UKSLSS Newsletter (Issue 4: February 2019)

Monthly Newsletter Issue 4: February 2019

Editors’ Foreword Dear Members, Happy Chinese New Year to all!

This month’s newsletter is focused on the topic of Human Rights. The importance of human rights is reflected in this month’s ‘Legal Tidbits’, concerning the recent proposed reforms to the Singapore Penal Code, such as repealing marital rape, the introduction of “stealthing” as a new sexual offence and decriminalising attempted suicide. On this note, the difficulties faced in the regulation of surrogacy in Singapore will also be further explored.

Our latest addition to the Newsletter Team, Ohana Naidu from University College London has also contributed an article relating to the ongoing LGBT debate in Singapore.

This month’s ‘Features’ section includes an exclusive interview with Daron Tan, a Volunteer Legal Advocate for Asylum Access. We are grateful for his insight regarding human rights work and experience working with refugees in Thailand, and advice relating to an alternative career in human rights.

The last section of the newsletter is an overview of the recent Rajah & Tann Recruitment Tea in London, which was a successful networking opportunity for members to meet and connect with representatives from the firm and with other members of the society.

We wish everyone all the best in any upcoming exams and assignments!

With warmest regards, The UKSLSS Newsletter Editorial Committee 2018/2019 Edwin Teong (Editor-In-Chief ) Shermaine Lim (Managing Editor) Ronald Lee (Deputy Editor) Kimberley Ng (Design Director, Resident Writer) Yu Jiaqi (Resident Writer) Ohana Naidu (Resident Writer)

Legal Tidbits

Major changes proposed by the Criminal Reform Bill By: Lee Jian Qing, Ronald, University of Bristol

The Criminal Reform Bill was given its first reading on 11th February as part of updating Singapore’s Penal Code. The Penal Code Review Committee (PCRC) proposed amendments and the Government has agreed to implement the majority of the proposals. The amendments to the Penal Code will focus on four areas: enhance protection for vulnerable victims, update the Penal Code, rationalise the general principles, explanations and defences in the Penal Code, and tackle emerging crime trends.

The amendment will also entail removing obsolete offences, simplifying offences by removing differences that are no longer relevant, remove offences in the Penal Code that are already dealt with under dedicated legislation and updating the sentencing framework.

Two key amendments to the Penal Code will involve decriminalizing suicide and introducing a new sexual offence related to “stealthing”.

Attempted suicide no longer a crime The decriminalization of suicide was suggested to reflect the shifting societal sentiments towards suicide - where there is greater awareness and recognition of the implications of mental health.

Persons who attempt suicide should not be punished for their actions, rather they should be afforded mental support. However, some critics argue that penalizing suicide had previously helped to protect that the idea of “life being precious”. In response, the government maintains that this amendment does not contravene that principle given the continued criminalization of euthanasia, the assistance or encouragement to commit suicide. This is besides statutory powers that enable

the police to intervene to prevent loss of life or injury in cases of attempted suicide.

New offence related to “Stealthing” The government is looking to implement a new sexual offence to address the “stealthing”.

Stealthing is the practice of one sex partner covertly removing a condom, when consent has only been given by the other sex partner for condom-protected safer sex. The offence will also extend to lying about whether one is suffering from a sexually transmitted disease (STD). The introduction of this offence could have stemmed from a landmark case in Germany where a police officer was found guilty of stealthing. In this sense, the criminalisation of stealthing could be an attempt to anticipate the emergence of novel criminal conduct and implement legislation to combat them before they surface.

Overall, it is reassuring to see the Penal Code being updated to reflect a more modern context, especially considering that the last major review of the Penal Code was conducted in 2007. Even though the Criminal Reform Bill has not yet been passed, it is useful in setting a framework for the developments that are to come in the near future.

1

Legal Tidbits

Time for Change: Repealing Marital Rape By: Kimberley Ng, University of Bristol

What is happening

Moving forward

The Government has taken a progressive step forward in accepting recommendations from the Penal Code Review Committee to repeal marital immunity for rape and protect all women from sexual abuse, regardless of whether they are married to the perpetuator.

The definition of rape has also been broadened from its current definition of “any man who penetrates the vagina of a woman with his penis”, to include situations where a woman forces a man to penetrate her vagina, anus or mouth. The changes under the Criminal Law Reform Bill allow allow men to be considered rape victims, as the scope of rape and sexual assault has been expanded to accommodate more scenarios in being gender neutral.

In order to advance the equality and neutrality of Singapore’s legal system, the repeal is a step in the right direction as women in abusive marriages are more likely to seek help. It also symbolises that Singapore does not endorse the view that wives are subservient to their husbands. However, there are concerns regarding the amendment as it could adversely affect the marriage institution, by increasing the potential for false allegations of rape. In addressing such concerns, all cases of alleged rape will be treated with the same extent of evidentiary rigour during investigation and prosecution. In addition, to prevent instances of false allegations there are also existing offences under Chapter XI of the Penal Code, such as giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence in sections 191 and 192.

Why it is happening Abolishing immunity is a necessary move in reflecting the common sentiment that marriage is a partnership between equals, and has drawn strong support from members of the public and representatives from religious, legal and social sectors. Spouses who coerce their partners into sexual intercourse on demand would be deemed to have committed a crime and no impunity will be granted for their actions.

In furtherance, majority of Singapore’s population no longer subscribe to the view that marriage denotes irrevocable consent to sexual intercourse.

The amendments to the Penal Code endeavour to safeguard and protect all persons, regardless of gender, from rape and other forms of sexual assault.

2

Legal Tidbits

Hard choices on surrogacy in Singapore By: Yu Jiaqi, University of Oxford

Surrogacy entails an arrangement where females conceive children for another person or persons. While surrogacy has traditionally been under the radar in Singapore, the issue was brought back into public spotlight after a recent High Court decision allowed an appellant to legally adopt his biological child who was conceived through commercial surrogacy in the United States. This has raised calls for clarification on the existing grey areas in Singapore’s regulation (or lack thereof ) of surrogacy.

Current laws on surrogacy While Singapore does not have explicit laws against local surrogacy, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has prohibited licensed healthcare institutions from carrying out surrogacy arrangements. Yet, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has supported adoption bids by 10 married couples who had gone for surrogacy services abroad over the last decade. This divergence in policies thus has created confusion on the government’s stand, and the Minister for Social and Family Development Desmond Lee has finally said in Parliament that authorities will look into the complex issue of surrogacy and reviewing adoption laws, which has "ethical, social, health and legal implications for all parties involved”. Following that, critics have raised a few possible concerns that the Government should consider when looking into surrogacy laws.

Should overseas surrogacy be discouraged?

While overseas surrogacy is not currently condoned, analysts have suggested the possibility

that citizens might be furthur encouraged to pursue overseas surrogacy if the government relaxes adoption laws for children born from surrogacy abroad. This would “indirectly fuel the surrogacy industry [and make the government] complicit in ethical problems associated with surrogacy”. If Singapore desires to crack down on such overseas arrangements, it could emulate Australian states which have made it an offence for residents to make commercial surrogacy arrangements in a foreign country. However, the effectiveness of such restrictions is debatable, as parties involved could simply not disclose the surrogacy and the Government would be“none the wiser”.

Hence alternatively, if Government chooses to permit overseas surrogacy, it should introduce proper guidelines to regulate such arrangements.

This includes putting up a list of approved countries where such services services can be pursued by Singaporeans to ensure that such transactions comply with standards set by the Government, as well as establish provisions for child to be adopted by couple in Singapore.

Should commissioned surrogacy be allowed locally?

With regards to the legality of commissioned surrogacy in Singapore, many have commented that the high costs in commissioned surrogacies (going up to $200,000) would only establish further avenues of the rich exploiting the poor, paying them to be “baby container[s]”. Such concerns are reflected in India’s Lower House of Parliament Bill which banned all forms of commercial surrogacy, leaving only the option of altruistic surrogacy for infertile, married Indian couples, where no monetary compensation is involved and the surrogate is often closely related to the intended parents.

3

However, international activists raise the valid point that the ban would only drive such transactions underground, exacerbating the exploitative nature of the industry. This was seen in Cambodia, where even after a ban in 2016, brokers and young women in the country continue to engage in such transactions for lucrative payouts from Chinese clients. Thus, there is little ground to believe that a blanket ban would prove effective in Singapore.

Should non-commercial surrogacy be allowed?

Given the conundrums associated with overseas and local commissioned surrogacy, some have then suggested the compromise of allowing non-commercial surrogacy instead. Similar to how the Government has established adoption laws with strictly regulated financial incentives and comprehensive checks on parents, the same level of regulation could be applied for surrogacy. This refers to allowing altruistic surrogacy with regulated payment for the surrogate mother, as practiced in Denmark and Belgium. Others have further suggested that MOH approve surrogacy on a case-by-case basis, based on the assessment of if there is a medical necessity to have children.

However, this leads to further concerns that the distinction between commercial and altruistic surrogacy could be easily blurred if altruistic surrogacy is allowed. Couples could easily provide non-monetary means of financial incentives such as hiring a mate or providing living facilities for the surrogate mother. Most importantly, the multi-religious context of Singapore makes the issue of surrogacy particularly sensitive in consideration of the Islam and Catholic faith. This may greatly increase the difficulty for the Government to take a clear stand.

4

Legal Tidbits

LGBT Rights in Contemporary Singapore By: Ohana Naidu, University College London

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights have transformed from being a taboo point of discussion to a central but yet contentious issue in modern Singapore society. Public support for the LGBT community has been on the rise, marked by the annual Pink Dot event that has been running since 2009 where Singaporeans gather to show support for inclusiveness, diversity and the freedom to love. The establishment of gay bars and entertainment centers are no longer uncommon, operating without fear of being shut down. To some, it is heartening to see the progress made towards the acknowledgement of LGBT rights in Singapore.

Why the recent uproar?

Just last year, a historic ruling by India’s Supreme Court to decriminalise sex between men reignited the spark on the debate on Section 377A in Singapore. This judicial ruling’s wide reverberations in Singapore stems from the fact that both Singapore and India are former British colonies. The penal code in both jurisdictions share the same historical roots. Alongside this, India also shares Singapore’s long-standing reputation as a socially conservative nation.

As such, the debate has prompted prominent Singaporean figures to wade into the issue and petitions from both sides have garnered considerable support. Among them, Chief of Government Communications Janas Devan, in his own capacity, has described section 377A as bad law and supported the motion for repeal. Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has also commented that “society has got to decide which direction it wants to go, and the laws will have to keep pace with changes in society and how society sees

these issues”.Support for both camps have been vociferous, highlighting the varying interests and tensions that have to be taken into account in tackling this issue.

Despite the recent shift in attitudes in favour of the LGBT community, this change may not be as great as some might hope - a large proportion of Singaporeans still firmly hold on to their conservative views, for both religious and cultural reasons. For instance, the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) and Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) have openly disapproved of a homosexual lifestyle and warn that repealing s377A would normalise such a lifestyle, resulting in undesirable moral and social consequences. Other conservative Singaporeans regard Section 377A as a necessary protection to preserve traditional conceptions of a desirable family unit. Strong concerns have also been echoed that repealing the law would encourage an extreme political agenda which could undermine Singapore’s social integrity.

National University of Singapore (NUS) professor Thio Li-Ann who is a vocal supporter of retaining the law, has noted that even though section 377A is unenforced, it still serves an educational purpose. She contended that the law acts as an indicator of what the society as a whole considers to be acceptable in terms of sexual relations which plays a large role in affecting policy decisions.

A problematic decision The government’s decision not to proactively enforce 377A does raise a number of issues.

5

Former Attorney Generals Walter Woon and V.K. Rajah have noted that it would be fundamentally untenable for the Government to retain Section 377A without enforcing it. While the government has not removed prosecutorial discretion for Section 377A, this questions the Attorney General’s independence from the government which could be problematic with regard to the notion of the rule of law.

A key feature of criminal law is to modulate society’s behaviour by indicating what society can or cannot do. As such, a policy of non-enforcement would go against the clarity and consistency of good law. In theory, if there is no desire to criminalize a particular conduct, then the law should be removed.

Moving Forward Despite recent movements in favour or the LGBT community, it seems unlikely that the majority of Singaporeans will be willing to accept this change at present. Nevertheless, while this simmering issue seems to have momentarily been taken off the boil, it may be a matter of time before it returns to the spotlight once again.

6

Features

Daron Tan Volunteer Legal Advocate, Asylum Access, Thailand (Oxford University, B.A. Juris, Columbia University, LLM)

By: Edwin Teong, University of Bristol

On opting to do an LLM degree in Columbia Law School Q1. What made you decide to pursue an LLM degree?

A: I was at a point in law school where I knew that I wanted to pursue a career in human rights law, but had no relevant work experience to speak of.

During my undergraduate degree, I squandered my summers away doing corporate law internships in big law firms. However, these internships only made me realise that I wanted to pursue a career that was more meaningful than just helping rich people get richer. To borrow from the words of Teo You Yenn: “If you have had opportunities in your life, then you have a responsibility to make sure that these opportunities are also available to others�.

An LLM degree was a logical next step for me to gain practical experience and access professional networks to launch my career in human rights. I recognise that the cost of an LLM degree might be a barrier for some considering this path: this is a cost-benefit analysis that you will need to undertake yourself. I was cognisant of the cost of the degree and made sure I took full advantage of this privilege. This ultimately paid off, as I was awarded the Global Public Service Fellowship

by Columbia Law School to fund me for 12 months of work in a human rights organisation of my choosing.

This gave me an invaluable foot through the door, in a field where paid entry-level positions are in scarcity.

Q2. How did the LLM experience differ from your experience at Oxford University?

A: Columbia was far more practice-oriented than Oxford. I often tell people that while Oxford prepares its students to be academics, Columbia prepares its students to be practitioners. This is particularly important in the human rights field, where practice diverges from academia. Through my time in the Human Rights Clinic in Columbia, I learned a lot about the actual practice of human rights, while within the safe confines of a law school environment.

The community in Columbia was very different from Oxford too. This was partially a function of being in a graduate programme, as opposed to an undergraduate programme. In Columbia, I was surrounded by people with years of work experience and knowledge. For instance, one of my teammates in the Human Rights Clinic worked in India on strategic litigation in the field of socioeconomic rights. Another of my teammates worked for Human Rights Watch as a researcher on civil and political rights. I was constantly humbled by their experiences and learned so much from them during the course of the year.

7

Q3. Could you share some of the takeaways from your experience at the Human Rights Clinic in Columbia Law School?

A: Two things stood out to me during my time in the Human Rights Clinic.

First, there is a gulf between practice and academia. As context, I worked on a project to realise the right to mental health in Yemen while in the Clinic. I quickly realised that having knowledge of case law on the right to health, for instance, is only as useful as it is used. Despite having an academic grounding in human rights law from my time in Oxford, wielding this knowledge in isolation from other bodies of international law was foolhardy. This was especially given the mid-conflict context of Yemen that we were working in. In particular, I had to think critically about the interface between international human rights law, international criminal law, and international humanitarian law. This experience, ultimately, made me a better lawyer.

Second, human rights practice extends far beyond the law. Human rights work is holistic and creative. It forces you to go beyond the knowledge of the law. For instance, we were taught about a wide range of relevant skills in the Human Rights Clinic, including interviewing vulnerable communities, fact-finding, writing reports, policy advocacy, advocating to UN human rights treaty bodies, mapping advocacy tactics, strategic litigation, engaging social media, making pitches to the media, and so forth. These practical skills go hand-in-hand with the aim of the field to push norms and boundaries: something that operating strictly within the law will not help you achieve.

On opting to do an LLM degree in Columbia Law School Q1. What made you choose to work in Thailand over Singapore, the United Kingdom or the United States?

A: Bangkok is a good place for a Southeast Asian human rights lawyer to start their career.

It’s often considered the hub of human rights work in the region, with many international NGOs and regional offices of UN treaty bodies. I wanted to start in Bangkok because I knew my interest was in human rights issues in Southeast Asia. Being based here also gives me useful access to professional networks.

I strongly considered coming back to Singapore after graduating from Columbia but eventually decided against it. There are many good civil society organisations and public interest law firms fighting the good fight in Singapore. However, opportunities to practise international human rights law were limited – in fact, almost non-existent.

Given that my training had been in international law, I wanted a job that allowed me to make use of the knowledge and skills I had gained in my law degrees.

My interest in the region also eliminated the UK or the US as options. The international organisations doing Southeast Asian human rights work did their work remotely and engaged more on research work and report writing. I found that disingenuous, and wanted to actually be on the ground.

Q2. Could you introduce us to a day in your life as a Global Public Service Fellow at Asylum Access Thailand?

A: I work as a lawyer for AAT’s refugee status determination (RSD) team. I provide legal advice and representation to clients seeking refugee status before the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

8

My day-to-day tasks include meeting clients to provide legal advice, drafting legal submissions in support of my clients’ refugee claims, and conducting trainings for clients on basic refugee law and the RSD process. Often, there are emergency situations that I have to react to. This is the nature of refugee aid work. For instance, one of my clients was assaulted by husband and ran away from her home. She came to our office, with her young children, in need of our help.

We had to: (1) scramble to arrange emergency shelter for them; (2) arrange psychosocial support; (3) counsel her on Thai criminal law on domestic violence and sexual and gender-based violence; (4) ensure their security while she was hiding in our office; and (5) prepare an urgent legal submission to UNHCR to expedite their refugee claim. Arranging all of these simultaneously was stressful, but hugely exciting and meaningful all at the same time.

Q3. Which aspect of your job do you find most interesting?

A: I really enjoy the training sessions on basic refugee law and Thai law that we conduct for our clients. We call these sessions legal clinics.

While these legal clinics are sometimes conducted in our office, we usually travel to the communities that our clients live in to conduct these trainings, which is be a refreshing breath of fresh air (literally) from the city.

I enjoy the legal clinics because I can interact with my clients in a more relaxed setting.

Being a refugee lawyer means that you are often confronted with stressful situations. For instance, being constantly faced with the emotional stress of processing the traumatic accounts of persecution our clients have faced in their home countries can be detrimental to one’s mental well-being. This is compounded by the stress of deadlines of legal submissions and the stress of operating in an unfavourable legal landscape.

Additionally, I enjoy engaging with clients away from the clinical setting of the office. The office setting, while necessary, robs my interaction with clients of emotional proximity. It makes me feel like my relationship with my clients is transactional at times. The clinics also allow me to recalibrate my perception of my clients as “victims”: they are more than the product of their trauma and persecution. At the same time, I strongly believe in the purpose of these legal clinics, because they empower our clients and enable them to participate more effectively in accessing their rights.

Q4. What are some of the prerequisites required for a Human Rights lawyer?

I can’t say that I’m fully qualified to know the answer to this question, with my short career in the field so far. However, based on my observations, two prerequisites stand out to me: first, passion; and second, cross-cultural literacy.

First, passion sustains all of us in the field – a passion for making a difference in our clients’ lives, a passion for giving a voice to the disenfranchised, and a passion for resisting against systemic inequalities in the world. Caring deeply for the rights of marginalised communities is a necessity for being a motivated and effective human rights advocate.

Second, being able to work in a cross-cultural setting is especially important in the human rights field. I am constantly surrounded by people coming from a rich diversity of cultures, with my colleagues, interpreters, and clients coming from all over the world. Having cross-cultural literacy and sensitivity is vital to communicating and participating effectively in the field.

Q5. Could you share with us one challenge you have faced and how you overcame it?

One of the biggest challenges I’ve faced was when I had a professional and ethical disagreement with an organisation that I worked with.

9

This was particularly difficult for me to manage because of the infancy of my career.

I was uncertain whether I had bargaining power to decide who I wanted to work with. I was also worried about the repercussions of leaving an organisation so soon after I had joined. However, I trusted my instincts. I realised that I could not, in good conscience, stay with an organisation that I had fundamental disagreements with. On hindsight, I am grateful that I stayed true to my principles, and worked through the anxiety of change.

Professional and ethical disagreements are commonplace in the human rights field, where there isn’t necessary a correct way of doing things. Knowing your principles and values and staying true to them will go a long way in keeping you focused on what is important to you.

Career advice Q1. What tips would you give to aspiring law students regarding career paths?

First, broaden your concept of success. When I was in law school, I jumped on the bandwagon and sought out internships in top corporate law firms because all my friends were doing it. I thought that to be successful, I had to be a lawyer in a corporate law firm earning big bucks. However, after working in this field, I am surrounded by people who measure success in the meaning of their work, the change that they are generating, and the lives that they are changing. Don’t be afraid to push the boundaries of the narrative that there is only one path to success.

Second, seek out practical work experience.

Work experience will help you find your footing and grow your interest in the heterogeneity of the human rights field. Human rights work ranges from international law to domestic public interest law, field work to report writing, and client-facing work to policy advocacy work.

For instance, I knew that I was interested in practising international law in a position that

was client-facing: working as a refugee lawyer was therefore a perfect fit for me.

Third, good mentorship makes a difference.

Because of the less linear nature of human rights career paths, having a good mentor to share life advice and provide guidance can go a long way in helping you shape your own path in the field. Take advantage of professors with useful networks. Don’t hesitate to cold email people with work experience relevant to your interests: you will be surprised by the kindness and generosity of people in the human rights field, who all empathise with the stress of entering the field.

Q2. A perennial binary concerning choosing career options has always been passion or practicality. Would you say it is possible to combine both in a career?

A: This is a false binary: it is entirely possible to combine practicality and passion. It is easy to mistake materialism as practicality. I may never earn as much as I would as a corporate lawyer, but I can still sustain myself financially.

That being said, it can be daunting financially to start a career in human rights, with its absence of paid entry-level positions. I have two suggestions for that.

First, keep a lookout for scholarships and fellowships that are targeted at helping fresh graduates. For instance, I am currently on a post-graduate fellowship (Global Public Service Fellowship) that funds 12 months of work in a human rights organisation of my choice. Second, it is perfectly alright to start your career elsewhere before transitioning into human rights work. If there’s one thing that I’ve learned from my colleagues in this field, it’s that everyone comes into the field through different paths. There is no clear, linear path that one has to take in order to be a successful human rights advocate.

10

Event Highlights

UKSLSS-Rajah & Tann Networking Event By: Shermaine Lim, University of Birmingham

On 28th January 2019, the UKSLSS hosted the Rajah & Tann Recruitment Tea at the Greyhound Café in London.

The session was graced by Managing Partner Lee Eng Beng, Recruitment Partners Chester Toh and Paul Tan, and Senior Associate Jonathan Lai. Many of the students who attended were from a variety of universities, such as University College London, Queen Mary University of London, London School of Economics, King’s College London and even from the University of Birmingham.

The networking session comprised an opening speech by Recruitment Partner Chester Toh, followed by a lunch with an array of authentic Thai dishes and drinks. It was a light-hearted and friendly event, as the partners and associates sat amongst the students, sharing and talking while enjoying the sumptuous food altogether.

In the course of the event, the partners and associates dispensed invaluable career advice and answered queries from students relating to the firm’s culture, the legal scene

in Singapore, and shared their experience as a lawyer in Singapore.

Managing Partner Lee Eng Beng shared specifically on how law students should not be overly focused with securing internships, but also allocate time to rest during the summer break and use the opportunity to gain experience through other avenues. He also mentioned how industry experience can prove to be beneficial in order for candidates to differentiate themselves when applying for training contracts, and students need not stress too much on getting a training contract constantly.

Key Takeaways Some attendees reflected that the event was immensely beneficial in providing answers to queries and serving as a touchpoint to interact with leading lawyers of the firm.

A. Usefulness in answering queries Many attendees found the session useful as they were able to direct their questions and

11

seek advice directly from the lawyers and partners. Alicia Lim (Year 2, LSE) shares: “I wanted to find out if it was worth working in the UK for a few years as a solicitor before returning to Singapore to pursue a career in litigation, and I got my answer there!”

B. Interacting with the people behind one of Singapore’s most prestigious firm It was also an excellent chance for members of the UKSLSS to connect with the lawyers in Rajah and Tann, who offered candid opinions about their working life. Christopher Ho (Year 1, UCL) found it beneficial to be able to get a feel of the firm’s culture and meet with some of the leading lawyers in the firm through an informal setting.

C. Lessons learnt from the event Goh Qi Shuen (Year 2, UCL) expresses her interest towards learning how Rajah & Tann explores the use of artificial intelligence to aid their legal work, which reflects the importance of law firms responding and adapting to changing demands in order to remain relevant.

Overall, the event went smoothly and both students and representatives from the firm were pleased at the outcome of the session.

Many found it to be an informative session as they were able to gain an insight into a top firm in Singapore, while being able to seek internship opportunities with the firm. It was also a rare opportunity for UKSLSS members to meet students from different schools and network through this event.

We would like to thank our sponsor, Rajah & Tann for the constant support they have shown to the UKSLSS and Singaporean law students in the UK over the years and for graciously sponsoring the event.

12