Meet Peter, who is not just a seasoned criminal lawyer — he’s a man of deep empathy and unshakeable faith. With over 28 years in practice, he has defended some of Singapore’s most high-profile and emotionally charged cases, always guided by his belief that every person deserves a fair defence and a chance at redemption.
From championing reforms like the Appropriate Adult Scheme to standing firm against public pressure in controversial cases, Peter’s philosophy of “active empathy” sets him apart. His story is not just about law. It’s about humanity, faith, and the quiet courage to fight for justice when it matters most.
What first inspired you to pursue law, and what continues to drive your passion for justice today?
Two major events inspired me to become a lawyer. One was the case of Kevin Barlow and Brian Chambers, two individuals who were executed for drug trafficking in Penang. That case gave me sleepless nights and made me realise I wanted to defend others through the law.
The second was a judicial event that involved the dismissal of a senior judge in Malaysia. These events stirred something in me, a conviction to uphold justice and fairness.
What continues to drive my passion is the belief that I can make a difference. Every time I read the news and see injustice, I feel compelled to act. That’s why I chose criminal law over corporate law.
My first love has always been criminal defence. During my pupilage, I was mentored by Edmond Pereira, a well-known criminal lawyer, who shaped much of my early legal thinking.
You were part of the Law Society’s special committee formed after the tragic case of the 14-year-old boy who took his own life following police interrogation. What changes do you believe are needed to better protect minors and vulnerable individuals during investigations?
That case was heartbreaking. I’m a father of two myself, and it struck me deeply. At that time, Singapore didn’t yet have the Appropriate Adult Scheme, which ensures that a trained adult is present during police questioning of minors or vulnerable persons.
This adult’s role is to ensure that no abuse or intimidation occurs and that the young person feels safe. That incident was a wake-up call that led to the introduction of the Appropriate Adult Scheme.
It was a landmark change, and I believe continuing to strengthen such measures will help protect young and vulnerable individuals in the justice system.
My philosophy is simple: empathise, don’t judge. When I meet clients, I remind myself that everyone makes mistakes. My job is not to condemn but to understand.
Over the years, have there been moments when the emotional toll of a case made you question your role and if so, how do you find your way back to your purpose?
Yes, many times. Some cases are emotionally draining, especially capital cases. But I always remind myself — I am not a judge, and I am not a prosecutor. My duty is to ensure that the accused receives a fair defence.
When disillusionment sets in, I step back and remind myself of my purpose: to stand by my clients and uphold their right to representation. Every person deserves that.
I limit the number of capital cases I take because of the emotional weight, but I continue because the work matters. My satisfaction comes from seeing justice served and my clients given a fair chance.
You often speak about your philosophy of “active empathy”. How does this principle shape how you prepare, argue, and connect with your clients?
My philosophy is simple: empathise, don’t judge. When I meet clients, I remind myself that everyone makes mistakes. My job is not to condemn but to understand. As a Christian, I believe we are all flawed and worthy of compassion.
I once told a judge who asked me to put myself in her shoes, “Your Honour, I cannot, because my role is to put myself in my client’s shoes.” This principle helps me see beyond the crime, to the human being behind it. It reminds me to defend with empathy and integrity.
Defending individuals in high-profile or controversial cases can attract public scrutiny. How do you handle the pressure?
I draw a clear line between courtroom law and courtroom public opinion. My duty is to the law and to my client, not to public perception. Social media criticism doesn’t bother me. What matters is doing the job well.
For instance, in one recent case, despite heavy public criticism online, I secured special approval for my client’s wife to visit him in prison within two days. This is something that usually takes much longer. The public rarely sees such efforts, but my clients do, and that’s what counts.
If you could condense all your biggest life lessons and regrets into one formula, what would it be?
Courage and comfort. Courage to defend without fear or favour, and comfort in knowing I’ve done my best. Every case carries its own lessons. There are regrets, of course. Sometimes I wonder if I could have done more, but those regrets drive me to do better.
One case took me 17 years to close. I had advised the client’s mother to withdraw the appeal early so we could later petition for clemency when the time was right. Seventeen years later, we succeeded. That’s what I call divine timing, where regret transformed into redemption.
What’s your vision for Singapore in the next five years?
I hope to see a more empathetic society, one where justice is balanced with compassion. Laws evolve, but humanity must remain at their core. Every Chief Justice brings a new vision, but I believe fairness and empathy should always guide our system.
Singapore is resilient; we think ahead and adapt. I trust that spirit will continue to carry us forward.
If you could have a superpower for one day, what would it be and why?
I would want the power to help opposing parties in any conflict truly understand each other. Most disputes, whether in court, business, or personal life, arise from misunderstanding.
If I could bridge that gap, we might see fewer broken relationships, fewer lawsuits, and maybe even fewer wars. Understanding is the first step toward peace.
Connect with Peter: Facebook and TikTok.
