Episode 53 - Ng Jern-Fei KC

In this episode, we are joined by King’s Counsel Ng Jern-Fei, an international dispute resolution specialist who handles a wide variety of cases in multiple jurisdictions. Jern-Fei reflects on his upbringing in Malaysia, law studies at Cambridge and early steps in the legal profession, as well as offering insights into his current practice. He speaks with our Senior Partner Colin Cohen. Stay tuned. 

00:33 Introduction and Guest Welcome
01:30 Current Work and High-Profile Cases
02:18 Early Life and Education
03:29 Choosing a Career in Law
04:43 University Experience at Cambridge
06:15 Becoming a Barrister
10:10 Pupillage and Early Career
16:44 Significant Cases and Achievements
20:13 Transition to King's Counsel
23:45 Return to Asia and Current Practice
37:27 Balancing Work and Family Life
40:36 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Host: Colin Cohen
Director: Niall Donnelly
Producer and VO: Thomas Latter      

Established in 1985, Boase Cohen & Collins is an independent law firm equipped with Hong Kong knowledge and global reach. Please visit our website.

Transcript

[00:00:34] Colin: Hello everyone. My guest today is a Globe trotting King's Council, Jean Fe Ung, who was born in Malaysia, studied law in England, and is based predominantly in Singapore. He handles matters in those jurisdictions as well as arbitration in Hong Kong.

And several other places in between. Equally adept as an advocate and arbitrator, his specialty is international dispute resolution, and he is described by who's, who's legal as a real superstar. Joan Faye, welcome to our podcast, and as I always ask my guests, what's been keeping you busy recently?

[00:01:17] Ng Jern-Fei: Well, firstly, thank you so much Colin, for the very kind invitation to join you on this podcast. A very good morning to all listeners. It is a real privilege to be able to have this conversation with Colin this morning, and I hope you will enjoy our dialogue together. Well, to your first question, Colin there has been any number of things that have been keeping me busy and occupied, and dare I say, gainfully employed. But one of the things which I have been doing quite a fair bit here in Singapore before the Singapore courts is that I'm instructed as lead counsel in respects of litigation where we are seeking recovery of assets on behalf of the government of Malaysia in relation to the one MDB scandal.

So that is perhaps something that is very much at the top of my par at the moment amongst many other interesting cases, which I've had the privilege of working on.

[00:02:06] Colin: It is a very small world because I gave some advice many moons ago to one of the people involved in that matter, one of the main characters. So I'll just park that for the time being. Anyway, let's go back in time a little bit and delve into your legal career. I'm interested in your upbringing school days.

Tell us a little bit about that. Your early days. I think everyone would be interested to see your roots.

[00:02:32] Ng Jern-Fei: Yes. Well, I was born in and I grew up in 

in a city called Petaling Jaya. Is adjacent to the capital or the largest city in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. And I had spent the first 17 years of my life in Malaysia. Completed my secondary education up to my fifth form. And then at that point on, I moved to the UK to pursue firstly, my A levels and then further education. And then after I graduated with a law degree, I stayed on to practice in England for some, gosh, I think it must be, what, 20 years or so? Back in 2022, I then made the decision of moving back to Asia. And I'm currently, as you mentioned earlier, principally based in Singapore, although I do spend a lot of time in Hong Kong and other parts of Asia as well. So that's a short little part of history of my origins as it were. 

[00:03:30] Colin: What got you into law? Was there a particular moment or was it just told you had to do law doctor or accountancy? How did that come about? 

[00:03:38] Ng Jern-Fei: Well, I'm gonna have to disappoint you, Colin. It was neither of those two. and the truth of the matter is, when I was in school in Malaysia, I 

public speaking. I enjoyed getting into an argument, a good old fashioned argument. Some might even say those who know me well, that I would cross the road just to pick an argument with someone else just to see how well I could do. But when the time came for me to decide what to 

education. There were a number of different choices which were percolating in my head, and law happened to be one of them. And I thought to myself, well, if I am fairly undecided about perhaps what I might genuinely be interested in to practice in the future a law degree 

a good first degree if not a good sole degree on which to anchor any future career aspirations, whether it's in law or any other sectors. I was genuinely interested and intrigued at the study of law as a subject, and therefore law it became.

[00:04:44] Colin: And quite interestingly, you went to the right University. I was at Downing. You were at Trinity in Cambridge. So we have, we have that in common. Tell a little bit about your time at Cambridge. Did you enjoy it?

[00:04:56] Ng Jern-Fei: I did. And just as an aside, I'm glad that we both ended up at Cambridge. I was just cracking a joke. A few weeks back where I was invited by Harvard Law School to participate in an event to do with international arbitration. And I started by making the observation that I like many of those attending also went to Cambridge, albeit in the eyes of Sunday was the wrong Cambridge, because obviously most of those who were at Harvard Law School would've spent time in Cambridge, Massachusetts as opposed to Cambridge United Kingdom.

But I did say that, you know beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I certainly think that the Cambridge we went to is in many senses, the right Cambridge. But then again, of course I would say that, wouldn't I?

[00:05:35] Colin: One does, one does.

[00:05:37] Ng Jern-Fei: Good, I went to Trinity College, Cambridge, and I really enjoyed my time at Cambridge.

It was a good three years spent there. I had many different opportunities, not just to pursue a degree in law, but also to pursue non-academic interests. So I spent time debating for the university at an InterVarsity level. In other words, I would represent Cambridge or to be particular, the Cambridge Union Society at InterVarsity Debate in competitions across the United Kingdom and in other jurisdictions across the world, including the world Universities debating championships.

[00:06:15] Colin: That's interesting. So you got your law degree, then obviously you became a Barrister as opposed to the solicitor. I presume, because you were debating union. Politics was on the horizon at all, or was there any idea that you think one day you might get into politics or was it you just gonna go straight get past, defeat the examiners, and do your pupilage.

[00:06:35] Ng Jern-Fei: Oh, well I think there are two themes wrapped up in that question. Colin, let me just unpack that a little bit and dealing first with the question, I suppose, of how I ended up being a Barrister, whether it was always my plan to be a Barrister as opposed to a solicitor. Well, the truth of the matter is it wasn't always on the cards.

Strictly speaking. Actually it wasn't on the card strictly speaking or otherwise because the plan had always been at a very early stage in my academic pursuits, indeed, even in the latter stages of my academic pursuits, that once I had completed my law degree and my vocational education, in this case, it was what was then known as the Bar vocational course of the BVC. The plan was not for me to stay on in England to practice, whether as a Barrister or indeed as a solicitor. But for me to return to Malaysia to carve out a career as an advocate and solicitor, because in Malaysia,

[00:07:33] Colin: Fused, yeah, yeah.

[00:07:34] Ng Jern-Fei: Singapore, is a fused legal profession.

So unlike many of my peers at Cambridge, I didn't apply for a Pupillage in my final year at Cambridge.

Whereas many of others who were in the same year as I did did apply. And so by the time all of us started Bar School, those peers who did apply were already armed with Pupillage office. Whereas I didn't have any Pupilage office And the reason why that was the case was, and you have to remember, this was, gosh. This was 25 years in 2001, and back in those of for someone with my background. In other words, I hadn't grown up in the United Kingdom and I didn't attend a famous school. Obviously we were going to Cambridge helped.

So it was never on the cards, the idea of becoming a Barrister in the uk. But when I looked around and I saw many of those who I knew who were in Cambridge with me, 

offers and I remembered what they are like as law students, and I thought, you know what? I don't think I am significantly any worse off than they are in terms of legal knowledge, skill, or ability. And if they can secure pupillages, perhaps I might have a short at too. So I decided to challenge if you like, established orthodoxy and expectation and submitted applications for pupilage. Thinking that the worst that could happen is that I would get no offers, perhaps not even any invitations to interview. And the only thing I would've lost is perhaps the opportunity cost of time, and maybe a slightly bruised ego, but not unexpected. Nevertheless. I was pleasantly surprised to have been invited to interviews, to have been made several offers of pupilage. I decided to take the plunge, do a pupillage, and even then I was convinced that I wouldn't be taken on as a tenant.

In other words, offered a full-time practicing slot at any set of Barristers chambers in London because again, statistically the odds were very much against me. I was very pleased when I did manage to secure a tenancy. 

And from that point on continued on this path as a Barrister. So it was never the case that I to be a Barrister.

In fact, I sometimes like to refer to myself when people ask me, oh, how did you get to the Bar? And I would say I was really an accidental Barrister in the sense that it wasn't by design or plan. It was perhaps on a whim. A sense of wanting to see how far I can test the boundaries of orthodoxy. And anyway, here I am.

And the rest, As they say is history. 

[00:10:11] Colin: Did you enjoy your pupilage? Who were you pupils with? Did you have any mentor, were you fortunate to have someone who really helped you on along that way?

[00:10:20] Ng Jern-Fei: Yes, I had a brilliant pupil supervisor called Vernon Flynn. Then QC, in fact, when Vernon was my pupil supervisor, he wasn't a Silk at that point in time. He is a model of professionalism. He taught me much of what I now know about the law and about practice. And in fact, you asked me earlier, whether or not I had Harvard political ambitions and the reality is that there was once upon a time when perhaps I might have flirted with the idea of politics, which is, I suppose, not unusual, given that there are many politicians who come from a legal background. But I really enjoyed my time in Pupilage with Vernon, and I subsequently enjoyed my time in practice, still enjoy my time in practice. So I'm afraid the lure of something different like politics didn't over a period of time. And if anything at all, it was perhaps a brief flirtation back in my student days because after all you may recall, I did represent the Cambridge Union Society in debating.

And the Cambridge Union was very much the HQ of politics as Far as Cambridge University.

[00:11:25] Colin: Yes, I know that 'cause that's why i'm trying to see whether or not you flirted with the idea, as well. Tell me a little bit about your early stages at your work at, you obviously did your pupillage, and for our listeners, pupillage is like a training.

In those days you didn't get paid. Today, you do get paid when you do your Pupillage, then what type of work did you emBark upon? Did you do anything unusual? Any of your early days?

[00:11:46] Ng Jern-Fei: I think I'm gonna have to disappoint you and those of our listeners who perhaps specialize in either of both of these areas, but I'm afraid I didn't have any experience in either criminal or family work. To the extent that there was any exposure to either of those two areas of practice, it was ancillary to the work which I did, which by and large was broad based commercial work.

So in other words, these were commercial disputes, are commercial disputes that very much still is, principally, the diet of work which I undertook. Having said that though, there, in the course of my practice, particularly when I was a Junior Barrister. I did have experience of getting involved in tax litigation, which was fairly unusual. I say it was fairly unusual because I never studied tax or revenue law at university and it was not something I had set out to. Try my hand at, let alone specialize, but I really enjoyed my tax litigation work where I would almost always act for the taxpayer against her majesty's revenue and customs as it was then known at the time. And it gave me a lot of to appear before the tax tribunals. And to do hearings, including trials, perhaps at a much younger stage in my career than I would otherwise have had if I had just stuck to a mainstream commercial diet of work. And this served me well subsequently because it meant that I was on my feet more frequently than perhaps others who weren't adventurous and took on other types of non-commercial work. But at the same time, it also gave me opportunities to perform the role of a lead advocate perhaps earlier in my career than would otherwise have been the case.

[00:13:35] Colin: And in your early days, how much did you have to rely on your clerks. Maybe the ideal candidate to do this particular work? Or were you able to have your usual solicitors who've got to know you? How did you develop your fifth commercial, your niche or practice, which we'll we'll talk about soon.

[00:13:50] Ng Jern-Fei: Yes. I think there are three factors here in the initial stages of my career. And the first is, as you rightly point out, Colin, 

to those of you, the listeners who are not necessarily familiar with the system, which is I think unique to just England, quite possibly not even to Hong Kong or Australia other jurisdictions, which have got a split legal profession, but clients are like practice managers. So they are the ones who would marshal any inquiries which are generic. In other words, it's not allocated to any particular Barrister. And then they will divvy up the work that comes in through the clerk's room amongst the members of chambers, depending on seniority and area of source of work in the earlier years of my practice. And there were three factors. The second factor is other members of chambers, so leaders in particular or perhaps leaders from other sets who were looking for juniors to assist them. That was another good source of work. Because there were leaders who would come in and they would have preferences or they would ask around, or they would want the opportunity to work with new juniors that have not worked with before. So I was a beneficiary of their generosity in that regard. And the third reason is one of costs because as a junior back in those days the baby juniors as they were referred to in words, those in the very foothills of their practice.

I remember the rates I used to charge, my going rate in my first year of practice was 50 pounds, which I think at that point in time was probably and still is 500 Hong Kong Dollars per hour. In fact, it went as low as 40 pounds I recall for one particular case. So at those rates. Even back in, 20, 25 years ago even back in those days, those rates were very economical, let's put it this way. And it was very cost effective to get 

So again, I had lots of work which were suited for baby juniors. In terms of differing types of work and there was a lot of it, which was interesting.

And there was also some of it which was less interesting. Things like discovery, et cetera. But those were my three principle sources of work when I was a baby junior.

[00:15:58] Colin: That's very interesting. Now, just to give you some context, I was lucky. I managed to find myself, by pure chance through a family connection, getting involved in the BMFL Carrion Fraud case, which you probably know a little bit about at these days.

And I was able to been introduced to an interesting client called Lorraine Osmond, who unfortunately passed away. And we fought extradition for seven years fighting the English authorities backwards and forward. And that was the case that . Set out and established my practice into that particular difficult area, unique area.

But it was pure luck. A phone call from a friend of a family saying, oh, we've got someone who is locked up in London, wants to fight extradition to Hong Kong. Can I help? And then I was able to build a practice on that. Now, that's how I developed my practice. Now, was there any particular case which really enabled you to then end up becoming a Queen's council, now a King's council.

[00:16:53] Ng Jern-Fei: Well thank you. That's, it's very kind of you to say that. I would tell you not about just one, but perhaps two in particular.

[00:17:00] Colin: Yes. Yes, yes, yes.

[00:17:01] Ng Jern-Fei: Were, really significant in perhaps different ways. The first is when I was a junior. I got involved in a very, very long running case called Fiona Trust, which. Some of you out there listening into this podcast may be familiar with. It was to do with a complex fraud case involving Russian parties. That was tried in the commercial court in London and the commercial court is part and parcel of what was then the Queen's bench division, now the King's bench division of the high court. And that was tried for six months. in other words, we were in trial for a six month period, which was a very, very long time to try a particular case. But that had an outsized influence on my practice because it gave me the opportunity of really learning the ins and outs of civil litigation very comprehensively. Almost anything that was covered in the white book came up in the course of that litigation. Not everything, but almost everything. I then had the opportunity to work with a wide array of talented people, both Barristers, solicitors foreign lawyers because there were also foreign law issues in the case, including Swiss law, Liberian law, and Russian law. So that had an outsized impact on my development as a Barrister. The second case I would mention. And this is where perhaps luck came into play as well, was I had my my first solo outing, in fact, my only solo outing in the European Court of Justice because the United Kingdom left the European Union, a few years later, I had my very first solo outing, my only solo outing before the ECJ when I was again, not quite a senior junior, but perhaps just slightly shy just before the 10 year mark of my call. So I was less than 10 years into practice. I think it was about maybe four or five years into practice at that point in time, because I remember this was back in 2008 when there was an economic crisis back then.

And my client, which was a large bank at this ECJ case, which they had taken to Luxembourg. And I was a happy beneficiary of the economic circumstances at the time, because to put it bluntly, the bank couldn't afford to pay expensive council. So instead they decided to have me as the sole council.

I was junior council before. I was a sole counsel, and I had this fantastic opportunity. being on my feet in the European Court of Justice, where I acted for this bank against a number of different member states of the European Union. I now forget now how many member states there were. They were lined up against me.

I think, if I recall correctly, there were six or seven member states including the United Kingdom. All of whom took a position that was opposed to me. So even though this was a UK case and therefore only the UK was a party. Because it was the ECJ, other member states could also send counsel to argue for or against either side. So I had this brilliant experience of having six or seven member states with the distinguished council all lined up against me. We were successful ultimately before the ECJ, so that was the icing on the cake. But, that was again a highlight of my career in the earlier years.

[00:20:14] Colin: And of course that led into you becoming in 2018 appointed, now known as King's Council. Then Queen's Council. Must have been a very proud moment for you to take Silk. Tell us a little bit about that.

[00:20:27] Ng Jern-Fei: Well, thank you Colin. It was a very proud moment. It was something I'd worked very long and hard towards achieving a good number of years. So in fact, what I should do is I should just go back a few steps. I'm retracing the history. So when after I graduated from Cambridge and having completed my Bar vocational course as it was then known before I started practice, I spent a year working as a judicial assistant to Law Justice Thomas, who was then senior presiding judge for England and Wales.

He was subsequently Law Thomas. The Law Chief Justice of England and Wales. And so I started practice really in 2004 after completing Pupillage. So at the time when I was considering a possible application for Silk, it was still very early for me because in the sense that I put in an application, I think sometime in gosh, what was it?

It must have been towards the backend of 2016. So this was at a time when I would have only been in practice speaking for about 12 years before putting in my application. The applications process itself will then take the better part 

vetted by the selection committee. And then those who are shortlisted for an interview would then be invited for an interview. It was only after a year had passed. And I finally got the news of my appointment as a Queen's council, as it then was, I think it was maybe a week before Christmas in 2017. So there was a very memorable Christmas. 

I still trees with my family at that point in time when we got an email from the QC appointments commitee which said that the results of the Silk competition would be released that same afternoon. So I only had a few hours to be mentally prepared for it, and I was thrilled to have received the news that I would be appointed and was subsequently sworn in on the following year, 2018 in April.

[00:22:20] Colin: So you become a Queen's Council, then now known as King's Council. Did your work change a little bit? Were you having more juniors or were you carrying on your existing practice? Did you find it somewhat different at all in the type of work you were getting?

[00:22:33] Ng Jern-Fei: Well, I was very fortuitous Colin in I had become Silk, had already transitioned to some extent into a leader's practice, and that's what perhaps gave me the confidence to apply fairly early on in my career for Silk. And so when I finally got, the title that came with it, my practice, I have to say, didn't really radically change overnight 

business as usual. I was still doing the same cases, playing the same roles I had been playing even before I had been appointed as Silk. But I think where there was a discernible material impact was maybe. Two years on from being 

probably around 2020 then I was taking on more high profile cases. Cases very much within the the Silk zone. And I was leading teams which were growing in size, so they were bigger in size. There were more juniors on the case. And so that was when I would say I really started seeing a discernible growth. I was also being asked for in terms of, when clients were thinking of lead counsel for cases more frequently than I did before.

So I think the change didn't come overnight after I was appointed, but probably started manifesting itself some two years in.

[00:23:46] Colin: At what point in your career, did you think about finding, let's say more work in Asia, moving back here, obviously you're now predominantly here. How did that all come about?

[00:23:57] Ng Jern-Fei: Yes, as they say all roads lead to Rome.

[00:24:00] Colin: Yes.

[00:24:00] Ng Jern-Fei: And for me, there are three roads which led not to Rome, but to Asia. I think the first road had always been there because as you may recall, when I did my Bar vocational course. I did it with the anticipation, the expectation of returning to Malaysia to practice.

So that was a road that had been paved even before I commenced practice in London. And it was always there. It was always there. It had never disappeared even after I started practicing in London. The, the second road is that when I became a junior, a junior Barrister. That is, I was acutely conscious of the fact that. I was different from many junior Barristers. Diversity was perhaps not as championed as frequently as it is now. And so I was thinking of ways in which I could harness my difference in order to supplement the diet of work I was getting in London. So. I did what maybe a lot of junior Barristers back in those days.

So you're thinking about, 2004, 2005, which is my first two years of practice. I decided to come to Asia and meet up potential instructing solicitors attend seminars, workshops, really get around and hopefully build bridges and networks and connections with a view to putting myself in the frame for any work that might come my way where the clients or the instructing solicitors are based out in Asia, principally for work that was back then seated in London. So 20, 25 years ago it was virtually unheard of. For a junior member of the Bar to be doing business development or marketing.

It was very much then because it was difficult to find opportunities where clients, where the professional lay in Asia would want necessarily to instruct a junior. So that was the thing that I started off doing even in the first two years of my practice.

And I've kept at it ever since. So when my practice then started growing, particularly after I had taken Silk, then it gave me a nice pathway to then come back to Asia because there was already a body of work that had already been built over the fullness of time. And then the third pathway, or the third road that led me back to Asia was, after I took Silk in even more cases involving Chinese SOEs. So state owned enterprises Malaysian, government linked corporations, GLCs, and other very big multinational corporations who are based in Asia. In part because of my skillset and experience, but also in part because of my linguistic abilities. And so the critical mass of cases involving Chinese and other asian clients really grew to a point where it was not just natural, but it would have been the obvious thing for me to do, which is to move back to Asia. So there were lots of factors which nudged me towards a return to Asia, and I finally decided to take the plunge in 2022.

In fact, I would've moved earlier, but for the pandemic,

[00:27:00] Colin: I'm interested in Hong Kong and obviously for our listeners, you are a member of Temple Chambers. We have some highly distinguished colleagues. Indeed. We had on the podcast not too long ago, we had Jeffrey Ma, the Ex-Chief Justice of Hong Kong, who's an arbitrator, and how did you get involved in getting yourself into Temple Chambers as a arbitrator?

That's the work you do here in Hong Kong as well. Tell us a little bit about that.

[00:27:26] Ng Jern-Fei: Yes. Well, I have always had a good relationship with various members of Temple Chambers over the years, I had worked with them both directly as well as indirectly on a number of 

an arbitrator member of Temple Chambers wasn't really something that I had conceived of at any point in time in my own volition because I think, if I recall correctly, I think at the point when I applied, I am not sure that there was such a thing as an arbitrator member at that point. Perhaps there was, I can't remember whether Jeffrey Ma joined before or after I did, but it was very much a novelty, but it was Temple Chambers and some very good friends at Temple Chambers who floated the possibility. We explored it and I thought it was a terrific idea. Temple Chambers is obviously one of the leading sets in Hong Kong, and I was thrilled, delighted to have the opportunity 

arbitrator member. And so I became an arbitrator member, and today we have three arbitrator members at Temple Chambers.

So in addition to myself, there is obviously Jeffrey Ma, as you mentioned, the former Chief Justice of Hong Kong, as well as Matthew Gearing KC. Matt and I have also got the unusual distinction of, in addition to being arbitrator member, colleagues at Temple Chambers are also colleagues at D and Hill Chambers, which is our Singapore set here. And just like Matt, even though I'm an arbitrator member of Temple Chambers. I've also had opportunities to act as council, not in my capacity as a member of Temple of course, but I've had opportunities to act as council in many a Hong Kong seated arbitration leading such a wonderful array of talented juniors from Temple. So it's been such a pleasure being able to work with these, brilliant young, talented lawyers both at the Bar and of course, from law firms in Hong Kong, in Hong Kong, and not Hong Kong Seated matters.

[00:29:25] Colin: Now I'm gonna be a little bit, not naughty, but I'm gonna throw you a little curve ball at the moment. Charles Hollander, who is part of Temple Chambers, he's a King's Council. He went to school with me and he came here and he did this exams to practice Hong Kong law, you have to do some exams as Barristers, and he defeated examiners.

Did you ever think about doing that and having Hong Kong more of a base? Have you given that some thought at all?

[00:29:51] Ng Jern-Fei: I welcome curve balls. It makes this podcast perhaps a little bit more jazzed up for our listeners. No, the thought did cross my mind to do the BQE.

As it is known, the Bar qualification examination. It is of course very well known. Some might even say infamous for being difficult, and in fact, I had gone so far as to download all the materials et cetera. And I was on the verge of doing it. particularly after I moved to Singapore, but I think I then became a victim of very fortunate circumstances.

Now, what a strange thing to say. A victim of fortunate circumstances.

[00:30:27] Colin: I like that.

[00:30:28] Ng Jern-Fei: Because after I moved to Singapore, I. My practice in Singapore as in court work in Singapore in particular, but also arbitration, Singapore started building up to such a point that I rapidly found myself running out of time to take on something as heavy as the BQE exams. Which was a real shame because I certainly didn't want to do it, in a half-baked, half-hearted manner. And I wanted to give it the serious respect with which it deserves. And it's obviously not an easy exam and quite rightly so. So I'm afraid I never got round to doing it in the end.

I'm not sure if I would try again in the future. Well, I Say it again, it's not again, 'cause I've never tried it the first time round. I'm not sure I would have the time to try it, but not withstanding that. I am cheered by the fact that I don't have a Hong Kong qualification hasn't served as an impediment to me doing arbitrations in Hong Kong.

And I suppose if the circumstances are right, to apply for ad hoc admission before the Hong Kong courts in the right case, particularly, I suppose, arbitration related cases, which is very much my area of specialization. For the most part.

[00:31:33] Colin: So you are, you are right now practicing. Singapore seems to be your base. I may have got that wrong, but I presume it is your base at the moment, 

[00:31:41] Ng Jern-Fei: It is. 

[00:31:42] Colin: You're very close to Hong Kong. And as we know, it was always this bit of thing. Singapore being the best seat of arbitration is Hong Kong has a good seat.

The Secretary of Justice put together a group of very eminent lawyers, and we all did a visit with the Secretary of Justice over the border into China. To meet 'cause China wanted to meet some more European lawyers of the big large law firms.

I was asked to go along as well, and you were there and there we were in Shenzhen and up in Guango singing the praises of hong Kong and showing how Hong Kong can be used as a means of the seat of arbitration or the utilizing the work between China and Hong Kong. I enjoyed that trip very much, and I think you did as well.

Did you find that a little unusual for you had to take off your Singapore hat and promote Hong Kong?

[00:32:33] Ng Jern-Fei: I very much enjoyed that trip, Colin. It was such a delight. Having had the opportunity, obviously, of spending a couple of days, not just with you, but also some other similarly distinguished members of the legal community in Hong Kong. It was very kind of the Secretary for Justice and for the Hong Kong, DOJ, to obviously invite us all to fly the flag for Hong Kong in terms of our dispute resolution offerings and also some of our non-contentious offerings as well. No, I really, really enjoyed that. And to the point that you made, in fact, the funny thing was on the penultimate evening of our trip. There was a press conference,

[00:33:10] Colin: Yes, yes.

[00:33:12] Ng Jern-Fei: Called which SJ had attended. I was fortunate enough to be picked as one of those, who attended that press conference together with Jose Morley who was then the vice Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association and now chair. And there were two or three others who also attended including Rodent Tong, who is the president of the law Society of Hong Kong as well. And that very question was one of the questions 

of the media conference. And the, the reality is that whenever I get asked this question, I always say that, the, the assumption that is built that this question is built on is the assumption that there is somehow a dichotomy between Singapore and Hong Kong.

In other words, is always an eye, the raw thing. I don't see it that way, I have to say. Again, this might be a slightly unorthodox 

to for a very long time that I see Singapore and Hong Kong as being principally complimentary. now of course there is competition. There is competition everywhere we turn. There is competition between Singapore and KL. For example, Kuala Lumpur. There is competition between London and Paris. There's competition between London and New York. But the reason why I say Singapore and Hong Kong are complimentary. Is because Hong Kong has a number of distinguishing features of its dispute resolution landscape, which Singapore does not have, and vice versa, and therefore, 

Even for any single one end user, a company, for example, an SOE or a private corporation there is no one size fits all approach to dispute resolution. There will be some disputes, some contracts which a client will enter into, which are better suited for arbitration in Hong Kong, and there are some which are better suited for arbitration in Singapore.

Let me give you as an example. There may be occasions when it is felt that in the future if there was a dispute having the interim measures arrangement between Hong Kong and mainland would be a very helpful weapon in your armory. And so it might be felt, therefore, for that particular end user opting for Hong Kong arbitration would be welcome. There may be other cases where perhaps as an end user, your counterparty is an Indonesian party, for instance where assets of your counterparty are to be found more extensively in Singapore, and therefore it might be felt that for that particular contract, if ever a dispute should arise, SIAC arbitration would be more suitable. And therefore you would opt for a Singapore seated arbitration on the facts of that particular case. So I see this being sort of broadly complimentary. And even though there is some degree of competition is healthy competition, and I think what we should focus on is the broader narrative, which is instead of looking at the granular, at the differences between Singapore and Hong Kong, the broader narrative, the positive narrative to my mind. Is the fact that Singapore and Hong Kong have now grown to a stage where if you aggregate the number of cases, which they have new cases, which H-K-I-A-C and the SIAC register each year. It is beginning to outstrip the number of cases which are registered in some of the more established jurisdictions in the Western Hemisphere.

So it's not just an absolute numbers, but it's also the trend and you sort of see that trend growing decidedly in favor of Asian seats of arbitration, including in particular singapore and Hong Kong. As I sometimes like to say, I very firmly believe that the epicenter of cross-border dispute resolution is moving. Decidedly eastwards just as much as global commerce is. And so there is more than enough work around for Hong Kong and Singapore practitioners. And indeed the proof of the pudding is in the eating as well because in years gone by, I have led teams of Hong Kong practitioners in Singapore seated arbitrations. And vice versa. So, this is perhaps yet further evidence of the fact that we can all benefit from growing together and obviously being able to be sufficiently versatile such that we can do arbitrations in either Hong Kong or Singapore.

[00:37:21] Colin: I entirely agree with you. I think we compliment each other, and that is the real focus of it all, and it enhances more work for everyone. Now, outside a legal profession, you are a family man, father to two children, how do you balance? All the traveling and all the work you are doing with your family life, do you find that difficult?

[00:37:40] Ng Jern-Fei: Balance what balance.

[00:37:42] Colin: Well, exactly. Then that may be it. I mean, as well. Do you have any time free.

[00:37:47] Ng Jern-Fei: well, I mean, jokes aside, I, I do try very hard to spend time with the family when I am in the same jurisdiction as they are, whether that's Singapore or perhaps we are holidaying abroad. It is difficult. It's a real challenge, particularly for those of us who do cross border disputes work, because I'm on the road quite often.

In fact, I, I dare say that I'm on the road probably half the time. But most of the time when I'm on the road, I tend to be either in Hong Kong or the mainland or Malaysia. So these are all within striking distance of Singapore. Gone are the days when I would perhaps have to take a 12, 14 hour flight abroad and only to return on another 12 to a 14 hour flight back home to the family. These days these sort of trips are shorter in duration. So whenever I'm able to, I do try and spend time, with my family whether, taking the kids out on excursions or on holidays or sometimes on a more serious note, helping with out with the homework. So that's what I try and do if I can.

And in fact, my wife and I, we have worked it out where she's in charge as far as the homework is concerned. She's in charge of all the English, Math, Science, everything. The one thing which I do is I help the kids out. In particular my son with his Chinese homework. so, that's how I try and carve out time for the family, both in an educational setting as well as in a setting. 

[00:39:08] Colin: And I hope to persuade them to become Lawyers. I'm doing that to my grandson. I can do that. But being a grandpa, it's easier to persuade them to be fake. You will become a you know, as a father, and so you have to let them express themselves. But I think as a grand father, you can force 'em a little bit.

You're doing that with your kids. You think they're gonna step into your shoes.

[00:39:25] Ng Jern-Fei: Well, actually two things. Firstly, I have never conveyed any expectation, and in part because I don't actually have any expectations of them in terms of particular career paths. I would be just as happy if they decided to do something outside of the law. Also, happy if they decided to become a lawyer.

I've never really pushed them. Whether towards the law or outside of the law one way or the other. To give them as much flexibility as is possible to come to a decision of what they would really be interested in. I do tell them however, what I do in the course of my interactions with 'em, so at least they will have an informed opinion of what lawyers do. At the moment, I remember a few years ago, my son was convinced that being a lawyer meant that. You are like a Telephonist because you just speak on the phone. Because every time I'm at home, I'd say that I'm working, I'm either on the phone or I'm doing Zoom meetings. So that's his idea of what possibly a lawyer does or was his idea. But in terms of what the children ultimately wants to do as well is I, very much encourage them, to find their own pathways and very happy for them to also pursue non-legal career options.

[00:40:36] Colin: That's absolutely fantastic. Jern-Fei, it's been a fascinating chat with you. Thank you so much for joining us on Law & More.

[00:40:45] Ng Jern-Fei: Thank you for having me, Colin. It's been a pleasure.