TR EMERITUS

I make no secret that I detest Donald Trump. I was instantly turned off when he started going on about Mexicans coming across the border being “rapist” and how there was a need to build a wall to prevent horrible people from Mexico coming across to steal jobs from innocent Americans (read – the White variety), I wanted to vomit because, well that’s not true. I hated it when I saw people lap it up and what was particularly distressing was when you had people of colour in Singapore think of this as “speaking the truth,” (read if only we Singapore Chinese had a champion like Trump). I’m a “loser” of the open market system in as much as I had to take a blue-collar job in my late thirties so that I could pay my bill. My colleagues were predominantly Indian and Pilipino and I developed a good deal of affection for them. Maybe it’s just me but I can’t understand this belief that your job is being stolen. Whenever I’d hear “my people” complain about dark skinned Asians stealing our jobs and how Trump was really a great guy for proposing what he did with regards to the Mexicans, I’d look at the Kitchen Thambis and Pinoy waiters and ask myself planet these people were living in. The Kitchen Thambis and Pinoy waiters were the guys who had my back and yet the so called “concerned citizens” were supporting the idea that these guys were somehow my enemy.” Birthday with the Kitchen Thambis and Bruno’s Bistrot on Telok Kurau Road. The same transpired when in my insolvency work. I was involved in a liquidation of a construction company. We had to sack or transfer over 30 workers who had not been paid. The receivables came in but somehow the bureaucracy was all about being fair to all creditors including financial institutions and so on (and to be fair to “my people,” the contact point in the financial institution we were dealing with told me privately that whenever a company went into liquidation, he’d always advise his side to write it off – his word were “You’ll pay me 10 cents on the dollar at most. It’s money that can’t interest me – get it to the people who need it the most). Somehow, paying the workers become less and less of a priority. In that time, I broke the “rules” of working for an insolvency practitioner and extended money I didn’t exactly have to some of the workers. I remember a colleague telling me that I was breaking the “rules” as if this was the worst thing I could do. I was, as they say, “unprofessional.” It was even explained to me that “Indian and Bangladeshi” workers cannot be trusted. I didn’t know how to explain to people who knew what I was doing that this was the right thing to do. Firstly, I wasn’t giving a handout but an advance on what they had claimed in their Proof of Debt form. Secondly, I also reasoned that although it was money that I couldn’t afford to toss about, it was money that I could make back by sitting in an airconditioned office for a few hours a day while these guys had to slog it out in the sun for the better part of a day so that they could provide “cheap” infrastructure to people like me and profits to slave traders like some of the creditors in this case. Sure, I was open to accusations of being “unprofessional” and acting against the rules. How do you explain to people that if it’s a choice of being “human” or “professional,” its always better to be human? I’m glad to say that when we did get round to distributing the dividends, I got paid most of my money and got to see the gratitude on the faces of these guys. One of them even felt that I was important enough to be the first guy outside his family to know his wife was pregnant with twins. He took me out for dinner the day he flew back to India. Today, if you ask me about the moments, I feel most successful, I will inevitably tell you its when one of these guys remembers me. It makes my day when they send greeting cards or as one of them recently did, called me from India just to wish me well. So, I detest anti-immigrant populist because from what I’ve experienced, they’re going after the people who I know to be for the most part, hard working and decent. Its like this, when a group of skin heads walk around town chanting “Jews will not replace us,” they make the case for why they need t be replaced. When someone like Sebastian Gorka gets on TV and talks about how the Proud Boys were started as a “Joke,” I’m tempted to think that Mr. Gorka should be placed at the wrong end of the Proud Boys activities and let’s see how funny he thinks it is. Sure, I know these communities have their bad eggs but for the most part they are comprised of hard-working people trying to make a living. They are stealing jobs from the natives by doing the jobs that the natives won’t do. Sure, I’m genuinely against the use of violence, however, when it comes to the nut jobs who chant “Jews (or any other ethnic group) will not replace us and think its OK to intimidate, I’m all for using whatever means necessary to eliminate the problem.     Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be      Read More →

I praise and applaud the initiative taken by Food Bank Singapore and Philips Foundation (FBSAPF) to provide free healthy meals for low-income families. C19 has definitely exacerbate the plights of many low income and no income families and although the government does help, it is impossible to give people fishes everyday to eat, therefore, socially conscious initiatives such as the FBSAPF undertaking are worthy of mention, praise and encouragement. Many initiatives and endeavours started with very noble intentions just like the pap started in its early years with high ideas and vigor but over the decades, it has regressed, grown fat and soft and lost its way. Regarding the above initiative, nothing has been mentioned about the possibility of people abusing it or wasting free food. I am concerned because I appreciate their efforts and I am a realistic person. In their zest to do good for society, I sincerely hope that effective measures are also not forgotten or overlooked but put in place to ensure that free food are not abused or wasted by unthinking and ungrateful people. Think.   Simon lim      Read More →

Would you believe that rich people do buy counterfeit watches from street vendors? Until I read Chan Seng Onn's judgement, I didn’t think that rich people would buy counterfeit watches. The third of four charges against Ms Liyani relates to the theft of two counterfeit watches and some costume accessories valued at $300 in total. The judgement of Chan Seng Onn J makes interesting reading. The following paragraphs of the judgement relates to this charge: "176 Given the fact that Parti’s testimony in court was that she retrieved the watches from May’s trash, and May could recognise the watches and testify as to when she bought them, albeit a long time ago, both their testimonies point unequivocally towards May’s previous ownership of the two watches. There is in fact no dispute on this point. Therefore, the only crucial point of dispute is whether or not May had discarded these watches. 177 In that light, the evidence on the quality and authenticity of the watches is crucial. I take into consideration the fact that the Vacheron Constantin watch, which May had purchased from Shanghai, was from a street vendor. This watch was assessed by the horologist, Mr Ong, as a counterfeit because Vacheron Constantin does not make the said model of the watch and it was of “such a low quality”. Additionally, Mr Ong gave expert evidence that the Vacheron Constantin watch was “in quartz” and was not working. Similarly, for the Swatch watch, Mr Ong testified that the Vacheron Constantin watch was also counterfeit having physically examined it. 178 The Judge failed to consider the unchallenged expert evidence on the authenticity and the working condition of the above two watches. Even if the Judge had assessed that Mr Ong’s evidence “was not always objective” and on occasions “turned defensive when questioned on the basis of his valuation” (Judgment at [18]), it was not open to the Judge to have entirely ignored Mr Ong’s assessment of the authenticity of the watches. It would have been erroneous for the Judge to reject Mr Ong’s expert evidence in its entirety. The duties of a court in dealing with expert opinion is restricted to electing or choosing between conflicting expert evidence or accepting or rejecting the proffered expert evidence. The court should not, when confronted with expert evidence which is unopposed and appears not to be obviously lacking in defensibility, reject it nevertheless and prefer to draw its own inferences: SaengUn Udom v Public Prosecutor [2001] 2 SLR(R) 1 at [26] – [27], citing Halsbury’s Laws of Singapore vol 10 (Butterworths, 2000) at para 120.257. 179 Further, given the fact that May admitted to the fact that she had purchased the Vacheron Constantin watch from a street vendor in Shanghai and that she had informed IO Tang previously that it was not authentic, this corroborates Mr Ong’s evidence that it was in fact a counterfeit watch. It therefore cannot be said that Mr Ong’s evidence was obviously indefensible. Further, it is IO Tang’s evidence that he brought the Vacheron Constantin watch to ION Orchard to verify in its authenticity in “the boutique”, where he was informed that the said Vacheron Constantin watch was “not an original”. As a result, IO Tang was unable to value the Vacheron Constantin watch and therefore stated in the 3rd charge that the Vacheron Constantin watch was “with unknown value” [emphasis added]. Mr Ong’s testimony in relation to the authenticity of the Vacheron Constantin and Swatch watches was also unchallenged by the Prosecution. In the light of the above, I accept in entirety the evidence of Mr Ong, who had given cogent reasons why both were counterfeit watches. As I observed earlier, the fact that the allegedly stolen items tended to be of low value and in this instance, counterfeit, marshals in favour of a finding that both watches could have in fact been discarded by May. Further, the Defence rightly submits that as an investment banker from an affluent family, it makes it probable that May had discarded these counterfeit watches given her “social status” by 2012. 180 For the above reasons, I find that more than a reasonable doubt exists as to whether May had in fact discarded these two counterfeit watches. I believe Parti’s evidence and find it more likely than not that she found the Vacheron Constantin watch and the Swatch watch in May’s trash. I do not believe May’s testimony that she had not discarded the two counterfeit watches that she had purchased. Accordingly, I overturn Parti’s conviction on the 3rd charge in relation to the theft of the two counterfeit watches." Ms Liyani was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment for allegedly stealing the two counterfeit watches together with a ring, earrings and some fashion accessories valued at the total sum of $300. She was acquitte on appeal. I would like to know what Minister K Shanmugam has to say about Justice Chan Seng Onn’s acquittal of Ms Liyani on this charge. As an ordinary person, I wonder why the prosecutor chose to proceed with the charge of theft of counterfeit watches. Poor people may find it a thrill to possess a counterfeit watch but for the wealthy, well, maybe they too find it a thrill to do so. But why do the police and prosecutor bother to charge a poor domestic worker with stealing counterfeit watches? Shouldn’t they consider saving the time of judges and defence counsel? Don’t they have a duty to save taxpayers’ money and act in the interest of the public? It smacks of the prosecution's vengeful habit of piling charges on an accused person just because he or she does not wish to plea bargain or plead guilty. In Ms Liyani's case, she faced 4 charges of theft with one on the reserve. That was the punishment for being stubborn I suppose.   Teo Soh Lung      Read More →