Fielding Police Powers, Plugging Plot Holes

The recently reported decision of Wham Kwok Han Jolavan v Attorney-General[1] has clarified that police warnings are “no more than an expressions of the opinion of the relevant authority that the recipient has committed an offence”.  As such, there is no decision for the Court to quash. 

In his written judgment, the Judge made the following points:

1. That a warning is not binding on its recipient such that it affects his legal rights, interests or liabilities.[2]
2. That a recipient is entitled to challenge the warning.[3]

These two statements are puzzling for several reasons.

Warnings do have prejudicial effect on recipients

The fact that someone has received a warning from the police clearly has adverse effects on its recipient. 

Firstly, the opinion of the police carries significant weight.  The Judge in Mr Wham’s case said that a police warning does not and cannot amount to a legally binding pronouncement of guilt or finding of fact.  Only a court of law has the power to make such a pronouncement of guilt or finding of fact.  Saying that a recipient of a police warning is to be presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law is talking small potatoes compared with the heavyweight pronouncement of guilt bellowing from the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

Secondly, the warning is on record.  How long it will stay on police record before it is considered spent or expired is unclear.  It is also a mystery to what extent other parties (government or non-government) are able to access such information.  Disclosure of a recipient’s police record to other agencies will cause the recipient to suffer privacy intrusion, personal embarrassment and reputational harm. 

If for example, the recipient is applying for a government scholarship or public-sector job, will those who are deciding his scholarship or job application have access to his police record?  If so, then the recipient’s scholarship or job prospects will be affected.

On 11 May 2013, 21 Malaysians were arrested for gathering illegally at Merlion Park. Concerning their fate, the media reported [4]:

"The Police will be issuing conditional warnings to all 21 Malaysians who participated in the illegal gathering at Merlion Park on 11 May. Their employers will be informed of this. The authorities have also initiated the revocation of the work pass of one of these 21 persons for being involved in both the 8 and 11 May illegal gatherings.  In addition, the authorities have cancelled the visit passes of another two of them. As for the remaining 18 persons, their work passes will be reviewed upon completion of further investigations."

Hence, it appears that a non-Singaporean who receives a warning in lieu of prosecution will be at risk of losing his job, of having his work pass revoked, visit passes cancelled or being repatriated. Those are dire consequences for non-Singaporeans who are living and working in Singapore.

Making public announcements of warnings given

There have been many instances where authorities have issued press releases to inform the public that certain individuals have been issued with a police warning in lieu of prosecution.  In some cases, the recipient of the warning is named in the press release while in other cases, the recipient is unnamed. 

A press release by the Singapore Police Force on 10 August 2011 stated that the Police had administered a stern warning to Ms Tin Pei Ling’s unnamed friend for her breach of the Parliamentary Elections Act.[5]

On 23 June 2013, the Attorney-General’s Chambers issued a press release[6] to inform the public that they had issued a letter of warning to Ms Lee Seng Lynn for her having committed contempt of court. 

Has the police an unfettered discretion to decide when they wish to make public the names and circumstances of individuals who have been issued with warnings?  What about the unwanted attention and public humiliation the recipient has to suffer?

When someone’s name enters the public domain on account of having been found guilty of a crime by the Attorney-General, the reputational damage is immeasurable and long-lasting.  How are recipients in such cases going to deal with the court of public opinion against them? Such a recipient pays a heavy personal price even though he has not been convicted by a court of law. 

So even though the Judge in Mr Wham’s case said that a warning is not binding on its recipient such that it affects his legal rights, interests or liabilities, clearly the issuance of a warning can cause permanent and persistent prejudice to the recipient.

Recipients have no remedy against warnings

The Judge in Mr Wham’s case said that the recipient is entitled to challenge the warning. He suggested that Mr Wham could have sent a letter to the police to say that he disputes that he has committed an offence and that the warning is inappropriate.[7]  In fact, Mr Wham did write to the police and also to the Attorney-General’s Chambers to protest the issuance of the warning against him, but the police and the AGC never replied him.[8]

What good will it do for the recipient to write to the police to object the issuance of the warning?

Of what the weight is the recipient’s opinion that he has not committed any offence to warrant the warning compared with the weight of police opinion that the recipient has committed an offence?

In any case, the decision in Mr Wham’s case is that a police warning cannot be quashed by the Court.

All said, I am not sure I understand why the Judge said that the recipient is entitled to challenge the warning because the recipient has no recourse to the Court and in practical terms, there is little he can do at his end to mitigate the adverse effects of receiving a police warning.

How are individuals safeguarded from wrongful issuance of warnings?

The police wield considerable powers over the individual. How the police administers its powers on individuals and what are the safeguards against unprincipled exercise of police powers on individuals are a matters of great importance to the general public.

For when the lone individual is at the receiving end of the strong arm of the law bearing down on him, we need to entrust him to the integrity of the system and to have faith that the machinery will be applied to him in a principled manner. 

If individuals lack adequate protection from and recourses against arbitrary exercise of police powers, the relationship between rulers and the ruled will be strained and eventually the justice system will break down.

Present Situation

In respect of warnings, the following applies for now:

• Warnings can be given only orally, without the need for any formal document to be issued.
• The warning may be given without requiring the recipient's consent to being warned.
• The warning may be given whether or not the recipient's admits to having committed the crime.
• Once given, a warning cannot be quashed by the Court.
• The warning is on record, but for how long the record is kept by the police before it is considered spent or expired is not known.
• When, how and to what extent the police shares the recipient’s record with other agencies is not known.
• As to what control, if any, the recipient has over what the police does with his record is not known.
• When announcing to the public the fact that some has received a warning, the police may, as it deems fit, disclose the name of the recipient, the circumstances of the case and any other details.
• Whether and to what extent the police needs to consider the recipient’s personal detriment arising from the publication of his name is not known.

An unsatisfactory ending

The judgment in Mr Wham’s case is like a story which has a beginning, a middle but no ending.  We are left hanging at the cliff’s edge. 

The Court says that warnings have no legal effects, but warnings are prejudicial to its recipients.  The police is empowered to issue warnings, which the recipient is powerless to do anything about.    

I dearly hope that the decision in Mr Wham’s case is not the Court’s last word on the matter of police warnings.  There is still a lot of plot holes to clear up, you know.  And if the Court is not going to plug the gaps, I am not sure who will.

By Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

---

[1]  [2015 SGHC 324] at http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/attachments/75114/[2015]%20SGHC%20324.pdf

[2] Paragraph 33 of the Judgment

[3] Paragraph 34 of the Judgment

[4] “Singapore revokes passes of 3 Malaysians in illegal protests” by AsiaOne on 15 May 2013 at http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130515-422607.html

[5] http://www.police.gov.sg/mic/2011/08/20110810_update_offences_GE2011.html

[6] https://www.agc.gov.sg/DATA/0/Docs/NewsFiles/AGC%20MEDIA%20STATEMENT_LETTER%20OF%20WARNING%20TO%20LEE%20SENG%20LYNN_14%20June%202013.pdf

[7] Paragraph 34 of the Judgment

[8] Paragraph 7 of the Judgment

Wham vs AG: Judge glares spotlight on the Police

The recently reported decision of Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General [1]  is intriguing in more ways than one. 

The case has received public attention for its clarification on the legal effects of police warnings – that they are “no more than an expressions of the opinion of the relevant authority that the recipient has committed an offence”. [2]

But the written judgment of this case by Justice Woo Bih Li is also significant for its critique on how the warning was administered to the recipient in the case.  The Judge shone the spotlight on how the police treated the recipient of the warning - and the police did not come up smelling like a rose.

This is a side of the reported decision which not only opens the lid on police processes, but also makes a fascinating story.

It should be noted at the onset that this is not your run-of-the-mill criminal case.  This case concerns an offence which cannot be committed anywhere on the island of Singapore except at Speakers' Corner in Hong Lim Park. The recipient of the police warning in this case was a Singapore citizen who was exercising his constitutional rights.  The context of the case being in the lofty realms of police constraints on civil activity, it adds a special flavour to the story which the Judge unfolds.

Background - what the case is about

On 1 October 2014, Mr Jolovan Wham organised an event at Speakers' Corner. The publicity for event expressly stated that foreigners and permanent residents required a permit in order to participate in the event. At the start of the event, Mr Wham also informed the participants that only Singapore citizens were allowed to participate.

After the event, the Central Police Division (CPD) commenced investigations against Mr Wham as CPD officers had observed that there were participants that appeared to be foreigners. Subsequently, the Attorney-General decided to direct the CPD to issue a warning to Mr Wham to refrain from conduct amounting to an offence under the Public Order (Unrestricted Area) Order 2013 [3] or any other criminal conduct in the future, instead of charging Mr Wham.

On 25 March 2015 at the CPD Headquarters, Mr Wham was verbally warned as directed by the Attorney-General.

Believing that he had done nothing wrong to warrant a warning, Mr Wham applied to Court to challenge the warning given.

Judge unsure whether there was even any warning given

Right at paragraph one of his judgment, the Judge declared it was not even clear whether any warning was given at all.  

The Judge then went on to scrutinise what transpired between DSP Pannirselvam (the CPD Officer) and Mr Wham, which may be summarised as follows:

1. On 25 March 2015, Mr Wham met the CPD Officer at the CPD Headquarters. 
2. The CPD Officer administered Mr Wham with an oral warning and then invited Mr Wham to sign a document called "Notice of Warning" to acknowledge that he had received the document. 
3. Mr Wham refused to sign the Notice of Warning. 
4. Mr Wham informed the CPD Officer that he wanted to consult his lawyers and requested a copy of the Notice of Warning.  
5. The CPD Officer refused to give Mr Wham a copy of the Notice of Warning.  
6. The CPD Officer then made a handwritten note on his paper that "No copies of the warning was issued to him."  
7. On 4 May 2015, Mr Wham contacted CPD to enquire about the outcome of the investigations against him.  
8. On 5 May 2015, CPD sent a letter to Mr Wham stating that it had been placed on CPD’s record that Mr Wham was “warned by … DSP S Pannirselvam on 25 March 2015".

The Judge having laid out the sequence of events, it becomes evident to the casual observer that the way the CPD dealt with Mr Wham was ambiguous and inconsistent. 

Did the CPD intend to administer the warning to Mr Wham orally or in written form?

How the CPD intended to administer the warning to Mr Wham was not clear.

Handwritten notes on the Notice of Warning stated
"No copies of the warning was issued to him."

According to the Judge, if it was the intention of CPD was to administer the warning orally, then the wording of the Notice of Warning was inconsistent because it stated "You are hereby warned", and not "you have been warned" and that a stern warning “would be administered”, and not “has been administered”.[4]

The Judge also noted that DSP Pannirselvam's handwritten notes stated "No copies of the warning was issued to him", which seemed to indicate that he was treating the Notice of Warning as the warning itself. [5]

The Judge commented: "If indeed CPD had intended all along for DSP Pannirselvam to administer a warning orally followed by a notice that the oral warning had been administered, then the Notice of Warning was poorly drafted." [6]

The Notice of Warning was poorly drafted in more ways than one.  The Judge pointed out that the Notice of Warning had no date and that it carelessly used the terms “warning” and “stern warning” interchangeably.

The Judge suggested: "However, when the Notice of Warning was not handed to Mr Wham because he had said he wanted to consult a lawyer, there was a problem as to whether a warning had been administered to Mr Wham at all. Perhaps it was because of this problem that the position was then taken by CPD that an oral warning had already been issued."  [7]

Then, there is also the mystery as to why the CPD officer refused Mr Wham’s request for a copy of the Notice of Warning.  On this point, the Judge thought that CPD officer should not have withheld it from Mr Wham. 

The Judge said: "It seems to me that if CPD’s intention was to hand over a copy of the Notice of Warning to Mr Wham after the warning had been administered, then DSP Pannirselvam should have handed over a copy even though Mr Wham chose not to sign the acknowledgement.…… Furthermore, it is not illogical for someone who is informed about a warning of an offence to want to seek legal advice before signing any document pertaining to the warning." [8]

Notably, the Judge vindicated Mr Wham’s wish to consult a lawyer before signing any document.

AGC’s Acknowledgement of Remiss

Clearly, there was needless inconsistency and ambiguity in the way the CPD conducted its proceedings with Mr Wham.

In what appears to be an acknowledgment of their remiss, the Attorney-General’s Chambers told the media: "The Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Singapore Police Force are reviewing the process by which stern warnings are administered and the use of the notice, in the light of the High Court's comments in the judgment." [9]

The Judge’s relentless scrutiny of how the CPD dealt with Mr Wham revealed much to be desired of police processes, at least in the area of administering warnings. 

The Straits Times headlined their report on the Court’s decision as “Activist fails to get police warning quashed”. 

Perhaps in an alternative universe would we see the Straits Times using this as the headline instead: “Judge finds fault with how police warned activist”.  

By Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

---

[1] [2015 SGHC 324] at http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/attachments/75114/[2015]%20SGHC%20324.pdf

[2] Paragraph 34 of the Judgment

[3] Paragraph 4(1)(b) which provides that an organiser of any demonstration held in Speakers’ Corner must not allow any person who is neither a Singapore citizen nor a permanent resident to take part in the demonstration.

[4] Paragraph 10 of the Judgment

[5] Paragraph 12 of the Judgment

[6] Paragraph 16 of the Judgment

[7] Paragraph 14 of the Judgment

[8] Paragraph 18 of the Judgment

[9] The Straits Times “Activist fails to get police warning quashed” (25 December 2015)

Bilahari Kausikan – Loose and at Large

The day was 31 October 2015 and I was in the famous university town of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. 

I was there to attend a conference with the enticing title "The Legacy of Lee Kuan Yew and the Future of Singapore".  The Conference featured an impressive line-up of speakers comprising distinguished Singaporean and non-Singaporeans with in-depth knowledge of Singaporean history and politics.   

Oxford historian Dr Thum Ping Tjin and Singapore's Ambassador-at-Large Mr Bilahari Kausikan were among the Singaporean speakers I was eager to hear.

Dr Thum Ping Tjin

Dr Thum’s topic was "Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy".  In his presentation, Dr Thum reviewed the historical context of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's rise to prominence and the political ascendance of the People's Action Party (PAP) in the pioneer years of Singapore. 

In the course of his comprehensive historical analysis, Dr Thum made the point that the era which saw the independence of Singapore was marked by robust political competition. Democracy, debate and dissent characterised the early phase of Singapore's political history.  However, the subsequent period was marked by intolerance for dissent, which has become the one enduring legacy of Mr Lee. 

It was interesting to hear Dr Thum because his perspective of Mr Lee's role in Singapore's history dissented from the narrative circulated by official sources in Singapore. 

Mr Bilahari Kausikan

Mr Bilahari's topic was "Lee Kuan Yew's cast of mind and its lasting influence".  As I leaned forward to listen, I had not bargained to be in for some unpleasant surprises.

To my amazement, Mr Bilahari departed from his prepared transcript at least twice to take two digs at Dr Thum - to make it clear to the audience that he was not in agreement with Dr Thum’s point of view. 

On Dr Thum’s view that the PAP government was intolerant of dissent, Mr Bilahari argued that since Dr Thum was able to express his dissenting views about Mr Lee’s political role, then Dr Thum can’t be right to complain that the PAP government was intolerant of dissent. 

I was taken aback. I failed to see the logic of Mr Bilahari's reasoning.  Dr Thum had expressed his dissenting views to an international audience at an overseas conference, not in Singapore.  Has Dr Thum been free to express his dissenting views in Singapore without adverse repercussions?

Mr Bilahari's second swipe at Dr Thum was more caustic. He called Dr Thum "a young academic trying to make a name for himself" - implying that Dr Thum was propagating an alternative version of Singapore’s history so as to draw attention to himself.

Some in the audience booed Dr Bilahari on hearing his ungracious words against Dr Thum.  

I was shocked - and ashamed - that a high ranking diplomat would deem fit to speak against a fellow Singaporean speaker at an overseas conference in front of an international audience.

By trying to attack Dr Thum's credibility, Mr Bilahari only succeeded in proving Dr Thum right about the PAP Government's intolerance for dissenting views.

But there was one more unhappy surprise in store for me.

"Some" opposition politicians

As Mr Bilahari drew his speech to a close, he said the key challenge ahead for Singapore was whether young Singaporeans would take the achievements of Mr Lee and his comrades for granted and be persuaded that Singapore was no longer vulnerable.

Having articulated what challenge laid ahead, I expected Mr Bilahari to conclude his speech by mentioning how the Singapore Government would handle the mindset of the next generation of Singaporeans. 

Instead, Mr Bilahari opted to bring out the proverbial bogeyman, namely, PAP dissenters.

The exact words of Mr Bilahari's concluding remarks were as follows:

"The key challenge is internal: that a new generation of Singaporeans will take the achievements of Mr Lee and his comrades for granted and be persuaded that Singapore was no longer vulnerable.  Some opposition politicians and their fellow travellers among the intelligensia have tried to do just that. They either do not understand their own country and region or place their ambition above the national interest. Fortunately, as the results of our recent General Election have demonstrated, the majority of my compatriots do not believe them."[1]

Thus, Mr Bilahari thinks that "some" opposition politicians (and their sympatheziers) are busy working against the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans; but fortunately, most Singaporeans are wise to the ruse, as results of the recent General Election show.

Mr Bilahari's remarks are disturbing.  Inherent in his choice of words is the insidious attitude that “some” opposition politicians are a pain in the neck, self-seeking and distracting our good government from protecting our nation and serving Singaporeans. 

Mr Bilahari is entitled to his own personal views.

But Mr Bilahari was not speaking at the Cambridge conference in his personal capacity.  He was invited to speak at the conference on the basis of his credentials as Ambassador-at-Large and Policy Advisor in the Singaporean Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr Bilahari was speaking at the overseas venue in an official capacity, as a diplomat and civil servant.

The Singapore civil service and the salaries of civil servants are funded by taxpayers’ money. Singaporeans are entitled to be served by a non-partisan civil service in which civil servants do not comment on politics or on politicians or take sides with any political party. 

I do not think that a country with a functioning democracy would have a civil servant, much less a senior diplomat, speak against opposition politicians at a public forum.

Mr Bilahari is a civil servant and has no business to comment against opposition politicians in public platforms.  By so doing, Mr Bilahari has provided observers with clear evidence that our civil service is partisan and partial to the ruling party. 

Moreover, Mr Bilahari is a diplomat. I am at a loss as to how Mr Bilahari can be said to be serving his country and his countrymen by highlighting the electoral victory of the ruling party.

Singaporeans will be best served if our civil servants spend their time thinking of ways to improve their efficiency instead of using opposition politicians as lame excuses for their inadequacies. 

Mr Bilahari and his fellow diplomats should focus on dealing with our foreign foes and on how to fix them[2], instead of thinking about how to defeat opposition politicians.

PAP dissenters are not “the enemy”.  On the contrary, political dissenters and opposition politicians serve the nation by holding the PAP Government accountable to Singaporeans.  Their continued presence in the political arena is indispensable to the operation of democracy in Singapore. 

That day in Cambridge, I was saddened to see Mr Bilahari throwing punches against his own countrymen in front of an international audience in his capacity as Singapore's official representative. I do not understand how our Ministry of Foreign Affairs could allow its diplomats to express sardonic remarks against our own Singaporeans at an overseas venue.

A “sardonic diplomat" is a contradiction, an oxymoron.  Till now, I am still pondering the enigma of the oxymoron which is Mr Bilahari.

UPDATE on 20 Dec 2015:
In response to this Blog, Mr Bilahari Kausikan commented on my Facebook page on 17 Dec 2015. As a rejoinder to Mr Bilahari's comments, I posted a Note on my Facebook page on 19 Dec 2015 captioned "My Rejoinder to Mr Bilahari's Comments on my Blog".

---

[1] Extracted from the transcript of Mr Bilahari’s speech posted at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/bilahari-kausikan-on-the/2235302.html

[2] "Instead of spending my time thinking of what is the right policy for Singapore, I have to spend all my time thinking what is the right way to fix them, what's the right way to buy my own supporters over," Mr Lee Hsien Loong, General Elections 2006 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1WhJKsYb50

Why I think Kho Jabing should not suffer the death sentence

No intention to kill

Jabing was convicted under Section 300(c) of the Penal Code. Section 300(c) is notorious for providing a controversial definition of murder. To convict an offender for a Section 300(c) murder, it is not necessary for the offender to have an intention to kill the victim. It suffices to prove that the offender intended the bodily harm which caused the victim's death.  All of Jabing's judges agreed that Jabing's motive was to rob the victim and, though he intended to physically harm the victim, he never intended the victim's death. But since the Court found that Jabing intended the injuries which caused the victim's death, the court convicted him of section 300(c) murder. 

"An eye for an eye" is a form of justice. On that basis, it may be justifiable or acceptable that someone who intentionally commits murder should himself have intentional murder committed on him. But Jabing never intended to kill, yet he has now been sentenced to suffer the penalty of being killed. His punishment is harsher than his own culpability and being so, it does not seem justifiable or acceptable.  

Disadvantaged at sentencing

The Court of Appeal conceded that that the sequence of events which took place during the time of the offence, was garbled and not entirely clear. The gaps in the factual matrix were not crucial for the purposes of proving the charge under Section 300(c). So it was not necessary to belabour the trial proceedings to elicit a blow-by-blow account of how the crime was committed, unless such facts were relevant either to prove his guilt or for his defence. Jabing was convicted of the murder charge notwithstanding certain gaps and inconsistencies in the factual matrix.     

More importantly, at the time of Jabing's trial, the death penalty was the only sentence - it was mandatory once the offender was found guilty of the murder charge.  There was then no other sentencing option.

in 2012, after Jabing's conviction, the Penal Code was amended to give the Court a discretion to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment. The factors relevant to the Court in deciding whether to commute the death penalty to life imprisonment was not known at the time of Jabing's trial. Had such factors been known to Jabing's lawyers at the time of his trial, I believe that Jabing's lawyers would have made it a point to bring up for the record, certain facts of the case equivocal to his defence, but helpful for his sentencing if found guilty.  

Hence, I find that Jabing was at a disadvantage when he came before the sentencing court. Certain gaps in the factual matrix which, had they been explored, canvassed or clarified during his trial, might have helped him to escape the gallows. (Alternatively, such clarification might have served the legal process by enabling the judges to have no doubt he should be hanged, in which case, a unanimous decsion would have ensured.)  

Indeed, the dissenting judges were of the view that it would be unsafe to sentence him to death, given the uncertainties caused by the gaps in the factual matrix, and that the offender should be given the benefit of doubt. Unfortunately, the majority of the Court of Appeal were prepared to sentence him to death despite the gaps in the factual matrix.

No unanimity within the Court of Appeal

Under the law, the death sentence may be carried out so long as a majority of the judges of the Court so decides. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment from which there is no turning back. The decision to execute must be very certain. But in Jabing's case, the five judges did not agree amongst themselves. The decision was split 3 - 2.  Notwithstanding the law, it is difficult to accept that Jabing should hang when two of the five sentencing judges did not think so. 

Current Status: 

On 19 October 2015, Jabing's clemency petition was rejected by the President, on the advice of the Cabinet. On 5 November 2015, Jabing was granted a temporary stay of execution to allow for the consideration of last-minute legal challenges. The hearing of the criminal motion is fixed for 23 November 2015. 

Sign the Petition 

Mountbatten Campaign Accounts - Closure

Last Friday, 16 October 2015, I handed my Post-Election Donation Report and Return of Election Expenses to the Elections Department.  That was the last requirement for me to fulfill as a candidate for GE 2015.

The finalised Accounts (Revenue & Expenses) are as shown in the attached image files.

After the GE, a reporter asked me in relation to the Campaign: "Was there anything you would have done differently?" I paused to think, then responded decisively: "Not at all. The Campaign ran in exactly the way we wanted and I am very proud of it."    

I have no regrets about J4M Campaign. It left me with a bursting bag of great moments and cherished memories which I have the joy of keeping for years to come. And I also have satisfaction of proving the adage: "Together, ordinary people can accomplish the extraordinary."  Indeed, the Campaign was a feat which a band of ordinary Singaporeans pulled off despite the unlikely circumstances.

It was a privilege for me to have taken part in GE 2015 as a candidate for Mountbatten SMC. I have much to be grateful for and many, many people to personally thank. 

I wish to take this opportunity give my heartfelt and personal thanks to:

• the members of J4M Campaign Team who stood and ran with me;
• supporters and encouragers who followed my Campaign trail and wished me well;
• all those who had so kindly donated to the J4M Campaign fund;
• all those who gave their time, ideas, talents, skills and dedication to the Campaign efforts;
• each of the 6,004 Mountbatten citizens who gave their vote to me.

A Chapter is closed. The next Chapter awaits to be written. 

Total Expenses

Total Revenue - Page 1

Total Revenue- Page 2

APPEAL FOR CONTRIBUTION TO J4M CAMPAIGN EXPENSES

Dear Friends and Supporters

As of today, I am facing a shortfall of about $23,858.35 in respect of expenses incurred for the Mountbatten Campaign:

Total Campaign Expenses: $52,410.35

LESS Donations Received: $23,781.00

LESS Revenue from Merchandise sales: $4,771.00

Shortfall: $23,858.35

[See attached images of Campaign Accounts and Donations List.]

May I humbly appeal to your kind generosity to help me mitigate the shortfall with a contribution to the J4M campaign fund?

The 2015 General Election is over, but the cause for political diversity remains and I fully intend to do my part towards this challenge. 

But for now, the priority is to meet all the Campaign expenses. I hope you can help as I need to settle this so that I can move on to continue my efforts for a better Singapore. 

Contributions of any amount will be much appreciated. Here are the ways to give:    

** By Bank Transfer **

Name of Bank: DBS Bank Ltd

Name of Account Holder: JEANNETTE CHONG-ARULDOSS

DBS Account No: 027-030949-6

Bank Code: 7171

Branch Code: 027

After making the transfer, please email jeannette4mountbatten@gmail.com to provide your name and the amount transferred.

** By Cheque **

Please issue to: “JEANNETTE CHONG-ARULDOSS” and mail to: 4 Battery Road 22nd Storey Bank of China Building Spore 049908. Please provide your name and mailing address so I can send you the receipt.

NOTE: I can only receive your donation if you are -   

(i)        a Singapore citizen above 21 years old; or

(ii)       a Singapore-incorporated company carrying out business mainly in Singapore and is controlled by Singapore citizens.

CLOSING DATE FOR APPEAL: 30 September 2015

Campaign Accounts

Donations List

Thank you J4M Supporters and Mountbatten Residents

Dear Mountbatten residents and J4M supporters,

Thank you for inviting me into your homes and giving me the opportunity to represent you. Although defeated at the polls in 2015, our spirits have not been broken. I know with your support, I will be able to improve my showing at the next GE..

Moving ahead, I am seeking your continued support to help defray the J4M campaign cost with a sale of the remaining J4M t-shirts and badges. I am selling both the J4M Tee Shirt & Badge at $28.00 (price is inclusive of delivery to a Singapore address by normal postage).

The T-shirts are available in Small, Medium, Large, X-Large and XX-Large (please indicate your preferred size when ordering). The J4M Badge is sized at 68mm x 23mm. Please see pictures below.

Once again, I would like to thank you for keeping the cause alive and well. I shall see you around soon.

For inquiries, email to jeannette4mountbatten@gmail.com

*** PAYMENT METHODS ***

1. By Bank Transfer

Name of Bank: DBS Bank Ltd
Name of Account Holder: JEANNETTE CHONG-ARULDOSS
DBS Account No: 027-030949-6
Bank Code: 7171
Branch Code: 027

After making the transfer, purchaser requested to email jeannette4mountbatten@gmail.com to provide name, telephone number, mailing address and amount transferred and quantity of shirts and size required.

2. By Cheque

Please issue to: “JEANNETTE CHONG-ARULDOSS” and mail to: 4 Battery Road 22nd Storey Bank of China Building Spore 049908.

Provide name, telephone number, mailing address, quantity of shirts and size required. For inquiries, email to jeannette4mountbatten@gmail.com

Why Vote for Me

By Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, SPP Candidate for Mountbatten SMC

And so this lap of my journey for Mountbatten’s nearly complete. Today is the last day of campaigning, and tomorrow is cooling off day. It has been physically and mentally draining but I would do it all over again in a heartbeat.

Mountbatten and I go way back. I grew up in Jalan Sedap and I have happy memories of my childhood spent there. When I got married, our first matrimonial home was at Meyer Road where I bore three out of my four children. As a child, I played at Katong Park. When I had my kids, I brought them there to play too.

Over the course of the campaign, I’ve reconnected with family friends and neighbours from my childhood and early marriage days. Just last week, one of my mum’s friends came up to me while I was giving out pamphlets at Dakota MRT and cheered me on. I’ve lost count of the friendships from GE2011 which I’ve re-kindled and the new ones I’ve made.

From my previous experience in 2011, I knew running a campaign in an SMC against an entrenched incumbent was never going to be easy. So, I’m proud to say I’ve run my campaign to the fullest of my ability with the help of a dedicated core of volunteers and the backing of the Singapore People’s Party (“SPP”).

This is a summary for why I would like you to give me a chance to serve you in Parliament.

 

My Mountbatten Manifesto

The centrepiece of my campaign is “My Mountbatten Manifesto”, a detailed document which I sent to residents in Mountbatten, and have made available online. The Straits Times described it as a “masterplan for the area”.

“My Mountbatten Manifesto” is crafted with a ear to the ground: it specifically addresses issues of Town Council management and handover (I promise to work with the incumbent to ensure this is done smoothly) as well as assuring residents that I will continue to fight for their community care assistance.

“My Mountbatten Manifesto” highlights practical improvements that need to be made around the constituency such as a lift at the overhead bridge outside Kampong Arang, and the importance of securing greater transport connectivity by internal shuttle services in Mountbatten.

However, more than that, “My Mountbatten Manifesto” is an invitation to the residents of Mountbatten to build a home for the heart with me. And, I don’t mean that as just a slogan.

“My Mountbatten Manifesto” details realistic and specific plans I have for the partial conservation of Dakota Crescent, and recommends turning it into a mixed commercial-heritage development which will house a community museum and integrated design, creative and heritage space where small business can co-exist with community projects. It also details plans for keeping prices of hawker food at Mountbatten’s hawker centres affordable.

“My Mountbatten Manifesto” also sets out the course I will chart in Parliament, and my plans to hold the Government accountable, if elected. This is the primary function of an MP: to speak up for residents in Parliament and to put the constituency on the national stage.

To me, “My Mountbatten Manifesto” is an opportunity for Mountbatten residents to reimagine the community, and a call-to-action to achieve these ideals together. Many of the proposals are small ones, but grounded ones. They have the potential to better the lives of Mountbatten residents with regard to local and national challenges ahead.

Executing My Plans

I am confident of my ability to to make “My Mountbatten Manifesto” happen.

As a corporate lawyer for 26 years who has built her own legal practice, I have the necessary attention to detail and an eye for compliance to execute my plans.

In estate matters, I have served several terms on the management committee of condominium in Siglap with aroud 1,000 units, and was Chairperson for two terms. I have dealt extensively with issues relating to third party contractors, vendors and suppliers, common property maintenance and management and sinking funds.

I promise to be a responsive MP: I will constantly interact with you to find out how I can improve to serve you better.

If elected, I will work twice as hard to ensure that your trust in me is not squandered. I will take pains to ensure that all Town Council matters are properly handed over within 30 days. My current campaign team, which will also form the nucleus of my transition team, includes a lawyer and an accountant.

Over the last four years, I have sought to retain my presence in Mountbatten within the constraints of my personal resources and time. I hope you will assess me based on the merits of my plans for Mountbatten and my personal attributes and credentials. If you give me a chance to serve you, you will not be disappointed.

Regardless of the outcome on polling day, thank you for the unforgettable experience of being able to run for office for Mountbatten.

As tomorrow is cooling off day, I will not be able to update my internet platforms. To assist you in finding out more about me, please see the following material to get to know me better:

MY INTERNET MATERIAL

My YouTube Channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpPxGGSWIMG84hCTVQwL3cg

My Nomination Day Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhj7Th28qXU

My Campaign Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rIu6Y90B2U

My Rally Highlights Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AONfhjKk6Yg

My Rally Speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVNPCx8V7k4

My hubby’s rally speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k42HliaAngU

My Supporters’ Rally speeches:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt4LsUhPeOohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP0VLiHbnPE

My blog
http://jeannettechongaruldoss.blogspot.sg/

My Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/jeannetteformountbatten

MEDIA MATERIALS ON ME

From The Straits Times:
http://www.straitstimes.com/politics/ge2015-singapore-peoples-party-candidate-jeannette-chong-aruldoss-unveils-manifesto-for
http://www.straitstimes.com/politics/condo-voters-hold-court-as-lawyers-face-off-a-second-time

From Today:
http://www.todayonline.com/ge2015/chong-aruldoss-work-architects-preserve-dakota-crescent
http://www.todayonline.com/ge2015/chong-aruldoss-highly-unsatisfied-elds-response-pms-photos
http://www.todayonline.com/ge2015/spps-chong-aruldoss-plans-make-managing-town-council-her-priority
http://www.todayonline.com/ge2015/mps-real-value-fight-residents-says-chong-aruldoss

From Yahoonews.sg
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/ge2015--jeannette-chong-aruldoss-of-the-singapore-people-s-party-080034134.html?linkId=16882062

From The Online Citizen
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/09/welcome-to-battlefield-mountbatten-jeannette-chong-aruldoss-strives-to-swing-voters-her-way/
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/08/jeannette-chong-aruldoss-launches-mountbatten-manifesto/

From The Mothership.sg
http://mothership.sg/2015/09/nicole-seah-interviews-spps-jeannette-chong-aruldoss-why-contest-in-mountbatten-smc-again/

Mountbatten SMC SPP Rally on 6 Sep 2015 (Highlight Reel)

Highlight reel of the evening's proceedings at the Open Field at Stadium Boulevard. Featuring Mr Bryan Long, Mr Abdillah Zamzuri, Dr Ting Choon Meng, Mr James Aruldoss, Mrs Lina Chiam, Mr Choo Zheng Xi, and Ms Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss. Special guests for the evening were Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Tan Cheng Bock.