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/

Taking the Vaccine is now a National Imperative

For the last 18 months, we have been battling an invisible enemy without respite.

In stealth, the enemy travels across borders incognito, hiding in plain sight, stealing a ride into our very midst. 

The troops it marshals for its destructive aims are none other than us ourselves.  It recruits anyone regardless of passport, age or occupation - and whether vaccinated or unvaccinated - to be its unwittingly secret agents, its unwilling accomplices and its involuntary soldiers.  

The invisible enemy defies capture. Instead, it forces us to take captive our innocents, to serve as prisoners-of-war in its stead.  To ringfence the contagion, close contacts of infected persons are identified and sequestered.  I have myself had to serve a mandatory quarantine order.  The isolation was an ordeal.  I never want to do it again nor do I wish it on anyone.

Besides damaging our physical health, the enemy also wreaks havoc by disrupting our economy and damaging our social relations.

The enemy deploys the most effective weapon of destruction tested by all histories of nations: Divide and Conquer.  We are seeing people turning against each other, becoming fragmented shards provoked to blame, name and shame. 

In the struggle to cope with the disruptions and economic fallouts, there is every temptation to cut corners and to steal a march. Some will remain resolute and impassive, but some will falter and fall. Those who have acted irresponsibly must face the consequences, but in our haste to blame others for recklessness, let us not forget who the real culprit is and how devious the culprit is.  For the enemy has up the ante by evolving into something more contagious than before.  

Let's face it – we are at war.  Tough times require tough responses and decisive action.

After 18 months of rolling border closures and lockdowns, our economy is battered and our lives are tattered.  Shutting our gates, hunkering down and remaining isolated, is not sustainable. The enemy is cunning and determined to stick around. 

After 18 months of battle, it is clear that a successful national vaccination programme is the best hope to exit the pandemic.  It is also clear that there is a limit to our endurance. 

No one has guaranteed that vaccines are 100% safe.  But what are the alternatives? What are we up against? Is time on our side? 

For every argument, there will be a counter-argument. For every set of data, there will be a set of alternative data.  There is a time and place for healthy scepticism, reasonable debate and careful evaluation. But there must come a time to make a personal decision – to take up the personal risk of making such a decision – and to take decisive action.

As I see it, taking the vaccine is now a national imperative. Once the nation is well-vaccinated, we can get on the road to restoring what the pandemic has taken away from us.  Helping others will always involve personal risks and detriments. But we need to unite our efforts to save our country, our economy and our future from the destructive effects of the pandemic.

To those who have volunteered to be vaccinated, I say thank you for your sacrifice and the risk you took, for sake of others and for loved ones.

In this pandemic which affects us all, there is a big picture to consider. In the big picture, so long as the nation is insufficiently vaccinated, our borders will never be fully opened, our economy will be hampered, and people's lives and livelihoods will remain in limbo.  

To those eligible for vaccination but are hesitant to take the vaccine, do consider joining the vaccination drive.  In my humble opinion, time is not on our side.

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

HOT PURSUIT AFTER COOLING-OFF DAY

2.00pm, Tuesday, 31 May 2016 – Seven or eight police officers swarmed into the diminutive 67-year-old’s home.  Ignoring her request to take off their shoes before entering, they roamed around her place for more than an hour, taking videos and photographs as they wanted.  The troupe left with her computer CPU, laptop and handphone. 

The invasion of Teo Soh Lung’s home and the seizure of her personal effects were made on the heels of a police report filed against her by the Election Department (ELD) for making four Facebook posts on Cooling-Off Day of the Bukit Batok By-Election (BBBE) that ELD said could be tantamount to election advertising.

If found guilty of an offence of election advertising, Soh Lung would be facing a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both.

Cooling-Off Day was born in Singapore on 1 July 2010.  It was birthed by our government to protect the citizenry from the danger of emotional voting.  As the government states on its official website:

“The day before Polling Day is known as Cooling-Off Day. There is a prohibition against election campaigning during this 24-hour period to give voters some time to reflect rationally on issues before voting.”

To date, Singapore has had seven Cooling-Off Days:

For three of the seven last elections, there were no complaints of Cooling-Off Day breaches based on public information.  Four of the past seven elections saw police reports filed for Cooling-Off Day breaches:

The BBBE held on 7 May 2016 saw Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) candidate, Chee Soon Juan face off with the ruling party’s candidate, Murali Pillai.

On 27 May 2016, ELD issued a media statement to announce that it had filed police reports against socio-political site, The Independent Singapore (TISG), Soh Lung and Roy Ngerng for possible election advertising. 

It was the first and only time that ELD had decided on its own initiative to complain of Cooling-Off Day breaches - and did so by filing three police reports.  All other complaints of Cooling-Off Day breaches on public record were made by citizens.

In the wake of ELD’s police reports, the Singapore Police Force moved with lightning speed and charismatic efficiency.  

9.59pm, Saturday 28 May 2016 - Soh Lung found an envelope containing a letter from the police under her front door.  Apparently, a hardworking member of the Singapore Police Force had made his way into the condominium where Soh Lung lived and up to her front door that Saturday night.  The letter informed Soh Lung that she was required to attend at the Central Division Headquarters at Police Cantonment Complex in connection with police investigation for an offence of election advertising. Her attendance was compulsory.

9.30am, Sunday, 29 May 2016 - A policeman knocked on Soh Lung’s front door.  Albeit a Sunday morning, he had come over to personally check if Soh Lung had received the police letter and to obtain her confirmation in person that she would be coming to the police station. 

10am, Tuesday 31 May 2016 - Soh Lung presented herself at Police Cantonment Complex.  There, she was questioned for two hours.  At 12.15pm, Soh Lung requested for a lunch break as she was tired, but her request was denied.  The questioning continued for another hour, after which she was put into a car with four police officers and taken to her residence. Another car of four officers from the Forensic Department followed, making a total of eight officers in two cars arriving at her place of residence.

On that same day, 31 May 2016, Roy Ngerng also presented himself at Police Cantonment Complex where he was questioned for about three hours, after which the police took him to his home and seized two laptops, two hard drives, memory cards and a mobile phone.

Arising from ELD’s police report against TISG, four individuals from TISG were separately questioned by the police, two of whom were immediately taken by the police, one to raid his home and the other to raid both his home and his office, where their electronic devices were seized.

However, that was not the end of it.  On 13 June 2016, a citizen filed a police report to complain that two posts published on the ‘Fabrications About The PAP’ Facebook fanpage (FAP) on Polling Day of BBBE (7 May 2016) could be election advertising.  On 17 June 2016, FAP founder, Jason Chua Chin Seng, was questioned by the police after which the police raided his home and seized his handphone, iPad and two laptops.

The aftermath of the BBBE saw tough action taken by the police in response to the four police reports for possible election advertising (three by ELD and one by a citizen).  Altogether seven individuals were questioned, six police raids were conducted (one had both his home and office raided) and five individuals had their personal devices seized.

For Soh Lung, she endured the trauma of a lengthy police interview and the indignity of being taken by eight police officers immediately thereafter to raid her home. 

Was it necessary for the police to spring a surprise visit to her home? 

Was it necessary for seven or eight police officers to step into her home? 

Was it necessary to seize her handphone, laptop and desktop CPU - comprising all her personal communication devices?

During the police interview, Soh Lung readily acknowledged that the publications ELD had complained of were made by her and her alone.  She therefore could not understand why it was necessary to raid her home and to seize her personal devices, thereby depriving her of their use indefinitely.  Moreover, the seized personal devices contained materials far beyond relevancy to the publications that were the subject-matter of the ELD complaint.  Her personal devices also contained personal information which would become open to scrutiny by total strangers.

The police ended their investigations in February 2017 without charging anyone.  Stern warnings in lieu of prosecution were issued to three individuals from TISG, Jason Chua, Roy Ngerng and Soh Lung (making a total of six warnings in all) and seized items were returned to their owners.

On collection of her items, Soh Lung found that her laptop was damaged beyond repair.

In their 27 May 2016 media statement, ELD said that they filed the police reports after taking into consideration the nature of the postings and the potential impact that they might have had, noting that Soh Lung and Roy Ngerng "regularly engage in the propagation, promotion and discussion of political issues". 

ELD picked Soh Lung and Roy Ngerng because they had a public following.

If the objectives of the powers-that-be was to 杀鸡儆猴 (literal meaning: kill chicken scare monkey), the action taken against Soh Lung and the others in the aftermath of BBBE, did the trick.

If your gardener gets too busy nipping buds, your garden may become flowerless – and what is the joy of that?

See author’s video documentary “Nipping Buds” related to this post at: https://www.facebook.com/jeannettechongaruldoss/posts/4041170675965184

ROMANCE AT 60

Recently, a public figure who is (or was) practically the crown prince (皇太子殿下) of our land, announced that he would no longer be vying for our country's top seat.  "This year, I am 60." was among the more memorable lines of his announcement in which he also spoke about Covid-19, short and long runways, and his family. [1]

What the man said got me feeling wistful, sentimental - and romantic.

Wistful that I too am hitting 60.  Sentimental about younger days gone and the remaining days being rather numbered.  Romantic because of how glad I am that hubby is (still) keeping me company as I sail into the sunset.

On this warm and fuzzy float, I find myself reminiscing the highs and lows of love stories which I have enjoyed in C-Dramaland.  I have previously shared one of favourite love stories, the xianxia (仙侠) serial, Ten Miles of Peach Blossoms. [2]

Another compelling xianxia (仙侠) serial to watch is LOVE AND REDEMPTION (琉璃).  Released in 2020, it has 59 episodes.  The main characters are convincingly played by Cheng Yi (成毅) and Crystal Yuan Bingyan (袁冰妍). 

I sometimes find the English titles of C-dramas rather hopeless.  This serial is one of the rare times where the English title describes the serial aptly - Yes, the story IS about love and redemption. 

I am also a little shocked that the introductory blurb in Netflix is unexpectedly accurate: 

"Two star-crossed lovers, cursed from the start. But no magnitude of heavenly meddling can keep them apart." 

 True.  This is indeed a “me and you against all odds” storyline which gets you rooting for the couple as they fight for each other and for their relationship.      

This serial a winner because it is not just a love story but also an action-packed adventure coupled with an intriguing mystery which keeps you hunting for clues and chasing for the revelation.  The episodes are fast-paced with plenty of twists and cliff hangers.  With never a dull moment, it is an entertaining ride all the way.  Some serials are slow burners, taking a while before you are made to stay on.  But for this serial, I was hooked from Episode 1. 

What is more, this serial passed the “husband” test – hubby was also captured with me at Episode 1. 

So if your TV companion is like mine, the impatient type who finds emotional scenes a yawn, then this serial with its combination of romance, action and mystery, is one to watch. 

LE COUP DE FONDRE (我只喜欢你) is another serial which got me at Episode 1.  This is not a fantasy but a contemporary romance drama.  Released in 2019, it has 35 episodes. 

This drama is unique for how the story is premised – for the story starts from its happy ending.  Scene 1 of Episode 1 shows our couple happily married for four years already.  But it seems that our winsome couple almost did not make it, making the viewers very curious to know how the couple overcame their obstacles to reach their happy ending.  The story then back tracks to the time when they were in high school, and we see what happened to them over the ensuing years.

Because the drama spans from the couple’s teenage years all the way to their lives as working adults, there is an authenticity to their story.  The difficulties they faced individually and as a couple are very relatable.  When the couple succeeds to defeat the odds and get to be together, it is for the hopeless romantics among us, proof of the conquering power of love.  It is a satisfying thrill when love wins.

This serial is led by well-known actors, Janice Wu Qian (吴倩) and Zhang Yujian (张雨剑).  For any romantic drama to be a hit, the leads must have the all-important on-screen chemistry, and the leads certainly do have it. 

After spending hours watching a romantic pairing on-screen, it is common for viewers to “ship” the couple, i.e. to wish and hope that the on-screen romance become real for the actors.  Fans of this serial were treated to an unexpected bonus love story.  In March this year, the media outed that Janice Wu Qian and Zhang Yujian tied the knot a while back and even have a child together, but they had kept their marriage a secret from the public. [3]

Celebrities who become a couple tend to get loads of attention and consequently stand to make a lot of money from publicising their relationship.  Case in point is the media frenzy when news broke that Hyun Bin and Son Ye-Jin, the on-screen couple in the hit K-drama, Crash Landing on You, are dating in real-life. [4]

But Janice Wu Qian and Zhang Yujian chose not to publicise their personal relationship.  Perhaps they kept their marriage a secret because it was not for sale.  If so, it is an endearing demonstration of true love that they cherish their relationship as personal and private and nobody’s business.      

Cynics say that there is nothing certain in life other than death and taxes. Not true. There is another certainty. I will say with absolute certainty that in every culture and time, love stories have been and will always be a firm favourite.

Don’t we all know that finding someone to love who loves you back is not easy. 

“The course of true love never did run smooth,” said Shakespeare. 

So, when two people fall in love, the relationship is as precious as a baby.  Like a mother's instinct, we want to protect the one true pairing’s love. We want to defend their desire to be together.  And we want them to live happily ever after.    

Someone to love, someone to miss.  Someone who loves you back, someone who misses you when you are not around. Is there anything better?  Isn’t that worth giving up everything else for?  

The quest for true love has legion followers.  From the 16 year old BFF to the 60 year old kaypoh auntie (ok, me), and also the poker face uncle listening over there.  Chins are rested on palms.

 “So, how did you two meet?”  Tell us, we are all ears to hear how you both met and fell in love.

 17 April 2021

About the Author:  Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss was a practising Sceptic for most of her life.  She recently converted to Hopeless Romanticism after encountering the number 60 and is now an Incurable Romantic.  In her spare time, she watches C and K Dramas to get her life priorities in order.

Hit her Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/EngSubsPls

---

[1] https://singaporenewsnetwork.com/is-age-the-only-factor-that-brought-paps-succession-plans-to-a-standstill-analysts-dissect-dpm-hengs-withdrawal-from-pm-race/

[2] https://singaporenewsnetwork.com/review-three-lives-three-worlds-ten-miles-of-peach-blossoms/

[3] https://hype.my/2021/219630/zhang-yujian-janice-wu-qian/

[4] https://www.straitstimes.com/life/entertainment/crash-landing-on-yous-son-ye-jin-and-hyun-bin-are-offically-an-item