Friday, July 21, 2017
Is Li Shengwu above the Law?
A few short hours before the time appointed for a man to meet his violent death, someone who cared about the man wrote a poignant poem, 'Our Five Stars Dim Tonight', out of the intensity of the moment.
Ever since the invention of writing, poems have been a creative art form to convey the complexity of human emotions and experience using figurative language, imagery, diction and rhyme. In this case, the poem was a way for the poet to share his feelings of sorrow, misgiving and bereavement as he watched the clock tick against the man's life.
To my shock, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) ran after the poet, saying that his poem was in contempt of court. I was dismayed by the AGC's action. It is a poem after all, not a political exposition! But the AGC gave no artistic licence to the poet.
Upon being confronted by the AGC, the poet withdrew his poem from the public domain and issued a public apology for it. (5 Jun) The Straits Times duly published his apology so that we all know. [1]
On 15 July, one Li Shengwu (LSW) audaciously stated in a post on his Facebook account: "Keep in mind, of course, that the Singapore government is very litigious and has a pliant court system".
Isn't LSW by that statement disparaging the judiciary by alleging that the Singapore Courts are bias? If so, then his statement is in contempt of court.
Will the AGC come running after him, as they have done with others for referencing our courts in a manner deemed by the AGC to be illegal?
On 17 July, the AGC said in a brief statement that it is aware of LSW's post and is looking into the matter. [2]
On hearing this, LSW appeared to be rather defiant, judging from the comments published in his Facebook account: "I'm surprised that the Singapore government is so petty. Would they also like to trawl my private Facebook feed for seditious vacation photos?" (17 July) and "of course my uncle's dogs are watching my posts. How else would they know when to bark?" (18 July)
Anyway, let's see what the AGC does or does not do with LSW.
If the AGC does come after LSW for his statement, then it would confirm that our Government will police the boundaries to free speech diligently and vigorously, and without regard to whatever relationship the alleged transgressor bears to any political leader. In which case, we may perhaps expect to see LSW recant his audacity and issue a repentant public apology to avert the unpleasantness of prosecution, thus joining the humble ranks of those who had to make public apologies for over-stepping the boundaries of free speech.
But it will be interesting if the AGC does not come after LSW at all, for then it would mean that AGC does not think that saying "the Singapore government is very litigious and has a pliant court system" is not in contempt of court. In which case, I would thank LSW for uncovering a piece of free speech which we have hitherto assumed to be out-of-bounds.
Then again, if the AGC does not come after LSW for his statement, it could also mean that this young nephew of our Prime Minister enjoys a greater measure of free speech than the rest of us - which can't be possible. For that would be a clear case of the AGC practicing double standards.
AGC will not be biased because our Prime Minister has already explained to us in Parliament (4 July) that there is no conflict of interest in appointing his former personal lawyer and his former PAP MP to the positions of Attorney-General and Deputy Attorney-General, respectively. [3]
So we really should guard our minds from being too critical and cynical. We should not allow ourselves to contemplate the unthinkable, that LSW is above the law simply because he is a member of the Lee Family.
If the AGC does not take LSW to take him to task for his statement, then we know that if it is OK for LSW to say "the Singapore government is very litigious and has a pliant court system", it is OK for us to say that too.
Everyone in Singapore is equal before the law, right?
- Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss
NOTES:
[1] 'Lawyer apologises for making statements in contempt of court', Straits Times, 5 Jun 2017
[2] 'AGC looking into Li Shengwu's Facebook post on court system', Straits Times, 17 Jul 2017
[3] 'Lucien Wong, Hri Kumar strengthen AGC: PM', Straits Times, 5 Jul 2017
Monday, June 19, 2017
THE FLAWED AGENDA OF THE OXLEY HOUSE MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE
I am troubled by the terms of reference for the Oxley House
Ministerial Committee. It looks to me
that this Committee may be serving a personal vendetta instead of the public
interest. Let me explain.
According to a Statement by Cabinet Secretary Mr Tan Kee Yong issued
on 14 June 2017, this Committee was set up “to
consider the options for 38 Oxley Road (the “House”), and the implications of
those options. These included looking into various aspects, including the
historical and heritage significance of the House, as well as to consider Mr
Lee Kuan Yew’s thinking and wishes in relation to the House.”
Clause 7 of Mr Lee's Last Will |
But DPM Teo Chee Hean then went on to say: "The Committee has thus been looking at the options available for
38 Oxley Road while paying particular attention to respecting Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s
wishes for his house."
What is the relevance of
Mr Lee’s wishes for the House?
In considering the historical and heritage significance of the
House, what is the relevance of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s thinking and wishes for the
House?
How are Singaporean interests served to find out whether Mr Lee Kuan
Yew’s really wanted the House to be demolished or not?
Has it been the Government's policy when considering the
"public interest aspects of any property with heritage and historical
significance", to give weight to the wishes of the property's deceased
owner?
On the contrary, my own impression is that the Government would
place public interest over the personal wishes of any property owner, let alone
the wishes of its deceased owner.
The Oxley House saga is the first time I have heard our Government
saying that it wants to understand and respect the wishes of the property's
deceased occupant, even to the extent of disregarding the wishes of the
property's current owner. Our present Government is so concerned with the fate
of the House and the wishes of its deceased occupant, that it has formed a
special Committee comprising four Ministers to look into those issues.
How is the public interest served by our top leaders spending their
time to delve into one particular property and what its deceased's occupant
wished for it?
Granted that Mr Lee Kuan Yew is no ordinary Singaporean. But then
again, how much time and effort is too much to spend on figuring out Mr Lee
Kuan Yew’s wishes for the House. How much
a factor should Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes bear on the Committee's decision?
What are public interests?
I would have thought that the more important questions for the
Government to consider are:
- How the public would benefit from retaining the House?
- What national ethos or shared value(s) would be served or expressed by retaining the House?
- Conversely, will it serve to express a shared national value to demolish Oxley House?
- How much would it cost the Government to upkeep the House if it is retained?
- Besides the direct maintenance costs, what are the opportunity, economic or other indirect financial costs if the House is retained?
- What would Singaporeans lose if the House is demolished?
- What other options are available to similarly serve the public interest or national values (e.g. preserving history, heritage) besides retaining the House?
Instead of considering such questions, the Committee looks to be
conducting an inquest on who actually prepared Mr Lee Kuan Yew's Last Will and
whether Mr Lee Kuan Yew really wanted his home to be demolished after his
death.
I would have thought that the question whether to retain or demolish
the House (or to carry out any other intermediate end) should be decided
primarily on the benefits which the public would reap from the ultimate
solution. Effort should be made to articulate the value proposition to
Singaporeans would be obtained for each scenario. Acquire (or gazette the House
under the relevant statute) if it benefits Singaporeans. Leave the House alone
if the benefits to Singaporeans are not sufficient to warrant denial and
encroachment of the current owner's full property rights.
In the interest of serving the rule of law, the state should not
interfere with the legal rights of property owners, unless justified by
overriding public interests. A heavy
burden should lie on the state to justify encroaching on a citizen's property
rights on the basis of public interests.
In my books, the interests of the public are in terms of jobs,
security, education, elderly, housing, medical, cost of living and so
forth.
Old National Library Building |
I am all for serving Singapore’s history and heritage. But it is not
right to serve Singapore’s history and heritage only when it coincides with the
political ends of the ruling party and to otherwise disregard artefacts from
which no political mileage can be derived from preserving them. [7]
Singapore’s history is much more than the political ascendency and achievements
of the ruling party.
18th century fort built by the British at Katong Park in Singapore |
For this reason,
when making recommendations or decisions on the fate of any building or
property of potential historical significance, politicians should not be
involved. How can we tell if the politician
is seeking to preserve an artefact that is closely linked to late leader in
order to capitalise on its political significance on the pretext of serving the
public interest? It would be a huge disservice
to Singaporeans to be given a distorted narrative of Singapore’s history.
The Oxley House saga is a family dispute between two opposing sets
of siblings as to what should become of their parents' home. To serve their
personal vendettas, the rival camps have appealed to the public to decide the
outcome on the basis "What Mr Lee Kuan Yew would have wanted".
Unfortunately, the narrative fed to us by the mainstream media may
have led Singaporeans to conflate Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes with the Nation's
Interests. According to this false
linkage, it is in the National Interest to follow Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes, so
we need to know his wishes.
Actually, Mr Lee Kuan Yew's wishes are personal to him, and so they
are irrelevant in the consideration of public interests. Public interests centre on the Government's
responsibility to make our lives better.
The Committee has set off on a Hunt for the Author of Mr Lee Kuan
Yew's Last Will and on the Quest to seek his True Wishes. Will the answers they
find make the lives of us ordinary Singaporeans better?
Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss
[1] E.g. Sungei Road flea
market will soon close http://www.asiaone.com/singapore/7-things-you-ought-know-about-sungei-road-market-it-disappears
[3] E.g. the old national library building https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/02/03/was-the-demolishing-of-the-old-national-library-a-well-thought-decision/
[4] E.g. Dakota Crescent flats http://jeannettechongaruldoss.blogspot.sg/2015/07/keep-dakota-crescent-vital-link-to-our.html
[5] E.g. http://www.asiaone.com/singapore/7-things-you-ought-know-about-sungei-road-market-it-disappears
[6] E.g. Bukit Brown cemetery https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/07/land-starved-singapore-exhumes-its-cemeteries-to-build-roads-and-malls
[7] E.g. the buried fort
at Katong Park http://jeannettechongaruldoss.blogspot.sg/2015/08/a-buried-fort-spirit-of-katong-awaits.html
Saturday, April 29, 2017
Ministries and the Ministers Responsible
MinLaw and MHA are both helmed by the same Cabinet Minister. Would it be better if each Ministry is headed by a different Cabinet Minister so that no Cabinet Minister heads more than one Ministry? Or is this a safeguard which has little or no practical relevance in the context of our One-Party System?
The Singapore Government is run by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and 15 Ministries. Each Ministry is led by either 1 or 2 Cabinet Ministers. There are 20 Cabinet Ministers; 2 more will shortly join the Cabinet to make the number 22.
Of the 15 Ministries, MOE and MTI are helmed by two Cabinet Ministers. But MinLaw and MHA are both helmed by the same Cabinet Minister.
From 1 May 2017, another Cabinet Minister will become "Second Minister" for MHA. Being designated "Second Minister", I take it to mean she ranks below the "First Minister" and does not co-head MHA.
MinLaw and MHA exist as separate Ministries for good reason. For good governance, accountability and to avoid conflicts of interests, the same individual should not be made to hold concurrent roles, unless we are short of staff.
- So, is staff shortage the reason for making one Cabinet Minister double up and head two Ministries?
- Is it wise to converge the responsibilities - and powers - of two Ministries under one individual?
- Is job of a Minister of Law a full-time position? Can the job of Minister for Home Affairs be adequately performed by a part-timer?
- Where a Minister holds more than one ministerial job title, how is he remunerated: per job title as a part-timer, whole-timer, or otherwise?
- Would it be better if each Ministry is headed by a different Cabinet Minister so that no Cabinet Minister heads more than one Ministry?
- Or is this is a safeguard which has little or no practical relevance in the context of our One-Party System?
(1) MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION (MCI)
Ministers responsible: 1 Cabinet Minister; and 2 Senior Ministers of State
(2) MINISTRY OF CULTURE, COMMUNITY AND YOUTH (MCCY)
Ministers responsible: 1 Cabinet Minister; and 1 Senior Minister of State
(3) MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (MinDef)
Ministers responsible: 1 Cabinet Minister as 1st Minister, 1 Cabinet Minister as 2nd Minister; and 1 Senior Minister of State
(4) MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (MOE)
Ministers responsible: 2 Cabinet Ministers; and 1 Senior Minister of State
(5) MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND WATER RESOURCES (MEWR)
Ministers responsible: 1 Cabinet Minister; and 1 Senior Minister of State
(6) MINISTRY OF FINANCE
Ministers responsible: 1 Cabinet Minister as 1st Minister, 1 Cabinet Minister as 2nd Minister; and 1 Senior Minister of State
(7) MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ministers responsible: 1 Cabinet Minister as 1st Minister, 1 Cabinet Minister as 2nd Minister; and 1 Senior Minister of State and 1 Minister of State
(8) MINISTRY OF HEALTH
Ministers responsible: 1 Cabinet Minister; and 3 Senior Ministers of State
(9) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA)
Ministers Responsible: 1 Cabinet Minister as 1st Minister and 1 Cabinet Minister as 2nd Minister
(10) MINISTRY OF LAW (MINLAW)
Ministers responsible: 1 Cabinet Minister; and 1 Senior Minister of State
(11) MINISTRY OF MANPOWER (MOM)
Ministers responsible: 1 Cabinet Minister as 1st Minister, 1 Cabinet Minister as 2nd Minister; and 1 Senior Minister of State
(12) MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (MND)
Ministers responsible: 1 Cabinet Minister as 1st Minister, 1 Cabinet Minister as 2nd Minister; and 1 Senior Minister of State
(13) MINISTRY OF SOCIAL AND FAMILIY DEVELOPMENT (MSF)
Minister responsible: 1 Cabinet Minister
(14) MINISTRY OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (MTI)
Ministers responsible: 2 Cabinet Ministers; and 2 Senior Ministers of State
(15) MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (MOT)
Ministers responsible: 1 Cabinet Minister as 1st Minister, 1 Cabinet Minister as 2nd Minister; and 1 Senior Minister of State
Source: http://www.pmo.gov.sg/newsroom/changes-cabinet-and-other-appointments-0#annex_a
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
NMPs are Believers in the System
Author's Note: I wrote this on 17 August 2016. On the night of 16 August 2016, I had an epiphany after watching a video of an NMP speaking in Parliament to earnestly explain the adverse implications of a Bill which was up for assent. The NMP would later vote in favour of the Bill. After I saw the video, I could not sleep. So I hit my keyboard to bang out my thoughts to share with my friends. Here you go.
Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) are Believers - they believe that the system is fundamentally sound but needs tweaking here and there, and that the Government is basically good though not perfect.
If one is a Believer, then words of assurance will suffice.
But not for one who is a Cynic, who sees the system as one designed to entrench incumbents and being constantly calibrated to ensure they continue to be in power.
Cynics will not see the attempt to introduce new laws that constrain civil liberties as mere "codification of existing laws", but will view such attempts in the context of the incumbents' continuing efforts to remain incumbent.
With Cynics in the House, citizens are assured that Bills will be suspiciously scrutinised and robustly debated upon. Schemes which serve the incumbents at the expense of citizens will be called out for what they are.
Without Cynics in the House, citizens are deprived of alternative choices and contrary views which are necessary for informed opinions.
While Believers may see themselves as playing the laudable public role with their reasoned speeches cautioning against the possible abuses, they may well be doing the citizenry more harm than good.
NMPs are identified to the citizenry as independent opinion-makers simply because they belong to no political party. But it is easy to forget that NMPs are selected.
I dare say that only Believers may be considered for NMPs and Cynics stand no chance to ever be one. So NMPs are not really "independent".
What do Believers bring to the table in a debate?
We have seen how NMPs have eloquently identified the pitfalls and flaws of Bills.
But when an NMP criticises a Bill yet expresses agreement with its basic aims, the net effect is an endorsement of the proposed new laws. The bell of endorsement is more sonorous when it is rung by an "independent". Being a Believer, the trust which an NMP has in the system and the Government will undergrid his entire speech, even one which is sharply critical. Beliefs are fully transferable, especially in the absence of Cynicism.
What Believers bring to the House is more confidence to the System. Thus, NMPs serve to entrench the incumbents.
So the more NMPs there are, the better it is for the incumbents.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
An "Orientation" Escapee's Tale
To this day, whenever I see the word "Orientation", a sense of fear and anxiety would arise in my guts. I can never read "Orientation" without feeling discomfort.
The year was 1982. I was 19 and in the happy position of fielding two degree offers. One was a place at the local university to read political science and the other was a place in a UK university to read law.
Needless to say, my parents wanted me to be a lawyer. But I was a homebody and had no desire to leave the comfort of the familiar to go abroad to study. I was eager to join my school and JC friends and to meet new friends at the local university. As I had been very active at co-curricular activities in school, I managed to "win" a place at the university hostel, which added to my excitement to start at the local U.
However, the promise of a fun-filled hostel life turned quickly into dust on arriving at the Halls of Residence. I found myself the unwitting participant of the hostel's 3-week long "Orientation Program".
We were told at the onset by our superiors at the hostel that we were in for tough and challenging ride. The Orientation Program was designed not only to foster bonding and camaraderie among the hostelites, but more importantly to "build character" for our own good.
We, the newcomers to the hostel, were "orientated" by being given a set of rules to abide by. Firstly, we were all mandated to wear conspicuous badges by which we could be identified as the newcomers, and thereby differentiated from the hostel incumbents. The badges had to be wore at all times whenever we were on hostel premises. On meeting, or whenever summoned to the presence of, an incumbent, we were to address them by the multi-syllable honorific "Senior Gentleman" or "Senior Lady", as the case may be. Incumbents were at liberty to speak to or summon newcomers at will, but not vice versa.
Every morning, we had to assemble in the open field for drills conducted by the Seniors. We had to obey instructions and participate in whatever “games” or activities the Senior Gentlemen and Ladies had in store for us.
I cannot remember what those activities were. But I do remember a lot of shouting at us by the Seniors, including shouting at errant "recruits" at very close range (as in nearly touching the nose) for making mistakes or showing insufficient deference to Seniors. As part of the assembly of recruits sweltering under the hot morning sun and bearing witness to the “punishments” meted out to errant newcomers, I clearly recall feeling fearful of making mistakes (by not following instructions properly) and dreading to be the one singled out for "punishment" i.e. humiliation by the powerful Seniors.
After the morning drills were done, we would spend the rest of the day attending our lectures and tutorials. But when evening came, the Orientation Program resumed. There was no respite. Since we resided at the hostel, we were bound to cross paths with Seniors. We had constantly to be on our toes to ensure we remembered and followed the prescribed rules of protocol and engagement whenever we encountered Seniors. Breach of protocol - whether by mistake, forgetfulness, cockiness or defiance - would render the felon liable to be shouted at and/or made to do something silly for the amusement of other Seniors.
I did not realise it but the relationship between the newcomers and the Seniors was that of captive and captors. I was afraid of the Seniors. They had power over me. I had to obey and defer to my Seniors.
It was not long before we captives began feeling the stress of our captivity and subjugation. Groups of us would huddle to encourage each other to soldier on and to bear with the "hardships" of our ordeal. The Seniors were in fact looking out for us, we reasoned. They were trying to make us tougher and to build up our resilience and character. It was all for our own good.
Towards our end of the second week of "Orientation", my paternal uncle decided to drop by the hostel to look in on me. While I was glad for his visit, I recall telling him that I could not talk to him long, as I "had to get back". I cannot remember what else I said to my uncle, but I do recall feeling scared that I might be breaching some protocol by talking to my uncle "without permission" from my Seniors. I was furtive and uneasy. I was behaving like a prisoner.
Bless my uncle for his insight. He said to me: "Jeannette, pack your things. I am taking you home."
I was stunned and bewildered.
For several minutes I could not process the fact that I could LEAVE the hostel and check out of the Orientation Program.
The realisation empowered my feet. I skipped up the stairs to my room to gather my belongings and to make my run to Freedom.
It was at this point that one of the most bizarre things in my life on this earth took place.
As I resolutely bundled my stuff into my bag, two girls who had their rooms next to mine (and who were fellow sufferers) came up to me with eyes aghast and the following dialogue ensured:
Well-meaning friends: "Jeannette! What are you doing?"
Me: "I am leaving!"
Well-meaning friends: "Leave? But we are almost finishing our Orientation! We have not long more to go!”
Me: “You can stay, but I am going.”
Well-meaning friends (sitting me down): "You should not quit now. All this is a test of our character. When we finish the Orientation, we will become better people. Think about it."
I have to give it to these two girls. They tried their best to reason with me not to leave and to stay with the Program to the end. But I was not convinced.
Then one of the girls, in a final act of desperation, said this to me, which I will never forget:
"Why did God put you here if He didn't want you to go through this?"
(The 2 girls and I share the same faith.)
It was now my turn to look at her in utter and complete amazement. Her "reasoning" gave me unequivocal proof that the Orientation Program was a sick game and all its participants deluded if not psychotic.
I walked away from those girls, the hostel and the Orientation Program. I never saw those two well-meaning girls again.
No prizes for guessing that I subsequently dropped out of the local university and went to UK to read law. On arriving at the UK hostel at the start of my term, I read a notice on the wall about an "Orientation" event for new students. With some trepidation and suspicion, I asked some people what that event was. "Oh, it’s just tea and snacks to get to know each other."
And it turned out just so. But you know, I had to ask, just in case.
The year was 1982. I was 19 and in the happy position of fielding two degree offers. One was a place at the local university to read political science and the other was a place in a UK university to read law.
Needless to say, my parents wanted me to be a lawyer. But I was a homebody and had no desire to leave the comfort of the familiar to go abroad to study. I was eager to join my school and JC friends and to meet new friends at the local university. As I had been very active at co-curricular activities in school, I managed to "win" a place at the university hostel, which added to my excitement to start at the local U.
However, the promise of a fun-filled hostel life turned quickly into dust on arriving at the Halls of Residence. I found myself the unwitting participant of the hostel's 3-week long "Orientation Program".
We were told at the onset by our superiors at the hostel that we were in for tough and challenging ride. The Orientation Program was designed not only to foster bonding and camaraderie among the hostelites, but more importantly to "build character" for our own good.
We, the newcomers to the hostel, were "orientated" by being given a set of rules to abide by. Firstly, we were all mandated to wear conspicuous badges by which we could be identified as the newcomers, and thereby differentiated from the hostel incumbents. The badges had to be wore at all times whenever we were on hostel premises. On meeting, or whenever summoned to the presence of, an incumbent, we were to address them by the multi-syllable honorific "Senior Gentleman" or "Senior Lady", as the case may be. Incumbents were at liberty to speak to or summon newcomers at will, but not vice versa.
Every morning, we had to assemble in the open field for drills conducted by the Seniors. We had to obey instructions and participate in whatever “games” or activities the Senior Gentlemen and Ladies had in store for us.
I cannot remember what those activities were. But I do remember a lot of shouting at us by the Seniors, including shouting at errant "recruits" at very close range (as in nearly touching the nose) for making mistakes or showing insufficient deference to Seniors. As part of the assembly of recruits sweltering under the hot morning sun and bearing witness to the “punishments” meted out to errant newcomers, I clearly recall feeling fearful of making mistakes (by not following instructions properly) and dreading to be the one singled out for "punishment" i.e. humiliation by the powerful Seniors.
After the morning drills were done, we would spend the rest of the day attending our lectures and tutorials. But when evening came, the Orientation Program resumed. There was no respite. Since we resided at the hostel, we were bound to cross paths with Seniors. We had constantly to be on our toes to ensure we remembered and followed the prescribed rules of protocol and engagement whenever we encountered Seniors. Breach of protocol - whether by mistake, forgetfulness, cockiness or defiance - would render the felon liable to be shouted at and/or made to do something silly for the amusement of other Seniors.
I did not realise it but the relationship between the newcomers and the Seniors was that of captive and captors. I was afraid of the Seniors. They had power over me. I had to obey and defer to my Seniors.
It was not long before we captives began feeling the stress of our captivity and subjugation. Groups of us would huddle to encourage each other to soldier on and to bear with the "hardships" of our ordeal. The Seniors were in fact looking out for us, we reasoned. They were trying to make us tougher and to build up our resilience and character. It was all for our own good.
Towards our end of the second week of "Orientation", my paternal uncle decided to drop by the hostel to look in on me. While I was glad for his visit, I recall telling him that I could not talk to him long, as I "had to get back". I cannot remember what else I said to my uncle, but I do recall feeling scared that I might be breaching some protocol by talking to my uncle "without permission" from my Seniors. I was furtive and uneasy. I was behaving like a prisoner.
Bless my uncle for his insight. He said to me: "Jeannette, pack your things. I am taking you home."
I was stunned and bewildered.
For several minutes I could not process the fact that I could LEAVE the hostel and check out of the Orientation Program.
The realisation empowered my feet. I skipped up the stairs to my room to gather my belongings and to make my run to Freedom.
It was at this point that one of the most bizarre things in my life on this earth took place.
As I resolutely bundled my stuff into my bag, two girls who had their rooms next to mine (and who were fellow sufferers) came up to me with eyes aghast and the following dialogue ensured:
Well-meaning friends: "Jeannette! What are you doing?"
Me: "I am leaving!"
Well-meaning friends: "Leave? But we are almost finishing our Orientation! We have not long more to go!”
Me: “You can stay, but I am going.”
Well-meaning friends (sitting me down): "You should not quit now. All this is a test of our character. When we finish the Orientation, we will become better people. Think about it."
I have to give it to these two girls. They tried their best to reason with me not to leave and to stay with the Program to the end. But I was not convinced.
Then one of the girls, in a final act of desperation, said this to me, which I will never forget:
"Why did God put you here if He didn't want you to go through this?"
(The 2 girls and I share the same faith.)
It was now my turn to look at her in utter and complete amazement. Her "reasoning" gave me unequivocal proof that the Orientation Program was a sick game and all its participants deluded if not psychotic.
I walked away from those girls, the hostel and the Orientation Program. I never saw those two well-meaning girls again.
No prizes for guessing that I subsequently dropped out of the local university and went to UK to read law. On arriving at the UK hostel at the start of my term, I read a notice on the wall about an "Orientation" event for new students. With some trepidation and suspicion, I asked some people what that event was. "Oh, it’s just tea and snacks to get to know each other."
And it turned out just so. But you know, I had to ask, just in case.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Of Best Friends, Bitter Foes and the Bane of sailing through a Fog
Dr Lee Wei
Ling: "i will no longer write for SPH as the editors there do not allow me
freedom of speech. in fact, that was the reason why i posted the article on LKY
would not want to be hero-worshipped." (Facebook on 1 April 2016 at
1.07pm)
Janadas Devan:
"Reading Wei Ling’s unedited writings was like sailing through a fog. The
effort of turning her raw material into coherent articles — that’s what I
remember most about editing Wei Ling." (Facebook on 4 April 2016 at 3.05pm
and Straits Times on 5 April 2016)
Dr Lee Wei Ling
is the daughter of Singapore's former Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew and Janadas Devan is
the son of Singapore's third President, C.V. Devan Nair [1].
By now, many will
be aware that following Dr Lee Wei Ling’s Facebook post on 1 April 2016, a
public spat ensued between Dr Lee Wei Ling and Janadas Devan [2]. Reading their feisty online exchanges sparked
off an interest in me to find out more about the relationship between their
respective fathers, Lee Kuan Yew and Devan Nair.
For the most part
of their lives, Lee and Nair [3] were political comrades. But in their later years, they were bitterly
suing each other in court.
Public records
bear witness to a tragic tale of close cronies turning into feuding foes. When
the People’s Action Party was formed on 21 November 1954, Lee and Nair were
among its founding members. Nair is credited for helping to establish the
Singapore National Trades Union Congress. On 23 October 1981, Nair was elected
by Parliament as Singapore’s third President.
Then on 28 March
1985, Nair resigned as President of Singapore without completing his term of
office. In 1988, Nair left Singapore for
good and never came back.
Singapore
High Court: Lee Kuan Yew v Nair Devan (1988)
On 6 May 1988, Francis
Seow was detained under the Internal Security Act (Cap. 143). On 22 May 1988, Nair publicly spoke up for
Francis Seow, questioning the basis for his detention without trial. Lee, taking offence to certain parts of Nair's
public statements, took swift action and sued Nair for defamation three days
later on 25 May 1988.
Initially, Lee’s
lawsuit cited two instances of alleged libel arising from Nair’s comments made
to the media on 22 May 1988. Then on 7 April 1989, Lee added a third instance
of alleged libel to his lawsuit against Nair, citing Nair’s alleged libellous
comments as contained in an article
written by a reporter published in The Straits Times on 23 May 1988.
In response to
this additional claim by Lee, Nair applied to Court to drag the newspaper into
the fray to share the blame (if any) with him.
The newspaper protested vigorously, but the Court agreed with Nair,
observing that the newspaper had made its own decision to republish Nair’s
press statement. So Straits Times Press (1975) Ltd became a party to the
lawsuit. This meant that if the Court
were to decide that Nair’s comments were libellous, the newspaper could be made to
share liability with Nair to pay damages to Lee.
Lee’s 1988
lawsuit lasted over four years and spawned two reported interim court
decisions, one on 3 September 1990 [4] and the other on 8 December
1992 [5]. As to the final outcome of that lawsuit,
whether it was won, lost or discontinued, I do not know. I have not been able
to find out what happened to Lee’s 1988 lawsuit. If anyone knows, do share.
Ontario
Supreme Court: Lee v. Globe and Mail, Nair (1999)
On 29 March 1999,
the Canadian newspaper, Globe and Mail published an article [6] entitled ‘Singapore Sage’
reporting on an interview with Nair. In
that article, Nair alleged that Lee had Singapore doctors slip hallucinatory
drugs to Nair to make him appear befuddled.
In June 1999, Lee
filed a lawsuit in Canada against Globe and Mail and Nair for
defamation.
In response to
Lee’s lawsuit, Globe and Mail filed their Statement of Defence, pleading
the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege. Lee countered by applying to court to strike
out certain parts of their Defence.
However, the Court decided [7] to dismiss Lee’s striking out
application with costs.
As for Nair, he
responded by filing a Counterclaim against Lee, seeking damages on the basis
that Lee's lawsuit was an abuse of process. Nair argued that the real purpose
of Lee's lawsuit was to silence, not only Nair, but all of Lee's critics and
opposition in Singapore. According to Nair, Lee's action was part of a pattern
of using the libel process to silence his critics and opposition and was
"a mere stalking horse intended to further foster and continue a climate
of fear and intimidation". [8]
In turn, Lee
filed a Motion to have Nair's Counterclaim thrown out of court. As it turns
out, the Canadian Court found merits in Nair's arguments and allowed Nair's Counterclaim
to stand. Once again, Lee found his court application dismissed with costs. [9]
Lee having failed
to strike out certain parts of the newspaper’s Defence and to strike out Nair’s
Counterclaim, the parties (Lee, Globe and Mail and Nair) were left to slug it out in
Court in respect of Lee's defamation lawsuit, Globe and Mail’s Defence
and Nair's Counterclaim.
But the legal
case never got much further after that and was eventually discontinued. Nair’s
mental health had overtaken him.
On 1 July 2004, Globe
and Mail reported [10] that Nair had been diagnosed
as suffering from early dementia that he was no longer able to give evidence in
court proceedings.
That terse report
also stated that as to Nair’s allegation in the ‘Singapore Sage’ article that
Lee had Singapore doctors slip hallucinatory drugs to Nair to make him appear
befuddled, “Mr Nair's family has said that, having reviewed the record, there
is no basis for this allegation.”
Nair passed away
in Canada on 7 December 2005. He was 82.
Nair gave the best years of his life to public service in
Singapore. His final resting place is a
grave in Hamilton, Canada.
by Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss
Photo by Dr Thum Ping Tjin, used here with his kind permission. |
Photo by Dr Thum Ping Tjin, used here with his kind permission. |
[1]
http://www.istana.gov.sg/the-president/former-presidents/mr-devan-nair
[2]
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/dr-lee-made-serious-allegation-about-my-conduct-journalist-janadas-devan
[3]
http://www.istana.gov.sg/the-president/former-presidents/mr-devan-nair
[4]
Lee Kuan Yew v Nair Devan [1990] SGHC 59 (3 September 1990)
[5]
Lee Kuan Yew v Nair Devan (Straits Times Press (1975) Ltd and another, third
parties) [1992] SGHC 303
(8 December 1992)
[6]
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw99/90329gm.htm
[7]
Lee v. Globe and Mail, decision of Swinton J on 30 January 2001 at:
http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/0/0/ontario/superior-court-of-justice/2001/01/30/lee-v-globe-and-mail-2001-28035-on-sc.shtml
[8]
For a report on Nair’s counterclaim against Lee, see this link: https://web.archive.org/web/20061101004557/http://www.sgmlaw.com/PageFactory.aspx?PageID=252
[9]
The Canadian Court's written judgment dated 7 January 2002 is at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20061101024125/http://www.sgmlaw.com/AssetFactory.aspx?did=38
[10]
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw04/040701gm.htm
Thursday, February 11, 2016
S$6,063 – the price of justice for Jolovan Wham
On 22 December 2015, the High Court handed down a
judgment which clarified the legal effects of a police warning. Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v AG [1] ("Jolovan's case")
clarified that police warnings are merely expressions of opinion that the
recipients had committed an offence, but do not otherwise have any legal
effects on its recipients.
The judgment was the outcome of a Judicial Review
application by Jolovan Wham to quash (i.e. void) a police warning administered
to him. As the Court held that there was
no decision in the warning administered to Jolovan for the court to quash, the
Court dismissed Jolovan's application with costs.
On 1 February 2016, the High Court ordered Jolovan to
pay S$6,063 in costs to the Attorney-General ("AG") for his failed
court application. The amount was arrived at after discounting 20% off the
amount sought by the AG, to take into account aspects of the process by which
the warning was issued.
I am disappointed with the AG for seeking costs
against Jolovan and with the Court's decision to order Jolovan to pay S$6,063
in costs to the AG.
Before Jolovan’s Case
The practice of issuing warnings in lieu of
prosecution is not a creature of statute or regulated by legislation. Before
the decision in Jolovan's case, the implication of receiving a police warning
was mired with uncertainty.
In a seminal article by lawyer Tan Hee Joek "Be
Warned of the Stern Warning" published in the Law Gazette in 2013[2], the author said:
"...
local cases have shown that a stern warning may still be relevant in judicial
proceedings as a criminal antecedent for sentencing and for related civil
claims".
The author cited five reported cases in which the prosecution
had brought the accused’s prior warnings to the attention of the sentencing
judge. One of those cases was PP v
Tan Hiang Seng[3],
which I shall say more about. The author concluded that the five cases showed
that police warnings can have adverse effects for the recipients.
PP v Tan Hiang Seng
Of the five cases cited by Tan Hee Joek in his 2013
article, three of them were referred to by Justice Woo Bih Li, the judge in Jolovan's
case.
Of the three cases, Justice Woo found that in two of
them, the court did not actually take into account the previous warnings when sentencing
the accused. But Justice Woo agreed, and
AG conceded, that in PP v Tan Hiang Seng, the court certainly did take
into account a prior warning to the accused while considering the issue of
sentence. On this point, Justice Woo stated
in his judgment that a court is not entitled to treat a warning as an antecedent
or as an aggravating factor since it has no legal effect and is not binding on
the recipient.
I looked up the case of PP v Tan Hiang Seng.
In pressing for a custodial sentence, the prosecution in that case informed the
court that the accused had been given a stern warning for taking his mother’s
identity card without her permission. The judge in that case said in her
grounds for sentencing:
"...
the accused had taken his mother’s identity card without her permission. This
was itself an offence of theft. He was given a stern warning by the police for
this. I considered this an aggravating factor."
The judge sentenced the accused to 4 weeks'
imprisonment and a fine of $2,000.
PP v Tan Hiang Seng is a clear instance where
the court when sentencing an accused, had considered the fact that the accused
had been warned by the police to be an aggravating factor.
The AG can't run away from PP v Tan Hiang Seng.
Small wonder that in Jolovan's case, Justice
Woo noted:
“…
the AG submitted that it would be wrong for a court to take into account a
prior warning, whether as an antecedent or not, for the purpose of sentencing
and he stressed that the prosecution would not in future mention a prior
warning to a court for the purpose of enhancing a sentence."
Hence, the AG admitted that the prosecution’s
practice of informing the sentencing judge of prior warnings was wrong and that
they would stop doing that in future.
This means that the prosecution in PP v Tan Hiang
Seng (and in each of the 4 other cases cited by Tan Jee Joek) erred by
telling the court about the accused’s prior warning; and the judge in PP v
Tan Hiang Seng erred in considering that factor when sentencing the accused
in that case.
Looks like poor Mr Tan Hiang Seng's sentence was
unfairly enhanced. Now that Jolovan’s case has brought those mistakes out in
the light, is there justice for Mr Tan Hiang Seng? Would the AG take the
initiative to review Mr Tan Hiang Seng's sentencing? To right the wrong, to set
the record straight? Or is all that water under the bridge?
S$6,063 to the AG
Mr Tan Hiang Seng's case is long over, but Jolovan's
case is still live, as he has now been ordered to pay the AG the sum of S$6,063
for “failing" his court application.
As Tan Hee Joek’s article shows, before Jolovan's
case, there were concerns that police warnings could have adverse implications
for the recipients. Given the prevailing
legal opinion, we cannot fault Jolovan for being motivated to apply to Court to
quash the police warning.
Apart from uncertainty over the legal implications of
police warnings, the circumstances faced by Jolovan make the cost order imposed
him seem unfair.
Concerning Jolovan's visit to the police station on
25 March 2015, Justice Woo declared at paragraph 1 of his Judgment that
"it was not even clear whether a warning was administered". Jolovan asked for a copy of the Notice of
Warning, but his request was denied. Justice Woo also criticized the wording of
the Notice of Warning and called it "poorly drafted".
On 4 May 2015, Jolovan called the police to enquire
about the outcome of the investigations against him. The police told Jolovan
that a warning had been administered to him on 25 March 2015. When Jolovan
tried to engage them further, he was stone-walled. On 9 May 2015, Jolovan wrote
to the police and protested the issuance of a warning against him. He did not
receive a reply. On 23 May 2015, he wrote to the Attorney-General’s Chambers to
similarly protest the issuance of the warning against him. Again, he did not receive a reply. Jolovan then went ahead to file his
application for judicial review.
Let's step into Jolovan's shoes. How the police engaged Jolovan - the way he
received his warning and how he was subsequently stone-walled - left much to be
desired. In Singapore, we do not have
any independent commission or body which can bridge the gap between the police
and civilians at the receiving end of police actions. What else could someone in Jolovan's shoes
have done? Jolovan has no way to protest
the issuance to him of the warning. Jolovan's
only recourse was to seek the Court's help by applying for Judicial Review.
Unfortunately, Jolovan has now been penalised with a
cost order of S$6,063. The decision to impose the cost order sends the ominous signal
that Justice is only available to those who can afford it. Often, for someone aggrieved by a decision
made by a state agency, application to Court for Judicial Review is the only
recourse. If he wants to apply to Court
for Judicial Review, he had better make sure he has the requisite financial
means to see the application through. Jolovan's
experience shows that applying to court for help carries the risk of having to
pay costs to the AG.
Loser Pays
The legal basis for ordering costs against Jolovan is
the principle "costs follow the event". On this principle, the loser has to pay the
winner's legal costs. This principle works
well most of the time. But there is a strong case to suspend this principle
when the applicant is an aggrieved civilian seeking the Court's help against
the heavy hand of state action. Without
protection from adverse cost orders, no one will dare to complain against state
action, for fear of being slapped with cost orders in the event that the Court
upholds the decision taken by the state agency.
In Jolovan's case, the Court regarded him as having lost
his bid, and therefore he has to pay costs to the other side, which in his
case, is the AG. Had the AG decided not
to seek a cost order against Jolovan, there will be no issue of costs to
decide. For Jolovan's case, the AG in
their wisdom decided to seek costs from Jolovan. As to why the AG so decided, I do not know,
but they did.
But did Jolovan really "lose"? Jolovan's application was to quash the
warning he received. In the end, the Court decided that since police warnings are
not "decisions" but merely opinions, there was nothing to quash. The
logic being that the Court cannot quash something which cannot be quashed.
But wait - if there is nothing to quash, can it be
said that Jolovan's application to quash the police warning has failed? Jolovan’s case is not one in which the Court
upheld a decision, but one in which there was no decision to affirm or quash. But it seems that no decision to quash means
that Jolovan’s application has failed and his case is lost.
Public Interest
While Justice Woo has deemed Jolovan to have
"lost" his case, Jolovan has won for the general public a much-needed
clarification on the legal effects of police warnings. Justice Woo razed 20% off the amount sought
by AG, to take into account the AG’s various mis-steps. Justice Woo should have given Jolovan a much
higher discount to recognise the public interest elements in Jolovan's case.
The principle that the loser has to pay the winner's
legal costs should be suspended for someone in Jolovan's shoes, a civilian who has
no other avenue that to seek the court's help for his predicament. Jolovan’s case is an application for Judicial
Review by an individual who is aggrieved by a certain action taken by the
police against him. Such cases have a strong element of public interest as they
concern the interaction between individual rights and state powers.
In cases where there are strong public interest
elements, the civilian applicant should be given protection from adverse cost
orders. Such protective measures operate as safeguards against abuse of state powers. Without protection from costs, aggrieved individuals
on the receiving end of state actions, will be inhibited from bringing their
grievances to court, for fear of cost implications.
It should be noted that when an individual contends
with the state, it is a David vs Goliath scenario. The individual is handicapped by the limits
of his personal resources. The state has the armada of the AGC to avail of.
Appeal?
Jolovan is entitled to appeal against the S$6,063
cost order. But I can fully understand if
Jolovan decides not to appeal. For if Jolovan
appeals, he risks being slapped with a further cost order in the event that the
Court decides to uphold the S$6,063 costs order.
S$6,063 is already a lot of money for an individual
to fork out. To take on further exposure
to legal costs would be daunting. It
will certainly be safer for Jolovan to cough up the dough and be grateful for
the clarification given by the court that the warning he received has no legal
effect.
Jolovan’s case is a cautionary tale that Justice
comes with a price tag.
Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)