AG's Tribute to LP Thean

The following is the Honourable Attorney General Chan Sek Keong's tribute1 to Justice LP Thean JA during the dinner of the Assembly of Senior Counsel on 8 March 2002 held in his honour.

I am very pleased to be here tonight at the invitation of the Assembly of Senior Counsel to honour Justice LP Thean JA on his retirement as a Judge of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Singapore. It was initially suggested that I, as LP's longest serving partner in ShookLin & Bok, should say some 'nice words' about his professional career and his work. However, I thought that this was hardly adequate for a person of LP's standing in the legal community. There are many things I can and wish to say about LP as a lawyer and judge. So, tonight, I would like to use this occasion to instead pay a tribute to LP as a lawyer and judge.

Tonight's event is a significant occasion as it is the first time that the crème de la crème of the litigation Bar have met in full strength to pay tribute to a highly respected judge on his retirement from the judiciary. It demonstrates the exceptional camaraderie among Senior Counsel and one of the noblest qualities of the Bar. LP deserves to be honoured for his outstanding contributions to the development of the law in the course of a long and distinguished career as a High Court Judge from 1984-1993 and as a Judge of Appeal of the Supreme Court from 1993-2002 (February). The presence here of all the Senior Counsel tonight attests to their high esteem, affection, admiration and respect for LP as a judge, notwithstanding that LP is returning to the Bar to compete with them.

ShookLin & Bok Days
My association with LP Thean began at a professional level in April 1969 when I left Braddell Brothers to join ShookLin & Bok where he was the sole managing partner of the Singapore branch. Under LP's progressive management and firm leadership, the law practice grew very fast. Indeed, it grew too fast for the legal talent available in the firm then. As a result, LP had to do most of the legal work himself, especially the banking and corporate work. I was told that he was usually at the office by 7am and that he left the office after 7pm. I cannot vouch for this personally, as I was never there at these times. But, I was sure it was true. There was no coffee break in the morning (a privilege I enjoyed in Braddell Brothers) as he made sure that coffee and tea were served to lawyers whilst they were at work. He was a role model for the lawyers in the firm for sustained hard work and dedication to the practice. This ensured the firm's rapid growth and financial success. By the early 80s, ShookLin & Bok had one of the biggest banking and corporate practices in Singapore.

LP's Qualities as a Lawyer
I have always known LP to be a highly competent, hardworking and conscientious lawyer, meticulous and always timely in the execution of consistently high quality work. So great was the demand for his services by clients that he did not have to look for work. His work habits, confident demeanour and measured advice ensured his professional success. He was also a model of discretion in dealing with the affairs of clients and in his personal relationships; for example, you would have great difficulty in provoking him to gossip, much less reveal any confidential information.

LP was perceived by some legal assistants in the firm to exhibit some Napoleonic traits from time to time in the management of the firm or in overseeing their legal output for quality, quantity and timeliness. But in truth he was understanding, tolerant and ready to overlook mistakes and sub-standard work by others less experienced or knowledgeable than he was. Many lawyers who have worked with him will testify to this. In spite of his professional success as a corporate lawyer, LP kept a very low profile and deliberately remained out of the public eye. However, he had a deep sense of civic responsibility, what one would call noblesse oblige in another era. Thus, when he was asked to serve on the Bench, he accepted without hesitation even though it meant having to use two years of a judge's salary to pay his tax liability on his professional income. But, so self-effacing is LP that he has never mentioned this financial loss to anyone. He was an excellent and successful lawyer who became an even better judge.

Vicissitudes of Practice
The firm had its ups and downs during our long partnership from 1969 to 1984. I will never forget the one event that was so traumatic that it gave us a few years of sleepless nights and demoralised all the lawyers in the firm. Fortunately, it did not diminish the firm's professional reputation. Bankruptcy may be the first step to ultimate success for an entrepreneur, but for a lawyer, it is the ultimate failure. In 1984, we were staring bankruptcy in the face. The firm was sued by our clients for damages of S$25m for professional negligence in connection with the sale of shares in a recreational club to selected persons without a prospectus. Our insurers had repudiated liability which, of course, was a great shock to us.

In the midst of the turmoil, LP kept a cool head. He remained calm throughout this period and did not utter a word of recrimination against his partner. Fortunately, things came out right for us as after a few years of skirmishing in court, the plaintiffs discontinued their action and we in turn discontinued our action against our insurers after being indemnified on our costs.

LP's Judicial Qualities
Socrates has been quoted as having said:

Four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly, and to decide impartially.

As a judge, LP had these four things. As a lawyer, he also had the first three qualities. Socrates' observation was about the process of judging, not about the legal knowledge or philosophy of a judge. An ideal judge should have these other attributes as well. A judge's legal philosophy ensures his consistent understanding on what justice and fairness are in human affairs. The law is about fairness as much as about just outcomes or social welfare issues and national goals. Once a legal philosophy is hardwired into the mind of a judge, it is difficult to change his judicial attitudes, approach, action and reasoning.

LP's judgments suggest that he is a legal positivist and that he favours judicial restraint in decision making. Not for him is the penchant to make law under the guise of policy or to make policy under the guise of law. He is conservative and traditional in developing the law. For this reason, he was a predictable judge in cases where the principles of law had been settled. He would find it difficult to lay down a principle of law beyond what was necessary for the disposal of a case, even though it would have resulted in him being credited with a landmark judgment. He may be small physically, but he is a heavyweight judge. I think the legal profession will miss him as a judge.

LP's Contributions to the Development of Singapore Law
The LexisNexis database records LP as having delivered 149 judgments as a High Court Judge and also having delivered or been associated with 703 Court of Appeal judgments, all of which are reported in the law reports. This formidable corpus of Singapore case law should be sufficient for a LLM or PhD thesis or a few academic articles. Many of LP's judgments have been cited and also followed by some Commonwealth courts, especially Malaysian courts (too many to list out), Hong Kong2 and Australia.3 Many of them have been reported in law reports published outside Singapore.4

As expected of a sound judicial mind, LP has left his mark in every area of Singapore law, ranging from admiralty law to trust law. In admiralty law, he has delivered a large number of judgments5 that have settled or clarified the common law as well as the written law. He has also made notable decisions in construction law6 and commercial law in the areas of banking,7 companies,8 winding up9 and matrimonial law,10 particularly in the area of division of matrimonial property based on the just and equitable principle. He has also been in the forefront in the development of Singapore's intellectual property law.11 In administrative and constitutional law, he participated in several significant Court of Appeal judgments that are likely to remain influential in the future development of the law in this area.12 In land law13 and trust law,14 we can also find some significant decisions, a good example being the imposition of a constructive trust on ill-gotten gains from bribery.15 He was also a member of the Constitutional Court that gave an advisory opinion on the allocation of constitutional powers between the President, in his role as a custodial President, and Parliament.16

LP and I have been good friends and professional colleagues for a long time. So we know each other well, our strengths and our weaknesses, our likes and dislikes. An American judge once said:17

After all is said and done, we cannot deny the fact that a judge is always almost of necessity surrounded by people who keep telling him what a wonderful fellow he is. And if he once begins to believe it, he is a lost soul.

I have just told him what a wonderful fellow he is. As he is no longer a judge, he will not lose his soul. He has a new career, as a consultant and an arbitrator. Everything that we know about him says that he will make an excellent arbitrator.

[Editorial note: We are also pleased to report that by the time our readers read this article, Mr Thean's alma mater, the University of Bristol, would have conferred on him on 10 July 2002 the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws.]

Endnotes

1 This tribute has been edited for publication.
2 In Smart International Industrial Ltd v Twinkle Step Investment Ltd [1999] 1 HKC 767, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal cited his judgment in Siti & Anor v Lee Kay Li [1996] 3 SLR 310 on the point that a purchaser under an open contract of sale of land has no general right of inspection of the premises as part of the process of completion.
3 His judgment in the Singapore Court of Appeal case of 'The Ohm Marianna ex Peony' [1993] 2 SLR 698 was cited, by the Federal Court of Australia in Malaysia Shipyard and Engineering Sdn Bhd v 'Iron Shortland' 131 ALR 738, as being helpful in construing the import of the word 'owner' in the context of legislation conferring the right to arrest surrogate ships.
4 See for example, Brightside Mechanical & Electrical Services Group Ltd & Anor v Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co Ltd (1988) 41 Build LR 110; 'The Daien Maru No 18' [1986] 1 Lloyd's Rep 387; Jordache Enterprises Inc v Millenium Pte Ltd (1985) 7 IPR 575; and Australian Shipbuilding Industries (WA) Pty Ltd v Assets Able Pte Ltd (1986) 7 IPR 65.
5 'The Damavand' [1993] 2 SLR 717; 'The Osprey' [2001] 1 SLR 281; Zarkovic Stanko v The Owners of the Ship 'Mara' [2000] 4 SLR 156; 'The Andres Bonifacio' [1993] 3 SLR 521; 'The Fierbienti' [1994] 3 SLR 864; 'The Daien Maru No 18' [1984-1985] 1 SLR 536; 'The Ohm Marianna ex Peony' [1993] 2 SLR 698; 'The Thorlina' [1984-1985] 1 SLR 283; and 'The Hull 308' [1991] 3 MLJ 393.
6 Brightside Mechanical & Electrical Services Group Ltd & Anor v Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co Ltd [1988] SLR 186; Joo Yee Construction Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Diethelm Industries Pte Ltd [1990] SLR 278; and Lim Lay Bee v Allgreen Properties Ltd [1999] 1 SLR 471.
7 Consmat Singapore v Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association [1992] 2 SLR 828; Damayanti Kantilal Doshi v Indian Bank [1999] 4 SLR 1; Indian Overseas Bank v United Coconut Mills Inc [1993] 1 SLR 141; and United Bank Ltd v Banque Nationale de Paris [1989] 1 SLR 106.
8 Dresdner Bank Aktiengesellschaft v Ho Mun-Tuke Don [1993] 1 SLR 114; Ng Wei Teck Michael v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd [1998] 2 SLR 1; Chew Kong Huat v Ricwil (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2000] 1 SLR 385; SAL Industrial Leasing Ltd v Lin Hwee Guan [1998] 3 SLR 482; and The Asiatic Enterprises (Pte) Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd [2000] 1 SLR 300.
9 Kuah Kok Kim v Chong Lee Leong Seng Co (Pte) Ltd [1991] SLR 122 and Joo Yee Construction Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Diethelm Industries Pte Ltd [1990] 1 SLR 278.
10 Shirley Koo v Kenneth Mok Kong Chua [1989] SLR 342; Ng Hwee Keng v Chia Soon Hin William [1995] 2 SLR 231; and Tan Bee Giok v Loh Kum Yong [1997] 1 SLR 153.
11 Lee Thin Thuan v Louis Vuitton [1992] 2 SLR 273; Ong Seow Pheng v Lotus Development Corporation [1997] 3 SLR 137; Hunter Manufacturing Pte Ltd v Soundtex Switchgear & Engineering Pte Ltd (No 1) [2000] 1 SLR 401; CDL Hotels International v Pontiac Marina Pte Ltd [1998] 2 SLR 550; and Tessensohn t/a Clea Professional Image Consultants v John Robert Powers School Inc [1994] 3 SLR 308.
12 Chng Suan Tze v Minister of Home Affairs [1988] SLR 132 (on the constitutional limits of preventive detention); and Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong [1998] 2 SLR 410 (on the constitutional limits of Parliament's legislative powers and the scope of equality before the law and equal protection of the law).
13 Bestland Development Pte Ltd v Manit Udomkunnatum [1997] 2 SLR 42; Tan Hin Leong v Lee Teck Im [2000] 2 SLR 27; Tan Thiam Loke v Woon Swee Kheng Christina [1992] 1 SLR 232; and MCST Plan No 549 v Chew Eu Hock Construction Co Pte Ltd [1998] 2 SLR 366.
14 Cheong Yoke Kuen v Cheong Kwok Kiong [1999] 2 SLR 476; Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho Chit [2001] 3 SLR 10; and Ho Kon Kim v Lim Gek Kim Betsy [2001] 4 SLR 340.
15 Kartika Ratna Thahir v PT Pertambangan Minyak dan Gas Bumi Negara (Pertamina) [1994] 3 SLR 247.
16 Constitutional Reference No 1 of 1995 [1995] 2 SLR 201.
17 Judge HR Medina, 'Some Reflections on the Judicial Function: A Personal Viewpoint' (1952) 38 American Bar Journal 107 at 108.