L-R: Leanne (Y2), Yufei (Y4), Wen Qi (Y2), Arielle (Y1), Abigail (Y1), Wan Ting (Y1), Yen Jee (Y3), Natalie (Y1)

Whoever said that there was a “calm before the storm” prior to a great event clearly hasn’t seen an IFG women’s basketball tournament before. Picture yourself walking towards the indoor sport halls at UTown on a Sunday morning and being greeted with an amalgamation of different sounds. The squeaking of shoes scrapping against the floor intermeshed with the echoes of basketballs being passed around and you can only wonder, “Where’s it coming from?” Now walk closer and you will find the answer: our team conducting their warm-up drills before the tournament had even started. Needless to say, the author entered the sport hall that day with a sense of the adrenaline and energy that was about to be unleashed on the court.

Law vs School of Design & Engineering (SDE)

Hard at work with those warm-up drills

Our girls got off to a good start in their first game against the SDE team. With captain Yufei (Year 4) at the helm, the team played like a well-oiled machine. A combination of solid offense (agile executions of fast breaks in tandem with well-positioned shots) led by co-captain Wen Qi (Year 2) and defense ensured that not only did they draw first blood but also dominated the first half of the game 20 (Law) – 0 (SDE). It didn’t stop there. At the second half, the opponent team had tried to apply more defensive pressure on our players in order to turn the tide around. Unfortunately for them, the girls didn’t balk and went on to finish strong with the final score of 26 (Law) – 4 (SDE).

Wen Qi goes for the quick layup

Tight defense by our girls

Law vs Medicine

Though the girls had won spectacularly in the first round, there wasn’t an urge to celebrate as they considered their next opponent: the allegedly formidable Medicine team.  As one player had told the author: “You know they are that good when they got their own customized basketball jerseys.” Early in the game, Medicine had clinched the lead but that didn’t demoralize our girls as they redoubled their efforts to finish the first half 8 (Law) – 12 (Medicine). At the second half, the team continued the momentum by sinking in a few good shots to try and snatch the lead back. However, the Medicine team lived up to its reputation and the game ended with the final score being 13 (Law) – 25 (Medicine).

Leanne attempts the jump shot

Tight Defense (The Sequel)

Law vs Engineering

Undeterred by the result of their previous match and fatigue setting in (due to the small amount of players on the team), the girls pressed on with persistent optimism. The author noted that they gave it their all in the last game against Engineering. The opponent team had proved themselves to be a challenge, finishing the first half 7 (Law) – 12 (Engineering). An average team would have given up at that point but not ours. Coming into the second half, they managed to narrow the lead with a couple of lay-ups made by co-captain Leanne (year 2). Nevertheless, Engineering proved their mettle by holding their ground and the game ended 10 (Law) – 24 (Engineering).

Captain Yufei goes at the ball to start the game

Moving on the offense

Tight Defense (The End)

At the end of the day, the author admits to not knowing anything about women’s basketball before attending the IFG. However, he has been taken to school by a small but tenacious team of 8 players. He awaits the opportunity to view such matches again (all eyes to the upcoming Law-Med Games).

The Law Reversi team kicked off its campaign for the 2016 Inter Faculty Games by chartering into the unfamiliar place that is the Kent Ridge Campus. With traditional powerhouses such as FASS, Science and Computing fielding veteran players, it looked like an interesting contest to come.

The team comprised of, from left to right, Zamiq Azmeer (Y3), Lim Ke Jia (Y2), Joseph Gwee (Y3, Captain), Calvin Lee (Y4) and Benedict Teow (Y2).

As fate would have it, our first draw was against Medicine. Medicine had made numerous changes to their line-up which we beat during LAWMED 2016, and we looked forward to the match-up. Despite the bloodied battlefield as pieces changed their allegiances, the efforts are both teams were ultimately in vain as we ended the match 2-2 (in true Law-Med fashion) and obtaining a point each.

Law was up against eventual runners-up Science next, but despite the immense concentration set on the faces on the Science students, they could not find a solution that would yield them their desired goal of a clean win as Law held on to go down 3.5-0.5. Law then played against SDE, but we were denied the three wins we required and had to settle for a 2-2 draw.

We played the then-leaders Computing next, but the Computing players lost control when they faced a blue screen of law shirts and it was a great feeling going into the lunch break with a win at 2.5-1.5 Importantly, this put us in 3^rd position in the standings and in medal contention.

Revitalised by the input of food, we got down to Business and eventually we prevailed with a score of 2.5-1.5. The match against Dentistry was a much closer affair, as we had to brace a strong offensive from their team. After gritting our teeth, we managed to settle for another 2-2 draw. We were still at the upper half of the leaderboard, but had yet to face the top 3 seeded teams. Nonetheless, the dream was real and we were determined to do our best.

We faced a grim-faced Engineering team, which was the top seed for this tournament. The contest was an electrifying one especially when Team Law threw a spanner in the works of the Engineering team who was expecting an easy victory. We eventually ceded the match 1.5-2.5.

Our next opponent FASS seemed to be enjoying their art of victory with sweeping 4-0 victories for most of their matches. We were determined not to let this happen and we held on for a narrow 1-3 loss. Our last match was against USP, the 2^nd seeds. This match-up saw some of the closest games where games were lost due to forced errors and one of our games had 0.03s on the clock. Despite our best efforts, we unable to prevail but ended with a result of 1-3.

In conclusion, it was an outstanding performance from a team that managed to give competitive Reversi players a run for their money, and was in 3^rd place for most of the tournament. We definitely look forward to reinforcing our ranks and further improving for the next LAWMED!

Written by: Joseph Gwee (Y3), IFG Reversi Captain

(L to R) Front row: James Lek (Y1), Jansheer (Y1), Juegan (Y1), Benedict (Y1), Josiah (Y2), Marcus Lee (Y2), Joshua Suwe (Y3), Kenneth Ng (Y2) Second row: Shi Kai (Y1), Jacob (Y1), Ryan (Y2), Marcus Hoh (Y3), James Kwong (Y4), Ian (Y4), Daryl (Y2) Back row: Jayden (Y4), Darren (Y3), Prakash (Y1), Zaki (Y3), Marc (Y2) In our hearts: Fang (Y3), Nick Yap (Y2)

Kids, it was Semester 1 of AY 16/17 and I’m going to tell you the story of how the Law Men’s Football team started its long and arduous journey to the summit (no pun intended). Our boys fought valiantly and courageously over 3 (THREE!!!) weekends, so the least you could do is to read until the end of the article to find out how we did.

The preliminary rounds got off to a bumpy start, with the first day of matches postponed due to the outbreak of haze. As a result of the last-minute changes in schedule, it seemed that we may not even have had enough players to kick off our first game against Arts. However, through the rallying cries of our inspirational leader, captain Josiah Tham (Y2), supper plans were cancelled, hundreds of pages of readings were foregone, and we brought a near full-strength squad to face off against one of our main rivals for a place in the semi-finals.

Law vs FASS (2-0)

And woe to those who stood in the way of our precious Sunday nights. The law team came out with guns blazing and made the best possible start.

Nick (Y2) showing off some sick tekkers during warmup.

In the opening minutes, superstar winger Darren Low (Y3) bravely lunged in to meet Nick Yap’s (Y2) cross from the right. He beat the Arts keeper and his marker to the ball, and headed in the first goal of the game.

But we were not done just yet. Soon after, Marcus Lee (Y2) spotted Benedict Tan’s (Y1) run and split open the Arts defence with a perfectly weighted through ball from defence. Still left with plenty to do, Ben easily outpaced the defenders and managed to stroke the ball past the keeper. We were 2-0 up within the first ten minutes of the game.

Despite our best efforts, however, we were unable to add to the scoreline for the rest of the match, and it ended with a 2-0 victory. Special mention goes to Team Law’s goalkeeper, James Lek (Y1), who came to the rescue on multiple occasions. Indeed, it seemed at times as though we had a brick wall covering the surface of our goal. James, putting on a man-of-the-match performance in the second half, produced several stunning saves to preserve our two-goal advantage. Props.

Picture of James Lek (Y1) in action against FASS. 

Law vs Computing (3-1)

The very next weekend, we started off the day with a game against the School of Computing. We knew that victory here would all but secure our place in the semi-finals. And while we did not have the same explosive start that we did against FASS, it was a matter of time before our continued dominance produced results.

Our boys ready for the challenging day ahead.

In the dying seconds of the first half, Darren cut in from the left and fired a fierce shot that Computing’s keeper could not hold on to. Ryan Ong (Y2), the driest player on the pitch having just been substituted on, was well-positioned to convert the rebound and put us 1-0 up. Team Computing’s appeals for offside were in vain as the referee blew the half-time whistle.

“Your hair still perfect sia!” quipped Nick to Ryan, as the teams walked off the field. And indeed it was.

Captain Josiah (Y2) showing his opponent that it’s all about the girth.

Nick (Y2) sending his opponent back to Kent Ridge MRT with a clever change of pace.

The second half got off to a less than promising start, with Team Computing tying the game at 1-1 with a well-taken free kick. This was not helped by midfielder Marcus Hoh (Y3) needlessly picking up a yellow card for a typically over-aggressive challenge. This seemed to reinvigorate our opponents, but it was not the day we would be denied our rightful ownership of a semi-final place.

It wasn’t long before Ryan (Y2) scored his second goal of the match to restore our lead at 2-1. Hungry for more, we persisted in searching for a third goal, and Jayden (Y4) delivered with the last kick of the game, thumping a free kick past the wall and the keeper to make it 3-1 and put the win beyond all reasonable doubt.

Ryan (Y2) giving the camera two thumbs up after scoring his second goal to make the score 2-1.

Law vs Medicine (0-0)

This was an age-old rivalry that had existed since the dawn of time. Both teams were now fighting for top spot in the group, and it was clear to everyone that this would be a tough game.

The first half saw plenty of scoring opportunities for both sides. Midfielders Josiah (Y2) and Benedict (Y1) completely disregarded the concept of medical consent, repeatedly penetrating the gaps in Medicine’s rearguard. However, Team Medicine showed a commendable grasp of the s 96 right to private defence, and provided some deep penetration of their own in return.

Benedict (Y1) starting an attack with a long pass.

Medicine defenders trembling in fear as pro football analyst Marc (Y2) whips in a cross.

As the first half ended goalless, Captain Josiah provided some words of encouragement, along with sound tactical advice:

“Just shoot more, they don’t even have a proper keeper la, that guy play frisbee one I think.”

Brimming with motivation, Team Law played their hearts out for the second half and still ended the game at 0-0. Much to our captain’s surprise, Medicine’s frisbee-playing goalkeeper produced quite a remarkable save to deny Darren from scoring the winner right before the final whistle. Nevertheless, this result virtually guaranteed that we finished at the top of the group going into the semi-finals.

Law vs USP (Win)

Rumour has it that Team USP heard tales of Team Law’s rapid rise to the top of Group B, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. Fearful of becoming our next victims, they decided to forfeit the game.

Just kidding. But they really did not show up, so we won by default.

Semi-Final: Law vs Science (0-0)

But the course of IFG glory never did run smooth. Further late changes to the schedule meant that we would play the final stages of the tournament with the bare minimum 11, and were missing several key players.

We faced off against a Science team that had twice our numbers. Undeterred, Team Law put up an admirable team performance, showing no signs of fatigue despite the vast numerical disadvantage. While we had several chances to snatch victory towards the final minutes, the game ended at 0-0 and would be decided by a penalty shootout.

And this, kids, is where our fairytale was brought to a premature conclusion, and we were eliminated by a narrow margin of 4-3 in the shootout. Subsequently, Engineering’s no-show meant that we finished this year’s IFG in a very respectable 3^rd position. Congratulations to the 22 who proudly represented Team Lawsku to help achieve our highest placing in recent memory. Further congratulations to Team Medicine on winning the final to become this year’s champions, we’ll meet again at LawMed 2017.

Just some cute Y1s having fun with my phone.

To shamelessly steal the opening line from last year’s IFG article, it is that time of the year again where 12 sweaty men pound balls in a hot, stuffy room. That’s right, volleyball season is in! The men’s team this year comprised of Andre Koh, Norman Aziz, Hyrum Li, Gan Xian Kai (all year 4), Foo Jyh Howe, Foo Chuan Ri, Marc Leung (all year 2), Yap Shi Kai and Jeremy Ng (both year 1). Maverick Tan and Akshay Prasad (both year 1) were also valuable assets to our team but were unable to make it down for the games due to other commitments.

This year, we were drawn in a tough group with very competent opponents (there are no easy games, as they say) in Engineering, Yale-NUS, Science and Dentistry.

ENGIN

Facing the reigning IFG champions in our first fixture was never going to be an easy task, and not having our regular setter “Destroyer” Cheah Wenjie (upon request for a more intimidating nickname) available made the task all the more mountainous. The absence of our very popular teammate “John” Chua Cheng Aik was also a big blow for us. However, Senior Emeritus Captain Andre Koh stepped in and sacrificed his spiking prowess to take over the setter role for the day. With this being the first game and also the first time the six players on court played together, there were a few communication and tactical errors which were made (and which we were punished ruthlessly for), but they were slowly ironed out as the game progressed.

It was also worth noting that having had the comfort of playing in an air-conditioned sports hall last year, the lack of heat acclimatisation had visibly affected us initially when the air-con was questionably not turned on this year. Much blood, sweat and tears (just sweat, actually) were shed as we, being the clear underdogs, stood up bravely against a very powerful Engin team. However, their strength in attack eventually overwhelmed us as our boys succumbed to a 0-2 loss, having pushed them closer than we had expected in the second set (14-25, 18-25).

YNC

Not content with our opening defeat, we rallied ourselves for our next game against a very enthusiastic Yale NUS team with their very own dedicated cheerleaders (probably the only set of supporters in the sports hall at the time, except Andre’s significant other who was our only supporter – cheers!). More attacking opportunities were converted in this game, thanks no less to the wonderful setting by the charmingly versatile Andre, who set up numerous attacks for spikers “Bankai” Yap Shi Kai, Norman “The Academic” Aziz, “Jai Ho” Foo Jyh Howe and Jeremy “Avalon” Ng.

Some of our spikes were so powerful that reverberations from the ball hitting the ground could be heard all the way from Bukit Timah (on a Saturday no less, where everyone is probably still studying). Perhaps one of Bankai Yap’s spikes was so powerful that the ball exploded, which might potentially explain the mysterious disappearance of one of our own volleyballs.

Bankai Yap showcasing his spiking prowess during a training session. Look at the raw power behind that spike even in slo-mo.

Foo Chuan Ri(pped), who was playing for the first time in an unfamiliar position as a sub-set, and Marc “Legend” Leung, who was making his IFG volleyball debut, both maintained their composure and defended calmly when they were called upon, guided by IHG-winning libero Gan Xian Kai. However, it is unfortunate that Chuanripped had, by this time, lost his 100% win record in IFG volleyball (4 played 2 won), but thankfully the legendary Marc has now assumed that undefeated record (1 played 1 won E Z GAME).

All in all, we stuck to our gameplan and limited our defensive mistakes to a minimum, while overpowering our opponents in attack. We eventually won this match 2-0 (25-19, 25-20), though credit must be given to YNC for putting up a very resilient and spirited fight.

SCI

Having already lost one match, it was imperative that we needed to beat the other seeded team, Science, to stand any chance of making the semis. Our match against Science started after lunch, and a combination of ill-advised meal choices (read Andre and his nasi padang) and the stuffy environment of the court (I cannot stress enough how stuffy it was) threatened to put us in a state of lethargy.

However, when the match started, it was a pulsating affair with countless rallies. Our opponents were ruthless in attack and we were forced to cover more ground to defend against their attacks. However, by this point, we were more positionally aware and resolute in defence, while also serving up some more very impressive attacking plays in return. We even made a few deftly-executed drop balls and thunderous back-row spikes which caught our opponents off guard at times. In fact, our main attacking outlet, Bankai Yap, was so much of a threat that our opponents decided to utilise all three of their front-row blockers to nullify him.

After our first set, Hyrum “Engaged” Li finally arrived after rushing down from BTC having just finished his intensive lessons, and took his place in the team to attempt to salvage a victory. Destroyer Cheah also found time to cheer us on from the sidelines, and their presence greatly lifted our moods. Alas, despite giving our most valiant efforts and fighting till the very last point (regrettably amidst an array of service and other individual errors), Science proved too strong for us as we bowed out of IFG following a 0-2 loss (10-25, 16-25).

DENTISTRY

Due to a lack of numbers on both teams, clashes in schedules with other IFG sports and a general unwillingness to travel all the way down to U-Town on a separate Saturday to play an ultimately inconsequential match, both teams agreed to decide the result of this match on a coin toss. However, having lost every coin toss before each of our games, the losing streak continued as Dentistry won the coin toss and recorded a victory over us (on paper).

Intense volleyball action going on in our game against Dentistry

To end off, team captain and author of this article Jai Ho (on contract for service) would like to thank all his teammates for all their efforts put in trainings and in the matches proper. We can be very encouraged by the progress we have achieved as a team this year and our fighting spirit throughout the whole IFG, despite facing very competent opponents. Off the courts, I hope that we have fostered stronger bonds and friendships through all the light-hearted banter, fast food dinners, llaollao treats, and inadvertent tours of the Kent Ridge campus when we got lost from navigating to the NUH carpark.
Special thanks to the graduating year 4s – Andre, Norman, Hyrum, Xian Kai – who stuck around when the team was in its formative years and for giving us guidance and advice at every opportunity, though our resident academic Norman technically still has one more year to play since he is doing his MPP double degree. Rest assured the future of the team is in good hands as we look forward to LawMed and fight for one last hurrah for this amazing bunch of seniors.

Finally, as per volleyball tradition, no article is complete without our matchmaking segment. Here’s a shoutout to Norman, Xian Kai, Shi Kai, Maverick and Jeremy, who were all valuable assets to the team and also coincidentally happen to be single, available and very much ready to mingle #justsaying. If any ladies are interested, please drop me a message and I will do my best to arrange a date over coffee at Reedz. If any guys are interested in having their availability publicised, please join volleyball next year, because volleyball is not just a sport – it is also a platform for true love (that’s how i impressed vanessa ).

Also, as per another volleyball tradition, we forgot to take a team photo after our matches. So this will have to do, in all our ball-pounding glory.

From L to R: Maverick “Law Prince” Tan, “Bankai” Yap Shi Kai (squatting – a fine display of the basic skill for receiving a volleyball), Jeremy “Avalon” Ng, “Jai Ho” Foo Jyh Howe, Hyrum “Engaged” Li, Senior Emeritus Captain Andre Koh, Norman “The Academic” Aziz
Not present for this photoshoot: “Temasek Hall Superstar” Gan Xian Kai, Foo Chuan Ri(pped), Marc “Legend” Leung, Akshay “The Giant” Prasad

Written by: “Jai Ho” Foo Jyh Howe (Y2), IFG Volleyball Captain

It’s that time of the year, where year 3 (and some year 4) seniors are anxiously going for their TC interviews. For many of you, it may be your first job interview. I’ve been asked separately by quite a few of my batchmates for interview tips, so I thought I’d share my own personal experience. I’ve gone for many interviews (in law and for my previous job outside of law) and failed many, so here is what I’ve learned from the whole process. I know the anxiety of not having a TC as you see friends around you getting offers, so all I can say is, don’t panic, it’s still early days yet.

Part I: Applications

1. When to apply?

At the start of Y3 Semester 1! You kids (current y3) are lucky in that all the big 4’s opened tgt and early this year, so there’s no worry of should I hold back on the mid sized firms because what if I apply mid size then they offer before big 4 open? No such concern now, so just spam! That said, don’t be too stressed if you don’t land an offer right now, or even next month, or the month after that. There are still healthy numbers of 2019 offers going out all the way till feb-mar (maybe a tad earlier this year cos the big 4 opened early), but I do hear of people landing TC’s at smaller firms as late as during bar course.

2. How many firms to apply for?

I applied about 40 firms, and got calls for interviews with 10. But I know people who applied 60 and got called for 4, and people who applied for 4 and got 3. Of course if you are a dean’s lister that helps! But once you’ve gotten an interview, you’ve got a foot in the door already.

3. What to put in my cover letter?

There are paid services for this, but if you ask around, you surely have friends and seniors who will dispense advice for free. There’s no fixed formula, but I got a pretty good slate of interviews, including some which I think were out of my league, so I guess the cover letter helped!

First para: why I wanted to join the firm. Include some customised bits tailored to the firm.

2nd para: my grades and achievements.

3rd para: past work/CCA experience and why it’s applicable to law/the firm/the practice area.

4th para: short conclusion why they should hire you

Part II: Interview

1. How long before they call me for interview?

Depends. Fastest was the day itself, longest was 2 ½ months, by which time I’d forgotten I even applied to them. Most firms will not reply with a rejection if you don’t pass this stage.

2. What works in interviews?

I have more experience flunking interviews than passing them (there’s a reason why I’m my brother’s junior instead of his batchmate!), but what I have learnt is, in job interviews (including outside of law), one thing they are looking for is “fit”. This is a black art, and is honestly heng suay one. Don’t beat yourself up about this one.

But one thing you can prepare for is some compelling story as to why you’ll be a valuable asset to the team. For me, I applied for IP practices, and I have a background in 3D animation, so I made mention of how as an artist whose livelihood is being threatened by piracy I understand the importance of protecting IP etc etc. I am also adept in CAD software, which is a useful skill in IP practices that deal with design patents. I also mentioned something about my business degree. They seemed to like that. So try to figure out something you’re good at that fits with the firm/practice area you’re interviewing for.

Also, be shameless. One thing that I think screwed me over several times is that I undersold myself. Not asking you to claim to be able to do things you clearly can’t, but if you don’t project confidence in your abilities, the interviewers can sense it.

3. Do they ask law questions?

I’ve only ever gotten asked a law question once, and it was for a big 4 IP dept. All I can say is, if you are applying for something specialised, it helps tremendously to have taken a mod before. Being a GLB disadvantaged me in that respect because now, having taken 1 IP mod, I realised that despite reading up on IP beforehand, nothing beats having taken a module in the area before.

That said, when they do ask, usually they won’t so guailan ask one area, they’ll ask what area of law you like, and then the law qn will come from there. So do prepare maybe a favourite area of law, and a favourite case to discuss. Don’t end up “oh I liked contract law. Any area that needs reform/any case you found interesting? Ummmmmm…” *eyes glaze over* (based on a true story)

Note: I heard A&G now has some case thing. Last year didn’t have. Employer’s market is like that one.

4. Do they ask about grades?

The conventional wisdom is, no. Once you’ve gotten the interview, usually they are ok with your grades. Again, I’ve only been asked once. But that was an anomaly cos the reason it went to grades was because I was interviewed by the same dude who interviewed my brother the year before and somehow he remembered him and wanted to see how our grades stacked up. But by and large, unless you have a twin brother, it’s quite unlikely IMO.

HOWEVER, if you are interviewing at some firm that’s way out of your league, do prepare a convincing argument as to why they should take you despite your grades.

5. What to ask/not to ask?

Pay: NO! I was once a young naive business undergrad, and had the temerity to ask about pay. I got a very curt response. I felt like just disappearing under the table and crawling out the room. Retention rates: depends. Opinions differ, but I think especially after CJ Menon’s speech, just ask. I haven’t heard of firms who will lie if asked. If it’s a larger firm that is going to be hunger games, you may be better off at a smaller place that hires with a view to retention.

Part III: After the interview

1. When do they get back to you?

This is the most bruising part. In my job applications (both in law and for my previous job), the offers, when they came, have come on the spot or very shortly after. If they don’t call back within the week, chances dwindle rapidly. Some firms have the courtesy to reject you at the email application stage. Some will only let you know of rejection if you made it to an interview. And about half of those firms that I interviewed at…no sound no picture after the interview. The fastest rejected me within an hour after I sent in the application. One was the day after the interview. The longest I’ve had was 4 months after the interview (!!!), but at least they let me know of the rejection. There was one firm that promised to let me know either way, and I never heard from them. So yes, until you get an offer, don’t stop applying! 5 interviews can very easily be 5 rejections! It’s the most awful feeling in the world, as the days go by after an interview you think went well, and then more days go by, and eventually you start to realise maybe you aren’t getting an offer. Some people advocate calling in to check, for me I don’t really see the point because you kind of know after 2 weeks.

2. What do I do if I don’t get any offers?

Head over to Part II of this series, addressing how to apply for non-law careers!

All the best to everyone!

Written by: Samuel Ling

As mentioned by my bro, this post is aimed at those (esp Y4) looking to non-law careers.

Despite official denials, many of you are finding it tough to secure a TC. “Pursue other career choices!” they say, and expect you to go job-hunting in the open market with very little institutional support or resources, a baby in a basket on the doorstep. It’s scary, it’s filled with uncertainty, and it’s definitely not what you signed up for when you made the decision to apply to NUS law.

I’m here to help! 4 years ago, I graduated from NUS Business. I had to look for a job on the open job market. I aced some interviews, but, perhaps more importantly, I flunked a couple. I’m no interview expert, but I think some of you might find the following helpful!

Note: this post is timely for peeps in my matriculating batch (the current Year 4s) who haven’t secured TCs. For the Year 3s, concentrate on your TC hunt for now, but this post will be useful to you next year!

In this post, I will cover the following questions:

1. What should I apply for?
2. When should I be applying?
3. How do I prepare for an interview/assessment center?
4. How do I do up non-law CV and Cover Letter?
5. How much should I be expecting to earn?

Let’s get started!

PART I. WHAT SHOULD I APPLY FOR?

For those of you who don’t have a burning passion in life, a family biz, or stacks of Daddy’s cash or connections to give you a headstart somewhere, this may be overwhelming. Don’t despair- there are lots of great options! My criteria for shortlisting these jobs are that (a) They have some cachet (I’ll be realistic here and assume that law grads would hope for something with a nice ring to it at least) (b) They are generalist positions that don’t require technical skills (c) They pay reasonably ok (see point 5 later).

Do note that my suggestions are quite biased towards my personal (biz sch) background, and do not represent the four corners of what law grads should be applying for!

I will also state at this point that many of the following jobs I am suggesting ask for “good class honours”. This is a code-word for SECOND UPPER. Now, many of you struggling to find TCs don’t have a 2:1. I’ll be blunt: some employers treat this as a threshold requirement and will reject a 2:2 from NUS law, even though they will interview a 2:1 from a less-selective degree course.

BUT it’s not the end of the world! Most companies process their applications manually, and from what I understand, quite a number are actually flexible when they see a 2:2 from NUS law. For example, 2:2 is viable at SIA for their MA program, if you have supporting things like CCA and a compelling story.

My advice? Just apply. And just put “LLB (hons)” on top of your CV. And put your stellar A level or poly transcripts in front. And make full use of your Cover Letter. More on those later.

1. Consider joining the government!

Policy positions in ministries such as MFA, MINDEF, PMO, MTI, MHA and other agencies such as SPRING, EDB, IESingapore, A*STAR, DSTA, PSA, MPA etc hire generalists, i.e. any degree will do. Government work can be rewarding. Being part of something larger, for the greater good of Singapore is something I’ll miss (I was at MFA). Soppy but true! Good English, solid report writing, and a good grasp of current affairs are key skills they value, and I think most law grads do quite well in all 3.

2. Management Associate or Management Trainee or Future Leaders, or Graduate programs.

I’ll just call them MA programs. They’re basically where companies hire their future management from. For the guys, a good analogy is OCS. MAs are earmarked for leadership. They typically spend the first 1-3 years rotating around different business units (Marketing, Operations, HR etc), before being put in charge of a team of executives. MA programs are competitive to get into, and most of the applicants tend to be Business school grads. However, most programs accept applicants from all disciplines. MA program interviews tend to have Business Cases and Assessment Centers, which I will touch on in point 3 below (with regard to how to prepare for them).

On MA programs, I would recommend trying for MNCs such as P&G, Microsoft, GlaxoSmithKline, Kraft, Sony etc, as well as GLCs, such as SIA, Singtel, SembCorp, ComfortDelGro etc, because in general larger companies pay better and offer better exposure. As mentioned, these programs can be selective, hiring maybe 5-15 graduates per batch, but, being management roles, provide better career opportunities than vocationalist roles, where you specialize in a single job function.

I should add that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with vocationalist roles (e.g. accounts exec or HR exec). If you’ve got a passion for corp comms, by all means apply for corp comms positions! But if you’re clueless, ceteris paribus, MA positions tend to be more prestigious and coveted than vocationalist ones, and pay better, too.

Compliance departments. Basically, departments that ensure compliance with govt, industry and company regulations. Now, these sound boring, but compliance is a skillset that every large organization will need, so it is transferrable across organizations and, to a lesser extent, industries. In particular, bank compliance as a business sector became a growth area after the financial crisis, and the risk management and tax evasion legislation that followed. Legal training is especially relevant to this field, and many of the regulations would be familiar to those who took modules on banking law (Basel III etc), and although experience is preferred, I’m thinking there may be fresh grad positions as well (I admit this is not my area of specialisation and I’m a bit out of my depth here).

PART II. WHEN SHOULD I START APPLYING FOR INTERNSHIPS AND JOBS?

It varies, so DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND CHECK. GIYF. Some companies and agencies (MFA for example) have year-round rolling employment. Others, especially the MA programs, have annual intakes with specified application windows and closing deadlines. FIND OUT what these are.

But here’s my suggested timeline: concentrate on finding a TC throughout Y3S1, start applying for non-law Summer INTERNSHIPS in Y3S2 (while continuing your TC hunt), and concentrate on non-law JOB applications throughout Y4.

Year 3s SHOULD consider applying for Y3 non-law SUMMER INTERNSHIPS. Again, do your homework on the structured internship application windows for each firm, but in general, apply about 6 months in advance for these, so at the end of Y3S1. If you haven’t secured a TC by the close of Y3S1, your Year 3 Summer hols may be better spent doing an internship in an alternative industry rather than chasing that elusive TC with last-ditch law internships. Do note that internships in other industries generally last at LEAST 6 weeks, and most last ~10 weeks, so don’t expect to do more than 1. Choose wisely!

As to the actual jobs, you should look to apply for them in Y4S1 and Y4S2. Firms outside of law hire 6 months to 1 year before their structured programs start, and up to 1-2 months before for vocationalist or vanilla exec positions. Try to secure a job before graduation- sitting at home jobless after graduation applying for jobs can be demoralizing.

Also, note that many organizations, firms and MA programs have upwards of 4 selection rounds, and the whole process can take up to 2 months for some firms. I recommend sending AT LEAST 3-5 applications PER WEEK. If just 10% of them reply and each has 4 rounds, you could find yourself with 16 interviews over 2 months! Interviews are like a 5MC module, and once they start coming in, expect to attend 2-3 interviews a week, with the requisite prep time factored in.

Another piece of advice: Apply to as many as you can, and go for as many interviews as you can. Nevermind that it’s some industry you may not be interested in. Interview skills are picked up through EXPERIENCE. You’re sure to screw up your first interview, trust me. I did. And it was for a job I really, really wanted then. So, make sure the interview for your dream job is NOT your first rodeo!

Also, this is probably anathema to some in the legal industry, especially amongst the old-school partners, but you shouldn’t stop your job search after you get your first non-law offer. Outside of the legal industry bubble, there isn’t a TC honour code. Graduates shop around for offers, and companies know that. You may ask for some time to consider the offer, or agree verbally and back out before signing. I think it’s not very nice and I personally wouldn’t do it, but I’ve seen some even go back on signed offers with signing bonuses (they returned the money of course) for better offers.

Lastly, subscribe to email blasts from the NUS Career Center (not just the law school one), and attend the Career Fair 2017 in Feb. Shove your CVs to anyone and everyone, and try to make an impression on the recruiters. Make a business card if necessary, cos some don’t take CVs there, but they sure will accept a card (NUS Business makes them for free for Bizad grads, you guys should ask the law careers office to consider doing the same for Law grads). Follow up with an email, if you got the namecard of the recruiter.

PART III. HOW DO I PREPARE FOR AN INTERVIEW/ASSESSMENT CENTER?

Unlike law, where you are likely to get just ONE interview to land that TC, in most other jobs, there will be many rounds of interviews, and some will include Assessment Centers (No, these aren’t similar to tuition centers!)

Firstly, what do the rounds comprise of? Typically, in most large organizations, the first round of interviews will be a general “winnowing” stage, where HR ppl will interview large numbers of candidates, sometimes in groups. Assessment centers may then be conducted by HR to test for certain competencies. Subsequent rounds usually involve interviews with or presentations to middle or even senior management to evaluate your analytical and/or presentation skills, and final rounds will usually involve senior management having a less formal chat with you to see if your personality is a fit for the organization.

So, how do you impress? Well, you should prepare for the interview by DOING YOUR HOMEWORK. Read the company webpage THOROUGHLY. I failed an interview once cos I didn’t know the founder’s name! Look for news about the company, news about the industry. Who are its main competitors? Is the industry doing well or badly? If possible, what’s the job scope like, and are you prepared for it (e.g. are you prepared for shift work, attention to detail, overseas postings, working weekends etc)? Also prepare for sure-ask questions like, “why do you want to work at Sony?”, or “what makes you a good fit for the advertising industry?”, and of course, “why should we hire you?”.

At minimum, spend at LEAST 3 hours reading up about the company and industry the day before an interview.

Assessment centers. So these vary from company to company, but basically they’re 2-6 hour sessions, usually held in training rooms or computer labs in the company. They feature problem-solving exercises designed to test specific vocational skills HR thinks you’ll need. For banks, for example, ACs may involve timed arithmetic problems, MA programs may involve business cases (more in a moment), and certain government jobs may require you to do IQ or grammar tests, or prepare sample reports within a set time limit.

Business cases. In particular, MA programs are, after all, looking for management material. Many will give you a business case, for which you have to prepare a response strategy to present to management within a set time. This tests your presentation skills as well as business analysis.

Here is a short sample business case:

https://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/…/do…/TwC_online_resource_01.pdf

Here is a bunch of VERY short business cases with short sample answers

http://www.consultingcase101.com/tag/free-sample-case/

And here are two business cases which are of the typical length found in case competitions (and some interviews):

https://mitsloan.mit.edu/…/…/Pages/Nissan-Motor-Company.aspx

https://mitsloan.mit.edu/…/C…/10-103%20Conexia%20Lehrich.pdf

Look around online or ask your business school friends for help in preparing for interviews with business cases. Not all interviews have them, but a lot of MA program interviews do.

PART IV. HOW DO I DO UP A NON-LAW CV AND COVER LETTER?

A cover letter accompanies your CV. ALWAYS send your CV with a cover letter, even if the website only asks you to “email your CV to the HR dept”. Noob mistake I’ve made before.

It’s supposed to tell the recruiter why they should hire you. Convince them in one page or less. Aside from the pleasantaries that you can glean from online templates, a Cover Letter should state why you chose the company and/or industry and what skills or experiences you have that you think would make you suitable for the job.

What some people don’t realise is that the Cover Letter is also an opportunity for you to guide the recruiter through your CV. The Cover Letter and CV should not be viewed in isolation. WEAVE a story! Tailor your CV and Cover Letter to the organization. Take the recruiter through your most salient achievements in your CV, and explain any interesting, odd or weak entries. For example, instead of leaving the recruiter to draw adverse inferences on a gap in your transcripts, highlight that you took that sem off to train for some SEA games event, which you won Silver for (ok, exaggerating, but you get the idea). Of course, weave it into how you learnt perseverence or somesuch and how that is a valuable trait you bring to the table. Or if you interned in a bank and you’re applying for a compliance job, highlight that in your Cover Letter, and don’t just leave it to the recruiter to stumble upon it when perusing your CV.

As to the CV, there are two schools of thought. Some say 1 page, some say 2. I think either is fine, but personally, I think 1 page is better (but no more than 2!). Less is more, and recruiters are always swamped. Unless you’re some superstar prodigy, chances are the 3 most dazzling entries in each category (Academics, Work exp, Leadership, Awards, Hobbies/others) will be enough for the recruiter to know what they need to. The next 5 entries are probably much less impressive anyway- winning that storytelling competition in primary 2 probably adds nothing to your chances of getting hired!

PART V. HOW MUCH SHOULD I BE EXPECTING TO EARN?

This is touchy, but I think that, in expecting you to “temper” your expectations, it would be helpful to know what these expectations are.

First off, $4,000 – 5,000 starting pay may be pretty common in law. Elsewhere, this is considered high. Very high.

As a benchmark, a 2015 NUS Business grad started at, on average, $3,341 per month. This is just that- an average. The average marketing grad without honours probably made closer to $2,300, whereas the average Finance 2:1 who started in a mid-office position at a bank started closer to $4,300.

The MA programs I talked about just now? They range between $2,700-$4200. You’ll have to check individually, but for example I heard Sony’s Fresh Minds (I don’t think they’re hiring this year) started below $3,000 in 2012, while Unilever’s Future Leaders started above $4,000. DON’T ask the interviewers, of course, but ask around your business sch friends. If the culture hasn’t changed, rumours about starting salaries in various firms and industries aren’t nearly the taboo topic they are in law school.

For public service, starting pay is pegged to your class of honours unfortunately. Expect to earn $3000 or so less for a 2:2. But the good news is stat boards and ministries pay well. They generally start around $3,300, and some (EDB, MOF, MTI and MFA) can even go above 4 with a 2:1. For the Singaporeans, you may want to apply to be a spook. Can’t say more, but that job pays well. VERY well.

For the girls, some organizations (including the civil service) pay $200-400 less than the guys, cos of NS. At annual salary increments of $100-200, your 2-year headstart works out to about that, so don’t sweat it, you’re still ahead of your peers! But do be prepared for this starting disparity.

Lastly, help each other out. By my reckoning, some 50 of you per batch (about 20% of the cohort) will face issues securing TCs. This is a lot, but a drop in the pond for all the thousands of jobs out there. For most of you, you stand more to gain SHARING news of opportunities than hoarding it. Apply together and exchange tips! That’s how it was done when I was in business school, and it made the job hunt a lot more bearable than the fearful, secretive world of law TC applications.

Hope this helps, and all the best in your job hunt!

For more information on TC applications, head over to Part I of this series!!

Written by: Daniel Ling

Dr James Naismith really knew what he was doing. In December 1891, he nailed a peach basket onto a ten-foot pole, and got players to throw soccer balls inside. Balls had to be manually retrieved after every goal, and the laces on the ball made the bouncing unpredictable and erratic.

Move forward one hundred and twenty-five years, and the game has advanced far beyond Dr Naismith’s original vision. Players who rain down shots from 38 feet out. Giants who move with the speed of gazelles. Entire leagues dedicated to the sport, and legions of loyal fans who are devoted to the amazing game. The game of basketball.

On Saturday the 4^th of September, the Law IFG Men’s team went down to the Stephen Riady Centre in U Town to play in the preliminary rounds against some tough competition.

Basketball Captain, Lim You Xiang, walked everyone through the plays and defensive scheme, and led us into battle against some formidable opponents.

L to R: Linming Ho, Benedict Tedjopranoto, Leon Tay, Shaun Sia, Wee Yang Xi, Nick Choo, Chester Yan, Lim You Xiang, Darrel Lee, Jerrold Au, Elias Tiong, Nick Yap

Yale NUS

Yale NUS’ forefathers said that they were aiming to create “an interconnected, interdependent global environment”. That much was obvious going into our first game, as the tall trees from Australia, America, New Zealand and god knows where else were up for show. Their athleticism and length kept the Law side under pressure, and many turnovers ensued, which the Yale NUS team capitalize on with many fast break points.

You Xiang wowed both sides with his impressive ball handling skills, spinning left and right, keeping the YNC side off balance. The Captain hit some of his patented floaters to close the gap, but YNC just kept on rolling… Rolling right into me. I swear to the basketball gods (Michael, Larry and Magic; go look them up) that I felt my ribs crack after a YNC player kneed me. Fortunately, I was just being melodramatic and was able to get back up and write this article.

The Law side made some quick substitutions and played on, grinding it out against a very talented Yale side. Unfortunately, we couldn’t close the gap, and suffered our first loss.

Team Huddle

USP

This was a nail biting game that had everyone cheering, screaming and sitting on the edge of their seats. USP’s star player started slow, whilst the Law side started hot. Captain You Xiang got to the basket at will, and after a quick three from the Law side, things were looking good. Even better, the defence seemed to be able to shut down USP’s secret weapon, even blocking him on one possession. Not in our house. Well technically, it’s more their house, but you get the general idea.

When the second half started, things started to go downhill for the Law side as the USP monster began heating up and getting to the freethrow line with ease, and converting them too.

Soon, Law was only one point ahead, but with a three from the USP side, we found ourselves behind all of a sudden, and we were playing for survival. Despite some good play from Darrell Lee and Nick Yap/Choo (I can never really tell them apart), when the final buzzer sounded, the score was 18-17, USP.

Warming up

Dentistry

This was the game that would get us our first win. We were certain. Captain You Xiang put on the freshmen lineup, and after some good defence and fastbreaks from Brendan Loy, law was up in points. Solid defensive play from the ever pesky Benedict Ted and ‘Mr Muscles’ Shaun Sia kept the Dentistry side in single digits. Marcel Wong’s intimidating inside presence scared off any would be trespassers, and the ever jovial Rashpal Singh dared the other team to test him.

However, the dentistry side just wouldn’t seem to go away, playing pesky, physical defence. After half time, You Xiang turned it up and put the game out of reach for the dentistry side, before going back to the sidelines for some well-deserved rest.

Tip off

Bench mob

Science

Going up against a Science side that had just beaten the very strong Medicine team, we were nervous. But, it didn’t show, as we kept the game close during the first half with a genius defensive scheme from You Xiang. Solid play from Elias Tiong and Jerrold Au kept it competitive, and going into half time, the law team was within striking distance. The players gave their soul to the game, diving on loose balls, taking charges and playing with energy and focus.

As the second half started however, the science team showed off their size and athleticism, scoring some quick points that put them up 10 – 4. However, Law surged back into the game with a put back and jump shot, closing it to 10 – 8. Strong rebounding from Nick Choo and strong defence from Jerrold played a crucial role in the late game surge. Unfortunately, two turnovers within the last minute cost us the game, and we went down, 11 – 8 to a very strong science team, in heartbreaking fashion.

You Xiang rushing the perimeter

Conclusion

It was a tough day for the Law team but everyone played their best, and it showed in two very close games and a win. Special thanks to Walter Wan, our team manager, for helping with photos, and making sure the team was running smoothly.

Despite the rough competition, everyone is looking forward to the Law Med game at the start of 2016, and we hope to see you there!

Photos by Walter Wan (Year 2)

Written by Linming Ho (Year 1)

On a freezing, pouring Saturday morning, the Law IFG dodge ball team braved the rain and gathered in the UTown Sports Hall 1 in an attempt to bring glory to the revered name of NUS Law. Bearing in mind our greatest achievement in the previous year (a single draw), we endeavoured to overcome all odds and bring the faculty’s name to greater heights by aiming to win at least one round. Indeed, we surpassed our expectations and emerged winning two out of five rounds, an unprecedented achievement in the history of NUS Law dodge ball. Matches were played in a ‘best of 5’ format, with each round lasting 3 minutes.

Say cheese! Back Row (L-R): Edgar, Steven, Junheng, Iggy, Tomo, Krishna, Timothy, Leon; Front Row (L-R): Eve, Joyce, Nat, Christine

LAW v USP – WON

Team Law all fired up for their first match

Aerial view of the entire match

The first match was played against USP, where our warriors began with a strong start, easily demolishing the opponent team in the first two rounds with great finesse. Energy was running high. Our scholarly opponents fought back hard and we conceded to them in the next two rounds, but we got back into the game, knocking them all out in the final round. We were off to a very promising start, and what used to be a distant dream of emerging victorious against at least one team now became a reality.

LAW v ENGINEERING – LOST

Briefing by the referee

Natalie – the last man standing

Team Law was off to a great start against what was – on hindsight – a formidable line-up from Team Engineering. Within the first thirty seconds, we were down to 4 players left on the court, whilst Engineering had 1 player. Subsequently, we emerged victorious in the first round. However, the next three rounds proved to be more difficult. Team Engineering made a fierce comeback, knocking us out in all three. Special mention to Natalie, our last man standing in the final round who displayed commendable effort dodging the sea of dodge balls hurled rapidly at her by three players from Engineering.

LAW v YALE-NUS – LOST

A friendly handshake prior to start of match

This was a nervously close match, with Team Law conceding two rounds at the start. However, our warriors made a fast comeback and broke even by winning the next two rounds. Notable effort by Tomoyuki Ban and Team Captain Timo who collectively fired three successive shots in the fourth round, rapidly eliminating three players and giving Team Law a comfortable lead. Unfortunately, Team Yale took the win in the final deciding round. It was very laudable effort by Team Law nonetheless.

LAW v FASS – LOST

Eve dodging a particularly fierce ball

The artists were one of our fiercest opponents, their astute sense of judgment and strategy clearly evident from the start. The air was tense. Team Law had to grapple with many aggressive fake throws from our artistic counterparts and were wiped out by them in the first three rounds. Special mention goes to Eve, who held up the fort as the last person standing in two out of the three rounds, skilfully manoeuvring through dodge balls raining down upon her for a considerable length of time before eventually getting hit.

LAW v DENTISTRY – WON

The final match

The final match was between law and dentistry. Team Law beat the dentists with comfortable ease, achieving a score of 3-1. By this time, pressure was not as high on the team and the atmosphere was considerably more light-hearted. There was even some potential budding of inter-faculty romance (ahem ahem cough cough) behind the scenes. (Concerning whom, you may ask? We’ll leave you to figure that out yourselves J)

All in all, our legal warriors put in commendable effort, displaying an unwavering spirit of perseverance through it all. The IFG dodge ball experience was a thoroughly enjoyable one. Throughout the game, there was a heartening display of sportsmanship by all teams and laughter was shared as we cheered each other on together. Perhaps the biggest takeaway from our IFG experience is the reminder to always keep calm and, in the wise words of one of our loud and passionate counterparts from Yale-NUS, always “look dangerous”.

Because if you do, you will always be prepared for whatever life throws at you.

Say cheese again!

Written by: Christine Saw

Photography: Liew Jin Xuan

For those who are new to the world of gaming (shame on you), DOTA 2 is a team game, where each team of five players start alongside their throne at opposing ends of the map. The main objective is to take down the enemy throne with superb teamwork and objective aggression.
Law team (Team SEEDZ) fielded the returning champions of last year, all ready and hyped to hit yet another home run this time around. Throughout the whole IFG, LAW constantly surprised the enemy with challenging drafts and superior mechanics. However, in what might be a minor disappointment, Underlord was not picked at all in this IFG. (maybe law-med? Hint hint)

Day 1-Best of One
Law team’s participation in day 1 was more a formality than anything else. Team SEEDZ “Shock and Awe” operation left ruins in its wake. The judgement was delivered, the message clear and simple: One does not simply win against Law.
LAW v USP (1-0)
LAW ate USP for breakfast. Faceless void played by Cleon topped the position in net worth throughout the game, becoming a walking disaster for USP throughout the whole match. A series of perfect initiations by Void’s chronosphere into Sand King’s Epicentre ended LAW’s warm-up.

Baited. Mad skills in full HD

This is the stuff nightmares are made of.

LAW v MEDICINE (1-0)
LAW rained judgement upon MED’s battered bodies until it became sufficiently clear that MED just did not have the skills to save themselves from the dire situation. Cleon’s Sven dominated the early game with a quick echo-sabre pickup, creating space for Marcus’s Meepo to flash farm globally. As soon as the cancerous Meepo came online, MED realised the match was at the terminal stage and called it quits for an unprecedented 18mins GG.
LAW v COMPUTING (1-0)
As expected, the arm of tyranny stretches across many faculty. Computing was not spared from the early pick off as the notorious space cow went down against the barrage of disables. Early game kills were netted with skilful body blocking by Panda Eyes’ Vengeful and long range sniping by Mark’s Elder Titan Astral Spirit. As Law unleashed the Juggernaut-Clockwork Combo, SDE was completely obliterated beyond recognition. Realising the devastation, Computing acknowledged the prowess of Law-senpai and withdrew at the 26mins mark.

Picture 3: Dead beyond a reasonable doubt.

LAW v SDE (1-0)
SDE made the similar mistake of giving LAW their much prized Meepo, played by Marcus. Little did they know about the horror facing them until the Meepo army came knocking on the door. The strong crowd control by LAW and silence gave SDE no room to manoeuvre. Nothing much can be said as, in an almost identical fashion as with MED, fat Sven and cancerous Meepo marched down mid to an easy win.

Sick dodge by an even sicker 6.5k MMR Meepo player

With a glorious perfect score on Day 1, the guys returned home to rest for the greater challenge the next day.

Day 2-Best Of Three
LAW v ENGINEERING (1-2)
Shikai’s Lone Druid played remarkably well early on, escaping ganks, netting kills and creating space for the farming Naga Siren. With the standard Radiance build on Marcus’s Naga Siren at the 15mins mark (Yes, take some time to digest that fact), Law was ready for the winning Pushing-Strat. Nobody could escape the siren’s song as it came crashing down upon the dire, sealing the deal for an early victory.

Feel the burn. Here, Elder Titan and Oracle are faced with the difficult choice of dying now or dying later.

Things took an unexpected turn as LAW struggled from the start of the next match, making a series of unfavourable trades that resulted in an unstoppable death ball by Engineering. As Engineering rolled down the top lane, the early pressure on the objectives were too much to handle and LAW defences slowly chipped away. Cleon’s Phantom Lancer attempted to split-push with limited success, ultimately having to return back for the defence against the throne rush. Despite LAW’s valiant efforts, Engineering’s Morphling and Juggernaut were too fed by then and they stomped high ground 30mins into the game.

RAT DOTA at its finest.

LAW v USP (2-0)
LAW was so confident against USP that they not only decided to allow the dazzle-Huskar pick to go through drafting but also trolled their way into a few deaths to kick things off. Despite the apparent slow start, Mark’s Legion Commander still manage to farm an 8-minute blink against overwhelming odds, opening up the map for her successful early ganks. Coupled with the roaming Riki and Broodmother, USP was forced to play defensively and slow their item progression by purchasing wards. Meanwhile the five-men geomancer was flash farming the entire map. Finally, a 6-slotted Meepo emerged from the jungle and decided it was time to make the USP cry.

1 v 3? No problem. Meepo deciding it was time to turn up the heat.

LAW blitzkrieg strategy punished USP so hard that USP’s throne decided enough was enough and self-destructed 16mins into the game. The game was a massacre, with LAW forcing the initiations and building the momentum right from the outset. The high tempo was too much for USP to handle, as Chaos Knight and Zeus dished out tons of damage in the teamfights teamwipes.

Not today bro. Basic tactical dodging by Chaos Knight.

Unfortunately, we could not take a complete team picture but since it was the same players fielded as last year, this would have to do.

Team Manager Rachel ‘Rachquit’ Koh (Graduated), Marcus ‘Sicker’ Lim (Year 4), Tian ‘Ardent’ Kuang Kai (Graduated), Eng ‘ShiKai’ Ser Kai (Year 2), Yiu ‘Lucid’ Kai Tai (Year 3) Seated, from left: Cleon ‘AGENT CUCKY’ Fong (Year 2), Feng ‘PandaEyes’ Zheyi (Year 3), Mark ‘SALT THE SUPP’ Leong (Year 4)

LAW finished third overall after their two days of hard work and general trashing. It is clear that LAW Dota 2 is still a force to be reckon with, and the guys are ready to wreck yet another round of havoc at the upcoming LAW-MED DOTA 2 arena.
For those who think they have a shot at joining the heavyweights and continue our legacy, here is your chance. Special thanks to Rachel Koh for her assistance in the production of this article.
As a side note, DOTA nerf Meepo please.

Remember when you used to think JC/Poly was tough?? You know before you descended into the endless despair of legal research, struggling to make sense of all kinds gibberish and madness only to discover hours later that “eh actually this case doesn’t help me at all”

Well LSIRC tried to make your day a little better, hauled you out of the clapham omnibus and brought you to a land filled with donuts, cookies and chin chow. Yes, I’m talking about Children’s Day!!

LSIRC members started out strong, preying on unsuspecting law students who ventured near in the hopes of securing free food. However, law students, though disappointed that they had to pay for the donuts were leaping with joy as they learnt half of the proceeds would go to charity (not really though, they were very unhappy about the lack of free food).

I was told that this is not a Krispy Kreme uniform

The freshies introduced a lovely PG version of Beer Pong, called “Donoghue Pong”. Yes, PG, cause bruh it’s children’s day. Unfortunately, they were informed by school management that they could not use actual snails for the game. This dampened spirits, but they soldiered on with the game, creating a rather sticky mess on the floor (which they later cleaned, don’t kaopeh them please)

The Torts department will be jealous of that intense look of concentration on his face, which was probably absent when he was learning about the actual case.

However, the freshies efforts were in vain, as resident Law Sku hunk See Tow dominated the Donoghue Pong competition, sending the freshies straight back to the LARC assignment they were trying to escape from. Of course, See Tow has spent years honing his beer pong skills, aided by the years of free beer that law sku has provided (and will provide, stay tuned for Block B party ahem ahem).

LSIRC President Andre Ong (who is single btw ladies) presenting the $50 dollar Starbucks voucher to See Tow. So ladies, feel free to find See Tow to get your coffee fix. Guys I’m sorry but the offer doesn’t extend to you.

Of course, every event is incomplete without a photo booth, and the crowds gathered to get that perfect polaroid shot, which will no doubt be securely deposited into the crevices of their wallets or behind the covers of their phones.

All smiles from the photobooth committee

Of course, every event is also incomplete without people ignoring the photo booth and taking their own pictures, but hey, our campus has some pretty amazing backdrops, so I can’t really blame them.

A brave young freshie, testing out the theory that pinafores are more comfortable than shorts. He looks quite happy though, so the theory might be accurate. Or it might be due to the fact that he’s taking a picture with 3 girls, either way, he looks pleased.

The year 2 AC squad was slightly diminished this year, but they still came out with guns blazing, literally. I was told that the ladies were disappointed that Jevon’s shirt was left on.

All in all, the LSIRC freshies did a fantastic job in raising money for Club Rainbow, which is a children’s charity, and by trending the hashtag #IncomeOrangeAid : “ #IncomeOrangeAid champions empowerment through education for youth in need. I support the cause by standing in my school uniform.
Join me by posting an old school photo of yourself in uniform and tag 3 friends to do the same. For every photo post, Income will donate $1 to the cause. Find out more at http://www.income.com.sg/orangeaid
Post your photo with this caption in full and remember to set your post to public!”

So thanks guys, for a good day =)

Dab out.

Like all other sports, Frisbee requires sacrifice. Frisbee players don grandma, knee-length pants in zany colours and romp around in muddy fields. They go to fantastical lengths to grab the flying disc before it zips past them (looking a lil funny in the process, as you’ll see later) and would readily perform layouts (essentially jumping body first onto the ground) to retain possession of the disc.

True to the spirit of Frisbee, the 14 members of the Law Frisbee team had a fun and spirited outing at this year’s edition of the Inter-Faculty Games held on the 4^th of September. Read on to catch up on the action that went down as Law Frisbee wrecked everyone else!!!!

Okay that might not be true but at least we had fun? :’)

Back row: Alfino (Y2, Captain), Jamin (Y2, Team Manager), Eugene Lim (Y2), Deepansh (Y1), Kyle (Y1), Yuhui (Y4, Team Manager), Jinloong (Y1), Zong Han (Y4), Ershad (Y2, Vice-Captain), De Hong (Y4), Charles (Y2). Front Row: Yeow Xuan (Y2), Sabrina (Y2), Levin (Y1), Christie (Y4), Kai Xin (Y4).

Game 1 v Science

Avengers Assemble

The day started off with a game against the Science faculty.  Touted to be one of the best teams in the games, it was a tough start to a long day. Under the scorching sun, the team slogged against an admittedly skilful team.

The game started off evenly and progressed to a commendable 4-4 scoreline as Team Law displayed grit and discipline in advancing the disc. However, the deployment of three handlers instead of the usual two by the Science Team proved to be too strong and quick a combination for our players. Eventually the science team pulled ahead, capitalising on mistakes, however small, and finished with a score of 9-5.

Deepansh shrieking. Hehe.

Kyle spearheading Team Law’s offense

Not a dream start but drawn against such a strong team, the team put up an impressive fight.

Game 2 v SDE

After opening the competition with a loss, Team Law were eager to prove themselves and this showed as we raced to a 4-1 start. Watching from the sidelines, Jamin the team manager, commented that Team Law’s lack of organisation was doing a great job of confusing the other team. I guess when you’re so amazing you end up befuddling the opponents without actually meaning to?

Incredible defensive play put up by Levin forced a turnover and led to Team Law scoring again, bringing the score line to an impressive 5-1. The game eventually ended at 7-2.
Game 3 v Eng

After winning one and then losing another, the only hope of moving through to the second round was to win the third game – against the runners-up of last year’s IFG, Team Engineering. After a strong performance in Game 2, spirits were high and this was reflected in Team Law’s performance as we quickly went up 3-1.

Sabby might have dominated the field but she is a real cutesie off-field

Levin causing much anguish to her Engineering opponent

De Hong who scored Law’s third point

However, when something seems too good to be true it usually is :’( .The fairytale run by Team Law slowly came apart as Engineering fought back and took the lead at 4-3.

The point which followed was a momentous one: If Team Law scored, they would earn a draw and stand a chance at advancing to the semi-finals. Both teams duly appreciated the enormity of this point as the eighth point featured extremely fierce and aggressive plays from Law and Engineering players. The match was so closely fought that there were over ten turnovers in a single point, many of them courtesy of the wonderful poaching defence put up by Jinloong.

The female player from Engineering finds out Jinloong is to Hot to Handle.

It is advisable to stop reading at this point, but if you must know, just as Team Law was going to send in a huck (a long throw in frisbee terms), the disc was intercepted by Team Engineering who then took advantage of the sudden turnover and snuck in a goal. The game ended 5-3 in favour of Engineering.

But to end this segment on a good note, here’s a picture of Charles beating his defender to the disc. VICTORY!!!

Charles Gotta Catch ‘Em All

Game 4 v Computing

9-0 in favour of Law.

Team Computing went down so fast, we didn’t even get a chance to say bye!

(Fine it was a walkover as Computing left the tournament early)

Game 5 v USP

The last match of the day against USP began at 5.30pm. With any hopes of progressing to the semi-finals vanquished after Law’s loss to Engineering earlier in the afternoon, the team was considerably less tense and were more excited to play to have fun instead. It is important to note at this point, that Eugene Lim (Y2) did not play in the match against USP as he went home for a lazy nap. The team most certainly missed the presence of their colossal left-handed thrower.

Year 4 bosses Kai Xin and Christie teaching us how it’s done

Eugene looking like a Frisbee hit him on the face. Must be all the hand soap that blinded him. Hehehe

How did Ershad catch that disc with his eyes closed??

This leaves us wondering if the USP player owed Zong Han any money. O$P$ boi.

Nevertheless, Team Law continued to display great flow and teamwork (bye Eugene) as they strolled to a 5-2 win. That being said, the match was not an easy one, with the last point lasting close to 10 minutes as a result of multiple errors and three misses in the endzone.

When the final match whistle was blown, the cute USP players inducted us into their very own self-created MVP (Most Valuable Player) game where the USP players voted for the best-performing Law player. Unsurprisingly, suave Y1 handler Deepansh was crowned best player of the match and for his accomplishment, he was given two lovely swabs of paint on his face. It is no wonder he can always be spotted with different groups of gals at the Level 2 study area on different days.

Though we did not make the semi-finals, the team displayed a laudable sense of fair-play, tenacity and teamwork. Most importantly, we made great memories together and grew as a team.

Special thanks to our captains Alfi and Ershad as well as team managers Jamin and Yuhui for uniting and leading the team!

Alfinoyes! Our newly-minted Sports Director

Written by: Yeowxuan (Year 2) and Rakesh (Year 2)

We here at Justified pride ourselves on a number of things: unbiased coverage, punctual updates and short snappy posts with plenty of photos to help the overloaded law mind relax. I’m sorry to say, it’s time to break all the rules for this one.

The short and simple summary is that we won. NUS has once again beaten our formidable counterparts at yet another prestigious mooting competition. Now some may read the previous sentence and think it un-sportsmanlike. If you’ve won, the cardinal rule is to celebrate the victory gracefully (and extend courtesy invitations for the after-party to your opponents). I sound like I’m dancing on top of someone else’s defeat; isn’t there a more polite way of celebrating victory without running down your opponent?

So the best way we can do justice is to lay down some cold hard facts:

1. SMU was represented by Lloyd and Tessa Tan; NUS by Joshua Foo and Ryo Yap.
2. NUS won the AG Cup, our most recent win making this the second time in a row.
3. NUS also won the best speaker award at the AGs, again twice in a row.
4. Let’s admit it, our boys were pretty well-groomed.

Looking like winners

Now we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s talk about Ryo:

Ryo (now the Chairman of our Law Club, if y’all needed any more reason to feel inadequate) is a measured speaker. No false starts and no trepidation, it’s all one smooth ride. If he were a chapter from the Bible, he’d be Genesis. Because that’s what he does. He lays things down with hardly a hurry in the world. And that’s what made him such a great 1^st speaker. His speech has the merit of method, without the drawback of dullness, a perfectly sunny storm that belies its tempest of reason. It’s wonderful hearing the melodic delivery. And the gentleness lends itself well to generating trust from the audience, even as we made secret conjectures about how bad his puberty tantrums must have been. That boy must have, at the age of 14, expended a lifetime of aggressive speaking and fiery thoughts to be the charmer he is now

Of course, he had his little booboo moments during the speech. Memorably, he compared surrogacy to smoking (“it’s not prohibited, so it’s not illegal”, loosely paraphrased) which raised more than a few eyebrows in the audience. On the bench, it invited Attorney General VK Rajah’s signature comment of the night, “are you sure about that?”, a comment that he would continue to use throughout the night, to the bafflement of all. Attorney General VK Rajah (I really wish I didn’t have to type “Attorney General VK Rajah” all the time, but somehow law school only teaches students how to cite sources, not Prominent Leaders Of The Establishment) was pretty kind to Ryo. But to the layman I suppose the whole scene must have seemed pretty darn intimidating. It was no surprise therefore, that Ryo’s friends (whom I had the pleasure of sitting next to) were saying things like: “whoa what he talking sia”, “lawyer so hard one ah” and “eh, you hungry or not?”.

Cool as a cucumber

How about Lloyd? The gentleman 1^st speaker from the other side?

I wish I could say I remembered more about his speech. And my official, polite excuse is that this all happened about a month ago. It’s hard to string proper journalism from vapours of the mind. But the real reason was probably that I wasn’t paying much attention. Also, I wanted an excuse to use the phrase “vapours of the mind”. Isn’t it a lovely phrase? I read it in Diane Ackerman’s “One Hundred Names for Love”, a Pulitzer Prize finalist’s memoir about how she and her husband overcame the stroke and global aphasia which left his linguistic faculty entirely paralyzed. It’s a good book, caked with metaphor and turns of phrases so knotty you’d heave at the nuance.

Incidentally, what I’d also recommend is being very careful with your words around Attorney General VK Rajah.  I recall the following exchange:

Lloyd: And so my client took the baby but took the baby on good faith. She (a) genuinely believed she was entitled to the child, (b) reasonably thought that she was the mother (with all its attendant rights) and (c) disapproved of the same-sex marriage environment which the baby was growing up in.

AG VK Rajah: What’s the real reason why she took the baby?

Lloyd: Well, there are three reasons as I said…

AG VK Rajah: [cutting him off] No, what’s the real reason? Are you sure it’s not because your client hated same-sex marriages?

Lloyd: Yes.

AG VK Rajah: Are you sure?

Lloyd: Yes, she just wanted to reunite with her child

AG VK Rajah: Are you sure?

Lloyd: [pauses] Maybe not. But in any case, the birth mother should take priority for custody since she expended such personal cost in giving birth.

AG VK Rajah: Are you sure? Would sperm donors be entitled to do the same thing?

Lloyd: No, it’s different.

AG VK Rajah: Are you sure?

Lloyd: ….

I remember feeling so much sympathy for him when he was going through that ordeal. As a matter of desperation, or what I assume was desperation, Lloyd made a feeble comment about how his client should be treated on a different footing since she was not legally educated. That was roundly swatted down by JA Andrew Phang’s remark: “Yes, but a lot of people who don’t know the law are cleverer than those who do.” Ouch.

“This will be a piece of cake” – excerpt from Josh’s inner monologue.

And then we reached Josh.

I’m a fan of Ryo and he did an excellent job running the Freshman Orientation Committee (Yup, Ryo was in charge of that too.). Mad respect. But I was really there at the AG Cup Finals because I wanted to see Josh speak. Josh couldn’t have been more different from Ryo. His mind was a bullet, his composure, a spring-loaded catapult tense with an almost kinetic energy. We could see, from the get-go, that Josh would truly take it home for Team NUS, and take it home he did.

It was like watching art unfold. Words, handy, obedient and sharp were chaperoned into their proper persuasive places. Lined up for assembly, inspected, double-confirmed. And on cue, stumbled into the waiting ears of the judges. When Polonius gives Laertes some advice about life, he cautions: “be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar”. Josh was certainly intimate with the judges by the end of that speech, but he never once breached the formality of occasion. The judges weren’t the only ones entranced. I felt like Josh was spinning a conspiracy, and inviting us all to be a part of it. But unlike Guy Fawkes, he had all the authorities on his side.

My OG-lings, would later tell me that I was loud, excitable and all-round embarrassing. But could you blame me? It was hard to keep from squirming as Josh schmoozed the judges. Some lines were cheesy to the point of being ingratiating (“We, the prosecution do not bring charges without basis”, he sings to the Attorney General himself) and others were plain silly (“Yes, 2 women having a child. That would truly be impossible!”). But Josh reminded me of the reason why I love Law (and its half-sister, Literature) in the first place.

Winterson puts it as such: “to beat glorious life, to addict oneself to perfection; to follow the curve of a sentence wherever it may lead, into deserts, under drifts of sand, regardless of lures, of seductions; to be poor always and unkempt; to be ridiculous in Piccadily”. I loved watching that magic unfold and knew that Ryo and Josh represented more than just the best of NUS. Now, I sound too pompous I know; too full of lofty thoughts and literary conjecture, puffing up what is essentially a tale of two boys beating their opponents at a competition. Who wastes time remarking on beauty?

Well I do. Before he passed away, David Foster Wallace wrote a phenomenal book of essays called Both Flesh and Not. In it, he describes his lifelong passion, tennis. I find the description appropriate and applicable to mooting too: “beauty is not the goal of competitive sports, but high level sports are a prime venue for the expression of human beauty. The relation is roughly that of courage to war.” Beauty too, is no goal of moots. But moots are a wonderful venue for its expression.

The best is yet to be?

What happened after Josh’s speech is a real blur. To be honest, I stopped paying any attention. I’m really sorry Tessa, I’m sure you were a great speaker with your own strengths and merits. But to find any description of that, you’ll have to look at your own local faculty editorials. Don’t have one? Shame. That’s not justified at all.

Having quoted so many titans in my article, maybe it’s fitting that I should end with another. A day before the AGs, Timothy Ng, our ex-sports director, said “Josh Foo make NUS gr8 again again after Josh Hiew made NUS gr8 again.”

Well, that sounds about right.

What’s winning without friends?

(Front row, left to right: Stephanie Sim, Melissa Heng, Andrea Ee, Sophia Rossman, Deborah Wong. Middle row, left to right: Tan Su, Teo Siu Ming, Belle Tan, Joanelle Toh, Madeleine Poh, Natalie Teng, Wong Sze Qi. Top row, left to right: Khit Suelun, Elizabeth Lim, Rachel Ng, Chin Jiaying, Sabrina Chan.)

After several false starts, the Netball IFGs, which were postponed once due to the haze and then again because of the rain, kicked off at 12.30pm at the Netball courts near Utown. I arrived at the tail end of warm-ups and players were doing last minute stretches, trimming their finger nails to pass the inspection later and getting some final goal shooting practice in. I was warmly introduced to the team and the atmosphere was friendly and relaxed, but there was a nervousness and tension underneath it. These players had put in months of hard work and they were eager to prove themselves.

Rachel warming up before the games.

Team co-captain Melissa told me before the games, “We are quite confident. We have a very good team this year” and I was inclined to believe her. As I would see later on the courts, it was a cohesive team that worked together very well and strongly supported one another. There was no diva behaviour, no single person hogging the ball for most of the play time, and no sense that certain players had to pick up the slack for others. Everyone just worked hard together and did their very best no matter what position that were playing in.

The sense of team spirit and mutual encouragement and support was perhaps best embodied in the pre-game pep talks, which were led by member Siu Ming. As they were huddled together, Siu reminded her teammates, “Just remember everything we went through in training. Just calm down. […] I think we have a really good chance [this year].” Melissa added, “and we love each other!” to the laughter of the team.

The first game was against the heavyweight Engineering faculty and everyone was on guard from the beginning of the game. Engineering scored two points in quick succession and our Law players fought hard to close the gap in points. There were some good passes between the Centre (Siu Ming) and the Goal Attack (Deborah) in particular and Law scored two points in the first half, but the Engineering continued to hold the lead with 6-2 at the end of the first half. Law upped their defense in the second half, and Goal Defense (Sabrina) was notable in her efforts to steal the ball from Engineering and place the ball back in Law’s hands.

Goal Defense (Sabrina) sending the ball back to towards Law’s hoop.

The subsequent Goal Attack (Rachel) and the new Goal Shooter (Deborah) acted smoothly as a team and both scored several points in the second half. Law definitely put up a stronger showing in the second half of the game, and they narrowed the gap between them and Engineering, but Engineering still won 8-5.

The next game was against Computing, and after their earlier defeat, the Law team was keen to make a comeback. Goal Attack (Rachel) was the first to score a point, which boosted the confidence of the Law team. It was a fast and hard game, and players were rougher with one another, which resulted in an injury sustained by Law in the first half. Wing Attack (Natalie), who had provided a strong offense for Law, fell and was taken off court to have her wound treated while team member Siu Ming quickly stepped in to replace her. In spite of their unexpected member replacement, the team did Law faculty proud by maintaining an aggressive offense and a solid defense and eventually won the game with an excellent score of 9-2.

Goal Shooter (Rachel) scoring a point.

Yet after this success, Law was paired up with Science faculty, which had already established itself as a powerhouse as it had crushed both Computing and Yale-NUS in prior games. The Law team led at the beginning of the game with 2-1. The pace of the game picked up and players were tense as they tried to hold the lead and block Science players. However, towards the end of the first half, Science caught up quickly and gained the lead in spite of valiant attempts to defend against them. Unlike in previous games, no changes to members were made during half time, and the same set of players returned to court, focused and determined to go down fighting at the very least.

Centre (Siu Ming) and Goal Defense (Rachel) about to spring into action.

The Law team went even harder on the offense, and Goal Shooter (Andrea) was particularly fierce in the second half. The pace of the game turned punishing, and more injuries were sustained as Wing Defense (Belle) also fell but admirably, got up immediately and returned back to the game. The gap between Law and Science widened with Science in the lead. In the last few minutes of the game, Andrea attempted to score a point from further from the hoop, but the whistle went off as she made her shot and alas, Law loses to Science 4-9.

Our chances of heading to the Netball IFG finals were quashed since we had lost two games, and the final match against Yale-NUS was approached mainly as an opportunity to allow members, who had not had an opportunity to play in earlier matches, to test their skills now. The atmosphere was more relaxed in this game, but it quickly grew strained as the Yale-NUS team puts up a strong fight in the first half.

Melissa strongly defending against Yale-NUS Goal Shooter.

Players strove to defend against Yale-NUS and both teams were neck and neck in the game. The first half ended with a tie of 4-4 and players grimly returned to courtside, where the decision was made to swap players out for more experienced members. Siu Ming returned as Centre, Belle as Wing Defense and Rachel as Goal Shooter. It was a frantic and frenzied game with sharp passes and quick movements, as both teams tried to get ahead of the other. It was an extremely close fight and although Yale-NUS temporarily got the lead, the score evened out to a tie of 6-6.

I normally don’t enjoy watching or playing sports but I was pleasantly surprised and actually genuinely moved by the team’s strong sense of camaraderie and their constant support for one another.

All smiles at the end of a long hard IFGs.

During every game, members would stand on the sidelines and cheer for their counterparts on the court, and I would often hear calls of “Go Nat! Go Deborah! OMG SIU!!!!!!!!” Even though it was a competition, I felt that it was also a celebration by the team and for the team. Even after games with less stellar results, there was disappointment but no finger pointing or blaming of specific members. There was no resentment or frustration, just a deep and abiding sense of ‘we’ll just do better next time’. Standing there on a hot Saturday afternoon, I was really proud of the Law netball team. And I still am.

Dear fellow students from SMU Law/whomever this may concern,

Justified is a student-run news website at NUS Law. Earlier this month, we published an article on the recently concluded Attorney General’s Cup. The article contained comments which were made in bad taste and painted the mooters representing SMU, Tessa Tan and Lloyd Tan, in a negative light.

Justified would like to apologize unreservedly for the entire incident. We accept full responsibility for our editorial oversight and promise to take more care with what we publish in the future. Justified would like to emphasize that the original article is in no way reflective of the views of the NUS Law student population.

We would like to extend our heartfelt apologies to Tessa and Lloyd, and are extremely sorry for any distress or discomfort the article may have caused you.

Thank you for taking the time to read our letter of apology.
Yours Sincerely,
Justified Editorial Committee 16/17

It’s that time of the year for awesome reception food the intellectually-stimulating Mallal Moot Finals! Two months of intensive preparation ultimately boiled down to an exciting stand-off on the evening of 14^th September, where our four finalists duelled to win this prestigious competition.

A little background information: Proudly sponsored by Allen & Gledhill LLP, the B.A. Mallal Moot Competition is open to all LLB and GLB students. It is one of the oldest and most prestigious mooting competitions in Singapore, with A&G internships awarded to all 8 semi-finalists.

This year, the topic for the Grand Finals was one of much significance: Contempt of Court – which was recently criminalised under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill passed on 15^th of August. For those who are lost, here is an infographic provided by the Ministry of Law:

The issue in debate that evening fell under the third main type of contempt of court: Scandalising the court by making personal attacks on the judiciary.

The knowledgeable Judges who graced the event were: Aedit Abdullah, JC; Ang Cheng Hock, SC from A&G; and Adj. Prof. Kevin Tan.

Each finalist had 18 minutes to present his argument as well as rebut the opponent’s substantives.

The first speaker to present was Year 2 SMU student Shaun Ou, who spoke for the appellant. His cool and calm speaking style was a great start to the Grand Finals, with moments of firm interjections to express his conviction. Despite being prodded rigorously by the Judges (in a constructive way), he remained collected with his affirmative “yes, your honour”.

The second speaker to state his stand was Year 2 NUS student Mark Lim, for the respondent. With an evident penchant for flair, Mark start his argument with a passionate statement of how his client had been “dragged through every level of court”. He also effectively revised his LARC knowledge (listen up, Year Ones!) by using doctrines like noscitur a sociis, and injected humour into his speech while dealing with the contentious issue of who an ‘average reasonable person’ is:

The question in that, are these law students representative of the average reasonable person? No. In fact they are not even representative of the average law students because they have too much time on their hands.

The third speaker, Nigel Na from NUS Year 2, spoke for appellant in Round 2. His speaking style was refreshing – softer and slower, but persuasive nonetheless. Just like Mark, he humoured the Court with his opening, “With no prejudice to his (Mark’s) law school grades, I must differ…” and the implicit insinuation that his client was a “crackpot” which bemused Abdullah JC.

The last speaker, but definitely not the least, was Joshua Foo, a Year 2 NUS student. Joshua expressed his stand from the very first moment and took on the Judge’s rebuttals confidently. Of course, the judges weren’t going to let him off so easily. In fact, at one point, it seemed like the judges had him cornered. The question was whether the article written risked erosion in public confidence of the justice system. “What would an ‘A’ grade Law student think of such an article?’, baited one judge. “And what would a ‘C’ grade law student think of such an article?’ remarked another. Josh, wriggling his way out humorously, remarked that the standard should be pegged, quite sensibly, to the Average Reasonable Person. How to identify the Average Reasonable Person? Why, “Take Justice Tan’s student with an ‘A’ and Justice Ang’s student with a ‘C’. The average student in between would be the Average Reasonable Person!”.

After what seemed to be the most intellectually-enhancing 90 minutes, the Judges reserved their judgement to determine which speaker they thought brought forward the most convincing argument.

Finally, after much deliberation, the Judges gave their debrief (as well as expressed their wish to see more female mooters, ahem) before conferring the awards to the winners:

Shaun and Nigel were the joint second-runners up.

Mark was awarded First Runner-Up.

Joshua was crowned the champion for the evening’s Grand Finals.

But that’s not all! Year 2 NUS Student Shawn Lim was also awarded a certificate for the Best Memo, which was submitted during the Preliminary Round of the competition. It is certainly a huge feat to emerge the best amongst 122 memos.

Congratulations to all the winners!

NUS Law Justified Club would like to thank the MDC Mallal Moot Committee for its effort in holding this wonderful event, as well as express our heartfelt gratitude to A&G for its kind sponsorship, and the Judges for taking time off their schedule to grace our event.

Atlas Coffeehouse Review

When I first heard that Assembly Coffee closed earlier last year, I was upset as it was one of my favourite cafés. I miss it fondly for its unassuming and rustic atmosphere, its savoury coffee and famous waffles – I am sure many people can sympathise.

Fortunately for everybody, the same folks behind Assembly opened up Atlas Coffeehouse nearby at Duke’s Road. Located not too far from school, it is a mere 5-minute walk from Botanic Gardens MRT, making it extremely convenient if you’re need of a good cuppa after class. After almost a year of operation, the place has grown popular with residents nearby and students. Business is thriving and it is not uncommon to see the café fully packed, especially on the weekends – one time, I had to queue for nearly an hour just to get a seat.

Atlas Coffeehouse during peak hours

In fact, business is so good that Atlas that you can reserve seats online on Chope, and call for delivery via Deliveroo. Consequently, Atlas is now GST-registered (IRAS why you do this!), which gives you a rough idea of just how well they are doing.

Food

Atlas revitalises and updates its menu frequently in a bid to keep it fresh and interesting. One of the dishes that caught my eye was the Salmon Soba Noodles ($18).

Poached Salmon dressed with Cilantro Lime Yogurt served with Soba Noodles, Roasted Shimeji Mushrooms & Crispy Fried Egg

The noodles were springy and lightly dressed in soya sauce. The mushrooms and fried egg were extremely fresh and added to the vibrancy of this healthy dish. Unfortunately, the salmon was slightly undercooked and rather bland. (Hopefully, this was just my own bad luck!)

Thankfully, some of their other dishes were significantly better. The Summer Chicken Stew ($18) took my breath away.

Slow Roasted Chicken Thigh with Herbed Potatoes and Carrots served with Sundried Tomato Cream Broth & dipping Sourdough

The stew tasted as good as it looked. The chicken thigh was cooked to perfection – tender, juicy and flavourful. The dish was well-seasoned with herbs which served to enhance its overall flavour. The broth was my favourite part: it was rich and vibrant, leaving a warm, comforting sensation in your body with each sip. The broth was a tad bit salty, but I was nonetheless impressed by the flavour and freshness of the ingredients used, and its beautiful presentation. The Summer Chicken Stew will definitely serve as good comfort food for those seeking something hearty to feast on.

I looked around to see what other people were ordering, and could not help but try the Low & Slow Pulled Pork ($20) for myself.

18 Hour Slow Braised Pulled Pork, Scrambled Eggs, Streaky Bacon, Arugula served on Sourdough

Again, I was impressed by the presentation and freshness of the ingredients. The flavour was nothing to rave about, but I was pleasantly surprised by the large portion served. The generous helping of pork made for an incredibly filling and satisfying meal.

Atlas’ lunch fare may be decent in its own right, but I think their desserts definitely take the cake. The sweet-toothed will enjoy indulging in the wide range of decadent cakes and pastries, or treat themselves to mouth-watering waffles. But if one of their desserts had to take the crown, it would definitely be the Butterscotch Banana Pancake ($18.50) – the one to rule them all.

Signature Fluffy Pancake served with Caramelised Banana & House-Made Butterscotch & Honey Comb Ice Cream

Each pancake is made fresh, to order, and requires a minimum waiting time of 15 minutes. The juxtaposition of the warm, fluffy pancake and cool, creamy ice-cream was perfect. Served together with slices of fresh banana, every bite melted in your mouth and burst with rich goodness. The cornflakes added crunch to each bite, adding contrast in texture. Absolutely sinful and filling, but so damn good. The dish was recently endorsed in the Straits Times as one of the best pancakes in Singapore. Believe me when I say this – you have not visited Atlas unless you have tried their Butterscotch Banana Pancake.

Coffee

Atlas’ coffee beans are supplied by Two Degrees North Coffee Co., the same people behind Populus Coffee Food & Co. at Outram Park (another excellent café to check out). It is thus no surprise that the coffee is excellent. For a coffee freak like myself, I’m eternally grateful that good coffee lies just around the corner whenever I’m in need of a quick fix.

Black Gold

I ordered my usual Espresso ($3.50) and was served with their standard blend from Guatemala and Brazil – bright with hints of cherry, rich body and a mellow, pleasant cocoa finish. The creaminess and smoothness of the coffee is a clear indicator that the beans used are fresh, serving as yet another testament to Atlas’ pursuit for quality.

Atlas frequently rotates the coffee they use, making each cup different and each visit a unique experience. The baristas are attentive to detail and ensure that each cup served is of high quality, resulting in consistently great-tasting coffee on every visit.

Those seeking something different can try their Cold Brew – coffee made by soaking coarsely-ground beans in cold water for at least 12 hours. The result is a more pleasant-tasting coffee without the bitterness and acidity that is more prevalent in espresso-based beverages. It is served either black or white (without or with milk, respectively), depending on your preference (both 250ml, $7).

Black Cold Brew, served with a cute astronaut to accompany your café journeys.

The Cold Brew was incredibly smooth, velvety and extremely pleasant to drink. It had a subtle sweetness that made each sip more and more enjoyable, had a deep woody flavour and sweet chocolate finish with notes of blueberry. Perfect for a hot day.

Verdict

Atlas isn’t exactly a cheap place to grab meals every day, but everyone deserves to treat themselves once in a while. The food is fresh and tastes incredibly wholesome, but their desserts are on a different level (seriously, try the Butterscotch Banana Pancake). Its proximity to school and Botanic Gardens MRT make it extremely accessible and convenient compared to many other good cafés. With outstanding coffee to boot, there are few reasons to argue why a trip to Atlas would not be worth it.

*All prices given are subject to GST. Reservations available online.

Address:

6 Duke’s Road

Singapore 268886

Opening Hours: 8am – 7pm (Tue – Sun), Closed Mon

https://www.facebook.com/atlascoffeehouse

Writing and photography by:

In conjunction with Law Careers Fair 2017, the 37^th Law Club Management Committee and Justified Editorial Committee have collaborated in a series of posts featuring local and international law firms.

Our first featured law firm is Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP. As one of the “big four” local law firms, Rajah & Tann is a full service local law firm with more than 300 lawyers. Our Justified writers met with Paul, Sheng Rong and Ang Mian. Here’s a brief introduction of the three lawyers, their work, academic history and practice.

Mr Paul Tan, Partner

Paul is a partner with the R&T international arbitration practice. He joined R&T in 2007. Previously, he was a Justice Law Clerk at the Supreme Court and did a post-grad at Oxford on Public and Private International Law after graduating from NUS.

Paul was appointed recruitment partner in 2014. Together with Chester, he looks after graduate recruitment, interviewing and selecting our trainees. They also find out the demands of different practice groups at R&T for trainees. Paul also recently received the Disputes Star of the Year Award.

Mr Tng Sheng Rong, Senior Associate

Sheng Rong is a senior associate with the R&T commercial litigation practice. He graduated from NUS in 2011, having done the NYU-NUS Masters Programme. Sheng Rong did his pupilage training at the Attorney-General’s Chambers. He spent around 2½ years at the AGC before joining R&T in 2013.

Sheng Rong works as part of Mr Francis Xavier, SC’s team, and his work comprises mainly high-value, complex litigation and commercial arbitration. He is presently acting in the first ever case before the Singapore International Commercial Court. Sheng Rong is also a member of the Associate Management Committee, which serves as the bridge between the associates and the management of Rajah & Tann Singapore.

Ms Ang Mian, Associate

Ang Mian is an associate with the R&T banking & finance practice. Also an NUS graduate, Ang Mian trained at Rajah & Tann and was recently called to the bar in August 2015.

As a corporate lawyer, Ang Mian mainly deals with transactional work on a wide range of corporate banking matters, including domestic and cross-border syndicated and bilateral lending transactions.

The interview consists of two main sections – Firm Culture, and Internships & Training Contracts.

Part I: Firm Culture

1. Why did you choose R&T, and in what way do you think R&T stands out from the other big firms?

Ang Mian: I got my TC in Year 3. When I was applying for my TC, I knew I wanted to do corporate work so I asked around for advice and recommendations. Friends who were already in the industry mentioned that R&T was a good place if I wanted to do corporate work, so I applied.

I’ve never interned at R&T before – I mainly interned at one or two mid-sized firms, so I was slightly unsure as to what to expect when it came to joining a big firm.

What I feel makes R&T stand out is its great culture. The partners and associates whom I have worked with have been generally very nice and approachable. I also feel that I have had a very good training experience compared to some of my peers – during my training, I’ve been quite fortunate as the partners and associates made the effort to teach and supervise me.

Sheng Rong: I was involved primarily in criminal prosecution work at the AGC, and moved out in order to try my hand at something different. Specifically, I wanted to be involved in complex litigation and arbitration, and also to work for and learn from an established Senior Counsel. In addition to what Ang Mian said earlier, another thing that makes R&T stand out is that it has a higher concentration of Senior Counsels compared to other firms. From a business perspective, R&T also has a very unique and ambitious long term plan when compared to the rest of the Big Four and other firms, in terms of its goals in the South East Asia region and beyond. With the addition of our Philippines office earlier this year, our regional practice now covers all of ASEAN.

2. If you had to use one word to describe the “culture” of R&T or your team, what would it be and why?

Sheng Rong: “Collegiate”

My team consists of 11 people, including partners. Save for two UK graduates, the rest of us graduated from NUS. The team structure is quite flat in the sense that we have frequent opportunities to work directly with Francis.

It’s a good working environment – there is a great sense of camaraderie amongst the associates and even the younger partners, and in that sense it often feels like I’m still in NUS. There are no inter-associate politics and there is no pressure to stay back late if you don’t have to.

In terms of firm culture, our management does try to listen to its associates. The Associates Management Committee (AMC) is one method by which management communicate with its associates – it acts as a two-way communication conduit where management solicits views on certain policies or changes, and associates have an avenue to issues they are concerned about.

Ang Mian: “Nice”

As I mentioned earlier, the people whom I’ve had the opportunity to work with have generally been very approachable. I get along well with the other associates in my department and we go out for lunch and dinner regularly. We are comfortable with bouncing ideas off each other at work and we have a lot of fun hanging out outside of work as well.

There are also different welfare initiatives, including Movie Night, Thirsty Fridays, and Year-end and CNY parties, etc. This year also happened to be my first time going on a firm trip – we went to Port Dickson in Malaysia.

4. Can you give us an example of your “good days” and your “bad days”?

Sheng Rong: On a good day, I go home at around 8pm. With disputes work it tends to be cyclical, but I would say that I have good days at least 50% of the time.

On a bad day, this may mean leaving the office well past midnight, and sometimes just before dawn. Thankfully this only happens during the busier periods, which don’t come around too frequently. Sometimes you may do what we term a “u-turn”, where you ask the taxi driver who’s just sent you home to wait downstairs, grab a quick shower and head back to the office. I haven’t had to do that yet, and I’ve managed to have at least one or two hours of sleep.

Ang Mian: A good day, like Sheng Rong, is going home before 8pm. My hours are quite unpredictable, but I would say I have good days at least 50% of the time. It also helps that with our laptops we have the flexibility of working from home at night.

For me, a bad day may not really be in terms of hours. Sometimes it can get stressful when there are a lot of calls coming in and you’re trying to get urgent work done while fielding those calls.

5. How do you find the elusive “work-life balance” in the firm?

Sheng Rong: It isn’t easy with there being so many “work” demands on your time, but you have to find your “life” activities and make a conscious effort to protect that time. Mine is exercise – usually playing sports once a week and taking a short run twice a week is manageable. You do have to manage your expectations though; for instance, during busier periods you would expect to spend every waking hour in the office and to get home only after everyone else has gone to sleep.

Ang Mian: There are good periods and bad periods. I generally try to get some time to myself during the weekends – even if I have to work I’ll try to make sure to set aside some time to unwind, whether it is spending time with family and friends or just staying in and catching up on TV.

P.S. Ang Mian met her current boyfriend last year! Who says lawyers don’t have a life?

6. What are some of the biggest ways in which practice has affected your lifestyle, and what are some tips you can give to us to help us cope?

Sheng Rong: One important tip is to draw clear boundaries – for instance, most people will draw the line at 8 p.m. on Friday nights, and come in on the weekend if work needs to be done. Another thing is to minimise uncertainty over deadlines, which requires you to keep an open channel of communication with your bosses to ensure you don’t get thrown unexpected tasks out of the blue.

Ang Mian: Unfortunately, banking work can be quite unpredictable and it’s sometimes hard to tell when things will end on a particular day. During the busy periods, it can be very difficult to make plans or you’ll have to cancel them last minute. Personally, I prefer to make plans on weekends as opposed to weekdays, and try to stick to them as much as possible. If I need to get work done over the weekend, I also try to work from home.

Part II: Internships & Training Contracts

1. What are your comments on the ‘Glut of Lawyers’, and how has R&T in particular responded to this?

Paul: I feel that it has not really changed the legal landscape. R&T has always dealt with the challenge of sieving through applicants – we are still looking at a small percentage of the overall group. Numerically, we receive over 400 applications for our training contracts in the recent years and we take in about 30-40 people.

However, I do feel that there is now a bigger challenge for students to differentiate themselves, and one way to do this will be through the internship.

2. What are some of the outstanding features of R&T’s internship programme?

Paul: We offer a four-week structured programme for associates to get to know the interns, and vice versa. Interns can expect to do at least a few substantial pieces of work. We take the effort to welcome the interns and ease them into the firm.

As part of the programme, we include substantive content, such as talks by senior associates about their experiences in different practice groups. We also have informal interactions, where interns can engage the associates over drinks.

Through the internship, interns get to experience difference practice groups, and this lowers the mismatch in their expectations. I would also like to add that currently, a good percentage of trainees are from our internship programme.

3. How does one stand out in internship/TC applications. In particular, what are some of the traits that R&T looks out for?

Paul: I think the applicant must have a value proposition – to contribute some skills to the firm. Some skills we are looking out for will be:

• Good drafting and writing abilities;
• Client management skills to expand the firm’s business;
• A specialisation of a particular practice group;
• A global outlook, given that R&T is a regional firm; and
• A specialisation in a particular country.

Essentially, we are looking out for people who can be leaders and future partners in their practice groups in 10-20 years. I am also looking out for some ‘X-factor’ that distinguishes yourself from others. This can include CCA or sports achievements, interesting hobbies, and extracurricular activities. The important thing is how you build a profile of yourself using those achievements.

To be a successful lawyer, you really cannot be a cookie cutter. Just knowledge of the law is not enough. You need creativity, drive, patience, and a sense of adventure.

4. Any tips for potential applicants when applying for an internship/TC?

Sheng Rong: In today’s environment, it’s tempting to just take any position that’s offered, whether it’s an internship, a TC or a job. If you do so, however, there’s a high risk that you find yourself in a place you may not be entirely happy or satisfied with, and you’ll quickly find your job meaningless and unfulfilling. To me, the most important thing when choosing a job is to pick a place where you are happy working. This is a place you’re going to spend at least 9 hours a day. This means being happy with the type of work or files you do, the bosses and colleagues you work with as well as the general firm culture including your working hours.

An internship is essentially an extended interview. When you apply for a TC or a job with a firm you’ve interned at, your internship records (including what the team thought of you at the time) will certainly be looked at. So it’s of course important to work well and display a good attitude. But that’s not all – you would want to be able to fit in with your teammates and the general firm culture. If the fit isn’t good, people are naturally less likely to give you a great review.

But the interview process isn’t a one-way street. It’s important for you to learn through your internship whether you’re comfortable working with a particular team or firm environment, and whether the type of work or opportunities available there would appeal to you. There’s no reason to try fitting a square peg into a round hole, and an internship allows you to gain some insight into your suitability for the role and vice versa.

5. Anything that you would like to add about R&T and the internship programme?

Paul: R&T is one of the most progressive of the Singapore firms and we have taken a long term view of the market. We have placed our bets in ASEAN countries and SEA, and this gives young lawyers a lot of opportunities to work internationally but still be rooted locally.

We are also focused on trying to groom the younger lawyers, and the fairly younger management committee is a testament to that. R&T is a dynamic and progressive firm that gives young lawyers plenty of opportunities to learn and grow.

To conclude, applications for Rajah & Tann’s Structured Internship Programme 2017 will be opening on 1^st January 2017! More details can be found in your emails. Do also look out for R&T’s booth at Law Careers Fair 2017, happening on 10^th February.

Written By: Zhou Shiyin (Year 2) and Chen Shilun (Year 3)

Stepping into the Auditorium at 6.30 pm on a Friday evening was like changing trains at City Hall — people were criss-crossing in various directions, either in deep conversation with fellow actors or engrossed in checking messages on their phones after finishing rehearsals for their specific parts. With less than a month to go to the debut of the production, Justified interviews the production heads to find out more.

The Production Heads of Law IV 2017! From left to right, Elias Arun (Music Head), Jaryl Lim (Director), Esther Lim (Dance Head), Joshua Goh (Head Writer) and Charlene Wee (Production Vice-Head).

Justified: Please give us a brief overview of what this production is about.

Jaryl Lim (Director):

(under his breath) Law IV is an annual tradition where the graduating batch has basically gotten their TCs and have nothing better to do so they decide to put up a musical production. (Elias nods his head in agreement)

Joshua Goh (Head Writer):

You’re watching the production of a talk show. It is not a talk show, but a show about producing a show, including what happens behind the scenes. Here, Jack, a judge, has decided to leave his job and become a talk show host. While on it, bits of his past catch up with him.

Esther Lim (Dance Head):

Our lead, an ex-judge, became jaded with life after witnessing only the bad side of society. He now sets up a talk show thinking that it will show the world the good in life. Throughout the musical, each of the leading characters in the talk show reveal their individual struggles, realise their imperfections and seek to overcome them. This musical is relatable to everyone and explores the theme that people are not always who they seem to be.

Law IV is an annual original musical (dating back decades), fully written and produced by the graduating batch. The money collected from the ticket sales will go towards charity!

Jaryl (Director):

This year, we have tied up with the school to set up a pro bono grant to allow the juniors to spearhead projects that they want. It was a challenge for us to do that a few years back since there was not much funding available then. We hope that as seniors we can now invest in our juniors through the Class of 2017 Pro Bono grant.

Charlene Wee (Production Vice-Head):

This production is about the Class of 2017 continuing a long-standing tradition and reflects what the 4 long (and really difficult) years of law school have nurtured us to be. Each Year 4 involved in Law IV has to juggle the crazy final semester workload with the endless meetings and practice sessions. It really exemplifies how dedicated the batch is. Also, it’s our last opportunity to give back to society as students. We hope that future law students will be able to utilize the Pro Bono Grant to help others.

Jaryl (Director):

Beyond this, we are no longer dealing with the plot of a disillusioned lawyer or any law school theme, since we are pretty much already facing these problems on a day to day basis. Instead we decided to consider moral issues relating to the legal process, something we don’t always confront in our classroom. More than just being an entertainment piece, it pushes the audience to think about what is right or wrong, and to consider whose perspective we should look at when we decide this question.

Justified: Where did you get your ideas from?

Elias Arun (Music Head):

In writing the music I kept in mind typical songs that are used in talk shows. My musical influences are quite varied – the opening theme is highly inspired by big band staples, while classical music with hints of symphonic band music will feature in some of the songs (read: Star Wars). I’m also greatly influenced by Japanese composers like Joe Hisaishi. In fact, there is a rock song highly influenced by One Punch Man (HAHA). I try my best to put all the influences together and make things consistent such that it all fits the theme. Here, I must credit my co-composer, Walter Yong, who not only helped me greatly, but also helped me write other genres reminiscent of those found in Disney/Les Misérables.

Esther (Dance Head):

In choreographing a musical, the storyline is of utmost importance, but a musical is only a musical when all its elements are present. These include not just acting but effective, rousing and moving music and dance. In choreographing, we try to understand the emotions behind each scene, and use dance as a visual tool to make the storyline shine. My Choreography team comprises of dancers with different backgrounds – hip hop, street jazz, contemporary and classical – so we brainstorm and make use of our various expertise to create something that can’t be put into any particular genre. We span different eras in choreographing, not confining ourselves to any specific style or time period. The focus is generally on high energy and fun choreography, but there is a varied mix throughout the show as this is a complex production with many different themes and emotions.

Jaryl (Director):

As you can see, every idea comes from the team. Something that I keep in mind as a director is that I hope everyone can contribute in their own way. My role as a director is just to pull everything together and to produce a piece that the batch can be collectively proud of.

A snippet of what goes on in preparation for Law IV!

Justified: Any previous experience in what you are currently doing?

Joshua (Head Writer):

The only other script I wrote was for the 2007 SJI scouts campfire. My co-script writer, Timothy, though, has a lot of experience writing and performing in plays. Usually, when I have an idea, I will run it by Jaryl and Timothy and they try and fit it into the medium of theatre. I’m not much of a theatre person, more of a movie person.

Jaryl (Director):

I have only directed one original musical production before. Apart from that, I also acted and helped to direct a Les Misérables production while at exchange at Peking university last year.

Nevertheless, every production to me is always a brand new one because you work with different people and you work with different ideas entirely. This production is exceptionally complex because in addition to working with the venue, sets and choreography, we have to incorporate a live band, something that I’ve never done before. It’s been very exciting to see that happening onstage!

Elias (Music Head):

This is my first time writing music. However, I play quite a fair bit in semi-professional wind orchestras and bands, and have been involved in a couple of musicals, so I roughly know how things work. Whatever I’m doing right now is new to me, but I do have a related body of experience to draw from, which also makes things even more fun.

Esther (Dance Head):

I started dancing in J1, so it has already been 6 years. During law school, I was also a member of NUS Dance Blast in Year 1 and 2. I focus primarily on hip hop and street jazz. I’ve done choreography here and there, but my first experience leading a big dance production was during Law Rag 2014, for which I was the Dance Head. Most of my current dance committee members have some dance background as well.

Justified: What happens during a typical day of rehearsal?

Elias (Music Head):

Firstly, everyone starts off late. We then run through the pieces and focus on the individual parts that require more practice. This was the routine for the entire December — meeting up 3 times a week for 3-hour practice sessions.

Esther (Dance Head):

Dance rehearsals last usually 2-3 hours per song. The mark of a professional production is not just getting the right moves, but getting down the right blocking positions as well, so we usually try to drill that as much as we can. As the musical involves differing groups of characters, each group may need to split and rehearse separately before coming together, especially for the big segments such as the opening and closing songs. We have been consistently rehearsing since the end of Nov 2016, apart from a 2-week break in between. Now that school has started, it is all very time-consuming, but we are grateful that everyone does their best to focus and improve despite any tiredness or time constraints.

Charlene (Production Vice-Head):

The production team doesn’t really get involved in rehearsals until the last month. That’s because we’re kept busy with all the behind-the-scenes work – the sets team started construction way back in November and everyone involved went back to school nearly every day in December. Three months on, we’re proud to say that they are near completion. The publicity team has been busy with the designing of posters, tickets and online publicity platforms. Look out for the fantastic materials in the lead-up to the production. The sponsorship and beneficiary teams have also worked tirelessly to specially tailor packages to entice law firms to sponsor. The costumes and make-up team have been working hard as well – the show cannot go on without them!

Guang Yi (the Production Head) and I do not have experience in production. Being clueless and not expecting things to be so heavy, it is very taxing, especially when school started.

Everything has to be perfect, even if it is just a full-dress rehearsal!

Justified: Seeing as rehearsals are tiring, what are your motivations to continue pulling through?

Esther (Dance Head):

Everyone who wants to be in Law IV enjoys the idea of creating something meaningful as a farewell memento. Law IV is something you are invested in because the experience stretches you and it is something you can be proud of that stays with you long after law school ends, especially considering that most people are not going to take part in a production as big as this when they start lawyering proper. We encourage everyone involved in Law IV to enjoy the whole process – the learning and the fun times with friends (or rather the strengthening of friendships through the common adversity that is rehearsals haha). In general, those who are enthusiastic at the beginning (of law school) with events like Law Rag will probably also be those who are enthusiastic at the end when they join Law IV. Everyone is invested in Law IV once they commit to it, and their passion is their motivation. It is impressive, what people who have determination can do.

Also, food always motivates *wink*. We treat them to pizza and the heads buy drinks for everybody.

Elias (Music Head):

Having other commitments, it’s a challenge to balance everything, and life. Music is one of my passions, hence it motivates me. In fact, all the musicians are friends. The fact that this is so does play a part in motivating everyone to come for rehearsals session after session. Since we are all friends who love music, the motivation comes naturally.

I also have two great friends that helped me immensely – Joshua Kow and Dexter Cheng – without whom I would have never been able to balance my workload. More importantly, I have my incredible girlfriend who has been a primary source of support and motivation.

Jaryl (Director):

(encouragement from the Director) Thanks for believing in the idea of Law IV and what it means to us. There would not have been a production without each and every one of you!

Justified: Was this what you signed up for? Why did you join Law IV?

Jaryl (Director):

I enjoy theatre because I think it opens our minds to a lot of different things that we don’t usually think about in Law School. It is a bit of a pity that this is the only arts event in the school’s calendar. I always thought that there should be more.

What drives me is that it is exciting to work on such a collaborative project – one that is more than the sum of its parts. Most of my batch mates have never done a musical production before. To help them experience this, to bring them through a process that is not related to law, and to create something that we can all be proud of is what I look forward to at every rehearsal. Bringing the production from page to stage – that is always an exciting and dynamic process. Better still, why not do it with our batch mates whom we all have grown very close to over the past 4 years?

Joshua (Head Writer):

Because I owed Jaryl a favour. What they don’t tell you is that if you join the Year 3 class committee, you automatically are in the Year 4 class committee — and the job of the Year 4 class committee is to assemble the team to do Law IV. In any case, I don’t regret it, I think the process is quite fun. I’m even acting as one of the characters that I wrote in since the nature of his humour is very like mine — I’m essentially playing myself!

Elias (Music Head):

Ever since I watched my first Law IV back in Year 1, I knew I wanted to do this. Having being part of the FOCC, I thought that it’ll be nice starting of the school term organising something and ending the school term also organising something. It is also a good way for all the Year 4s to embark on something together as a batch, much like what we did when we all met for the first time during Law Camp.

Apart from that, my passion has always been music — my first choice was actually a music degree, not Law! Unfortunately, the reality is that a professional musician in Singapore doesn’t really pay well (times are hard man). While I still love Law and what I’m doing right now as a law school student, to be able to amalgamate my passions is something I have been looking forward to for a very long time.

Justified: What can the readers look forward to when they watch this production?

Jaryl (Director):

Be prepared to see something very different from previous years. There will be laughter, tears, joy and ultimately spirit from the people who are giving you their ‘final’ performance in law school.

Joshua (Head Writer):

The stories within the show are very universal, and is not a law-exclusive thing. For those bringing their family along, I’m quite sure their family will enjoy it as well! Having worked on the script since July 2016, I can assure you that a lot thought has been put into the production and readers will definitely enjoy their time.

If you are Star Wars fan, I have put a few references inside so look out for it!

Elias (Music Head):

The actors and dancers are immensely talented. The story is brilliantly written and it’s better than Twilight (LOL).

It’ll also be good for the juniors, especially the Year 1s who have just entered law school. They would be able to discover one of the time-honoured traditions of law school. Also, the overarching theme for this Law IV – people are more than what they seem – is especially apt. Over the course of your time in school, you will discover that everyone has talents in which you might never know about, even until when you are doing your own Law IV! Like for example I never knew Ryce Lee could play the violin so bloody well. Sorry Ryce.

But above all, everyone will be able to enjoy themselves, be inspired, and look forward to the time when they are able to organise their own Law IV.

Law IV 2017: Judicial Review, will run from 17 – 19 February. Follow their Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/lawiv2017/ for more details and more exciting behind-the-scenes updates!

Photographs used in this post were provided by Law IV.

Our second law firm featured is Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP. Being the first law firm that was set up in 1861 as Rodyk & Davidson (now Dentons Rodyk & Davidson), the firm has had a long and fulfilling history in Singapore.

Since the early days, Dentons Rodyk has grown significantly from a small law firm to one of five largest law firms in Singapore, with around 200 lawyers. Now, with Dentons Rodyk’s combination formalised with Dentons, the world’s largest law firm, since April 2016, the firm has a network of over 7,000 lawyers in nearly 150 locations worldwide from which to support their clients as they grow their businesses.

As a full service law firm, Dentons Rodyk regularly represents a diverse clientele across a broad spectrum of industries in the following various practice areas, including Corporate, Banking and Finance, Intellectual Property and Technology, Litigation and Dispute Resolution, Arbitration, and Real Estate.

The quality of Dentons Rodyk’s work and lawyers have been recognised annually by leading legal publications, such as Chambers and The Legal 500 Asia Pacific.

Dentons Rodyk’s Mr Gerald Singham (Deputy Managing Partner) kindly answered some burning questions for us.

1. What is the working environment like?

The Dentons Rodyk culture is about approachability and sharing of ideas. This is regardless of “rank” or “seniority” among colleagues. The people here are willing to trade ideas or solve problems together (even if on different teams or even different departments), if their time and schedule permit.

2. What makes Dentons Rodyk unique in terms of:

a. Training

For the young ones, our practice trainees are exposed to stints of one month each at up to two different departments. Practice trainees are rotated within the firm and are exposed to strong practice groups like Real Estate, Litigation, Finance, Corporate, and Intellectual Property. The rotation provides practice trainees with a broad exposure to different aspects of practice, allowing them to gain more knowledge and experience. Our practice trainees are mentored by partners and get to work directly with them.

For those who have been with us longer, such as a few of our young partners, they have participated in Dentons’ New Partner Induction Programme, which aims to support them in their leadership role.

b. Firm Culture

Dentons’ polycentric approach and our commitment to diversity and inclusion place a premium on the contributions of all of our lawyers, professionals and trainees. This makes for a uniquely positive culture in which our people can grow and expand their careers.

To borrow a quote from one of our own: “The forward-thinking culture of the firm, the international opportunities and the people drew me to Dentons over other firms.”

c. Opportunities

Now that our firm is part of the Dentons global network, there are opportunities for secondments at one of our many offices located around the world. Several associates have been seconded to Dentons offices in leading legal centres such as London and New York, exposing them to legal  work in other jurisdictions thereby helping them develop their practice further.

Regionally, Dentons Rodyk aims to expand further in South East Asia. Apart from our associate office in Indonesia, we will open in Myanmar by mid-2017. Like many of our clients, whose regional efforts we support, we see Myanmar and Southeast Asia as a whole, as a major opportunity for business growth in the next five years.

d. Career progression?

As our firm’s culture is not based on seniority, our lawyers can expect a career progression that is based on their performance and contribution to the firm. Allow me to share the words of our former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, in his introduction on “The Rise and Fall and Rise of Heritage Law Firms” published in Rodyk 150 Years, “Embrace change; discard the culture of seniority ranking of lawyers; seek fresh talent wherever they may come from…” Furthermore, our lawyers will be given opportunities to develop beyond Singapore as Dentons Rodyk increases its footprint in the region.

3. How has the recent merger changed the direction of the firm and what does this mean for young lawyers?

With this combination, we have been better able to serve clients in two critical respects:

1. By calling on specialist talent on other jurisdictions to help clients with projects and matters in Singapore and the region.
2. By being able to serve clients through Dentons across the globe.

Our lawyers and staff can expect greater exposure to cross border work which can only mean there are ample opportunities for exposure and development beyond the Singapore jurisdiction.

4. What is your opinion on the glut of lawyers, and how should law students/young lawyers react to the increasingly competitive market?

The business community is still growing in Singapore and there’s always room for good quality lawyers who are dedicated, committed and passionate in the practice of law. While the market is increasingly competitive, there could be new opportunities opening up that call for different applications of the law. In a recent PWC report, Singapore was listed as the world’s best business hub after London and this can only mean more opportunities for our young lawyers. I would encourage our students and young lawyers to think outside the box and be open to new experiences.

5. Any advice for law students?

The legal profession is an honourable one, calling for higher standards of integrity and professionalism. While the legal industry is often seen as a business, we must remember that it is a profession with a strong tradition in ethics. Young lawyers should always be reminded of the high standards required of them and their continued passion for the law would enable them to enjoy their work.

Written by: Zhou Shiyin (Year 2)

Back Row (L-R): Ivan (Y3), Elvis (Y3), Kyle (Y3), Wei Rong (Y4); Front Row (L-R): Erica (Y2), Joelle (Y1), Rae Ann (Y1)

Here’s how Badminton at LawMed 2016 went down:

The first thing Kyle (Y3), the team captain, told me was that about half the proper Law badminton team was gone, and amongst them were our best players. Could team Law overcome this disastrous setback to pull an upset victory?

After a series of warmups, team Law did not seem confident in a strong showing. One member of Law said “I think it will be all over by 10 o’clock”. Team Medicine on the other hand seemed overprepared, going to the expense of remembering to bring shuttles to play with, a luxury which team Law did not think was necessary. Another luxury team Law decided wasn’t necessary to achieve swift victory was fielding enough girls to compete in the Women’s singles events.

Medicine took the first match by forfeit.

***

The first actual match pitted Elvis (Y3) in the Men’s singles event. It was nothing short of a slugfest. With both sides fielding what seemed to be their best players, the long rallies soon attracted a crowd gathered to spectate the match.

Medicine’s player took an early lead in the first set and pushed his early advantage. Elvis’s impressive ability to travel quickly from the baseline to the net and back made for a thrilling match. Alas, a few of Elvis’s shuttlecocks landed a few inches too deep, and the unmatched agility of the Medicine player allowed Medicine to take the first set.

Speed.

The second set also had Medicine taking a small lead. With Medicine at about 7 points short of match point, Elvis ran off the court, leaving the Medicine crowd confused and asking “What’s the score?”. The crowd of Law supporters were not confused at all, since there had not been a crowd of Law supporters. Elvis returned with a new racket and play resumed. With new racket in hand, hopes were high that the momentum would shift in Elvis’s favour. Unfortunately, Medicine was too tough to beat even for Elvis, so they won the second set and the first real match.

Sometime during the game, I assured Elvis that I had captured a few decent pictures of him, particularly of him jumping. He went on to say “ok I’ll jump more!”

He proceeded to jump more.

The euphoria of destroying your enemies.

Competitive and fast-paced, Medicine took the second match.

***

Over at the Mixed Doubles with players Erica (Y2) and Ivan (Y3), team Law was determined to show their stuff. Erica, showing a masterful knowledge of the rules of doubles play she had learnt only half an hour earlier, never forgot where she was supposed to stand. Despite losing an early lead, team Law fought hard, and managed to pick up a few points by mixing in several drop shots to confuse team Medicine. Ivan took charge of the game early, responding well to many of team Medicine’s challenges and going on the offensive.

“Ez game ez lyfe” – Erica (she did not actually say that)

Ivan

Despite many forceful smashes from Ivan, the precision and speed of team Medicine was too hard to beat. In an upset, the dream team of Ivan and former school badminton player Erica lost one set followed by another. It was a close fight but Medicine’s surgical play could not be stopped.

Law goes down in the third match.

***

At the men’s doubles, team captain Kyle (Y3) and Wei Rong (Y4) were intent on showing our law school spirit by sporting the official red LawMed tees.

Kyle and Wei Rong played a solid game, earning points with a variety of shots in their arsenal. Kyle also showed remarkable sportsmanship, acknowledging that a point he had scored by nudging the shuttle just over the net was more luck than skill. Despite their height and fashion advantage, the Law men could not bring home a victory for team Law and the fourth match was lost 21-6, 21-7.

At this point, I think Wei Rong was most learned when he said “Scores don’t matter, we lost graciously, and we put up a good fight”.

Wei Rong

Wei Rong and Kyle

***

At the women’s doubles, team Law seemed to have been imbued with new life. Trailing just 3 points behind for much of the first set, the freshmen team of Rae Ann and Joelle displayed remarkable teamwork and a robust baseline defence. Looking to claim Law’s first set of the day, the Law women showed impressive teamwork and poise. Unfortunately, momentum shifts quickly in badminton, and eventually Medicine broke ahead and took the first set 21-11.

Rae Ann

Joelle

Law and Medicine took a break before commencing on the second set. After an optimistic start with Law and Medicine at 1 point each, Medicine surged ahead by winning 6 or 7 points in a row. Law gained back momentum, narrowing Medicine’s lead in the second set to roughly 5 points. Medicine although being close to victory, faced some difficulty again with Law’s solid play at the baseline. But a series of errors eventually allowed Medicine to taste their fourth and final victory of the day when they won the second set 21-15. It was an impressive showing by the freshmen pair for law, and a great show of sportsmanship all around.

Sportsmanship all around. Good job, team Law!

Final Score: Law 0 – Medicine 4

Unfortunately, some of Law’s IVP players could not make it for LawMed due to school duties and medical conditions. They are Andre (Y2), Jen Whee (Y2), Boon Xin (Y3), Boon Tiong (Y4) and Jayden (Y4).