Most aghast (Part 2)

Yes, I am so aghast (see previous post below) that I have sent the email below to the Traffic Police. (No, I am not very free - it's just that I have finished my work and am waiting for counterparties/clients to revert.)

===================

"Dear Sirs

I refer to the road traffic incident reported in The New Paper on 29 April 2008. A copy of the relevant article is attached for your reference.

It was reported in the article that the driver had been penalised with only a fine of S$200 and 9 demerit points. Based on the penalties described, I have inferred that he was charged with an offence under Section 65 of the Road Traffic Act (Cap. 276) ("RTA"), and that the offence had been compounded under Section 135 of the RTA, as permitted under Rule 2(a) of the Road Traffic (Composition of Offences) Rules (Cap. 276, Section 135(2)) ("Rule 2(a)").

I have witnessed on numerous occasions similar incidents where a motorist jams his brakes before an ERP gantry, presumably to insert his cashcard. On each occasion, the vehicles behind the errant driver have had to similarly jam their brakes, narrowly avoiding an accident in each case. In these cases, accidents were avoided not because the errant drivers' actions were not dangerous enough, but only by reason of the alertness of the drivers behind them.

Given the aggravating factors in the reported case, where an innocent woman had sustained serious injuries (as defined in Section 47D of the RTA) by reason of the dangerous manner in which Mr Lim had driven his vehicle, a penalty of S$200 fine and 9 demerit points is merely a slap on the wrist, which may have no lasting consequence on Mr Lim, or any impact at all.

For public policy reasons, such as the deterrence of such dangerous behaviour, it is important for the Traffic Police to send a strong signal to the public that stopping suddenly before an ERP gantry (or anywhere along an expressway for no good reason) cannot be tolerated on our roads. This is especially when the LTA had specially reduced the penalty for passing through an ERP gantry without a valid cashcard inserted to a mere S$10 administration fee (which is reduced further to S$8 if paid electronically).

While the prosecutorial discretion lies entirely in the hands of the Traffic Police and the AGC, it is my respectful opinion that an injustice has been done in this case, and that subsequent offenders who cause accidents by jamming their brakes before an ERP gantry should be dealt with more severely.

In particular, using Mr Lim as an example, he should have been charged under Section 64(1) of the RTA, for driving in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be, on the road. Not only does this carry a higher penalty than Section 65 of the RTA, it is also not compoundable under Section 135 of the RTA (see Rule 2(a)). In addition, the court would have had discretion to disqualify Mr Lim from driving, under Section 42(1) of the RTA. A mere 9 demerit points (for Section 65) is unlikely to have a big impact on Mr Lim, if at all.

At the very least, the charge under Section 65 should not have been compounded under Section 135 of the RTA (composition is discretionary, not mandatory).

With the light penalty imposed on Mr Lim and his obvious lack of remorse (which is also an aggravating factor), it is likely that he would not hesitate to repeat the offence if he happens to forget his cashcard again. The light penalty is also an unfortunate signal to Miss Tiong and her family that her injuries were not sufficient to constitute an aggravating factor.

I hope that in light of the above feedback, the Traffic Police may exercise its prosecutorial discretion to reflect the gravity of the consequences and other aggravating factors in subsequent cases.

Best regards"

i am endangered

Spotted in Today, 7 April 2008:

 

"Lawyers In S'pore: Time for Market Forces to Decide

Conrad Raj
Editor-at-large
conrad@mediacorp.com.sg

It is not that difficult to put a finger on why Singapore has suddenly found itself in a situation where lawyers have become an endangered species.

It goes back to decisions made some 20 years ago when the Government took three controversial decisions: Reducing the National University of Singapore's intake of law students, disallowing lawyers with third-class honours from being admitted to the Bar and restricting entry only to those who graduated with good grades from some overseas universities.

This decision to arbitrarily turn off the tap was grounded in some sound reasons, such as the desire to maintain the quality of the profession.

But it did not anticipate a new world where financial services and telecommunications becoming sunrise industries with lawyers having a big role to play to make them economic winners.

A Government-appointed committee admitted as much in a report several years ago, which stated: "For Singapore to become a premier financial centre and a regional telecommunications hub, there is a need to increase the pool of lawyers to provide the necessary legal support services."

It said Singapore needs another 250 lawyers a year up until 2010, compared to the 150 or so now called to the bar annually. The aim is to have between 99 and 115 lawyers per 100,000 people. This means a target of between 4,837 and 5,658 lawyers by 2010, against the present total of about 3,500 practising lawyers.

Another unfortunate and unexpected event struck. A tough and no-nonsense approach by the courts to upgrade the profession led some to retire early and many to look for jobs in non-law firms where lawyers' skills were urgently needed.

The Government reacted by relaxing the rules somewhat to admit graduates from certain universities in Australia, New Zealand and the United States, and raise the limit on foreign law degree-holders from 50 to 70 a year.

But only the top 30 per cent from the scheduled universities in Australia, New Zealand and the US were recognised for admission to the Singapore Bar.

Just last month, the rules were further eased so that Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents now need to show that they have spent two years doing relevant legal work or were solicitors in England, Wales or Hong Kong to practise law here. The previous relevant legal work requirement was three years.

This is in addition to the other requirements that all those intending to be called to the Singapore Bar have to meet — like passing the Diploma in Singapore Law Course, Postgraduate Law Course and serving pupillage at a local law firm.

This amended rule is for those who have a second-class lower honours from a scheduled British university, or have been ranked in the top 70 per cent in terms of academic performance of the total number of graduates in his or her batch from a recognised university in Australia, New Zealand or the US.

Even these reactive measures are still grounded in a mindset of a "softly-softly" approach which raises some questions: Why do we need to impose time limits on foreign graduates when they are already being creamed from only scheduled universities?

Why are those with third-class honours still being barred from practising when the bench has had prominent judges and the Bar has seen some prominent lawyers with such degrees?

Haven't we also got competent practising lawyers here who obtained their degrees from less-recognised foreign universities?

What the profession needs is a maverick approach by the Government to solving its problems. And that approach can only come when law firms are allowed to decide the competence of the lawyers they hire, provided they meet the necessary qualifications of all scheduled universities, be they from Singapore or overseas.

The market is often the most efficient arbiter of needs, and should there be an oversupply, people will stop studying law or any other discipline where there are no jobs available and switch to areas where there is a shortage and need.

Let market forces decide the supply of and demand for lawyers, or for that matter any job."

 

 

The writer seems to have a strange inclination towards the school of thought that the quality of lawyers does not matter.

 

"This decision to arbitrarily turn off the tap was grounded in some sound reasons, such as the desire to maintain the quality of the profession.  But it did not anticipate a new world where financial services and telecommunications becoming sunrise industries with lawyers having a big role to play to make them economic winners." -- erm, so financial services and telecommunications do not require quality lawyers?

 

"Another unfortunate and unexpected event struck. A tough and no-nonsense approach by the courts to upgrade the profession led some to retire early and many to look for jobs in non-law firms where lawyers' skills were urgently needed." -- why is it unfortunate for the profession to be upgraded?  Would he rather have incompetent lawyers in court, hindering rather than facilitating the course of justice?

 

"Why are those with third-class honours still being barred from practising when the bench has had prominent judges and the Bar has seen some prominent lawyers with such degrees?  Haven't we also got competent practising lawyers here who obtained their degrees from less-recognised foreign universities?" -- I'm not saying he is wrong, but without substantiation or examples, this is but a bare assertion.

 

I certainly agree that we are facing a shortage of lawyers, but the solution is not to relax the standards.  Why compromise on the quality of lawyers?  The writer has probably never experienced the pain of dealing with incompetent lawyers.  No, the key solution is to reduce the attrition rate.  While I fully agree that measures should be taken to increase the new blood coming into the profession (while maintaining the high standards of qualification), any amount of new lawyers we attract is useless if the existing lawyers are dropping like flies.

 

But I'm too lazy to go into a discourse on curbing the attrition rate now, so that will have to be another argument for another time...

credit and security??!?!

It somehow seems ironic that one day the mumblings of Prof P. Ellinger might possibly come in useful in my career, given that I was usually unable to decipher the ongoings of the Credit & Security module taken in my 4th (?) year in NUS...

But nonetheless, the deed is done, and I will officially be leaving the convoluted world of capital markets into the (hopefully) brighter sunshine of banking. No, not joining a bank, but rather the banking team in FSD. Am presently trying to ensure that everything is handed over smoothly to fellow associates who have the luck of the draw to be taking over my current files, and should be doing so for the next couple of weeks before I take on the new challenges of facility agreements and security documents.

Anyway, boring stuff aside, I was asked to join the banking team lunch today, and I gladly accepted. Since I'm probably gonna be seeking plenty of precedents from my future teammates, I might as well get started on building relationships! But seriously though, they seem to be a pretty nice bunch of people - light-hearted and ready for humour, which many of you will know is an important trait that I value.

Lunch was supposed to be at L'Angelus at Club Street, but due to the heavy rain, we were compelled to switch venue to the Rang Mahal at Pan Pacific. I thought I'd never been there before, until I arrived and realised I did do lunch there before, though I can't remember exactly who was there. Probably some random monthly lunch back at my old firm. Food was not bad, company was great, so am looking forward to embarking on the new journey ahead.

Watch this space for updates! (yea, yea...i know that's what i said in my last post yonks ago too...)

Goodbye....and hello!

11 April 2007 was my last day of work at WTL. By sheer coincidence, I had spent exactly 10 months in WTL, and I am grateful for the learning opportunity which it had proved to be. Much as I feel bad about “abandoning” the firm which very obviously needs its associates, I guess I simply had to do it for the greater long-term good of my career path. I will certainly miss the great work-life balance though.

After returning from Macau, it was a week of rest for me, but it flew past in the blink of an eye. Before I knew it, I had started work at A&G on 23 April 2007.

It is only now that I realise why my first employers cannot compete in the big league yet. This place is truly huge, and has brilliantly solid infrastructure to facilitate the management and day-to-day operations. Evident of this is that fact that I had a proper orientation programme planned for me on my first day, taking up ¾ of the day with personal briefings from the various departments - HR, Admin, Finance, IS, etc. I am duly impressed with my new employers.

And frankly speaking, they do take care of their lawyers pretty well. Save for the workload, which I have yet to properly experience, I think this place might well be worth staying for some time. Plus the fact that God has blessed me with seemingly nice bosses, and I haven’t heard anything to the contrary yet. :)

My first week was really quite boring, as there was no work for me. I toyed with the idea of going to ask for work, but was advised by various parties that it might prove to be suicidal, and that I should just enjoy this slack period while I can. Finally attended a kick-off meeting for a new IPO this Monday, and the work should start building up soon. Am currently slated to head off to China from 14 to 19 May for due diligence, and while it sounds somewhat exciting, I’m not sure whether I should be looking forward to it at all. After all, due diligence is NEVER fun! And it doesn’t help that we’ll be dealing with Chinese clients, which means a lot of drinking. The bosses have asked me to brush up on my drinking ability, but that’s a really really tall order.

Been bugging the IS Dept to give me a blackberry, as I keep harbouring an irrational fear that I could be missing some urgent email from the bosses after office hours. Much as I don’t want it, I hate to admit that a blackberry is essential for the job. :( They appear to be currently out of stock, so I’d better enjoy this period of freedom from emails while it lasts.

I am also pleased to find out that A&G has a pretty active badminton thing going on as well. Have signed up for the legal vs. business services challenge in late May, and have been playing with the legal team for the past 2 Wednesday evenings. Coupled with my existing sessions on Saturday mornings, it should help to maintain a bit of fitness. Should throw in some jogging as well though. Sigh.

So that’s that. A new milestone, a new journey. May God direct my path. :)

random post

Ok so I didn't manage to continue with my executive summary that night. But I'll get round to it very soon. ;)

As an aside, check out this brilliant firm to work in: http://anonymouslawfirm.com/index.php. Grabbed the link off the vine, and it offers some much needed comic relief in the midst of these mind-boggling thoughts of career options.

This being a random post, I shall touch on some random issues I saw in the Straits Times today.

Random Issue #1

"THREE polytechnic students have come together to solve a bugbear for people in wheelchairs and those pushing prams.

A ramp they have designed can be attached to MRT carriages to prevent the bothersome - and dangerous - tendency of wheels getting stuck in the gap between the train and the platform.

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) will test the ramp in the coming months to see if it can be used in a big way.

The invention won the three final-year students from Temasek Polytechnic's Intelligent Building Design course a $500 cash prize at this year's LTA-Polytechnics Collaboration contest."

500 lousy buckaroos?? The LTA could possibly install these on all their trains, and all these students get for their innovative effort is 500 bucks? I certainly hope the students get some good advice from an IP-savvy person to go patent their device or something, and get properly compensated for their work. Shocking.

Random Issue #2

"Rethink plan for artificial turf in schools

ABOUT three years ago, I wrote to the Forum to highlight that many schools prohibited their students from playing in the school field outside of Physical Education lessons ('Pray, let the children play'; ST, July 8, 2004 ). In several schools, the fields were fenced and locked most of the time.

The schools' excuses for keeping the fields locked were, firstly, to prevent the children from hurting themselves; secondly, teachers' dislike of sweaty and muddied students in class and, thirdly, school fields being very expensive to maintain.

After my letter appeared, there was a strong push to let children play. Hence, my surprise when I learnt of the Ministry of Education's plans to replace the fields with artificial turf. While this may please both parents and the ministry, it comes at a cost.

Besides the environmental cost, there is the developmental cost to our kids. Why the paranoia about kids getting hurt while playing? That is part and parcel of growing up. If the worry is about parents complaining, then get all parents to sign a letter of indemnity before they enrol their kids in the school. Also, make personal accident insurance compulsory.

I remember my national-service days when the platoon sergeant made us crawl through muddy water as part of a training exercise. Our bodies, including our faces, were caked in mud. For those of us that grew up playing football in muddy fields, this was no big deal.

I dread the day when our NS boys are so afraid of getting muddied that they tiptoe around puddles of water because they grew up in an environment where they could not get hurt or muddied.

I send my kids to school not just to achieve good grades. I send them to school so that they can receive a broad education and be prepared to face the challenges of life.

If cost of maintaining the fields is the primary concern, get the children involved in replanting the grass. Working in the fields brings lots of benefits and valuable life lessons - they learn to use their hands, they learn about the environment and the laws of nature (you reap what you sow and you can't shortchange nature) and they end up tougher.

I appeal to the ministry to drop its plan to replace fields with artificial turf. The hidden costs outweigh any savings on maintenance.

Patrick Tan Siong Kuan"

Well done, Patrick. I echo his sentiments completely. Kids these days are just overly pampered and protected. In the unlikely event that I do hire a maid in future, her job will be solely to alleviate the burden of my wife, and not to pander to the kids' whims and fancies. Want a drink? Go get it yourself. Spilt some milk? Get a rag and wipe it up.

Come on, face up to reality. The kids nowadays are fast growing up to be devoid of self-reliance, but simply hollering for someone, anyone, to do everything for them, simply because they have never been told to do it themselves!

And going back to Patrick's point, it would be a sad sad day when all the new recruits balk at the idea of running through a muddy field. And so I say again - stop being over-protective, stop spoiling the kids. Let them learn that the world does not revolve around them, that people do fall down, people do get scraped knees, but pick yourselves up, brush it off, and you'll live.


Ok, I'll get round to the continuation of the executive summary soon. Have a nice Thursday.