As a Singaporean reading law in the United Kingdom, I read with concern about the review of the overseas scheduled universities whose returning law graduates are eligible for practice here. (“8 UK law schools to lose spots on recognised list”; Feb 25)
Dropping eight of the 19 UK law universities on the recognised list may, in the short term, reduce the burgeoning supply of law students in the Singapore market, but may also be detrimental to the long-term success of Singapore as a regional and international legal hub.
This preventive measure may take us a step back in the liberalisation of our legal sector.
Diversity is an integral catalyst for developing our ambitions and jurisprudence. In legal education, diversity is a starting point for developing Singapore’s influence in international law.
I do not disagree that a sharp increase in the number of Singaporean law graduates would, in the short term, result in an oversupply.
However, considering the benefits of diversity in legal education the increasing number of returning law graduates is a testament to the attractiveness and potential of Singapore’s legal sector.
Reading law in the United Kingdom has provided me with the opportunity to learn from and work with international experts in arbitration and academia, for example.
It has enriched my experience, network and transferable skills, which will contribute to Singapore’s aspirations to being an international legal hub.
If the drastic approach we have now taken results in an increase in law students at the remaining 11 approved United Kingdom law schools, it would not solve the pertinent problem of an increase in Singaporeans pursuing law overseas.
A better solution is to allow the market forces of demand and supply to determine the suitability of applicants from diverse backgrounds, and to assess the individuals’ character and commitment to our legal sector.
I am grateful for the opportunity to develop critical-thinking skills and read law with an international perspective. Legal education per se is a process, and not a determinant of one’s ability to pursue law.
The perspective that one’s institution of study equates to one’s capabilities is wrong. It is the individual’s characteristics that matter.
In shaping our legal landscape, we should embrace the aspirations and commitment of Singaporeans as an opportunity, and not a problem, for the development of our legal sector in a globalised economy.
Dropping eight of the 19 UK law universities on the recognised list may, in the short term, reduce the burgeoning supply of law students in the Singapore market, but may also be detrimental to the long-term success of Singapore as a regional and international legal hub.
This preventive measure may take us a step back in the liberalisation of our legal sector.
Diversity is an integral catalyst for developing our ambitions and jurisprudence. In legal education, diversity is a starting point for developing Singapore’s influence in international law.
I do not disagree that a sharp increase in the number of Singaporean law graduates would, in the short term, result in an oversupply.
However, considering the benefits of diversity in legal education the increasing number of returning law graduates is a testament to the attractiveness and potential of Singapore’s legal sector.
Reading law in the United Kingdom has provided me with the opportunity to learn from and work with international experts in arbitration and academia, for example.
It has enriched my experience, network and transferable skills, which will contribute to Singapore’s aspirations to being an international legal hub.
If the drastic approach we have now taken results in an increase in law students at the remaining 11 approved United Kingdom law schools, it would not solve the pertinent problem of an increase in Singaporeans pursuing law overseas.
A better solution is to allow the market forces of demand and supply to determine the suitability of applicants from diverse backgrounds, and to assess the individuals’ character and commitment to our legal sector.
I am grateful for the opportunity to develop critical-thinking skills and read law with an international perspective. Legal education per se is a process, and not a determinant of one’s ability to pursue law.
The perspective that one’s institution of study equates to one’s capabilities is wrong. It is the individual’s characteristics that matter.
In shaping our legal landscape, we should embrace the aspirations and commitment of Singaporeans as an opportunity, and not a problem, for the development of our legal sector in a globalised economy.
