Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s lawyer, Davinder Singh, remembers the man

MAR 23, 2015 Rachel Chang Assistant Political Editor

SINGAPORE – Top litigator Davinder Singh, who represented Mr Lee Kuan Yew in his controversial lawsuits against opposition politicians and foreign media outlets, said on Monday that it was a “wild dream come true” to work for a man who was his parents’ hero.

“When I was growing up, I would hear my parents describe Mr Lee Kuan Yew as the greatest man alive who gave his people, especially the minorities, the ability to live with dignity and in safety,” he wrote.

When Mr Singh was a cadet in the Singapore Armed Forces Training Institute in the 1970s, there was once a parents’ visit where Mr Lee was guest-of-honour.

“My father immediately stood up when it was announced that Mr Lee had arrived, even though he must have known that, standing so far away in the midst of hundreds of parents and cadets, Mr Lee would not have been able to see him. After he stood up, others from all races followed. It was then that I truly realised what this Chinese man meant to my Punjabi father who was not even born in Singapore.”

“I will also not forget the time when my mother was moved and actually applauded when towards the end of one of his National Day Rally speeches, Mr Lee said that that he would get up even as he is lowered into the grave, if something went wrong. And she did that while sitting on the couch at home.”

“It were these spontaneous reactions from migrants, who had seen what life was like in their home countries and now felt protected by a man they completed trusted, that made me pause and think.”

Mr Singh, who is chief executive of law firm Drew & Napier, said that working for Mr Lee was “the greatest, most unforgettable experience of my life.”

Mr Singh won court victories on Mr Lee’s behalf against opponents like opposition politicians Tang Liang Hong, Chee Soon Juan and foreign media outlets like The Economist, Bloomberg and the New York Times.

“I sat with and talked to this genius who, more than anyone, understood human nature and societies, who had the third eye and could see trends and dangers which we mere mortals were blind or oblivious to, and who knew with complete confidence what was best for his people and Singapore.

“It was not possible to leave a meeting with him without being spellbound. Although he had not practised for decades, he remembered the finer points of the law from his days at university.”

“Every discussion was an exhilarating lesson which he taught with conviction and passion. It would invariably begin with the matters on which he needed legal advice, but he would always use the occasion to share his views about the issues of the day and to remind me of the importance of standing up to those who would do us harm and of showing them that we are their equal. He was the consummate teacher, giving his time and attention to every detail, even if it was just to show me how to elegantly sharpen a barb.”

“I do not know why the stars contrived to give Mr Lee Kuan Yew to Singapore or why they bestowed on me the priceless gift of working for him. But they did, and for that, my family and I shall always be grateful.”

Arbitration pioneer Alvin Yeo offers tip to young lawyers

Whether it is handling the decade- long Susan Lim court saga or a $250 million arbitration spat involving firms backed by famed Malaysian and Indonesian tycoons, Senior Counsel (SC) Alvin Yeo is a master of his craft – both in litigation court work and arbitration advocacy.

The former MP and veteran lawyer, who led teams in the two high-profile cases, told The Straits Times both were equally challenging but required the two different skill sets. He also advises young lawyers to cut their teeth in court work first, before plunging into arbitration where both your competitors and your markets are global.

SC Yeo, who turns 55 tomorrow, was last week lauded by the renowned London-based legal directory Chambers Asia-Pacific with the Outstanding Contribution to the Legal Profession award in its 2017 honours list for the region at a gala event held here.

Chambers Asia-Pacific described Mr Yeo as “an excellent strategist as well as a first-rate litigator” who is a “deeply impressive and extremely capable individual”, and who provided leadership on Singapore International Arbitration Centre and International Chamber of Commerce proceedings. The rare award is another mark of recognition for SC Yeo, who in 2000 became the youngest lawyer appointed senior counsel here at age 37.

SC Yeo was called to the Bar in 1988. He, current Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Senior Counsel Wong Meng Meng were the three founding partners of WongPartnership in 1992.

The firm, then a boutique litigation firm with 11 lawyers, has today become a top-tier full-service firm with some 300 lawyers and has offices in six countries in Asia.

CLIENTS’ EXPECTATIONS

The largest source of stress from disputes work stems from the win-lose nature of the work. At the end of the day, the client is looking for a positive result from his case, not just a valiant losing effort.

SENIOR COUNSEL ALVIN YEO

Mr Yeo is currently chairman and senior partner of the firm, which is the youngest of Singapore’s Big Four law firms, with each of the three others being more than twice its age.

SC Yeo’s legal work also spans the growth of Singapore as an international arbitration centre, being a pioneer in the field more than two decades ago.

Two high-profile cases he led in the areas of open-court litigation and closed-door arbitration attest to his broad experience and ability.

In litigation, he was lead counsel for the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) in its disciplinary proceedings against Dr Lim for overcharging in relation to a $24 million bill for a patient in 2007. She was eventually suspended for three years and fined $10,000 in 2012.

In the course of the saga, Dr Lim took the SMC to court to appeal against the outcome and failed.

SC Yeo said it was “one of the most contested SMC cases” and had an “international element”.

But, if he had his way, there would have been little publicity on the details of the case.

“This was a case which attracted so much media attention. In accordance with the SMC’s approach of preserving the confidentiality of its proceedings, I applied on its behalf to have the court proceedings held in camera,” he said. This was done to protect the reputation of the doctors facing disciplinary proceedings, prior to the conclusion of those proceedings, he added.

“Unfortunately, this was resisted, and the proceedings were held in open court, with all the resulting publicity,” he said.

By contrast, in the case of arbitration hearings, publicity is not an issue as confidentiality is a condition. But an arbitration case comes to the public’s attention when the private award is challenged in court.

He cites the spat over a failed pay-television venture between the Astro group controlled by Malaysian billionaire Ananda Krishnan and the Indonesian Lippo group where eight Astro units sued three units of Lippo to enforce the arbitration award in Singapore.

The Court of Appeal in 2013 overturned the $250 million arbitration award won by Astro, and Lippo’s PT First Media and PT Ayunda Prima Mitra had to pay about $700,000 to five units of Astro.

SC Yeo said the challenges in such an arbitration case stem from a range of issues which are fought out across a span of jurisdictions.

In the case, the proceedings took place in Britain, Singapore and Hong Kong, with a host of personalities of different nationalities as, variously, the arbitrators, the legal counsel, expert and factual witnesses.

“It is mastering the sheer breadth of issues playing out over multiple proceedings and executing an overall, coordinated strategy that is the biggest challenge,” he said.

“The arbitration process tends to be very intense, where everything is crammed into a week as some of the parties fly in from abroad and you start very early and finish very late.

“In court, it is not so cramped; they might give you four weeks, six weeks for your trial. In that sense, it’s slightly more spaced out but the fact that you are on your feet for four, six weeks itself is a challenge.”

He advised young lawyers to start off in court litigation to acquire the advocacy and cross-examination skills which they can then apply to the arbitration context.

“In arbitration, your chances for oral advocacy are actually more limited. So you have to make sure it counts because you actually have less time.”

Asked about winning and losing cases, he said: “The largest source of stress from disputes work stems from the win-lose nature of the work. At the end of the day, the client is looking for a positive result from his case, not just a valiant losing effort. If the outcome is not successful, which does happen, you have to analyse what the reasons are, learn from your mistakes, and move on. There is no other way to survive in this practice.”

U2 – All I Want is You

“All I Want Is You” is the final song on U2’s 1988 album, Rattle and Hum, and was released on 13 June 1989 as the album’s fourth and final single.

Bono wrote the lyric of the 1988 song “All I Want Is You” as a meditation on the idea of commitment.He later said, “[It]’s clearly about a younger version of myself and my relationship with Ali [Hewson],” and added that by nature he was a wanderer, not a family man, and that “The only reason I’m here is because I met someone so extraordinary that I just couldn’t let that go.”