The Curious Case of Phillip George Sceats

I bet you didn't know that in 2018, an innocent Australian holiday-maker was arrested at Changi Airport and charged with trafficking an amount of cocaine punishable by death. 64-year-old Sydney businessman, Philip George Sceats languished in Changi Prison for the next 353 days, under the pall of the capital charge.

 

Then one day, as unexpectedly as he had been arrested, he was taken from his cell to court where he was discharged of the capital charge and told to leave Singapore within 24 hours. 

 

Sceats’ arrest in Singapore on 7 March 2018 and his release from prison on 23 February 2019 was never reported by any media at the time.

 

It was only revealed when his story was picked up by Australian journalist Natalie O’Brien and published by News Corp Australia on 18 October 2020.

 

O’Brien wrote that Sceats’ wealthy Sydney family had booked a holiday in Langkawi for him and his wife, to celebrate his 64^th birthday.  Sceats was to fly from Sydney to Singapore, where he would wait for six hours to catch his connecting flight to Langkawi.  His wife who was in Hong Kong for business, would meet him in Langkawi. His family also booked him an airport hotel room for him to rest before his flight to Langkawi.

 

In the early hours of 7 March 2018, Sceats arrived at Changi Airport. Just as his passport was stamped by Singapore immigration, he heard police officers calling out his name. The police officers then escorted him to the luggage carousel to pick out his suitcase.

 

When his suitcase was opened in their presence, two packets of white powdery substance secured by masking tape were found inside the suitcase.

 

Sceats had no idea how those packets got into his suitcase.  The shocked and bewildered Australian was immediately handcuffed and conveyed to Changi Prison.

 

Meanwhile, the Singapore police had the two packets of white powder, which weighed about 90 grams in total, lab-tested.  They were found to contain 39.4 grams of cocaine.

 

Under Singapore law, anyone found in possession of more than three grammes of cocaine is presumed to have had that drug in possession for the purpose of trafficking unless it is proved that his or her possession of that drug was not for that purpose.

 

The penalty for trafficking more than 30 grammes of cocaine is death.

 

On 10 March 2018, the third day of his incarceration at Changi Prison, Sceats was formally charged with the capital charge of trafficking 39.4 grams of cocaine.

 

Facing the spectre of the hangman’s noose, Sceats’ plight could not be more dire. Fortunately for him, his family had the means, influence and determination to save his life. They engaged a well-known Singapore criminal lawyer to defend him against the capital charge. They also hired a team of high-credentialed private investigators and consultants to find evidence that would convince the Singapore authorities that he was innocent of the charge and that he had been set up by persons unknown.  Sceats’ high-powered team included former high-ranking police officers from three different Australian states.

 

The team took stock of the many things in Sceats’ case that did not add up. 

 

According to O’Brien, the street value in Sydney for the amount of cocaine found in Sceats’ suitcase was AUD $27,000 to AUD $30,000, but it was worth less than half of that in Singapore and Malaysia. There was no money to be made from smuggling cocaine from Australia to Singapore, so it was bizarre for anyone to attempt to do so.

 

Also, Sceats was not searched before he boarded his flight at Sydney. But by the time he arrived at Changi Airport, Singapore police officers were waiting for him. They knew his name and his arrival details. This meant that the Singaporean authorities had been tipped-off by someone after Sceats' flight left Sydney and before it arrived in Singapore.

 

After working on Sceats’ case for several months, his team of private investigators produced a thick file of evidence and documents. Sceats’ Singapore lawyer furnished the dossier to the Attorney-General Chambers, urging that his client was nothing more than an innocent holiday-maker who had been set-up.

 

On 23 February 2019, not knowing what to expect, Sceats was brought to Court. That day, a judge granted him a Discharge Not Amounting to an Acquittal.  Freed at last from his ordeal, Sceats returned to Australia.

 

While telling Sceats’ story, O’Brien’s article also related Sceats’ experience as a prisoner in Changi Prison. However, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had things to say about Sceats’ account of his time at Changi Prison.  It was MHA’s beef with Sceats’ depiction of local prison conditions that finally earned him a spot in The Straits Times.

 

On 3 November 2020, Straits Times published an article "MHA refutes Aussie's claims relating to time in remand here" which gave MHA’s rebuttals to Sceats’ account.  O’Brien’s article had stated:

 

1.       Sceats was held in death row.

MHA clarified that Sceats "was never housed together with inmates on death row" but in a separate area meant for remanded persons at Changi Prison. 

 

2.       Sceats said: “We were allowed out for 20 minutes at a time."

MHA clarified that Sceats was given an hour of "out-of-cell" time, along with all other inmates in remand.

 

3.       Sceats said "Guards come past your cell every hour. They don’t turn the lights out when you are on the death penalty."

MHA clarified that the cells for those in remand are fitted with lights that are scheduled to automatically switch off at night.

 

4.    Sceats said "It was very strict regime in there. If you do something wrong they give you the cane on the bare bum.  They say it is like sitting on a barbecue."

MHA clarified that inmates are only caned for serious offences, such as aggravated or repeated assault on another inmate, or assaulting a prison officer. This punishment is reviewed by an independent committee and is confirmed by the Commissioner of Prisons before it is carried out.

 

5.       Sceats said "I think 14 guys were executed while I was there."

 

Of all the details that Sceats had told O’Brien about his time at Changi Prison, this was the most chilling.

 

But MHA gave no rebuttal to that claim.

 

Was Sceats exaggerating? Sceats was in prison from 7 March 2018 to 23 February 2019. I looked up the 2018 and 2019 Annual Reports published by Singapore Prison Service. In 2018, there were 13 judicial executions.  In 2019, there were 4 judicial executions.

 

Sceats was about right when he said he reckoned 14 hangings were carried out during his time at Changi Prison. No wonder MHA said nothing about that.

 

While our national broadsheet’s coverage of Sceats’ story centred on explaining MHA’s rebuttals, Sceats’ story is not about prison conditions in Singapore. 

 

Sceats’ story is a cautionary tale of a holiday-maker who was arrested on arrival in Singapore and imprisoned for almost a year at Changi Prison on a capital charge; and how it took almost a year, during which strenuous efforts were made on his behalf, before his nightmare in Singapore ended.

 

Singapore may have closed its file on Sceats, but there is no closure for Sceats.

 

How did the Singapore Police come to know Sceats’ name and arrival details?

Who told Singapore Police Sceats' name and arrival details?

 

Sceats’ team wrote to both the Singapore and Australian authorities to find out, but no satisfactory answers have been obtained.

 

"I would give anything to know what really happened," Sceats had told O’Brien.

 

As for the rest of us, Sceats’ case raises several troubling questions.

 

Was the dossier prepared by Sceats’ team of private investigators instrumental in securing his freedom?

 

Could the Spore authorities have, on their own accord, eventually arrived at the conclusion that they had caught and imprisoned an innocent man?

 

If Sceats did not have the means and resources to obtain the best available expert help, would he have made it to freedom?

 

Villains had opened his suitcase, planted the contraband substance inside it, contacted the Singapore police and provided them with Sceats’ name and arrival details. Could what happened to Sceats, happen to anyone?

 

Perhaps Sceats’ profile and circumstances as a 64-year-old wealthy Australian businessman worked to make him an unlikely cocaine smuggler. 

 

If the next unlucky person to be framed by villains is one without means nor favourable profile – what would be his chances of escaping the hangman's noose?

 

Indeed, Sceats’ case is very curious, and also disturbing.

YANG MI: I WOULD BE GLAD TO BE LOVED FOR MY MONEY, FOR I HAVE LOTS OF IT

To the non-Chinese speaking world, Yang Mi 杨幂 is not a familiar name.

From her photos, one will be forgiven for mistaking Yang Mi as an airhead who earned her fame and fortune by looks and luck. 

Not so.  Yang Mi is astonishingly accomplished. Her glamourous image belies her professional skills and business capabilities.

Starting out as a child actress, Yang Mi has starred in a string of hit shows that she has become a household name in China. Some of her acting roles include less popular but critically acclaimed shows.

Not only an outstanding actress, Yang Mi is also a successful producer and talent manager.  While in her 20s, she founded a talent agency, Jay Walk Studio 嘉行传媒 which has now become a multi-million dollar entertainment company.  Actors and actresses under her agency have gone on to become huge, famous top-line stars in their own right. Her company has produced several popular shows.

The 35-year-old is now very wealthy, not by windfall, but earned by shrewd decisions, risks taken, untold sacrifice and personal costs.

Last month (May 2022), Yang Mi said something which sparked social media reactions.  At the Chinese variety show, Mao Xue Wang 毛雪汪 (EP16), the host, probing her love-life, asked Yang Mi: Where does security in love come from?  She replied, from oneself.  She went on to add: "If the guy is good to me because of my wealth, I will be delighted with that, because I do have money."  [1]

毛不易: 恋爱中的安全感来自于哪？

杨幂:自身。 甚至就想说，如果他是因为我有钱跟我好的话，我可太开心了，因为我有钱。

What does she mean by that?  Is she bragging about her wealth?

Having accomplished much and become so fabulously rich by her age, Yang Mi is a woman in a league of her own whom few (men) can match.

I'm not surprised she would say such things and think in such a way.

If we put aside her seeming audacious tone, I think you will see that her reasoning is grounded on logic and realism.

People can be disappointing, untrustworthy and also heart-breaking. People and feelings are unreliable.

Money on the other hand, is tangible, sure and dependable. We know exactly what money can do and what money cannot do. Money can buy goods and services, and also loyalty and servitude.  Money cannot buy love, but it can buy lovers.

Men have been saying for decades that diamonds are a girl’s best friend. So why fault a woman for thinking to use her cash to make her man feel king?

I think Yang Mi’s candid words show her personal view that true love is a fairy tale: that one cannot reasonably expect a man to commit and stay just because of love – the guy needs more concrete reasons to stick around. 

Rather than aiming to find a man who would love her for who she is inside of her skin, she will be happy with (to settle for?) someone who is willing to be with her (to put up with her?) in return for a slice of her wealth and the good life that come with it. 

In her worldview, the reachable and realistic aim is for a transactional relationship.  So, if the guy loves her because of her money, she would be very glad, because she has lots of it.

Is there even such a thing as true, unconditional love? Or is true love a wished-for fantasy, non-existent in reality?

Well, I'd like to believe that true love exists - that one can love and commit to another, not caring whether the other is a prince or a pauper, in sickness and in health as the adage goes.

But perhaps true love is not so easy to find.  Many have given up the search.

If there is any truth in the suspicion that true love, though it exists, is elusive to most, even more so to extraordinarily capable and exceptionally successful women like Yang Mi, then one cannot fault such a woman for putting faith in her money, rather than in the heart of her man.

---

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1JveWzD5RU

Ascending The Monument

The Challenge: Climb 311 steps to the top of the tower - or so I thought. 

Standing 62 metres / 203 feet tall, the 'Monument to the Great Fire of London' is a fluted Doric column located in Central London, built between 1671 to 1677.

311 steps? No biggee. I climb the slopes of Bukit Timah Nature Reserve regularly. I paid the entrance fee of £5.80 and proceeded.  (The date was Sunday, 1 May 2022.) 

Little did I know what I had signed myself up for. 

The stairwell was a narrow tube containing a spiral staircase, just wide enough for one other person to brush past you. 

Very soon, I began to feel like I was walking up an endless curl, churning indefinitely. 

How long more to the top? I began to wonder. Instinctively, I looked up: only to see stairs spiralling upwards with no endpoint in sight. Big mistake. Panic rattled the doorknob of my mind, trying to enter. I fought a desire to quit and turn back down. 

I pressed on, but it seemed like I was climbing a forever spiral, walking up ascending circles indefinitely. It was surreal. It felt like I was looping a spiral version of the Penrose stairs. Claustrophobia was now nipping at my heels. 

To escape claustrophobia, I eyed the walls, looking for a window to the sky. Instead, I saw elongated windows like slits in the cylinder walls, so narrow that it was hard to see the outside. Distorted windows that promised but obscured view of the outside, added a sense of desperation. 

I stopped to catch my breath. 

Dotting the spiral column were climbers like me making their way up, even as others were making their way down. The muted din of their chatter was a comforting white noise. I sought to breathe in the air of their enthusiasm. 

A man a few steps below me on the opposite saw my hesitation. He caught my eye and said affirmatively, "You can do it!" His timely encouragement billowed my sails. Spurred, I determined to finish the climb. I had come this far. The only choice was to reach the top. I took a deep breath and then pounded up the remaining steps for the final assault. 

Yes, I did reach the top - winded, dizzy and somewhat daunted. 

I staggered to the parapet to wave to my husband and son who were on the ground looking out for me. 

I felt no joy at topping the tower, but dread that I had to go back into the darn tube to get back to the ground.

To get myself down, I decided to count the 311 steps aloud to myself as I descended. I figured that doing a countdown would give me the mental assurance that the curl will end eventually. That was how I made it through the narrow tube back to the ground without panicking. 

Who knew that the challenge was not about finishing a climb of 311 steps. The real challenge was to complete the journey of travelling up a high, mentally uncomfortable vertical tunnel. It was not a test of physical fitness but of mental fortitude. 

When climbing 10 storeys of a building, you would walk up straight flights of stairs, going one way and then the opposite way, usually wide enough for three people to walk abreast. Not to mention, there will be exit doors at every floor. That is not the case when ascending a 60 metre spiral staircase inside a narrow tube.

Did I enjoy the experience? Nope, it was scary. 

Would I do it again? Absolutely not!

Why the Accused Person Cannot be Named in Some Cases — a Lawyer Explains

Gag orders are for the benefit of victims and witnesses only

It is cardinal that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. Yet, media reports on crimes regularly name the person accused of the crime, thereby exposing the person to shame even before conviction.  There is no lack of examples where accused persons, who were subsequently proven innocent, nonetheless had their good names dragged through the mud by media coverage in the run-up to being vindicated by acquittal.

In fact, whenever a person is accused of a criminal offence, the principle of Open Justice upholds the public’s right to know why and how.  Open Justice requires the trial of a person accused of a crime to be conducted in the public eye. There is an open invitation to the public to scrutinise the process by which the judge decides the guilt or innocence of the accused person. 

In other words, Open Justice means: "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done." 

Transparency of the legal process promotes public confidence in the outcome of the trial.  With confidence in the administration of justice, aggrieved parties have no reason to take the law into their own hands.  Open Justice promotes trust that the legal system will right the wrongs - that culprits will be brought their just deserts and that justice will be served.

Open Justice is so fundamental that unless the accused person is a minor at the time of the offence, or when gag orders are made, media is free to name accused persons.

For accused persons below 18 years at the time of the offence, statutory provisions ban the publication of their names as well as information that may lead to their identification.  It is an automatic ban.  There is no need to apply to court for gag orders to seal the identifying particulars of such young accused persons.

Gag orders preventing the public from knowing certain pertinent facts of an alleged crime, in fact contradicts the imperatives of Open Justice.  The contradiction is permitted for one reason only - that it is in the interest and for the benefit of victims and witnesses to do so. 

Gag orders on the identity of victims and witnesses serve the important function of protecting and shielding them from the distress of public exposure, thereby enabling them to give their testimony to the Court candidly and without embarrassment or reprisal. For victims of sexual offences, gag orders also minimise further trauma to such victims and prevent re‑victimisation.

Gag orders anonymising the names of victims and witnesses of sexual offences are the norm.  Less common are gag orders on the identity of the person accused of the sexual offence. Sometimes, media reports state the reason the accused persons cannot be named is due to gag orders protecting the victims’ identity.

But sometimes, the media reports do not give the reason for the Court’s decision to hide the identity of the accused person.  The absence of explanation for withholding the accused person’s identity, may give rise to cynicism.  It may appear as if such accused persons have been given the “benefit” of anonymity and spared from the glare of the public eye.  

Were those gag orders made to shield the accused person from shame? To protect the reputation of the organisation the accused person belongs to? The answer is No.

The law is clear: the sole purpose of gag orders is for the benefit of victims and witnesses, never for the accused person nor any other persons or interests. 

No less than our Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon has categorically stated: gag orders "are imposed solely for the protection of victims or witnesses and never for the benefit of accused persons.  This means that the only basis for extending the scope of a gag order to include an accused person's identity is that the disclosure of his identity would likely lead to the identification of the victims or witnesses". (Ref: Chua Yi Jin Colin v PP [2021] SGHC 290)

This means that the only reason to seal the identity of the accused person and any other particulars of the case, is because the Court takes the view that exposing those particulars would expose the identity of the victims and witnesses.

Crimes and the carriage of justice are everybody’s business. Whenever a person is accused of a crime, the public has the right to know all the relevant details about the case.  Information facilitates the public’s effort to understand the context of the alleged crime, why and how it happened. With proper understanding, the public is enabled to follow the course of justice and to appreciate the eventual outcome of the trial.

But if the Court decides that the exposure of certain information is detrimental to the victims and witnesses, then the public’s right to know will be deferred for the sake of the victims and witnesses. 

By Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, a lawyer practising in Singapore for more than 30 years.

23 February 2022

A Citizen's Right to Return Home

I read with disquiet and appal the account by Charlotte Bellis, a pregnant New Zealand citizen who had been unable to return to her home country. [1]

Her plight is far from unique. Due to the controversial "Managed Isolation and Quarantine" (MIQ) system, tens of thousands of NZ citizens have been unable to get home.  [2]

The MIQ system was implemented by the NZ Government in defence of the covid pandemic. Under the MIQ system, anyone entering New Zealand is required to isolate at an MIQ facility for 10 days. NZ citizens must book and secure MIQ facilities as a pre-condition to get back into their country. 

Unfortunately, the number of NZ citizens wanting to return home far exceeds the very limited quantum of isolation facilities available for booking under the MIQ system. Charlotte Bellis was among the huge numbers of NZ citizens locked out of their own country by their own Government's hand. I can only imagine the anxiety, frustration, despair and hardships that the stringent MIQ system has imposed on NZ citizens.   

Unwanted separation from home and loved ones has become a worldwide symptom of the covid pandemic which has seen all countries barricading their doors, some more tightly than others.  It is harsh when countries close the door on non-citizens.  But things become eerily strange when a country locks out its citizens along with the foreigners. 

Hearing about the desperation of NZ citizens who cannot get home, it struck me that being able to return to one's own home country must surely be a given - a "needless to say" expectation - for any citizen.  I don't know much about NZ's bill of rights, so I have no comment as to whether or how NZ's MIQ system squares with their civil rights laws.

More pertinently, does our Singapore Constitution have anything to say about that?  

I dived into the Singapore Constitution and fished out this clause, to my relief: 

Section 13(1) of the Singapore Constitution states: 

"No citizen of Singapore shall be banished or excluded from Singapore."

 

I am relieved because (unlike some other clauses in the Singapore Constitution relating to civil liberties), this particular clause has no "ifs" and no "buts".  I love it when a statement of a citizen's right is simple and unequivocal.

As a mother of a son studying overseas, I distinctly recall the panic in March 2020 when I scrambled and managed to put my son on an SQ flight back to Singapore as the pandemic took the helm.  At that time, plane loads of Singaporeans flew home to hunker down with their family and loved ones.  Having each other made the ensuing lockdown days bearable and meaningful. 

The unwelcomed pandemic has been overstaying for two years now.  We have had to put up with much constraints to our movements.  As for travelling, that has become a complicated affair with rules shifting and changing constantly.  But Singaporeans who wanted to, have always been able to get home. And so it should be.

Some years ago, I was in plane landing in a foreign country.  As the plane touched down, some passengers broke out in a spontaneous applause.  Let me clarify that the landing was nothing unusual. The plane ride was not bumpy or scary, so the applause couldn’t be expressing relief for landing safely.

Curious, I asked a local why passengers clapped when the plane touched the tarmac.  The local explained that it was the custom for his nationals to applause when their plane touched down, to express their happiness at coming home. I immediately understood.  We all love to travel.  And - needless to say - we also love to come back to home.         

Postscript:  

On 1 February 2022, Charlotte Bellis issued a statement that she had received approval to return to NZ.

On 3 February 2022, the NZ Government announced that from 28 February 2022, NZ would be reopening their border and that the MIQ system, which had been in place since April 2020, would end for all but "high-risk" unvaccinated travellers.[3] 

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

4 February 2022

---

[1] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-omicron-charlotte-bellis-an-open-letter-on-miq/U4WQGYTJHUP36AGVOBN3F6PJSE/

[2] https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300508296/miq-the-dark-shadow-across-new-zealand-that-has-to-lift

[3] https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-omicron-outbreak-nz-reopens-border-from-february-28-most-returnees-can-self-isolate-no-miq/CMUN2XHWHWMD4V5IRLCCWDWVVY/