythingyouwant2be
If you are really busy or just feeling lazy, Be! Might be just
what you are looking for. Be!’s philosophy is simple – a
healthy lifestyle means more time for what really matters
(in life). To achieve this, Be! has adopted a simple concept,
ie to deliver healthy, delicious yet affordable lunches in
convenient lunch boxes. Be! is actually located in the
cafeteria of 1 Kay Siang Road, just off Tanglin Road, but
delivers its cuisine to the CBD for professionals craving
some healthy fare.
For every meal prepared, Be! uses ingredients that are
low on the glycemic index but high on colour (to ensure
that every bite is full of phytonutrients), protein, taste and
texture (to trigger satiation). To stave off the belief that a
healthy meal can’t be filling, Be! includes brown rice as part
of the set unless requested otherwise. This is Be!’s effort to
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
49
Lifestyle
Food
encourage people to eat brown rice which has more fibre
and nutrition than white rice.
We started off with Be! Exotic – a quinoa-crusted Moroccan
chicken salad with honey balsamic sauce. The first thing that
strikes you about the salad is that the ingredients are clearly
fresh and of a high quality. The cherry tomatoes are juicy
while the rest of the salad is crunchy and not soggy from
an over reliance on salad dressings, as so many are prone
to doing. The use of honey balsamic dressing allows the
natural flavours of the ingredients to be expressed without
being drowned out. The grilled chicken breasts were wellseasoned with coriander, fennel, cinnamon, honey and a
gamut of other spices. Needless to say, the chicken was
succulent and flavourful.
Having savoured the salad as the opening act, we moved
on to the main course, Be Spicy! – salmon with pumpkin
sauce and spicy tomato brown rice, served with a sample
of Be Pampered! Salad. The salmon was moist, wellseasoned and cooked to perfection. The salad included
honey glazed pumpkin, purple sweet potato, walnuts, feta
cheese and cherry tomatoes, which provided interesting
colours and textures, not to mention great taste. Overall,
the main course was put together nicely with all the different
elements complementing each other.
Salmon with pumpkin sauce and spicy tomato brown rice
Another point that deserves mention is that the portions are
substantial and filling and the best part is that the prices are
very reasonable. The above lunch cost us just $9.80 per
person, while a similar meal in the CBD will likely set you
back more.
Orders are best placed before 10am, with free delivery for
orders above $28. Be! also caters for corporate breakfasts,
lunches and tea and as a testament to their commitment
to healthy holistic living, Be! can also provide yoga/fitness
lessons or nutrition and cooking classes as part of the
experience.
A quinoa-crusted Moroccan chicken salad with honey balsamic sauce
Apart from the honey balsamic dressing, Be! also has an
impressive range of original home-made sauces such as
asian tangy, zesty orange mustard, honey soy sesame, and
honey yoghurt sauces to choose from. We were informed
that only extra virgin olive oil is used to give a fresh, light
taste instead of last squeezed olive pomace oil; honey and
gula melaka are used in place of sugar.
As a special to members of the legal fraternity, Be! has kindly
extended a 10 per cent discount to all law firms that place
an order in excess of SGD 50 from now till 31 December
2014.
If, however, you need to step out of the office to clear your
mind and get some fresh air during lunch hour but need to
rush back to your desk, salad is a great option. It is quick,
healthy and might help negate the guilt that haunts you for
having skipped gym or yoga class. Salad bars in the CBD
are aplenty, and you will find yourself spoilt for choice. We
bring you two great options where you can find fresh, hearty
and filling salads:
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
50
Lifestyle
Food
The Salad Shop (“TSS”)
UOB Plaza 2 & 79 Anson Road
http://www.thesaladshop.com.sg
The popularity of TSS appears alarming until you go in and
taste their tantalising, customised salads. TSS makes salad
for everybody, which is why you get to choose your salad
size (“Rabbit”, “Zebra” or “Elephant”) depending on the
proportion of feeds per animal. If you intend to go vegetarian
then a Rabbit size should suffice with a salad base, six “main
feeds”’ and your choice of a maximum of two dressings from
a never-ending dressing menu, at only $8. An Elephant
size salad is appropriate for when your stomach has been
rumbling louder than thunder, since your early morning
hearing. For a princely $12 you get a salad base, six “main
feeds”, two “supplementary feeds”, one “prime feed” and
dressing. Adding further feeds is chargeable depending on
the category; however, it generally is not necessary because
of the feed proportions and the excellent salad base options.
Another option is to order a soup which you can enjoy with
fresh sliced bread (at no extra cost); however, there are
only two varieties of soup each day. The dressings taste
great even when an outlandish mix is selected, such as feta
cheese with Thai or Oriental dressing. The pesto vinaigrette
and sun-dried tomato dressings taste surprisingly fresh and
extremely satisfying in various salad combinations.
It may take a few tries to nail the perfect salad combination
which hits the spot, but the mixes are delicious nonetheless.
If you feel that the salad mixers are too liberal with dressing,
you may request the dressing to be given separately. The
pre-mixed salads and wraps in the fridge are not quite
as fresh, tasty or filling and are obviously avoidable. The
ambience is clean, modern and spacious and ordering is
easy once you understand your options. The only downside
is that it gets extremely crowded at peak lunchtime with
longer queues and considerably slower service (in particular
at UOB Plaza), but it is worth the wait!
The main setback is that there is no seating at the ground
floor branch, with a queue which snakes all the way up to
Joe & Dough and beyond. The solution to long queues is an
SMS order! The best part about TSC is that the only thing
between you and your salad is an SMS. TSC is unique in that
its offers a service through which you can place your order
by sending a text message to the designated telephone
number for collection at the Market Street or Amoy Street
branch. Provided that: (a) you place an order between 8am
and 10.30am; and (b) you receive a confirmation response,
you can collect your salad and return to your desk without
anyone noticing your absence.
TSC is filling and tasty, and will not burn a hole in your pocket
in the long term. Most importantly, there is no compromise
on quality and freshness, despite its lower prices. It definitely
does give other salad bars a run for their money.
Working through lunch does not have to be detrimental to
your health, especially when such delicious and nutritious
options are available!
► Jevon Louis
Member
Young Lawyers Committee
► Khyati Raniwala
Member
Young Lawyers Committee
The Salad Corner (“TSC”)
Amoy Street Food Centre & Market Street Food Centre
http://www.thesaladcorner.com
Market Street Food Centre is now famous for being home to
TSC. For only $4.90 you get salad base and five toppings,
with meats charged additionally. The portions are large
and extremely filling but the amount of salad base can
leave you tired from chewing so much. The dressings are
generally tasty, but the vinaigrette dressings are a little too
strong and the Italian vinaigrette in particular, overpowers
the freshness of the salad toppings. The variety of toppings
does not match the variety of dressings, and chances are
you will get bored if you visit TSC more than twice a week.
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
51
Notices
Professional Moves
New Law Practices
Ms Lee Pih Peng (formerly of Lee & Lee)
has commenced practice under the name
and style of LPP Law Corporation on 1
August 2014 at the following address and
contact numbers:
10 Marina Boulevard
Level 39 Marina Bay Financial Centre
Tower Two
Singapore 018983
Tel: 6818 6248 / 9
E-mail: leepihpeng@lpplawcorp.com.sg
Mr Ong Ying Ping (formerly of OTP Law
Corporation) has commenced practice
under the name and style of Ong Ying
Ping Esq on 1 August 2014 at the following
address and contact numbers:
133 Cecil Street
#08-02/02A Keck Seng Tower
Singapore 069535
Tel: 6438 3922
Fax: 6438 3966
E-mail: ongyingping@gmail.com
Ms Woo Mei Lin Jacqueline Mrs Low
Fook Cheong has commenced practice
under the name and style of J Low Law
Corporation on 8 August 2014 at the
following address and contact numbers:
25 Begonia Terrace
Singapore 809780
Tel: 6717 0604
E-mail: jackie@jlowlaw.sg
Mr Hua Yew Fai Terence (formerly
of Anthony Law Corporation) has
commenced practice under the name and
style of Terence Hua Law Practice on 8
August 2014 at the following address and
contact numbers:
3 Shenton Way
#07-01 Shenton House
Singapore 068805
Tel: 6323 2320
Fax: 6538 8815
E-mail: terencehua_lawpractice@yahoo.
com.sg
Ms Lim Pei Ling June (formerly of
Fortis Law Corporation) has commenced
practice under the name and style of
Eden Law Corporation on 18 August
2014 at the following address and contact
numbers:
20 Havelock Road
#02-10 Central Square
Singapore 059765
Tel: 6248 8209
Fax: 6428 8319
E-mail: mail@edenlaw.com.sg
Change of Law Practices’ Names
The firm name of Rajah & Tann LLP
has been changed to Rajah & Tann
Singapore LLP with effect from 21 August
2014. There is no change to the firm’s
contact details.
The firm name of Legal21 LLC has been
changed to Affinity Law LLC with effect
from 1 September 2014. There is no
change to the firm’s contact details.
Dissolution of Law Practices
The law practice of C.S. Tan & Co
dissolved on 31 March 2014.
Outstanding matters of the former law
practice of C.S. Tan & Co have, with effect
from 1 April 2014, been taken over by:
1. Metropolitan Law Corporation
133 New Bridge Road
#13-01 Chinatown Point
Singapore 059413
Tel: 6222 9676
Fax: 6222 8635
E-mail: info@metrolaw.com.sg
Website: http://www.metrolaw.com.sg
2. Attorneys Inc. LLC
24 Raffles Place
#25-06A Clifford Centre
Singapore 048621
Tel: 6327 8481
Fax: 6327 8463
E-mail: mail@attorneys.com.sg
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
3. Christina Goh & Co
20 Havelock Road
#02-05 Central Square
Singapore 059765
Tel: 6533 2155
Fax: 6428 8315
E-mail: gsleng@pacific.net.sg
and
4. Chan Kam Foo & Associates
101A Upper Cross Street
#09-10 People's Park Centre
Singapore 058358
Tel: 6532 5252
Fax: 6535 7332
E-mail: chanas@pacific.net.sg
The law practice of Focus Law
Corporation dissolved on 31 July 2014.
Outstanding matters of the former law
practice of Focus Law Corporation have,
with effect from 1 August 2014, been taken
over by:
JLC Advisors LLP
80 Raffles Place
#43-03 UOB Plaza 1
Singapore 048624
Tel: 6389 9559
Fax: 6389 9556
Mr Khoo Ching Shin Shem (formerly of
Focus Law Corporation) has joined JLC
Advisors LLP as Partner with effect from
1 August 2014.
The law practice of Anand T & Co
dissolved on 31 August 2014.
Outstanding matters of the former law
practice of Anand T & Co have, with effect
from 1 September 2014, been taken over
by:
M P Kanisan & Partners
111 North Bridge Road
#08-01/02 Peninsula Plaza
Singapore 179098
Tel: 6338 2294
Fax: 6339 1400
52
Notices
Professional Moves
Change of Law Practices’ Addresses
A C Cheong & Co.
20 Havelock Road
#02-44 Central Square
Singapore 059765
Tel: 6298 5755 / 6428 8244
Fax: 6428 8268
E-mail: enquiry@accheong.com
(wef 1 September 2014)
A. Rajandran
5001 Beach Road
#08-16 Golden Mile Complex
Singapore 199588
Tel: 6536 1125
Fax: 6536 1152
E-mail: a_rajandran@hotmail.com
(wef 26 July 2014)
Bogaars & Din
20 Havelock Road
#03-02/03 Central Square
Singapore 057965
Tel: 6538 8188
Fax: 6538 5655
E-mail: thefirm@bogaars-din.com
(wef 30 July 2014)
Camford Law Corporation
8 Cross Street
#18-06 PWC Building
Singapore 048424
Tel: 6220 0900
Fax: 6220 0919
(wef 1 September 2014)
Chris Chong & CT Ho Partnership
143 Cecil Street
#17-00 GB Building
Singapore 069542
Tel: 6220 6880
Fax: 6220 7880
Website: www.legallex.net
(wef 25 August 2014)
Damodara Hazra LLP
3 Shenton Way
#10-08 Shenton House
Singapore 068805
Tel: 6227 6366 / 6227 2281
Fax: 6227 6166
E-mail: damo@dhklaw.com.sg
Website: www.dhklaw.com.sg
(wef 23 September 2014)
Exodus Law Corporation
Blk 53 Chin Swee Road
#03-21
Singapore 160053
Tel: 6532 2322
Fax: 6536 8884
Website: http://exoduslawcorp.com
(wef 31 August 2014)
Vision Law LLC
1. 133 New Bridge Road
#18-01/02 Chinatown Point
Singapore 059413
Tel: 6534 2811
Fax: 6535 6802
E-mail: ct-admin@visionlawllc.com
Ken Lee Law Corporation
34A South Bridge Road
Singapore 058668
Tel: 6732 0021
Fax: 6732 2573
(wef 25 August 2014)
2. 490 Lorong 6 Toa Payoh
#03-11 HDB Hub (Biz 3 Lobby 1)
Singapore 310490
Tel: 6358 0703
Fax: 6358 0448
E-mail: admin_tp@visionlawllc.com
(wef 15 August 2014)
Kishan LLC
46 Tras Street
Singapore 078985
Tel: 6225 0271
Fax: 6225 0272
E-mail: office@kishanllc.com
(wef 18 August 2014)
Yuen Law LLC
34A South Bridge Road
Singapore 058668
Tel: 9624 6855
E-mail: yuenlawllc@gmail.com
Website: www.yuenlaw.com.sg
(wef 22 August 2014)
Nation Law LLC
1. 133 New Bridge Road
#18-01 Chinatown Point
Singapore 059413
Tel: 9668 1737
E-mail: gen.nationlawllc@gmail.com
Closure of Branch Office
2. 490 Lorong 6 Toa Payoh
#03-11 HDB Hub (Biz 3 Lobby 1)
Singapore 310490
Tel: 6255 3418
Fax: 6250 6356
E-mail: gen.nationlawllc@gmail.com
(wef 7 August 2014)
Change of Contact Numbers
Shireen Chua & Co
6 Pandan Valley
#09-606
Singapore 597630
Tel: 9698 0324
E-mail: shireen@shireenchua.com
(wef 27 August 2014)
Timothy Ng LLC
1 Coleman Street
#05-03 The Adelphi
Singapore 179803
(wef 12 September 2014)
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
With effect from 30 June 2014, the branch
office of I.R.B Law LLP at 171 Tras Street
#08-177 Union Building Singapore 079025
has ceased operations.
S Q Kong & Company
Fax: 6722 8551
53
Notices
Information on Wills
Information on Wills
Name of Deceased (Sex)
NRIC
Date of Death
Last Known Address
Solicitors/Contact
Person
Reference
Husin Halim (M)
Indonesian Passport No.
A5884921
8 November 2013
Permata Hijau Blok M
#1 RT 007/001 Grogol Utara
Kebayorah Lama, Jakarta,
Indonesia
Sim Mong Teck & Partners
6496 0399 / 6736 6166
SMT.
JP.rie.6.3310.2014
Tang Kim Chong
(Dong Jinzhong) (M)
S7239862I
10 June 2014
Blk 537 Bukit Panjang Ring
Road
#14-831
Singapore 670537
Summit Law Corporation
6597 8363
201407589/11
Kan Sook Keng (F)
S0222809B
23 May 2014
20 Jalan Jambu Batu
Singapore 588739
Wee Swee Teow & Co
6532 2966
YSY/N/14/02/0494
Lee Tshun Syn (M)
S0045660H
14 July 2014
Blk 215 Yishun Street 21
#02-303
Singapore 760215
Lim Soo Peng & Co LLP
6337 9968
LSP/21449/14/adl
Lim Thiam Seng (M)
S1240286D
5 February 2014
Blk 238 Lorong 1 Toa Payoh
#12-10
Singapore 310238
Summit Law Corporation
6597 8363
201407601/11
Susan Hidajat (F)
Indonesian Passport No.
T677528
11 June 2012
Cisangkuy 32 Bandung 40114
Indonesia
Sim Mong Teck & Partners
6496 0399 / 6736 6166
SMT.
JP.rie.4.3004.2014
Tan Kwee Lam (M)
S1294285J
2 July 2014
33 Lorong Paya Lebar
Singapore 536331
Hoh Law Corporation
6553 4800
YM/P20547/14/at
Andrew Chang Chau Lian (M)
S0890289E
2 August 2014
5 Siglap Road
#20-45
Singapore 448908
UniLegal LLC
6236 2434
14.116.RKS.
LC243.001.he
Blk 118, Tampines Street 11
#04-194
Singapore 520118
Seow Swee Hai @
Seow Huat Chye (M)
S0253498C
1 August 2014
Blk 110 Bukit Merah View
#17-562
Singapore 150110
DSPP Law Corporation
6323 0030
DTJT/20140912/jt
Loo Jia Lin (Lu Jialin) (F)
S1789720I
14 August 2014
Blk 10D Braddell Hill
#21-13
Singapore 579723
Hoh Law Corporation
6553 5190
AO/P20550.14/vt
Lim Ivy (F)
S0243920D
20 April 2014
Blk 82 Redhill Lane
#04-75
Singapore 150082
Belinda Ang Tang &
Partners
6379 5757
AL/ml/14/413030
Tan Seong Lim (M)
S1140509F
28 April 2013
5 Prome Road
Singapore 328313
Wee Swee Teow & Co
6532 2966
YSY/N/14/02/0491
To place a notice in this section, please write to the Publications Department at The Law Society of Singapore, 39 South Bridge Road, Singapore 058673, Fax: 6533 5700,
with the deceased’s particulars, a copy of the death certificate and cheque payment of S$85.60 per notice made in favour of ‘The Law Society of Singapore‘. All
submissions must reach us by the 5th day of the preceding month.
Singapore Law Gazette September 2014
Appointments
54
Tailored recruitment solutions
Calico Asia is an executive search consultancy dedicated to the provision of tailored recruitment solutions and consulting
services for the legal and compliance communities throughout Asia. Our fast growing brand has been built upon the proven
recruitment expertise and transparent approach of our experienced consultants. Along with managing search and selection
assignments, we provide bespoke recruitment services for our clients and our global network of candidates.
Senior Legal Counsel – Intellectual
Property, 7+PQE
Legal Counsel – Oil & Gas/
Manufacturing, 8+PQE
An exceptional in-house opportunity boasting
work-life balance, excellent welfare and a
market-rate salary is now available. This regional
brand requires the expertise of a senior lawyer to
focus on the firm’s intellectual property matters
and will form part of a legal team which advises
on a broader corporate remit. The ability to
engage competently with various stakeholders
is vital to succeeding in this role. (Ref: CLIH404)
An international oil and gas conglomerate is looking
to appoint a senior counsel to work alongside key
business stakeholders in their engineering and
manufacturing business. A senior corporate lawyer
equipped with knowledge of the energy sector, the
candidate will ideally possess in-house experience
and be able to efficiently provide strategic, practical
and operational legal advice on the downstream
business. (Ref: CLIH405)
Legal Counsel – Construction,
5+ PQE
Legal Counsel – MNC, 3+PQE
A listed corporation with multiple interests in
various sectors, our client is looking to hire a
Legal Counsel to be responsible for the Group’s
construction arm. In addition to being tasked to
lead the negotiations of contracts with clients
and subcontractors, the role will suit candidates
with a proven knowledge of the construction and
engineering industries and who are proficient in
Mandarin. (Ref: CLIH395)
Legal Counsels – Corporate/ IP/
Technology, 2-5PQE
Our client is a rapidly expanding and exciting
technology company which has seen
astounding growth over the last few years.
As a result, they are now recruiting a team of
technology, intellectual property and corporate
lawyers to provide advice on a gamut of legal
matters globally. Applicants will need prior
relevant experience and would ideally have
worked with an international practice or a
multinational corporation.
(Ref: CLIH399)
Legal Counsel – Shipping, 3+PQE
An exciting role with a world class leader in the
petrochemical sector has arisen. Reporting to the
senior legal counsel, the selected candidate will
be responsible for providing legal support to the
diverse regional businesses of the organization.
Candidates with prior in-house general corporate
experience will be looked upon favourably
although lawyers wishing to transition will also be
considered. (Ref: CLIH398)
Legal Counsel – Real Estate, 4-8PQE
A dynamic real estate corporation now has a
legal vacancy on offer. With a comprehensive
working knowledge of real estate, building or
construction laws, you will be heavily involved
in providing legal advice to stakeholders on all
general corporate and commercial transactions,
land-related and regional projects. This role will
suit a seasoned corporate or real estate lawyer
who is looking for a challenging regional portfolio
and clear progression within a fast growing
organization. (Ref: CLIH382)
A renowned shipping firm is now expanding
with the hire of a Legal Counsel. This role presents
an excellent opportunity for candidates wishing
to transition in-house and applicants will need
exceptional communication, presentation and
interpersonal skills. Sharp commercial acumen
will also be essential in dealing with a variety of
stakeholders, in particular, the container, bulk
shipping and marine logistics businesses. Prior
knowledge of the liner business will be looked
upon favourably. (Ref: CLIH408)
Legal Manager – Engineering/ M&A,
3-5PQE
An engineering and technologies company is
currently looking to hire a Legal Manager to be
part of its stable in-house team. In addition to
providing support on all commercial matters,
the role will also oversee the firm’s corporate,
M&A, financing, joint ventures and intellectual
property matters. Applicants will need to be
admitted to the Singapore Bar and be able to
correspond in Mandarin. (Ref: CLIH402)
Associates – Various Practices,
2-6PQE
A reputable full service law firm which boasts
a dynamic team and top quality work is now
hiring associates for a number of practice areas
in Singapore, including Tax, Banking, Corporate
and Litigation. On the job training will be part of
the role and associates will be given the chance
to work with renowned multinationals on a
variety of matters and transactions. Singapore Bar
qualifications are essential. (Ref: CPP0042)
For further information on the advertised positions or for any recruitment enquiries, please contact us at info@calicoasia.com or
call +65 68085665. Alternatively, please visit our website: www.calicoasia.com/opportunities for a full listing of available vacancies.
www.calicoasia.com
EA Licence number: 11C4386
One Raffles Place Tower 2 #19-61 Singapore 048616
55
Appointments
In-House
Private Practice
CORPORATE PARTNER
Singapore
8-12 PQE
PROJECT COUNSEL
Singapore
6-10 PQE
A boutique law firm with a strong reputation in the media and IP space is
looking for a corporate partner to join their practice in Singapore. No book of
business is required but the partner should have at least 8 years of strong
corporate experience in a broad range of corporate work. (SLG 11033)
Leading engineering company seeks a project lawyer to be responsible for
advising and running EPC related transactions as well as assisting on project
finance matters. Candidates should ideally have experience in construction,
project, infrastructure and engineering matters. (SLG10564)
CORPORATE LAWYER
LEGAL COUNSEL,
ENGINEERING
Singapore
3-6 PQE
Leading global law firm is seeking a Singapore qualified, mid-level, corporate
lawyer to join its dynamic team. Ideal candidates will have strong experience
in M&A, joint ventures, corporate finance and financial services regulatory
work. Excellent academic background and previous experience in a leading
local or international law firm are essential. (SLG 11042)
PROJECT FINANCE (PPP/ENERGY/
CONSTRUCTION) ASSOCIATE
Singapore
3-5 PQE
This leading international law firm with a high profile aviation practice is
seeking for a mid-level disputes lawyer to join its growing practice.
Candidates with prior experience in aviation law are preferred. This role
offers excellent opportunities for progression and top quality work.
Candidates must have already have a proven track record gained from
training and working in top tier firms. (SLG 11119)
SHIPPING ASSOCIATE
Singapore
3-5 PQE
Large global law firm is seeking a senior Singapore qualified litigator. Candidates
must have excellent academics, training and top tier law firm experience.
Expertise in specialist sectors such as maritime, insurance or international trade
will be well regarded. (SLG 10908)
PARALEGAL
Singapore
5-7 PQE
3-5 PQE
This leading international law firm is looking for a mid-level project finance
associate who will focus on PPP work. This is a fantastic opportunity for those
who are interested in getting top quality work in a premier practice. Prior
experience in energy, power or construction projects will be a major
advantage. (SLG 10940)
AVIATION LITIGATION
ASSOCIATE
5-8 PQE
A global engineering company is looking for an experienced lawyer. You must
be admitted to the Singapore bar and with at least 5 years PQE including
in-house experience working in an international corporation with an energy,
project infrastructure and engineering focus.
DERIVATIVES COUNSEL
Singapore
Singapore
Singapore
This international law firm is looking for an experienced paralegal to join its
established derivatives practice. Although not essential, candidates with
experience in banking and finance will be preferred. Strong organisation skills,
a good eye for detail and previous paralegal experience in a reputable law firm
are essential for this role. (SLG 11176
Major regional bank is looking for a mid-level counsel to join their Global
Markets legal team. The ideal lawyer should have at least 5 years PQE, with
experience working in-house in a financial institution and being involved in
credit derivatives structured finance work. (SLG 10845)
CORPORATE IT COUNSEL
Singapore
4-5 PQE
Our client, a large US software company is seeking a corporate counsel to join its
regional team in Singapore. Strong international experience is critical and the
ideal candidate will have a corporate/M&A background along with good IT
sector related knowledge. (SLG 10868)
COMPLIANCE
& RISK MANAGER
Singapore
3-6 PQE
A global property corporation is looking for a compliance and risk manager in
Singapore. Candidates should ideally have at least 3 years’ experience advising
on corporate compliance and risk management matters particularly in the areas
of anti-corruption and fraud, and/or some experience managing insurance
matters. Singapore and/or Commonwealth qualified litigators with relevant
practice experience will be considered. (SLG 10918)
LEGAL COUNSEL
Singapore
3-5 PQE
Global investment bank is looking for a legal counsel to join their legal team based
in Singapore. This lawyer will be responsible for supporting the bank's OTC
clearing business across the Asia Pacific as well as advising on legal and regulatory
matters with regards to new clearing house rules. The ideal candidate should have
at least 3 years’ PQE of relevant OTC derivatives products exposure. Candidate
with strong finance and capital market experience gained in a leading firm will be
considered. (SLG 10609)
These are a small selection of our current vacancies. If you require further details or wish to have a
confidential discussion about your career, market trends, or would like salary information then please
contact one of our consultants in Singapore (EA Licence: 07C5776):
Lucy Twomey or Jean Teh on +65 6557 4163.
To email your details in confidence then please contact us on legal.sg@alsrecruit.com.
Hong Kong
Singapore
Beijing
Shanghai
(852) 2920 9100
als@alsrecruit.com
(65) 6557 4163
singapore@alsrecruit.com
(86) 10 6567 8728
beijing@alsrecruit.com
(86) 21 6372 1058
shanghai@alsrecruit.com
Appointments
56
IN-HOUSE
PRIVATE PRACTICE
Associate General Counsel (12+ PQE), Singapore
ECM Partner (8+ PQE), Singapore
This is an exciting opportunity for a senior lawyer to
join a healthcare group which not only provides medical
services but also has a strong R&D arm. Reporting to
the General Counsel, you will be required to assist with
providing strategic legal advice to senior management
as well as manage the group's legal risks across its
various activities. The ideal candidate should have
substantial experience with contracts, tenders and IP
issues. This is a chance to have a rewarding career with a
well-established group at the forefront of medical
developments in the region. [S23662]
A fast-growing local law firm in partnership with an
international law firm seeks a lawyer to join their
ECM
practice as a partner. The successful candidate will
advise local and foreign clients on a range of equity
transactions including IPOs, reverse takeovers and listings
on the Singapore Exchange. This is an excellent
opportunity for a lawyer keen on building or further
developing a book of business and to work with a
dynamic team of lawyers. [S19703]
Senior Legal Counsel (12-15 PQE), Singapore
Our client, a well-known international law firm, is seeking
to add an experienced employment lawyer to their
team. The ideal candidate should be Singapore called
and have extensive experience managing both
contentious and non-contentious employment and
labour matters. In particular, knowledge and experience
gained advising clients on HR and employment issues
across multiple jurisdictions would be looked upon
favourably. [S24800]
Regional telco seeks a senior lawyer to join its legal team
as Associate General Counsel. Duties include advising
and supporting the business and management on a
wide range of corporate, commercial and compliance
issues including working with multiple business lines and
support teams to develop legally sound and pragmatic
solutions to address key business risks. The successful
candidate will also be required to provide training,
supervision and mentorship to contract managers and
other legal counsels. You must have leadership qualities
and be able to work independently and effectively
under pressure. Excellent drafting and negotiation skills
are required for this role. Candidates should preferably
be admitted to the Singapore Bar. [S23952]
Transactional Lawyer (3-5 PQE), Singapore
Our client, a reputable global IT MNC, is looking for
a junior lawyer to join their team to provide legal
advice and support to the company’s commercial
projects in Singapore. Working in a fast paced and
dynamic environment, you will be part of a team
dealing with complex and high value transactions.
Primary responsibilities include reviewing, drafting and
negotiating legal documentation for complex contracts.
The successful candidate should be an independent
worker with keen commercial acumen and preferably
some transactional experience in IT. [S19707]
Employment Law Partner (8+ PQE), Singapore
Senior Corporate
Singapore
Associate
(6-9
PQE),
An excellent opportunity for a Malaysian-qualified
lawyer with strong M&A experience to join an
international law firm to support the firm's blue chip
clientele with their cross-border investments. Excellent
interpersonal skills and willingness to be a team player in a
demanding and dynamic practice are essential.
[S19383]
Corporate
Myanmar
Associate
(4-6
PQE),
Yangon,
Well-established local law firm seeks a corporate
associate to handle a variety of in-bound banking and
M&A transactions. The ideal candidate will be common
law qualified, ambitious and able to work independently.
An attractive remuneration package is on offer. [S18888]
Commercial Counsel (3-5 PQE), Singapore
Funds Associate (3-6 PQE), Hong Kong
The logistics arm of a global transportation company
is seeking a commercial lawyer. Responsibilities include
providing comprehensive legal services to all business
units and internal clients and ensuring compliance with
relevant local laws and regulations. Strong Mandarin
language abilities is a requirement as negotiations with
Chinese clients are expected. [S23290]
Our client, a leading international law firm, is seeking a
Funds Associate with experience gained from a leading
Singaporean or International law firm, be US, HK or
Singapore qualified, and have solid experience with
funds formation (preferably USD and RMB funds),
excellent English communication and drafting skills, and
fluent business level oral Mandarin skills. In addition,
M&A/PE experience and PRC law knowledge would be
valuable pluses. [S19683]
Legal Counsel (3-4 PQE), Singapore
Leading MNC seeks a lawyer to review and draft a
range of commercial agreements, work closely with
business units on commercial issues and ensure
compliance with all relevant rules and regulations. The
role entails providing legal input to existing and
ongoing projects and matters, including corporate
structuring/restructuring, mergers and acquisitions, joint
ventures, partnerships, procurement, employment, and
litigation. The ideal candidate should have strong
commercial and communication skills and be able
to work independently in a fast-paced environment.
Prior experience in financial services preferred. [S24357]
Paralegal (3+ PQE), Singapore
A leading US MNC seeks a paralegal to assist the
General Counsel on a wide range of matters including
drafting and amending commercial contracts, ensuring
compliance with laws and regulations and conducting
ethics training. The ideal candidate should be eager
to learn, a hard worker and a team player. [S19695]
Asset Finance Associate (2-7 PQE), Hong Kong
An international law firm with a large regional Banking &
Finance practice, is seeking an Asset Finance Associate
to handle maritime and offshore projects and finance.
The candidate should have a solid track record with
experience in shipping, project/asset finance, or LNG.
Chinese language skills and a common law qualification
would be preferred. [S19688]
TMT Associate (2-5 PQE), Singapore
This is an exciting opportunity for a mid-level TMT
Associate to join an international law firm and handle a
wide variety of commercial IT and IP transactions
including licensing, procurement, product development,
and projects. Current experience in a recognized IP/IT
or TMT practice at a law firm in Singapore is desired. In
addition, previous experience with both contentious and
non-contentious IP and patent matters would be
beneficial. [S16858]
57
Appointments
YOUR PROFESSION
OUR PASSION
Regional Consumer Banking Counsel
Singapore – minimum 7 years of relevant experience
Ambitious Project Finance Lawyer
Singapore – minimum 4 years PQE
One of the largest global banks is seeking a lawyer with regional
experience in consumer banking to join their Global Legal Team. You will
be dealing with three major divisions of the business and a large majority
of your clients will be non-Singaporean residents, including but not
limited to Indonesia and Taiwan. You will be responsible for Singapore
and Hong Kong bank licensing matters and various regulations, including
HKMA, SFC and MAS. You will be reviewing deposit and non-deposit
investment products and advising on regulatory changes, securities and
insurance-based lending programmes.
A world leader in legal services is seeking a Project Finance Lawyer
to join their prestigious team. You will be working with many of the
largest and reputable clients in the energy sector.
You must have extensive banking experience, preferably with
regional exposure. You must be called to either the Singapore bar
or in a commonwealth jurisdiction. As you will be working in a close
knit team, it is essential that you have retail brokerage and dispute
resolution experience. As you will be working as an integral part of a
global team, international exposure and time flexibility would be well
regarded. This is an excellent opportunity for a retail banking lawyer
with offshore experience.
Outgoing Technology Lawyer
Singapore – minimum 6 years PQE
A regional leader in software and service support seeks a tech savvy
corporate lawyer to support their Singapore operation. You will be
responsible for reviewing, advising and drafting various commercial
contracts, predominantly focused on software, licensing and various
distribution and client transactions. You will also be constantly liaising
with other arms of the business in Singapore and within the region.
In addition to legal work, there may be networking events and social
functions which you will be expected to attend.
You must have six years PQE in a technology focused role, either inhouse or in private practice as well as enthusiasm and outgoingness.
As you will be working in a truly multicultural environment,
international exposure will be highly advantageous. This role requires
you to be a strong communicator with genuine interest in liaising,
networking and frequently engaging with people from various
cultures and backgrounds. This is a fantastic opportunity for an
outgoing and passionate technology lawyer.
Business Driven Legal Counsel
Singapore – minimum 3 years PQE
A one-stop-shop for business start ups in Singapore is seeking a
knowledgeable Legal Counsel to join their team. This organisation is a
leader in providing solutions for all business needs, including but not
limited to, incorporation, tax, accounting, immigration and employment.
They are driven by the success of their clients so you will have strong
business acumen and a genuine interest and passion in watching new
businesses thrive. You will be responsible for a variety of areas, particularly
company law, immigration law, tax law, employment and contract law. You
will be responsible for overseeing the risk and compliance team and have a
solid understanding of data protection legislation.
KYC and AML experience is crucial and you must be called to the
Singapore bar. As you will be constantly liaising with authorities and
relevant governing bodies, you must have strong communication skills
and acute attention to detail. If and when necessary, you will also
partake in business development work and represent the business in
sales and marketing events. You will ideally have a minimum of three
years in a similar role. This is an excellent opportunity for a passionate
lawyer seeking to promote new business in the Singapore market.
hays.com.sg
You must have extensive international experience dealing with
projects related to water power, wind and natural resources. You
should be UK qualified however those who are Australian or NY
qualified may also be considered provided that you have had
experience in the UK. This is an excellent opportunity for an ambitious
lawyer seeking experience in a top-tier firm.
Legal & Operations Specialist
Singapore – minimum 3 years of experience
A reputable funds company is seeking a Legal & Operations Specialist
to take control of one of their affiliated entities that specialises in the
investment of a Japanese energy company. You will be straddling a
quasi legal and operations role, engaging in the reviewing various
legal documentation, advising the business of its responsibilities
and obligations while simultaneously ensuring that all transactions
are running smoothly. You will be frequently liaising with the Japan
office and dealing with internal and external stakeholders. You will be
drafting resolutions and minutes, dealing with company books and
reports and be responsible for preparing and distributing company
records if and when required.
You must have exceptionally strong communication skills and a
good grasp of the English language. You must be able to draft clear
and concise correspondence and be experienced in the legal and
operational side of a business. You should have a law degree, corporate
secretarial experience and be experienced in dealing with complex
contracts. While Japanese language skill is not essential it is highly
advantageous. This is an excellent opportunity for the junior lawyer
who is passionate about investments and managing operations.
Contact Judy Liu (Reg ID No. R1333115) at judy.liu@hays.com.sg
or +65 6303 0725.
Appointments
58
In-House Roles
Private Banking . Singapore
0il & Gas Services . Singapore
dŚŝƐ ŐůŽďĂů ŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚ ďĂŶŬ ƐĞĞŬƐ Ă ŵŝĚͲƐĞŶŝŽƌ ůĞǀĞů ůĂǁLJĞƌ ĨŽƌ ŝƚƐ ǁĞĂůƚŚ
ŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƚĞĂŵŝŶ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞ͘WƌŝŽƌƉƌŝǀĂƚĞďĂŶŬŝŶŐĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞƉƌĞĨĞƌƌĞĚďƵƚŶŽƚ
ĞƐƐĞŶƟĂů;ŝĨƚŚĞĐĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞŚĂƐƐƉĞĐŝĮĐƌĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌLJŽƌƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĚƉƌŽĚƵĐƚƐĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞͿ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϳϭϭϭ
ϰнLJĞĂƌƐ
dŚŝƐ Žŝů Θ ŐĂƐ ĐŽŵƉĂŶLJ ǁŝƚŚ ƵƉƐƚƌĞĂŵ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ ŝŶ EŽƌƚŚ ŵĞƌŝĐĂ ŝƐ ůŽŽŬŝŶŐ ĨŽƌ ĂŶ
ĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĚ ůĂǁLJĞƌ ǁŝƚŚ W ĂŶĚ ƉƌŽĐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚ ĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ͕ ƐƉĞĐŝĮĐĂůůLJ ŝŶ >E'
ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͘ dŚĞ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ ŵƵƐƚ ďĞ ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůůLJ ƐĂǀǀLJ ĂŶĚ ĂďůĞ ƚŽ ǁŽƌŬ ǁŝƚŚ ƐĞŶŝŽƌ
orem
Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and
ŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͘ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϱϵϯϭ
ϭϬнLJĞĂƌƐ
Derivatives . Singapore
typesetting industry. . Lorem Ipsum has been the inCommodities
Trading Singapore
dustry’s
standard dummy text ever since the 1500s,
dŚŝƐ ĐŽŵŵŽĚŝƟĞƐ ĐŽŵƉĂŶLJ ŝƐ ůŽŽŬŝŶŐ ĨŽƌ Ă ƐĞŶŝŽƌ ůĂǁLJĞƌ ǁŝƚŚ ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĚ ƚƌĂĚĞ
when
an unknown printer took a galley of type and
ĮŶĂŶĐĞĂŶĚŝŶƚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂůƚƌĂĚĞĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ͘zŽƵĂƌĞĞdžƉĞĐƚĞĚƚŽǁŽƌŬĐůŽƐĞůLJǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂŶĚďĞĂĐƟǀĞůLJŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶĚĞĂůĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶ͕ŶĞŐŽƟĂƟŽŶƐĂŶĚĐůŽƐŝŶŐ͘
scrambled
it to make a type specimen book. It has
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϲϭϮϭ
ϭϯнLJĞĂƌƐ
survived not only five centuries, but also the leap
.
into
electronic
typesetting, remaining essentially unMedia
Singapore
dŚŝƐ ůĞĂĚŝŶŐ ŵĞĚŝĂ
ĐŽŵƉĂŶLJ
ŝƐ ůŽŽŬŝŶŐ ĨŽƌ in
ĂŶ ĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂů
ŵĞŵďĞƌ
ŽĨ ƚŚĞ
changed.
It was
popularised
the 1960s
with
theƚĞĂŵ͘
ĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚŝĚĞĂůůLJŚĂǀĞƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚƉƌŝǀĂƚĞƉƌĂĐƟĐĞĂŶĚͬŽƌŝŶͲŚŽƵƐĞĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ
release
of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum
ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞdDdͬ/WƐĞĐƚŽƌƐĂŶĚŚĂǀĞĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞǁŽƌŬŝŶŐĨŽƌďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐŝŶƚŚĞƌĞŐŝŽŶ͘
passages,
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϱϱϬϭ and more recently with desktop publishing
ϳнLJĞĂƌƐ
software like. Aldus PageMaker including versions of
Technology
Singapore
Lorem
Ipsum.
dŚŝƐ ŝƐ Ă ŶĞǁůLJ ĐƌĞĂƚĞĚ ƉŽƐŝƟŽŶ ĨŽƌ Ă ůĂǁLJĞƌ ǁŚŽ ǁŝůů ďĞ ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďůĞ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ůĞŐĂů
ŶĞdžĐĞůůĞŶƚŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJĨŽƌĂŶĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĚĚĞƌŝǀĂƟǀĞƐůĂǁLJĞƌƚŽũŽŝŶƚŚĞƚĞĂŵŽĨ
ƚŚŝƐ ŐůŽďĂů ĮŶĂŶĐŝĂů ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƌ͘ dŚĞ ǁŽƌŬ ǁŝůů ďĞ Ă ŵŝdžƚƵƌĞ ŽĨ ƌĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌLJ
ĂĚǀŝƐŽƌLJ;ŽĚĚ&ƌĂŶŬ͕D/ZͿĂŶĚƚƌĂŶƐĂĐƟŽŶĂůĚĞƌŝǀĂƟǀĞƐ;ĐƌĞĚŝƚ͕&/ĞƚĐͿ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϲϲϴϭ
ϱнLJĞĂƌƐ
Disputes . Singapore
dŚĞŝŶͲŚŽƵƐĞůŝƟŐĂƟŽŶƚĞĂŵŽĨƚŚŝƐŐůŽďĂůďĂŶŬŝƐůŽŽŬŝŶŐĨŽƌĂŵŝĚͲůĞǀĞůůĂǁLJĞƌǁŝƚŚ
ĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ ŚĂŶĚůŝŶŐ ĐƌŽƐƐͲďŽƌĚĞƌ ĚŝƐƉƵƚĞƐ͘ ĂƐĞĚ ŝŶ ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞ͕ LJŽƵ ǁŝůů ŚĂŶĚůĞ
ůŝƟŐĂƟŽŶƐ͕ĂƌďŝƚƌĂƟŽŶƐĂŶĚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌLJŝŶǀĞƐƟŐĂƟŽŶƐĂĐƌŽƐƐƐŝĂ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϯϬϮϭ
ϯͲϲнLJĞĂƌƐ
European MNC . Singapore
TŚŝƐǁĞůůĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚůĞŐĂůƚĞĂŵŝƐůŽŽŬŝŶŐĨŽƌĂŐĞŶĞƌĂůĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůůĂǁLJĞƌ
ƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞůĞŐĂůƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĂŶĚĞdžĞĐƵƚĞůĞŐĂůƐƚƌĂƚĞŐLJǁŝƚŚŝŶ^͘ĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞƐŵƵƐƚďĞ
ĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĂƌŝŶ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞŽƌDĂůĂLJƐŝĂ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϳϬϰϭ
ϰͲϴнLJĞĂƌƐ
ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ůŝĐĞŶƐĞ ĂŶĚ ĞŶĨŽƌĐĞŵĞŶƚ ŵĂƩĞƌƐ ŝŶ W ĨŽƌ Ă ůĞĂĚŝŶŐ
ƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJĐŽŵƉĂŶLJ͘ĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞƐƐŚŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞĂƚůĞĂƐƚϲLJĞĂƌƐ͛/WůŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϲϱϬϭ
ϳнLJĞĂƌƐ
Private Practice Roles
Corporate . Singapore
Corporate Real Estate . Singapore
dŚŝƐŐůŽďĂůůĂǁĮƌŵ͕ǁŝƚŚĂůŽŶŐĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶĐĞ͕ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐĂŵŝĚͲůĞǀĞů
ĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞůĂǁLJĞƌŝŶůŝŶĞǁŝƚŚŐƌŽǁƚŚ͘zŽƵǁŝůůŚĂŶĚůĞƉƵďůŝĐĂŶĚƉƌŝǀĂƚĞDΘ͛ƐĨŽƌ
ůŽĐĂůĂŶĚƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůĐůŝĞŶƚƐ͘džĐĞůůĞŶƚĐĂƌĞĞƌƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐŝŽŶŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϳϭϲϭ
ϰнLJĞĂƌƐ
dŚŝƐƚŽƉŝŶƚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂůůĂǁĮƌŵŝƐŬĞĞŶƚŽŚŝƌĞĂWĂƌƚŶĞƌƚŽůĂƵŶĐŚĂŶĚƐƉĞĂƌŚĞĂĚŝƚƐ
ƌĞĂůĞƐƚĂƚĞƉƌĂĐƟĐĞŝŶ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞ͘/ƚŝƐǀŝƚĂůƚŚĂƚLJŽƵŚĂǀĞŝŶƚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂůĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞƌĞĂů
ĞƐƚĂƚĞͬZ/dƐĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĂƐŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽĚŽŵĞƐƟĐĐŽŶǀĞLJĂŶĐŝŶŐ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϳϬϳϭ
WĂƌƚŶĞƌ
Employment . Singapore
Investigations / Disputes . Singapore
Rare ŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJ ĨŽƌ ĂŶ ĞŵƉůŽLJŵĞŶƚ ůĂǁLJĞƌ ƚŽ ũŽŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĞdžƉĂŶĚŝŶŐ ƚĞĂŵ ŽĨ ƚŚŝƐ
ůĞĂĚŝŶŐŝŶƚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂůƉƌĂĐƟĐĞ͘^ƚƌŽŶŐĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐĐƌĞĚĞŶƟĂůƐĂƌĞĞƐƐĞŶƟĂůĂŶĚŝĚĞĂůůLJ
LJŽƵǁŝůůŚĂǀĞďŽƚŚĐŽŶƚĞŶƟŽƵƐĂŶĚŶŽŶͲĐŽŶƚĞŶƟŽƵƐĞŵƉůŽLJŵĞŶƚĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϳϭϮϭ
ϯнLJĞĂƌƐ
KƵƌ ĐůŝĞŶƚ ŝƐ ŽŶĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ǁŽƌůĚ͛Ɛ ůĞĂĚŝŶŐ ůĂǁ ĮƌŵƐ͘ dŚĞLJ ĂƌĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ Ă
ĐŽŶƚĞŶƟŽƵƐ ĮŶĂŶĐŝĂů ƌĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌLJͬŝŶǀĞƐƟŐĂƟŽŶƐ ƉƌĂĐƟĐĞ ĂŶĚ ĂƌĞ ŬĞĞŶ ƚŽ ŚŝƌĞ Ă
^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞͲƋƵĂůŝĮĞĚƐĞŶŝŽƌĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞ͘džĐĞůůĞŶƚůŽŶŐͲƚĞƌŵĐĂƌĞĞƌƉƌŽŐƌĞƐƐŝŽŶ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϲϵϳϭ
ϲнLJĞĂƌƐ
Funds . Singapore
Corporate / Regulatory . Singapore
DĂƌŬĞƚůĞĂĚŝŶŐĨƵŶĚƐƚĞĂŵƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƚǁŽĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůůĂǁLJĞƌƐŝŶůŝŶĞǁŝƚŚŐƌŽǁƚŚ͘KŶĞ
ƌŽůĞǁŝůůĨŽĐƵƐŽŶƌĞƚĂŝůĨƵŶĚƐ͖ƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌŽŶƉƌŝǀĂƚĞĨƵŶĚƐͲďŽƚŚƌĞƉŽƌƟŶŐƚŽĂŵĂũŽƌ
ŶĂŵĞǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŝŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ͘džĐĞůůĞŶƚĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϲϭϲϭ
ϰнLJĞĂƌƐ
dŚŝƐƚŽƉƌĂŶŬĞĚŝŶƚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂůůĂǁĮƌŵŚĂƐĂƵŶŝƋƵĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJĨŽƌĂ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞĂŶͲ
ƋƵĂůŝĮĞĚWĂƌƚŶĞƌ͘dŚĞLJĂƌĞŬĞĞŶƚŽŚŝƌĞĂŵĂƌŬĞƚƌĞŶŽǁŶĞĚŶĂŵĞǁŚŽĐĂŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞ
ďŽƚŚƌĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌLJĂĚǀŝĐĞĂůŽŶŐƐŝĚĞƐƚƌŽŶŐĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐĂĐƟŽŶĂůĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϲϰϮϭ
WĂƌƚŶĞƌ
Litigation . Singapore
Arbitration . Singapore
dŚŝƐ ŝŶƚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂů ůĂǁ Įƌŵ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐ Ă ĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĚ ĚŝƐƉƵƚĞƐ ůĂǁLJĞƌ ƚŽ ĨŽĐƵƐ ŽŶ
ĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞͬĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůůŝƟŐĂƟŽŶ͘ůůĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚƐŵƵƐƚďĞĐŽŵĨŽƌƚĂďůĞǁŽƌŬŝŶŐƵŶĚĞƌ
ŵŝŶŝŵĂůƐƵƉĞƌǀŝƐŝŽŶĂŶĚǁŝůůďĞĐŽŶĮĚĞŶƚĐŽŶĚƵĐƟŶŐĂĚǀŽĐĂĐLJŽŶĂƌĞŐƵůĂƌďĂƐŝƐ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϳϭϴϭ
ϰнLJĞĂƌƐ
dŚŝƐŝŶƚĞƌŶĂƟŽŶĂůůĂǁĮƌŵŚĂƐĂŶĞdžŝƐƟŶŐĚŝƐƉƵƚĞƐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞĂŶĚŝƐŶŽǁŬĞĞŶƚŽŚŝƌĞĂ
ĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞĂŶͲƋƵĂůŝĮĞĚ ƉĂƌƚŶĞƌ ǁŚŽ ĐĂŶ ĐŽŵĞ ŝŶ ĂƐ ,ĞĂĚ ŽĨ ƌďŝƚƌĂƟŽŶ͘ ďƌŽĂĚͲƌĂŶŐŝŶŐƐĞĐƚŽƌĨŽĐƵƐŝƐŽĨŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ͕ĂƐǁŽƵůĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ͘
ZĞĨ͗ϭϵϮϯϮϭ
WĂƌƚŶĞƌ
KƵƌϮϬϭϰWƌŝǀĂƚĞWƌĂĐƟĐĞ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞ^ĂůĂƌLJ
'ƵŝĚĞΘDĂƌŬĞƚhƉĚĂƚĞŝƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞŶŽǁ͘
&ŽƌŵŽƌĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶĐŽŶƚĂĐƚ
ůĞdžtŝƐĞŵĂŶŽŶ+65 6420 0500
or alexwiseman@taylorroot.com
&ŽƌWƌŝǀĂƚĞWƌĂĐƟĐĞƌŽůĞƐŝŶ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞĂŶĚ^ŽƵƚŚĂƐƚƐŝĂĐŽŶƚĂĐƚAlex WisemanŽŶ
+65 6420 0500 or alexwiseman@taylorroot.com
VŝƐŝƚƚĂLJůŽƌƌŽŽƚ͘ĐŽŵĨŽƌŽƵƌĨƵůůƐƵŝƚĞ
ŽĨƐĂůĂƌLJƐƵƌǀĞLJƐĂŶĚŵĂƌŬĞƚƌĞƉŽƌƚƐ͘
&Žƌ/ŶͲ,ŽƵƐĞƌŽůĞƐŝŶ^ŝŶŐĂƉŽƌĞĂŶĚ^ŽƵƚŚĂƐƚƐŝĂĐŽŶƚĂĐƚHelen HowardŽŶ
+65 6420 0500 or helenhoward@taylorroot.com
WůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞŽƵƌĂĚǀĞƌƟƐĞŵĞŶƚƐƵƐĞWYƉƵƌĞůLJĂƐĂŐƵŝĚĞ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ǁĞĂƌĞŚĂƉƉLJ
ƚŽĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶƐĨƌŽŵĂůůĐĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞƐǁŚŽĂƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞ
ƚŚĞƐŬŝůůƐŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƚŽĨƵůĮůƚŚĞƌŽůĞ͘
taylorroot.com
@TaylorRootLegal
PART OF THE SR GROUP
Brewer Morris | Carter Murray | Frazer Jones | SR Search | Taylor Root
UK | EUROPE | MIDDLE EAST | Asia | AUSTRALIA | OFFSHORE
taylor-root
EA Licence Number: 12C6222
Appointments
60
$GYHUWLVHLQWKH
/DZ*D]HWWH¶V
$SSRLQWPHQWV
VHFWLRQ
savings, we understand
As trustee of the nation’s
In our hands we hold
what it means to be trusted. real lives.
and
the future of real people
You will also enjoy diverse
training programmes
that include developing
for all we do.
Trust is the starting point
leadership skills, a friendly
and nurturing work
Your Role
Provide legal advice
ͻ
on issues varying from
Manage CPF Board’s
ͻ
IP and IT to divorce and
in Law from a recognised
A good Honours degree
Ability to work well independently
To apply
Be Part of the MAS
Help shape Singap Team
ore’s financial landsc
ape
Capital Markets Departme
nt
Assistant Director/Associate
(Legal),
At the forefront of
Enforcement (Ref: 30019402_620
a specialised area
of practice, you will
the enforcement of
11)
be a member of a
the
team responsible for
investigate potential civil penalty regime under the Securities
market misconduct,
and Futures Act
conduct litigation
on behalf of the MAS including insider trading and market (SFA). You will
for the award of civil
manipulation and
penalties for market
You can expect to
misconduct.
be
enforcement agencies. challenged intellectually and professionally
as you work
at play, as you serve You will gain insight into how capital
markets participants closely with other regulators and
as
the legal landscape an important part of MAS' enhanced
operate, and the rules
enforcement regime
for this area of Law,
Singapore as a financial
under the SFA. Your and regulations
which is fundamental
work will shape
centre and ensuring
its continued growth. in safeguarding and enhancing the
Requirements:
reputation of
UÊ Recognised Law
Degree and admitted
UÊ At least 1 to 3
years of Civil/Commer to legal practice in Singapore
UÊ Willing to be a
cial Litigation
gation experience
pioneer
UÊ Ability to be innovative in an emerging area of practice
and creative in solving
problems
Application:
To apply, please log
on to our career
eer page att htt
http://www.m
http:/
p/
as.gov.sg/careers
Information on the
other positions is also
soo av
availab
aavailable
ailab
ablle
ab
le at the Singapore
Closing Date: 7 August
Public Service Job
2011
Portal at www.careers.
gov.sg.
Based in
and statutory bodies.
implemented.
with other government
Opportunity to work ample training and development.
Dedicated mentoring,
ͻ
PLEASE SEND DETAILED
RESUME INDICATING
LAST DRAWN AND
EXPECTED SALARY
WITH RECENT PHOTO
THE OFFICE MANAGER,
TO:
M/S ROLAND TONG,
3 PICKERING STREET
EMAIL: gkwan.bp@gm
#02-22, SINGAPORE
ail.com
048660.
Asset &
Singapo Avia tion
external lawyers.
Good work-life balance.
ͻ
ͻ
ͻ
LAW FIRM WITH SPECIALISED
M&A PROJECT WORK
REQUIRES:
LEGAL ASSISTANT,
3 TO 8 YEARS PQE.
MUST HAVE SOLID
EITHER CORPORATE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
OR LITIGATION DEPARTMENT.
EXPERIENCE GAINED
IS ESSENTIAL. TRAVEL
SOUND KNOWLEDGE
IN
IS REQUIRED.
OF RECENT IP CASE
LAW DEVELOPMENT
2. PRIVATE SECRETARY
FOR PRINCIPAL CLIENT,
MINIMUM 10 YEARS
SPOKEN, ORGANISED
SECRETARIAL EXPERIENCE.
AND HAVE EXCELLENT
PC KNOWLEDGE AND
POSITION.
MUST BE WELL
PR SKILLS TO FILL
FAST PACED CONFIDENTIAL
TOP MARKET REMUNERATIO
N WILL BE PAID TO
THE RIGHT CANDIDATE.
probate.
ͻ
What We Require
to be called
university and be eligible
to the Singapore Bar.
AIRCRAFT Awards
FIRM OF FINANCE LAW
THE YEAR
Gala
as well as in a team.
G
NICHE BOUTIQUE
1.
ATMD
BIRD
global associa
& BIRD
LLP
tion with
are highly
Bird &
self-mo
Bird,
tivated
and ambitio is looking for
IT lawyer
individ
us for the
Corporate/C
(for our
following uals who
IP & Techno
ommercial
(for our
positions:
Candid
logy Practic
Corporate/C
Lawye
ates
e Group
experience should have
ommercialr
)
Candid
at
in non-co
Practic
ates
e Group
ntentio least 2 years’
and should must have
us Techno
)
PQE,
Candid
logy-related preferably
ate will
corporate have 3 years’ been admitted
be
comme
with
advice.
to practic
comme
PQE, with
rcial matter expected to
rcial work
e in Singap
telecom
s, involvi work in broad
such as experience and/or
munica
ore
ng
range of
draftin
tions
also be
mergers
and licensin
g, negotia
IT,
familiar
and acquisiinterest in
procurement,
ting and telco and
with Softwa
g arrange
tions and
practice,
advising
Data exploit
re licensin ments. Candid
on
advisor and will be
g, System
ation and
ate must
y
exposed
s
Business
and Hardw
venture and regulatory
to work
Process
a team
capital
Outsou are
o
investm matters, to mergerranging from
rcing.
and also f dedicated an
ent work.
s and acquisi corporate
d suppo
ATMD
in Asia, with Bird & Bird’s
rtive pr
’s corpor
tions, and
o
Europe
f
compa
e
ate
s
nies engage clients include
and Middle Technology sionals in A
TMD B
Media
d in leading
East.
multi-n
&B;
and Telecom
ational
deep knowle
edge comme
s team
and establis
dge and
Please submit
busines
rcial activiti
hed
transac
s
and industr
tional experie
your detailed
es and
ies.
nce relating
resume
stating
to our clients’
your experie
nce, current
2 Shento
and expecte
n Way #18-01
d remun
SGX
Singap
eration
to:
Tel: 653452 ore 068804 Centre 1
66 Fax:
Email:
atmdhr@two 62238762
For more
information
birds.com
regarding
ATMD
, please
visit www.tw
obirds.com
of trust and encourage
We foster an environment
We
for effective teamwork.
positive relationships
develop with meaningful
offer you the space to
a total
challenges. We adopt
opportunities and fresh competitive remuneration,
rewards focus comprising
For
ROLANDTON
S O L I C I
T O R S
Fina
nce Ass
We are
ocia te
looking
team. If
for ambit
you are
aviation
a newly ious, motivated
winning and finance, do qualified or juniorand dynam
ic lawye
team on
not
rs to join
top qualit miss thisoppo lawyer who
our
has
rtunity
y transa
Stephenson
to work an interest in
ctions.
with an
dedicated Harwood
award
and estab is a 170 year
team is
lished aviati old intern
recog
client base. nised as
ational
a leadin on finance
law firm
and
g provid
er of legal aerospace witha
group
You will
services
to a world. Our
skills are need to have
wide
an
preferred
excellent
but not
academic
essential.
Please
record.
subm
Chinese
juliana.teow it your CV
langu
age
@shlegal.coand cover letter
m.
to Ms Julian
a Teow
at
re
www.shle
One Raffles
gal.com
Place
Singapor #12-00
Telephon
e 048616
e +65 6226
1600
Fax +65
6226 1661
)RUHQTXLULHVSOHDVHFRQWDFW:HQG\7DQDW
RUHPDLO ZHQG\WDQ#OH[LVQH[LVFRP
R
R
Get better connected
For more information or for a confidential discussion please contact:
Rebecca Collins
In-house Hires
+65 6809 5082 | rebeccacollins@puresearch.com
Jason Ji
Private Practice Hires
+65 6809 5085 | jasonji@puresearch.com
Shulin Lee
In-house Hires
+65 6809 5083 | shulinlee@puresearch.com
Alexandra Starke
Private Practice Hires
+65 6809 5086 | alexandrastarke@puresearch.com
Pure Search - leaders in global search & selection | Singapore | Hong Kong | London | New York
puresearch.com