Semester 2 Module Selection Begins TODAY 17th December!

Posted on December 10, 2012February 19, 2020

The module selection process for Semester 2 will starts today, 17th December with the Module Preference Exercise. Please refer to the module selection information page for more details.

Information on different modules being offered is available from the Junior Seminar, Ideas & Exposition I, Senior Seminar I and Ideas & Exposition II pages. The latest timings and locations are available from the semester 2 module timetable. 

The Global Outlook for 2013

Posted on December 4, 2012February 19, 2020

 

The Global Outlook for 2013[*]

 

by

Prof Tommy Koh

Chairman, Centre for International Law, NUS

 

 

           As 2012 is rapidly coming to a close, it is time for us to look to the future.  What is the global outlook for 2013?  In this preview, I will attempt to answer the following four questions.

 

Q1: Will the US and China live at peace with each other?

 

           The people of America re-elected President Barack Obama on the 6^th of November.  A week later, the Chinese Communist Party chose Xi Jinping as China’s new leader.  The leadership of the two countries is in good hands.  I believe that US and China will live at peace with each other for the following five reasons.

 

           First, economically, the two countries have become inter̢dependent.  China needs access to the US market, science and technology and know-how.  The US needs access to the Chinese market and to China’s growing pool of foreign exchange reserves.  China is America’s largest creditor nation, holding about US$1 trillion of Treasury bonds.

 

           Second, militarily, China is in no position, now or in the foreseeable future, to challenge the US, and China has no intention to do so.  The Chinese know that war with the US will destroy China’s historic opportunity to achieve modernisation and first world status.

 

           Third, the American people are concerned about China’s economic strength and regards China as a competitor.  However, the American people do not see China as their enemy.  There is, therefore, no domestic support for any American leader who wishes to demonise China as the new enemy.  I would also say that if America were to attempt to build an anti-China coalition in the Asia-Pacific, there would be very little support for it.  ASEAN, for example, wants good relations with both the US and China and would not join such a coalition.

 

           Fourth, at the regional and global levels, China has become America’s indispensible partner in the quest for solutions to such challenges as North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme, terrorism, proliferation, the Doha Round, climate change, etc.

 

           Fifth, there is more continuity than change in US policy towards China.  The modus vivendi has always been a combination of cooperation and competition.  They cooperate where their interests coincide and compete when they do not.  This policy goes back to President Nixon and has been honoured by both Republican and Democratic Administrations ever since.

 

Q2: Will there be a new Sino-Japanese War?

 

           The current dispute between Japan and China over Senkaku/Diaoyu reminds us that, unlike Europe, there has been no closure and no historic reconciliation between the former adversaries in Northeast Asia.

 

           There are two competing narratives between Japan and China (and Taiwan) concerning the ownership of those islands.  There are three ways to calm the situation.  The first is for the two countries to refer their dispute to a court of law (ICJ or ITLOS).  The second is to put aside the sovereignty dispute and focus on joint development.  The third is to revert to the rules of engagement agreed by the two sides in 1972.

 

           The simultaneous rise of nationalism in the two countries is a worry.  However, given the enormous economic stake which they share, I am reasonably confident that things will not get out of hand.  There will be no war between China and Japan.

 

           I am encouraged by the fact that on the 20^th of November 2012, the leaders of China, Japan and South Korea met in Phnom Penh to reaffirm their commitment to begin negotiating a trilateral FTA among them.  Economic integration may eventually bring about the historic reconciliation which has eluded us for 67 years.

 

Q3: Will the Eurozone disintegrate or emerge stronger from the crisis?

 

           It is often forgotten that the current crisis in Europe was made in America.  Because of contagion, the crisis spread across the Atlantic and attacked those European and Eurozone countries whose public finances were not in good order.  As a result, the countries with unsustainable debt levels were punished by the market.  The crisis in Eurozone also revealed that you cannot have monetary union without common fiscal discipline.  The subsequent adoption of the fiscal compact treaty was, therefore, a step in the right direction.

 

           First, I believe that the European integration project is on track and will not be derailed.  As a result of the crisis, the integration will become even tighter and closer.  The UK may feel uncomfortable and decide to opt out.  I believe that although both sides will lose, the UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK.

 

           Second, I believe that the Euro will survive the crisis and become an even stronger currency.

 

           Third, it is good to remember that we should not tarnish all European countries with the same brush.  Not all European economies are in crisis.  Five of the ten most competitive economies in the world are European.  However, for some European countries, massive unemployment, caused by rigid labour markets and a mismatch of skills between what the education system produces and what the market needs, is a serious challenge.

 

Q4: Will ASEAN remain united?

 

           In July 2012, ASEAN’s credibility suffered a serious setback when, for the first time in 45 years, the ASEAN Foreign Ministers adjourned their annual meeting without adopting a joint communiqué.  This was a wake-up call for both China and ASEAN.

 

           It reminded China that a divided ASEAN is not in China’s interests.  China’s interests are best served by a peaceful and united Southeast Asia.  It reminded ASEAN that ASEAN unity is paramount and must not be undermined by differences over the South China Sea or any other issues.  Without unity, ASEAN will be unable to play the central role it does in regional institutions.

 

           I am happy to say that ASEAN Leaders have reaffirmed their commitment to maintain ASEAN unity and centrality at the just concluded Summit.  ASEAN adopted a Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed its commitment to build an ASEAN community by 31 December 2015.  The ASEAN+1 summits and the East Asia Summit were held successfully.

 

           There was a frank discussion of the South China Sea issue and the Leaders reaffirmed the importance of dealing with the issue peacefully and in accordance with international law and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

 

           We also witnessed an agreement by ASEAN+6 (China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand) to launch negotiations for an FTA to be called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership or RCEP.  The 16 economies together represent one-third of the world economy.

 

Conclusion

 

           Let me conclude.  I believe that under the leadership of Barack Obama and Xi Jinping, the US and China will live at peace with each other.  I believe that China and Japan will not escalate their dispute over Senkaku/Diaoyu into a full scale conflict.  I believe that the European integration project has not been derailed and the Euro will emerge stronger from the crisis.  I believe that ASEAN will remain united and will continue to play a central role in the emerging architecture of the region.  Finally, while the Doha Round is going nowhere, trade liberalisation and economic integration are alive in our region and are being driven by the TPP and RCEP.  In view of the above, my prognosis is that 2013 will be a more peaceful and prosperous year than 2012.

 

.  .  .  .  .

 

Student Portal Woodie Central Launched

Posted on November 29, 2012February 19, 2020

A new Student Portal, Woodie Central has been launched for Tembusu students with the aim of centralizing information and systems relevant to college life.

Visit https://tembusu.nus.edu.sg/woodiecentral

A heartfelt tribute to a remarkable man

Posted on November 5, 2012February 19, 2020

The Business Times

Article link: www.businesstimes.com.sg/print/3036600

 

A heartfely tribute to a remarkable man

Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong has been an inspiration to all who know him

BY TOMMY KOH AND TPB MENON

 

TODAY, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong will celebrate his 75th birthday and retire. This is an appropriate moment for us, who have known him for 55 years, to pay him a tribute.

 

Childhood

Sek Keong was born and grew up in Ipoh, Perak. His father was a clerk in a bank and the family had very modest means. Sek Keong was a very good student and topped the whole of Perak in his Cambridge Overseas School Leaving Certificate examinations. He came to Singapore in 1957, to join the pioneer batch of law students at the then University of Malaya, in Singapore (now the National University of Singapore, or NUS).

 

Law student

There was a special esprit de corps which united our class. We were very close to one another and to our teachers, who were in many cases only a few years older than the students. The three of us belonged to a study group which met almost every day to review our work. Sek Keong was the "tutor" of the group and would explain the intricacies of the laws of property and trust when our teachers could not. When he typed a case note, he would make extra carbon copies to give to the rest of us. His understanding of the law, his lucidity and unselfish nature were some of his positive attributes. He was a kind, fair-minded and courteous person. He has remained true to the values and beliefs of his student days.

 

Legal career

He was in private law practice in Singapore for 23 years, from 1963 to 1986. In 1986, he was appointed as a judicial commissioner. Two years later, in 1988, he was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court. Four years later, his career took a different trajectory. He served as the attorney-general from 1992 to 2006, a total of 14 years. In 2006, he was appointed as the chief justice. To sum up, Sek Keong spent 23 years in law practice, 14 years as the attorney-general and 12 years on the Bench, six of which as the chief justice. The NUS Law School is very proud of him because he is the first local graduate to be appointed as judicial commissioner, judge, attorney-general, and chief justice. We, his old classmates from the Law School, salute him for the following reasons.

 

A modest and humble man

First, we salute him because he is unspoilt by power, status and wealth. He has never forgotten his humble roots. He leads a simple and frugal life. He remains a modest and humble person.

 

A man of integrity

Second, he is a man of integrity. As a result, he is trusted by all who have dealings with him. He had an excellent reputation with his clients when he was in legal practice. As chief justice, he has earned the trust and respect of the government, the legal profession and the public. In an opinion poll, commissioned by the Reader's Digest, he was picked by the Singapore public as the person they trusted the most.

 

A fair-minded person

Third, he is fair-minded and believes strongly that the law should render justice. When he became the chief justice, he was aware that there was a concern that efficiency was being pursued to such an extreme that it could jeopardise the dispensation of justice. In his first speech as the chief justice, he said: "Both justice delayed and justice hurried can cause injustice . . . Judges must not judge in haste or prejudge disputes in order to dispose of cases faster . . . no litigant should be allowed to leave the courtroom with the conviction or feeling that he has not been given a fair or full hearing because it was done hurriedly." (April 22, 2006)

 

Courtesy and patience

Fourth, he is always courteous and patient. Young lawyers often fear appearing before the Supreme Court. They fear that the judges would expose their ignorance and humiliate them, in front of their clients and the public. In the same speech referred to above, he said: "I assure the Bar that young lawyers who appear before me and my fellow judges should not feel stressed and should have no fear of being stressed." Although he could have demolished a bad argument addressed to him in court, he has never humiliated or belittled the lawyer putting forward the argument. His philosophy is to "live and let live". During his tenure as chief justice, he has developed a more cordial and harmonious relationship between Bench and Bar.

 

Legal scholar

Fifth, Sek Keong has a profound knowledge of the law. This is evident in all his written judgments, which are a joy to read. His judgments are always based on sound legal reasoning. They are lucidly and elegantly written as he is an accomplished wordsmith. It would be true to say that "there are few areas of the law which he did not touch and little that he touched which he did not adorn". The chief justice leaves a substantial legacy of world-class judgments which have enriched our jurisprudence. In conclusion, we wish to say that Chan Sek Keong has served Singapore with great distinction, both in the private and public sectors. As attorney-general and as the chief justice, he has carried out his responsibilities with integrity and fairness. He has enhanced the reputation of the Singapore judiciary and reinforced Singapore's commitment to the rule of law.

 

Tommy Koh is ambassador-at-large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a professor of law, and served as dean of the NUS Law School from 1971 to 1974. TPB Menon is a lawyer in private practice and was president of the Singapore Law Society.

In defence of Lim Chong Yah

Posted on November 3, 2012February 19, 2020

The Straits Times

 

BY INVITATION

IN DEFENCE OF LIM CHONG YAH

Don has reminded us our inequality could adversely affect cohesion

BY TOMMY KOH FOR THE STRAITS TIMES

 

PROFESSOR Lim Chong Yah is one of Singapore's most distinguished economists. He was the professor of economics at the National University of Singapore (NUS), before moving on to the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) to become the first Albert Winsemius Professor of Economics.

He is currently Emeritus Professor of Economics of both NUS and NTU.

Prof Lim is both a scholar and practitioner. He was the founding chairman of the National Wages Council (NWC), a post which he held for more than 30 years. No one has contributed more to the success of this unique Singapore institution than he. In view of his credetials and track record, we should study carefully his three proposals for a more inclusive Singapore wage policy.

Prof Lim proposes: 

• that the NWC should continue with the issuance of a quantitative wage increase guideline for those earning less than $1,000 to $1,500 a month, over the next two years;  
• that the NWC should call for an across-the-board temporary three-year moratorium of salaries of top executives earning more than $1 million a year, both in the private and public sectors; and
• that should the wages of the lowest-paid resident workers remain stubbornly very low in two or three years' time, serious consideration be given to introducing a compulsory minimum wage scheme with, say, $1,000 a month as the start-off quantum.

 

Freezing salaries at the top

WHY is Prof Lim asking for a freeze, for three years, of salaries above $1 million a year?

I think he has done so because our growing income inequality is due to the inflation of salaries at one end of the spectrum and the deflation of salaries at the other end. His objective is to raise the wages at the bottom and slow down the escalation of salaries at the top.

Is it wrong for Prof Lim to interfere with the market and to urge restraint?

I do not think it is wrong.

Having served on the board of directors of two publicly listed companies, I have observed that in recent years, we have been looking to the West for inspiration when it comes to the compensation of our chief executive officers and other key personnel in senior management.

I do not think it is wise to look, for example, to America for inspiration, because the American culture is very individual-centred, whereas our culture is more communitarian.

One consequence of the American model of capitalism is the Occupy Wall Street Movement and the increasing polarisation of American society and politics between the 1 per cent and the 99 per cent. We do not want to import such trends, which Americans themselves are so worried about, into Singapore.

Consider the following facts extracted from Professor Michael Sandel's book, Justice: What Is The Right Thing to Do? In 1980, the average CEO in America earned 42 times more than the average worker.

In 2007, the average CEO earned 344 times more than the average worker. During the period 2004 to 2005, the average CEO in top companies in the US, Europe and Japan earned US$13.3 million, US$6.6 million and US$1.5 million respectively. Japan, like Singapore, has a communitarian culture and is a better role model for us than the US or Europe.

I would also call attention to what Conservative British Prime Minister David Cameron said recently when he opposed the payment of extravagant salaries and bonuses in the financial industry in London.

He said that there was an incestuous element in the composition of boards. As a result, there was a certain "I scratch your back, you scratch my back" phenomenon at work.

I think that his comment is probably applicable to Singapore, where the talent pool is smaller, and the same people serve on multiple boards.

I also suspect that there is an unspoken competition among some of our leading companies to see whose chief executive officer will receive the highest salary. We would actually be more impressed if the competition is to see which company will pay its workers more.

I, therefore, sympathise with Prof Lim's proposal to slow down the escalation of the salaries at the top. I do not, however, think that his specific proposal will be accepted by the NWC.

I suspect that the NWC would focus on raising the wages at the bottom and not interfere with the wages at the top. Singaporeans, especially those at the top, should, however, reflect deeply on Prof Lim's proposal and on their responsibility to society.

 

Raising wages at the bottom

I SUPPORT Prof Lim's proposal that the NWC should continue with the issuance of a quantitative wage increase guideline for our low-wage workers for the next two years.

A one-time increase of $50 will not have a significant impact on the lives of the low-wage workers. However, a $150 increase, over three years, would be more impactful.

I agree with Prof Lim that if the situation does not improve in two to three years' time, we should seriously consider introducing a minimum wage. We know from the experiences of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong that the introduction of the minimum wage did not increase unemployment or frighten away foreign investors in those jurisdictions.

Hong Kong introduced the minimum wage one year ago. According to a report in this newspaper last month, the Hong Kong experience has been a positive one. There was no increase in unemployment and no decrease in foreign investment. In fact, unemployment remained low and there was an increase in the number of new businesses. The minimum wage has raised the income of over 140,000 low-wage workers.

In conclusion, I wish to thank Prof Lim for being our moral conscience. He has reminded us that our mission is to achieve growth with equity. Our ambition is to build a fair and prosperous Singapore. What we have achieved so far is a prosperous but unfair society.

Prof Lim has warned us that we have deviated from our original path and that we are dangerously close to a point when our inequality could adversely affect our cohesion and harmony.

 

The writer is chairman, Centre for International Law, NUS, and Special Adviser, Institute of Policy Studies. By Invitation features leading writers and thinkers from Singapore and the region.