… or so says the Singapore Bar.
Following the delisting last week of eight British universities from the Singapore Bar’s approved list of institutions for admissions, questions have naturally been asked why law graduates from Australian universities were not getting the same treatment (where some universities have been “down graded” but not delisted).
Very sensibly, the answer appears to be around regional issues rather than historic ties; namely, the Singapore Bar is of the opinion that as a result of Britain’s membership in the European Union (EU), its universities are required to include EU law as compulsory modules in the awarding of LLB undergraduate degrees – and this, so says the Singapore Bar, has little relevance in the practice of a modern Singapore practice.
Moreover, UK unis don’t require compulsory modules in company law – a major negative.
All of which leads to the following damaging comment:
There is more commonality between Singapore law and Australian law, than between Singapore law and British law, even for statute law.
And so the only question remaining is how many Australian universities took note of the following quote from the report:
Thus, for parents and students who may not be confident of entry into the local law schools, it may not be a bad idea for them to consider the Temasek Polytechnic/Australian university route instead.
or indeed, have followed this story at all?
RWS_01's B[D]log 