Care taken to maintain order at ZoukOut party

Care taken to maintain order at ZoukOut party
ST 27 Dec

IN RESPONSE to Mr Kwok Chee Chiu’s letter, ‘Stop diseases, ban parties like ZoukOut’ (ST, Dec 14).

From the nature of the letter, I assume Mr Kwok did not attend ZoukOut and the opinion may be based on The New Paper post-coverage and the translated version carried in the Chinese dailies. This is unfortunate as it was only The New Paper that took this angle out of more than 150 local and foreign publications that attended and covered the event.

This highlights the fact that that story was not an accurate overall reflection of the 23,000 attendees over the 12-hour period, and the pictures featured were of isolated incidents of consenting adults who may have been behaving more intimately than some would consider appropriate but, by no means, against the law. The article may have provoked strong emotions but we assure everyone that Zouk takes safety and managing a party within the legal parameters of the Singapore judicial system very seriously.

Although we respect Mr. Kwok’s point of view, we believe such a call for action, if implemented, would not benefit Singapore’s nightlife industry, tourism (more than 9,000 international guests attended), world democratic standing or economy. ZoukOut has become a national event over the last seven years and a fixture on the international dance and music calendar, considered by many to be one of the best in the world in terms of management, production and entertainment. As responsible organisers, our pre-emptive measures to maintain law and order and abide by licensing conditions included hiring more than 150 security personnel, plus another 40 uniformed police. In addition, ZoukOut is one of the few major events in Singapore where attendees must present photo ID stating they are above 18.

To call for a ban of events like ZoukOut, that promote tolerance, uniting people from all walks of life, regardless of nationality, as the solution to stopping the spread of diseases is in our view misguided and not the most productive way to address the issue. Echoing Forum respondent Dr Wong Jock Onn on Dec 18, it is through better education that people have a greater awareness of how sexually transmitted diseases are spread and ultimately make the right choices.

It was heartening to see all three respondents (Andre Oei, Owen Yeo and Anna Wong) in the ST YouthInk section on Dec 24, all under the age of 21, making concise, analytical and educated statements on whether such events should be banned. They leave us with confidence that the youth of Singapore are more knowledgable, responsible and informed than some may think.

Tracy Phillips
Marketing Manager
Zouk Management

Why Temasek should stop investing in investment banks

Dear Temasek shareholder

Did you know that, at the current state of play, several investment banks are technically insolvent the moment they disclose their true financial situation? And that the U.S. Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) are trying their best to prevent such a blowup from occurring, including lending unlimited amounts of money to these banks? Are you aware that the international press is clueless or does not wish to write about what is really going on within the investment banks, much less how structured products are priced, valued and traded? Why do you think that no person, entity or government corporation in the U.S., Europe, or the Asia-Pacific (other than yourself) wanted to touch the shares in these investment banks with a ten foot pole?

The Reason

According to banking regulators, there are three kinds of assets in the world:

Level One assets are actively traded. You can know exactly how much they’re worth based simply on their price in the open market. Examples of Level One assets are common stock, bonds and funds.

Level Two assets are not actively traded. But they’re similar enough to actively traded assets to give you a reasonable estimate of their value. Examples of Level Two assets are preference shares, antiques and paintings.

Level Three assets are the most slippery. In addition to having no active market, they’re so unique, there’s no reliable way to estimate their true value. Instead, all that banks and regulators can do is guess. And the only tools they have to support their guesswork are unproven mathematical formulas. Examples of Level Three assets are structured products like credit derivatives, collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) and credit default swaps (CDS).

Here’s the key:

The money panic brewing today is driven largely by this third kind of asset — derivatives of questionable value that were artificially created by Wall Street brokers, officially sanctioned by Washington regulators, and falsely rated by Wall Street rating agencies.

These are the sinking assets that are hitting the big Wall Street firms … panicking investors all across the U.S. and Europe … even threatening some money market funds.

Some of Wall Street’s investment banks have more Level Three Assets than they have capital

Specifically, according to data compiled by the Financial Times:

Merrill Lynch has US$27.2 billion in Level Three assets, the equivalent of 70% of its stockholders’ equity. In other words, for each $1 of its capital, Merrill has 70 cents in assets of questionable and uncertain value.

Goldman Sachs has US$51 billion in Level Three assets, or 130% of its equity.

Bear Stearns has sunk its balance sheet even deeper into the Level Three asset hole, with US$20.2 billion, or 155% of its equity.

Lehman Brothers is in a similar situation — US$34.7 billion, or 160% of its equity. And …

Morgan Stanley tops them all with US$88.2 billion in Level Three assets, or 250% of its capital. That’s an unwieldy $2.50 cents in Level Three assets for each dollar of capital. It implies that, in the absence of new capital infusions, all it would take is a 40% loss — and Morgan Stanley’s capital could be 100% wiped out.

Bottom line: The huge Wall Street write-downs you’ve heard about to date — among the largest in history — could be just the tip of the iceberg.

All told, there are 968 U.S. commercial banks that invest in derivatives. But among them, 963 banks hold a meager 1.5% of all the interest-rate and credit derivatives in America.

In contrast, just five banks hold an amazingly large 98.5% of all the interest-rate and credit derivatives.

That is why no one in the entire world, other than Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Temasek wanted to become shareholders of UBS or Merrill Lynch! Why would international IBs have to turn up, cap in hand, at the doorsteps of little red dot sovereign funds?

Helping to cut through some of the uncertainty, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) evaluates the credit exposure of each U.S. bank holding derivatives. In other words, it asks the question:

Regardless of whether the bet is a win or a loss, what happens if the investor on the other side of the bet doesn’t pay up?

In normal times, such payment defaults are rare. So this is largely a theoretical question. But in a money panic, when markets can go haywire and available cash financing can suddenly dry up, a chain reaction of defaults could make this a very urgent and practical question. The answers, according to OCC data are that overall, including all types of derivatives:

Wachovia has credit exposure that’s equivalent to 89% of its capital. In other words, if all of its counterparties defaulted on their bets with Wachovia, nearly nine-tenths of its capital would be wiped out.

Bank of America is exposed to the tune of 99% of its capital. Assuming no capital infusions, it could be virtually wiped out in an extreme money panic scenario.

And at three banks, the panic would not have to be quite that extreme:

Citibank has 292% of its capital exposed to this kind of credit risk.

JPMorgan Chase has 387% of its capital exposed.

HSBC beats them all with an exposure of 388% of its capital. That means that even if its counterparties defaulted on just 26% of their bets, its capital could be wiped out.

Now, remember what I told you about Level Three assets — that they don’t have a regular place to trade.

Well, we could say something similar about the overwhelming majority of derivatives: They are not traded on regulated exchanges. Rather, they are traded over the counter, based on individually negotiated contracts.

In other words, if there’s a default, the parties have to work through it directly, one on one. Exchange authorities are not going to step in to help manage the crisis for them.

And currently, four of the five U.S. banks I named earlier trade over 90% of their derivatives in this way — outside of regulated exchanges.

At JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank and HSBC, the derivatives they trade outside of exchanges represent 94%, 93%, 97% and 97% of their total, respectively. Only Wachovia has a somewhat lesser amount in this category — 77%.

What does this mean?

That the upcoming financial collapse will be the worst of its kind in human history, and will make 1929 “look like a walk in the park”.

Ah, but you say, ML and UBS are fine. They are immune. They are in a different class altogether. You have spoken to their finance departments, their auditors have produced interim reports. No problem at all.

Well, two points:

1. It is not in the interests of the vendor of an asset (and neither is it under any obligation) to inform you that it’s asset is worthless, or even worse, a liability (aka, caveat emptor).

2. If it’s too good to be true, it usually is.

Mahatir on Malaysia's fighter plane purchase

“I want to tell you, we had wanted to buy Russian MiGs (fighter planes). You know Russians, they are very inferior. Somehow or other, it was wangled without my knowledge, that part of the money (only to be used to purchase MiGs was also used) to buy (the American made) F-18 (planes). The very good American aircraft costs twice as much as the MiGs. And then, we acquired eight F-18s and 18 MiGs. MiGs are sold to us without any condition. If we feel like bombing Singapore, for example, the Russians are not going to object. Any Singaporeans here? Or ex-Singaporeans?

But this great aircraft called F-18 which we bought from America, after buying it, after several months, I got to know that these aircraft cannot be used for any attacks against any country even if it is not Singapore, because the Americans sold the aircraft, but the source code is kept by them. So you cannot plan anything, you cannot fly them to carry out any bombing attacks against anybody but you have this wonderful aircraft which you can see at Lima (the Langkawi International Maritime and Aviation Exhibition). So, we spent this huge sum of money and they actually negotiated and agreed to these terms.

So that’s why I say we are not very good at negotiating.”

Ministry of Sound parent sues Singapore franchise

The Straits Times
Nov 17, 2007

Ministry of Sound parent sues Singapore franchise
UK nightlife giant unhappy over local licensee’s running of its nightclub here
By Sujin Thomas

THE London-based parent company of the nightlife giant Ministry of Sound (MoS) has filed suit against its Singapore franchise, alleging a litany of shortfalls in the way it is run – from the kind of music played to its unstable website.

MoS filed suit in Britain’s High Court of Justice on Thursday, seeking damages and a court order to force its Singapore licensee LB Investments to fall in with its guidelines on running the club.

LB Investments is a subsidiary of Singapore mainboard-listed company LifeBrandz.

MoS has alleged, among many things, that LifeBrandz’s focus has been on promoting its stable of other nightclubs in Clarke Quay, such as The Clinic, Fashion Bar and Lunar.

Court papers also said the MoS Singapore website has ‘often been down or inaccessible’.

LB Investments is also said to have breached its contract in the areas of staff uniforms, music policy, door policy and the dismissal of key employees.

The bottom line: It had ‘failed to develop’ the club here ‘in a manner consistent with the reputation of the brand’.

LB Investments signed the contract in April 2005 for 15 years and threw a big bash when the 40,000-sq-ft party venue opened in December 2005.

The lawsuit caps an almost year-long exchange of letters and talks, which MoS said ‘was never taken seriously’.

LifeBrandz chief executive Clement Lee said: ‘We don’t think these breaches are of any substance. They have claimed certain things and I don’t think all of them are true.’

He added that his lawyers from Rajah & Tann would draft a reply to MoS.

Besides the alleged breaches of contract, MoS claims that it is owed $200,000 in royalties which were due in April.

But Mr Lee said he was due to pay only next month: ‘Their claim of our not paying them the money is ridiculous because the contract is not even due.’

MoS International’s president Michael Wilkings, who has visited the club here, told The Straits Times on the line from Dubai: ‘The breaches are material, substantial, continuing and unremedied. We are out of patience.’

He has been overseeing the nightclubs and bars under the MoS brand outside Britain for the past 11/2 years; MoS makes about $300 million worldwide every year and now has another franchise in Egypt.

He said: ‘We have been trying to deal with Clement Lee and his colleagues through most of this year, to try and make him understand MoS Singapore has to be operated at a standard that is acceptable to MoS.’

When asked how MoS was alerted to these breaches, he said that, besides customer feedback, periodic checks are made on the group’s clubs, some without the licensees’ knowledge.

‘We obviously don’t have a lot of confidence in their ability to operate the club,’ he said.

Rumours of an imminent closure have churned among partygoers since last month, when industry sources began speculating about unhappiness in Britain’s MoS about the way the club here was run.

But as far as Mr Lee is concerned, the party goes on, since the franchise has not been revoked.

He said: ‘There just seems to have been a difference in direction as to what is expected and what we’re delivering.’

Continue reading “Ministry of Sound parent sues Singapore franchise”

Sim Kee Boon

ST Nov 11, 2007
A keen golfer with a mean swing

By Terrence Voon

MR SIM COULD NOT bear to stay away from golf for more than a week.
THE man who built a world-class golf course from a plot of barren land had a mean golf swing himself.

Mr Sim Kee Boon, who died on Friday at the age of 78, was an ardent golfer who could not bear to stay away from his favourite pastime for more than a week, say his staff and friends.

Even when he headed the civil service and, subsequently, Keppel and the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, he still found time to tee off on weekends. One of his favourite putting grounds was the Garden Course at Tanah Merah Country Club (TMCC), which he founded in 1982 at the behest of then-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew.

His interest in the game first developed in the 1970s, when he joined the Ministry of Communications as permanent secretary.

‘He was one of the few perm secs who knew how to play golf,’ recalled TMCC captain Goh Hup Chor, who knew Mr Sim for over 20 years.

Mr Sim’s wife, Jeanette, also a keen golfer, is the club’s current lady captain.

According to his friends, Mr Sim’s handicap was as low as 11. Though it went up to 22 in the past few years, his technique remained as good as ever.

‘He was a short hitter, but he hit the ball straight. He hardly ever got into trouble on the fairways,’ said TMCC events director Edwin Khoo, who used to play a few rounds with his boss.

Mr Sim’s regular golf ‘kakis’ included former finance minister Richard Hu and TMCC president Tan Puay Huat.

‘Whoever won the game would pay for meals after that,’ said Mr Khoo.

Mr Sim played golf the way he ran TMCC as chairman – with precision and a keen attention to detail.

Said the club’s marketing manager, Ms Han May Leng: ‘He once came up to me and told me to fix the signages on the golf course because they were slightly tilted. He wanted them to be straight as an arrow. For him, everything had to be first-class.’

Mr Sim led by example, even picking up litter on the club grounds. He was often seen in a T-shirt or short-sleeved shirt – a dress code he also imposed on all male employees at the club.

‘His reasoning was that if you’re in a shirt and a tie, you would stay in the office and never get out to see how things really were at the club,’ said Ms Han.

Under his charge, TMCC membership rates rose from an initial $20,000 to $190,000 now. The Garden Course was named the No.1 course in Singapore for three years running by the United States-based Golf Digest magazine.

Though he demanded nothing but the best from his staff, Mr Sim also dished out compassion in equal measure. They recalled how he would often ask about their health and their families – a personal touch that made him a popular figure even outside the club.

Said Pan-West retail manager P.M. Samy: ‘Whenever he came to my shop, he would never fail to ask about my work, my family and my life.

‘He was a real gentleman – both humble and approachable – a man who had golf in his blood. His passing is a great loss to golf.’

S’poreans owe pioneer civil servants a big debt: PM Lee
Paying his respects, he says those like Sim Kee Boon saw the country change and made change happen
By Peh Shing Huei


SINGAPOREANS owe the pioneer generation of public servants such as Mr Sim Kee Boon an ‘enormous debt’, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday.

‘There was a certain cut of the people who were of that generation,’ he said, after paying his respects to the former civil service head who died on Friday.

‘They grew up, they saw the country change, they made the change happen.’

They were ‘the last of the Mohicans’: a phrase which another former civil service head, the late Mr Howe Yoon Chong, had used to describe himself and Mr Sim, both of whom were among the founding group of top administrators.

‘In a way, that’s true,’ said Mr Lee. ‘That generation of public servants, we owe them an enormous debt.’ Mr Howe, who was also a Cabinet minister, died three months ago.

Mr Sim was 78 when he lost his 17-year-long battle with stomach cancer on Friday.

MM Lee’s tribute to Sim Kee Boon
MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew paid his respects to the late Sim Kee Boon last night. He released a condolence letter to Mrs Sim and a tribute to her husband.

Letter to Mrs Sim

After retiring from the civil service in 1984 – which included a five-year tenure as its head – he joined Keppel Corporation as its executive chairman and turned the loss-making outfit into one of Singapore’s leading conglomerates.

From 2000, he was also a director of Temasek Holdings.

Mr Lee, who was accompanied by his wife Ms Ho Ching, said Mr Sim was not just doing a job but was sharing his experience, wisdom and perceptiveness as well.

While paying tribute to Mr Sim’s work in building Changi Airport, Mr Lee also praised him for setting the tone of the civil service and leading it to achieve many things.

‘Not everything was done personally by himself. But the leader’s job is not to do everything by yourself. It’s your job to enable other people to work and to be productive and he achieved that,’ he said.

‘He’s not a flamboyant person. He doesn’t put himself on a high pedestal. He’s very easy to get along with, chatty, gregarious, but very sharp mind, very clear what needs to be done.

‘And if you are dealing with a touchy situation, not just in Singapore but with our neighbours or with some other countries, you can depend on him to understand what the issue is, what the other side is trying to achieve, how we can get what we need and maintain the relationship.’

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and several other Cabinet ministers, including Foreign Minister George Yeo and Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean, as well as former deputy prime minister Tony Tan, who is also SPH chairman, were among those at the wake yesterday.

The wake, which continues until Tuesday, is at Mr Sim’s home at 114 Watten Estate Road.

Singapore Government investments de-linked from CPF funds

IN ‘CPF finances: Clarity needed to clear the cloud of confusion’ (ST, Sept 20), Ms Chua Mui Hoong questioned whether the CPF provides a cheap source of funds for the Government’s investments. Subsequent Forum letters also raised the matter of how the return on CPF funds is calculated, and what constitutes a fair return.

The interest members receive for their CPF money should reflect what they could earn by investing in the financial markets, in investments which have comparable risk and duration. All CPF balances are guaranteed by the Government and hence free of risk. Hence the Special, Medisave and Retirement Account (SMRA) interest rates will now be pegged to long-term government-bond yields. Furthermore, the first $60,000 of each person’s CPF balances, to be held for the long term, will attract an extra 1 percentage point in interest. This means that they will always earn at least 3.5 per cent interest.

No commercial bank or fund manager offers more generous terms on such investments. Members seeking higher returns can take out their funds to invest through the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS). However, 83 per cent of CPF members who invested their OA savings in the CPFIS from 2002 to 2006 realised less than 2.5 per cent returns – the base rate of the OA. Half of all members who invested experienced negative returns, losing some part of their capital sum.

The CPF Board invests members’ savings in special securities issued by the Government, which pay the CPF Board the same interest rates that its members receive. The Government pools the proceeds from issuing these securities with the rest of its funds, and invests them professionally for long-term returns. This is completely de-linked from the CPF Board and CPF members. Were this not so, CPF members would be exposed to the investment risks and could not receive guaranteed minimum interest rates.

Up to now, both GIC and Temasek Holdings have earned returns that exceeded CPF interest rates, on average over the years. But this does not mean that the Government is making use of the CPF as a ‘cheap source of funds’, or earning a ‘spread at people’s expense’.

First, the Government does not need more funds to invest. Even if it did, it could raise funds more cheaply by issuing treasury bills and government securities, instead of using CPF funds.

Second, Temasek and GIC achieve higher returns on average only by taking on more investment risks. Hence these returns are volatile – they can be low or even negative in some years. Furthermore, we cannot assume that GIC and Temasek will do as well in future. The past two decades have been an exceptional period for global financial markets. Looking ahead, we cannot rule out protracted market downturns, lasting several years. Most CPF members have small balances and will not welcome these risks. Neither will older members waiting to withdraw their retirement funds.

Third, Singaporeans benefit when GIC and Temasek investments do well. Every year, the Government draws part of these investment returns to fund the annual Budget. The revenue is spent on worthwhile investments and social needs, including subsidies for housing, education and health care. And from time to time, the Government distributes accumulated budget surpluses to citizens through CPF top-ups and other schemes.

The Government does not rule out the possibility of introducing private pension plans for those with balances above $60,000 and a higher capacity to take risk. However, it would be unwise for members with low balances to take excessive risks on their basic retirement savings.

The current arrangement thus enables all CPF members to earn fair and risk-free returns on their retirement savings, while benefiting from the good performance of GIC and Temasek through the annual Budget. This is the right way to help Singaporeans save for their old age, and enjoy peace of mind in their golden years.

Jacqueline Poh (Ms)
Director (Special Duties)
Ministry of Finance

Being a Christian in the Working World

Being a Christian in the Working World
Kwek Mean Luck, Cambridge 1992-1995
Channel, Easter 2006

When I was in the CCCF, we had a number of post-graduates, who would share with us the difficulties of keeping the faith out in the working world. Imbibing from their experience, one of the things we consciously sought to do was to prepare ourselves for entering the workforce as Christians.

It has been many years since Cambridge, and the Lord continues to teach and to guide. These are some of the lessons I have learnt:

1. Cambridge is wonderful, but I must give other experiences a chance – When we came home, we missed Cambridge and the fellowship we had there terribly. For some, our experiences in Cambridge seemed like the peak of our Christian experience. We felt like we were now in the valley in the working world. It takes time, but we must move on. Clinging to what was wonderful does no good for the present. For those of you who have years in Cambridge still, continue to make the most of your years there, as I am sure you are, and store for yourself wonderful memories. When you leave, give the other experiences a chance.

2. I have graduated but I still need teachers and mentors – I learnt much from the many people around me, some of whom played particularly strong roles in my life as teachers and mentors of what it means to be a Christian in the working world. Some of them were not Christians, but they served as examples of how a Christian should be living. Some were Christians, who also gave me Christian perspective on different things and shared with me their experiences. Find teachers and mentors to guide you in different aspects of your walk with God.

3. Living out our faith – I recall a story told at a conference. A new and young pastor was asked a question about a passage in Romans on predestination during a sermon. He mulled through what answer he should give on a difficult and delicate subject and decided to reply along the following lines: ‘Well you know, there are four gospels before the book of Romans, read through them and put into practice what is said there. When you have done that, we will be ready to discuss the answer to your very pertinent question.’ To deepen our walk with God, at some point we need to move beyond knowledge and start living out our faith.

4. Small things count – There is a saying that talks about how we need to be careful of our thoughts, for they turn into actions, then into habits and then becomes part of our character. It is trite but true. A constant struggle for us is how we are to maintain integrity of our Christian beliefs and faith throughout all seven days of the week. It is easier whilst in church on the weekends, but what are we supposed to do as Christians during Mondays to Fridays when we are working? We each need to find the answer ourselves, but it helps to start with the small things: how we react to a piece of work, how we treat people who serve or work for us at work, how we relate to our bosses, how we react when under pressure or criticism. It is not easy to be a Christian in the workplace, but it is easier if we start by practising a few small things, and build from there. Small things count.

5. He will never let you fall – Most importantly, know that He will never let you fall. I have gone through valleys in my walk with Him. There were times when I felt I was in the desert. Yet, He is also the one who said that He will bring streams to the desert and I have seen Him do so. I used to wonder if I am any less a Christian today than I was in university, since I feel less palpable passion in my heart. Yet, I am heartened that over time, he has replaced that passion with a calmer and stronger fire that has withstood the blowing winds. I do not know about tomorrow, but I know He walks with me. So too will He with you.

Pay lawyers more to keep them: Chief Justice

By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 18 August 2007 2259 hrs

SINGAPORE: More young lawyers are switching careers, citing long hours, unrewarding pay and stress as reasons.

This causes a shortage of lawyers, and as the economy booms and the demand for law services goes up, the problem is becoming more acute.

How to address this problem?

“Pay them well,” said Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, in his address to law students at the inaugural Singapore Legal Forum on Saturday.

“Our young lawyers enjoy a degree of professional and social freedom and mobility which lawyers of my generation have never experienced. Perhaps the solution is in the old fashion but still fashionable way of using carrots without the stick since the latter doesn’t work. Pay them well. Greed works most of the time, even for the large majority of people in affluent societies,” he said.

In recent years, even the best-paying firms in Singapore are seeing their young lawyers jumping ship to Hong Kong, where salaries for junior lawyers start at about S$11,650 a month.

In contrast, the big firms in Singapore pay junior lawyers just over $4,000.

A second law school has been established at the Singapore Management University.

Also, the NUS Law Faculty has increased its intake and firms are now allowed to hire foreign lawyers.

But the shortage has not eased yet.

Another issue of concern addressed at the Legal Forum is how to make the law more accessible to the public.

Laws may be available online but the language in which it is written makes it difficult for the layman to understand it.

So the Chief Justice said that he would ask the Law Academy’s publishing committee to study the feasibility of publishing simplified law books.

While access to the law is important, access to justice is even more so.

This need will be provided by lawyers who do pro bono work, that is providing service free of charge.

But such services are currently confined to Community Court cases, and this year, more convicted offenders are appearing in High Court appeals without lawyers.

In his speech, the Chief Justice also addressed the issue of restoring confidence in the law profession, particularly after the high-profile case of lawyer David Rasif who fled with more than $12 million in clients’ monies.

“We must be more discerning about what we read in the media. The facts do not suggest any loss of confidence in the legal profession,” said the Chief Justice.

“On the contrary, our large and medium law firms are generally held in high regard in Singapore and in the region. All the ethical and professional lapses that I have come across in my 40 years in the law have emanated from small law firms. It’s very unfortunate,” he added.

Although only a small minority of lawyers in these firms have committed breach of trust, the Chief Justice stressed that all law students must be taught the importance of ethical values.

The forum was organised by the UK Singapore Law Students Society. – CNA/ir

Rajah & Tann adds four new lawyers to its stable

This follows on the heels of many high-level moves in the legal industry
By WEE LI-EN
Business Times

FOLLOWING a series of recent high-level movements among law firms, Rajah & Tann (R&T) has strengthened its practice with four new senior additions to its team from a rival firm.

The R&T recruits are leading telecommunications and information technology lawyer Andrew Ong, mergers and acquisitions lawyer Christina Ng, finance and securities lawyer Evelyn Wee and medical science lawyer Lim Wee Han.

R&T has recently been beefing up its practice with high-level additions to its firm. Former High Court judge Sundaresh Menon re-joined the firm last month, along with 12 other lawyers from international law firm Jones Day.

The firm’s four new lawyers are expected to join in the third quarter of the year.

The four are directors of a 32-member board at Drew & Napier (D&N), each with a long career at the firm.

According to D&N’s website, Ms Ng joined D&N in 1990 and heads its Indonesian and Thai desks, and Ms Wee joined D&N in 1989. Mr Lim joined D&N in 1992 and co-heads its medical science practice group.

Mr Ong, who heads the info-communications and technology business group at D&N, said yesterday in a statement: ‘I am extremely privileged to have been a part of Drew & Napier’s renown. After so many delightful years at Drew, I leave behind many good friends and colleagues as well as the fondest memories one could hope for.’

Yesterday, managing director of corporate and conveyancing David Ang said that despite the departures, Drew ‘will grow from strength to strength’.

He said of his departing colleagues: ‘We fully understand their plans to pursue their careers elsewhere. We will remain friends.’

D&N has itself just admitted four lawyers to its board from within the firm and is poised for further growth.

The new lawyers are Cheryl Tan, Adrian Tan, Kelvin Tan and Valerie Kwok.

There have been many high-level movements in the legal industry recently. It was reported last month that top criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan is leaving Harry Elias Partnership (HEP) for KhattarWong while Singapore’s first specialist judge Tan Chee Meng and co-managing partner of HEP is also leaving the firm for personal reasons.