TR EMERITUS

“You can’t choose the family you’re born into, but you certainly have the choice to distance yourself from them if they’re toxic and they’re only causing you pain”. The above was an extract from Ho Ching’s post two years ago entitled: “Here’s why sometimes it is okay to cut ties with toxic family members.” Well, it is a family affair that has sadly gone down south quite rapidly, and the whole world knows about it. The siblings made sure of that when they blitzed the internet with serious allegations made against their elder brother, PM Lee, more than three years ago. At the trial yesterday, as a witness, PM Lee said that he had waived his parliamentary privilege when he republished his ministerial statements outside Parliament. He said that would “allow his siblings to sue him over the statements, but they have not done so.” He added: “As far as the public is concerned, my not suing my siblings does not mean I condone (the allegations) or that their statements are necessarily true. But if others repeat it and I don’t act against others for which my inhibitions against suing siblings do not apply, that would further spread the poison and aggravate the damage.” By putting that on record, it is clear that our prime minister is sending a signal at large to the public that where personal dirty linens are concerned, there are two ways of cleaning them. First, they will wash those that can be washed via the parliamentary washboard. This was done on July 3, 2017, when PM Lee rubbished the siblings’ claim that he had misused his power. And second, for those that can’t be washed, as Ho Ching’s article about toxic people has put it, they ought to be deemed as a private matter, and those tempted to air them for other than the public interest had better think twice (or thrice) in the light of the Terry Xu’s defamation suit, now ongoing. Unless of course, you are his siblings. That itself warrants a different treatment. PM Lee said: “On the allegations made by my siblings, I had decided to take a different approach with them and it did not mean carte blanche for anybody else to use that to spread those allegations and further defame me. I am not obliged to sue everyone in order to sue one person.” Well, it is true that a plaintiff picks his defendant(s). It is a fundamental right of a litigant to pursue his case whichever way he wants it. If he sues and the party is adjudged not at fault after a trial and/or appeal, there are cost consequences that he will have to bear. But, that said, this is no ordinary plaintiff and the allegations are no ordinary allegations. Neither is this an ordinary defamation suit. In short, there are larger issues at stake here and hereon like freedom of expression, of the press other than the mainstream media’s, of repeating an allegation yet to be debunked by a court of law where there are equal representation, of addressing an unresolved testamentary intention beyond probate, of a country still being criticised by foreign press for oppressive tactics, and of the balance of ethical considerations concerning a siblings’ rivalry that has forced the prime minister’s hand, which may be perceived by many as some form of preferential treatment, if not an act of self-preservation. As such, every act taken by such a prominent figure has wider political, social and legal implications for the republic at large, especially her home-grown style of paternally nurtured democratic values. Two points here. First, when PM Lee was asked whether he is suggesting that the media can never report on what his siblings have accused him of, he replied with this double edged sword: “Not at all. They can report what they think needs to come out and if I sue them for defamation and I am wrong, they can go to court, vindicate themselves and demolish me - which is what I believe you are hoping to do in this trial.” I felt that that hints to an imbalance of power between a public leader and his private citizen. Although PM Lee had given TOC a chance to retract and apologise, and TOC did not accede to it for whatever reasons, the signal sent (together with what he had said in court) is however one where the die is set or cast that the alleged defamer will be duly demolished. I thus wonder, are we going back to the days of when these words still reverberate in our hearts: “Between being loved and being feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of me, I’m meaningless”? Second point is about animosity. PM Lee said that “neither he nor his wife Ho Ching held any animosity towards his siblings.” He added: “I think the animosity is evident on one side, from my siblings...And I hope against hope that one day, matters may be repaired. But it is one of those things that happen in life, and this too shall pass.” Well, with the concluded contempt action against his nephew, the recent conviction of his sister-in-law at the disciplinary courts, and the two defamation suits pending, I guess the hope against hope of “this too shall pass” will take a little longer to pass, if at all.   Michael Han      Read More →

We have been used to a 8 hour working day. This has been the pattern for several decades. We should now think of a 4 hour working day. What is the advantage of this new work arrangement? This will allow more people to have jobs. For example, if the workforce has 1 million people and 20% work on 4 hours a day, we can give jobs to another 200,000 workers. A 4 hour working day is more suitable for women who has to look after children or household activities. This new work arrangement is also suitable to elderly workers, e.g. those above 65 years, who are able bodied and like to continue working. Some of these workers may have inadequate retirement savings, so they may need to continue working to earn an income for their living expenses. It is important for the government to create the framework for this new type of working arrangement, regarding contribution to CPF and medical benefits. Do you like this idea?   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →

I welcome the news that one, two and three HDB roomers will receive e-vouchers worth $225/ to help them buy energy and water efficient appliances, however, I want the pap government to be more stringent with such disbursements and not merely do it as a matter of expediency. Let me explain. There are a good numbers of smaller HDB flat dwellers who have sold their bigger HDB flats earlier, reap good profits over the years and moved to smaller HDB flats for various reasons such as their children have moved out and they do not need to live in bigger flats anymore or that age is catching up with them etc. I would like to suggest to the relevant authorities that in future, any disbursements of state assisted schemes such as U-save, grocery vouchers or e-vouchers etc to be excluded from people who have sold their bigger HDB flats, reaped profits in the past 5 years or 8 years and are now staying in smaller HDB flats. In this digital era, digging out the records of such people cannot be a difficult task at all. Government assisted schemes cost money, precious hard-earned taxes and they should be targeted at those truly needy and deserving families for all intent and purposes and not fritter away because of expediency or the lack of street-wisdom or plain official stupidity which is getting so common these days under the lhl government. Think.   Simon Lim      Read More →