TR EMERITUS

In a Court of Appeal judgment handed down on Thursday (13 August) in relation to the case of two Malaysian death row inmate who applied for a halt on their execution, the Court found that alleged threat made against their lawyer M Ravi by the Deputy Public Prosecutor Wong Woon Kwong “might reasonably have been construed as intimidating”. The judgment read, “The Statement itself indicates that Mr Wong was instructed to reserve the AG [Attorney General]’s rights, and these instructions must have come before the PTC (pre-trial conference) and not in response to Mr Ravi’s conduct during the PTC. The lack of specificity also meant that Mr Ravi was not aware of what he ought to refrain from doing to avoid the consequences.” “In the circumstances, we think the Statement might reasonably have been construed as intimidating.” Addressing this judgment in a Facebook Live video on the same day, Mr Ravi noted that the Court of Appeal also highlighted the observation made by Justice Valerie Thean in the High Court that “a specific reservation of costs would have served the technical purpose of giving notice and if there had been specificity, there would have been no opportunity for a misunderstanding between the parties.” It continued, “The Judge observed during the proceedings on costs that the Statement might be seen as discourteous.” Mr Ravi said: “What emanates from this judgement is the observation of the Court of Appeal on the observation by the High Court judge that this statement against me might be construed as discourteous and might be reasonably seen as intimidating.” He stressed that the two “cardinal principles” lawyers vowed to uphold is to defend their clients fearlessly and without favour. He added, “And that particular part of the fearless advocacy is protected against the Latimer House guidelines that is observed amongst the commonwealth nations.” According to the court documents sighted by TOC, at a pre-trial conference on 4 February, the AG’s solicitor Mr Wong requested for an application relating to the case to be heard on an urgent basis and said, “I am also instructed to state that we are expressly reserving all our rights against Mr Ravi.” In his video, Mr Ravi said that this concerned him greatly, particularly due to the vagueness of the statement. “I did highlight to the Court that it’s not just they are reserving rights against me, the AG said that they are exploring all options available to the government, and which I was very concerned about because this is very vague. It is a broad thread that emanated from the AG,” said the lawyer. As such, he added that he was “extremely gratified” and felt “vindicated” by the Court of Appeals’ observations on the issue. He said, “I’m extremely gratified to know that the Court of Appeal has vindicated my position in respect of what I have stated, in respect of reservation of rights of the government against me personally and that which my client took out an application to say that it is tantamount to threat.” He added, “This pronouncement of the Court of Appeal is also important to the Singapore Bar and defence lawyers because we have a cardinal duty… when we are facing state missionaries and various organs of the state, to actually defend our clients interest fearlessly and also uphold what I referred to earlier, the Latimer Guidelines which are that the lawyers should uphold the rights of their clients fearlessly.” In the Court of Appeal judgment sighted by TOC, it found that there was nothing in Mr Ravi’s conduct to have triggered the threat from prosecution. However, it also ruled that it did not find the statement made against Mr Ravi to be a breach of his client’s right to counsel or a fair trial, as argued. Background In February, Malaysia-based human rights group Lawyers For Liberty (LFL) urged Singapore’s AGC to withdraw the alleged threat made against the Singaporean lawyer of the two Malaysian death row inmates. LFL alleged in a statement on 5 February that the AGC had “launched an attack” upon M Ravi during a hearing in the High Court for the case filed by Datchinamurthy s/o Kataiah and Gobi s/o Avedian. The application was made by the two Malaysians against the Attorney-General and the Home Affairs Minister for the purpose of halting their execution and to provide protection for a former Singapore Prison Services (SPS) officer who is willing to testify regarding their case. According to the court documents sighted by TOC, at a pre-trial conference on 4 February, the AG’s solicitor Mr Wong Woon Kwong had said, requested for the application to be heard on an urgent basis and said, “I am also instructed to state that we are expressly reserving all our rights against Mr Ravi.” Mr Ravi, in response, asked if that was a threat against him. His concerns were recorded twice by the assistance registrar, according to the document. In their statement, the LFL said, “This means that the all-powerful Singapore AGC is dangling the threat of criminal proceedings or punitive action upon M Ravi, should he proceed with this controversial case. “This is like a sword of Damocles left hanging upon M Ravi personally.” Mr Ravi then, on behalf of his clients in one of the summons, filed for a declaratory relief that the threat breached their rights to a fair hearing. In respect of the other case, he submitted that statement made by Mr Wong was an “implied threat to commence civil, criminal and/or punitive proceedings” against the lawyer which compromised the independence of counsel which in term infringes on the rights of his clients to counsel and a fair hearing. The AGC, however, countered that there was “no ‘real controversy’” and the statement was “merely a salutary reminder to Mr Ravi to conduct himself properly”, adding that the act of reserving rights was a common legal parlance that did not amount to a threat. Mr Francis Ng SC who appeared on behalf of the AG in one of the summons said, “The AG was merely keeping his options open, including the option of seeking costs personally against Mr Ravi. In any event, no identifiable constitutional right had been breached.” He continued, “As for the allegation that the Statement breached the right to a fair hearing, there was no suggestion that the High Court could not conduct a fair hearing or that Mr Ravi could not act independently for the appellants. Mr Ravi had, in fact, continued to act for the appellants, and he must therefore have been unconcerned about the alleged threat.”   * Editorial by Online Citizen Asia.      Read More →

The president of Russia announced that they have found a vaccine and have approved its use in the country. They have started large scale production. The western media criticized the decision. There were no data about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. The scientists said that it normally takes 18 months for a vaccine to be proven. I hold a different view on this matter. I believe that President Putin is making the right decision as a leader. Let me explain my view. President Putin decided to authorize the use now, instead of waiting another 6 months. I agree with this decision, because there is need to find a vaccine. What about the risk? Here are some possible outcomes, with my guess of its probability: a) The vaccine will kill - 0.1% b) The vaccine will cause harmful effect - 2% c) The vaccine will have minor benefit - 20% d) The vaccine will be effective and safe - 10% e) A better vaccine will be found in 6 or 12 months time - 68% I am confident about the first two outcome. I am sure that the Russian scientists and the President would not approve the vaccine if the numbers are much higher. Even if they are wrong and the vaccine is lethal or harmful, it will be discovered quite soon, before too many people were vaccinated. The benefit of the third and fourth outcomes will outweigh the risk of the first two outcomes. Due to the critical situation facing the world now, it is best to act on a vaccine that has not been fully proven - provided that the risk of death or harm is low. The Russian vaccine probably falls in this category. It is difficult for the scientist to take a decision to use a vaccine that is now at the first or second stage of test. It has to be taken by a political leader. President Putin has taken that decision. I hope that he is proven to be correct.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →

Bingo has swiftly become one of the most popular global pastimes over the last decade and is still gathering momentum in many more countries around the world. Singapore is a particular hotspot where the game has grown significantly since 2013 and, this will continue in years to come. Let’s take a look at some of the most frequented in recent times. Marina Bay Sands Casino This highly impressive structure is one of the most popular gambling attractions in Singapore and doubles as a resort hotel. While there are hundreds of slot machines and table games on offer, it also offers a large number of bingo games. With a dedicated bingo room, this casino has multiple games every day, as well as a bingo draw, which amounts to a $2,000,000 grand prize. There are also lower amounts available, which are still attractive. When playing bingo at the Marina Bay Sands Casino, players can also take advantage of multiple bars and restaurants, with some even having Michelin star chefs. Resorts World Sentosa Casino Another highly popular casino in Singapore, this is just as well visited as Marina Bay Sands, though the former has more of a global familiarity. Here, there is an ample amount of slot machines and table games on offer, while you can also indulge in bingo games that have generous jackpots. Players can also take advantage of some of the best casino hospitality in Singapore, with multiple restaurants available. MGM Grand If you are familiar with MGM, you will know that it is well sought after in Las Vegas. This impressive resort boasts a casino that has everything that you could possibly need, including bingo games that have big daily jackpots. With bingo on offer well into the small hours, you can get the most from your experience at the MGM Grand, while some of the lesser prizes have included a free VIP stay at the resort itself in the past. Casino Paradise Perhaps offering a more intimate experience, due to it not being as exclusive, Casino Paradise still has everything that you would expect to find, though on a smaller scale. In addition to this, bingo fans can find dedicated areas that have bingo games regularly with impressive prizes on offer. Final thoughts Although you will be hard-pressed to find places in Singapore that are dedicated solely to bingo, the locations where you can find them are considerably more glamorous than your typical bingo venue. For those who prefer to play online, though Bingosites.net is a great place to find some of the most trusted bingo sites on the internet.      Read More →