TR EMERITUS

I remember when I first started going bald, my second stepfather (who happens to be bald) assured me that it was perfectly OK because, he said, “Women still love you.” I didn’t know what he meant and I never thought of myself as being particularly attractive in any sense of the word. Despite wanting to be known as the worst sort of cad, I’ve never actually had many women in my life. I’m unfortunately miles closer to Jimmy Carter, who only committed adultery in his heart than Bill Clinton who couldn’t stop committing it. So, if you consider my history of being a man who wanted to be unquestionably attractive but lost hair at a young age, reading articles in the “gossip” press about how “bald men are more attractive,” was always a bit of boost to the ego. It was kind of a “gee, I have hope” type of feeling. However, as I got older, I suddenly realized that I was attractive, the question was more of, who was I attracting. This has been a question that I’ve been asking myself lately, especially whenever it comes to this blog. I started the blog with no thought of where it would lead me. At the time, I started, the blog was more of a hobby. There was no particular focus of who I wanted to attract. My PR freelancing work had gotten a big boost from the Saudi Embassy job and I was being published regularly by Today (which paid commentary writers back in those days) and I also got paid for some of the work I did for Arab News. The blog was a place where I could place articles that the main stream did not publish and I didn’t think of what I wanted to call it – the original name was a misspelling and I figured that people would be interested enough in anyone who had the gut to have a crappy name in the public domain. I never set out to “sell” myself as a blogger. I only noticed that I had an audience of sorts one fine day when I discovered that Google was tracking the analytics. Then I reached forty and was reminded on a few occasions that my working life span was getting shorter and I’d need to develop some form of intellectual property to earn me a few pennies as the income from actual work diminished. It was then that I took developing this blog a bit more seriously. It was, I guess the one thing I had been consistent at. I also remember my favourite litigator telling me that this was the way I would attract people like me to me. So, the question is, who is like me? I don’t have a solid answer to that and I may never have. I also haven’t made pots of money. My advertising revenue is sad, I barely have enough for an ice cream at the end of the month. However, if I look at the people who have approached me through the blog and where the pennies have come from, I have an interesting snap shot. Let’s start with the fact that I’ve actually had an offer to buy over the rights of two blog postings. The buyer is the owner of a small but dynamic law firm, run by a lawyer who takes great pride in being a lawyer for the small and medium enterprises. This is a lawyer who has at times struggled against the established order of his profession but instead of worrying that the approval of his fellow professionals, he prefers to focus on the most important people in any business – the customers and rather than focusing on the opinions of his profession, he’s trying to make life easier for the people who use his profession, as can be seen by his latest piece of intellectual property. His philosophy towards the law is pretty similar to mine when it comes to public relations, advertising and promotions. Too many people in PR are obsessed with working for some multinational and the awards that they’ll win. For me, who cares if you’re employed by Hill & Knowlton or Webber Shandwick, when you could be doing things for the people who there are other people willing to pay you directly and the press people appreciate you for getting someone who could tell a good story. My friend is far more successful than I am in his business but we have a similar philosophy and we share a dislike for people who think that kicking the crap of people that society neglects is part and parcel of life. The other thing that I noticed were the numbers of the Ad Sense analytics. A glance at the readers and impressions by country, within the last week is as follows: My primary audience remains Singapore and the people who help my ad revenue are from Singapore. Online advertising is primarily a numbers game and the money comes from where the most clicks come from, which in turn comes from where the most impressions (as in the number people looking at your page long enough to decide if they’re interested in the ads on the page) come from, which in turn comes from where the page views come from. Makes sense that someone writing about Singapore would attract the most readers from Singapore and it goes without saying that I push my pieces to people in Singapore because this is where I’ll get the most traction. What’s particularly interesting is the countries that come in next, which my case is the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. I have some family in America and Australia, though, with the exception of my thoughts on the Trump and Middle Eastern politics, most of what I write would be of little interest to anyone who has not lived in Singapore. Off the top of my head, I only know of one school friend living in New Zealand and nobody from Canada. Yet, these countries have been the most consistent in providing me with a source of readers. So, who in these countries would want to read about the socio-politics of Singapore? I suspect, its former Singaporeans, who still have some interest in what goes on in their “country of origin.” I don’t have any hard evidence for this. Google Analytics does not reveal deep details of the people who click on a link and I remain blissfully insignificant for anyone to commission to study. However, around three weeks ago, I Linked up on Linkedin with a professor, who used to teach at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), who had moved to Australia and doing his own thing in the robotics industry. In his message to me, he said he had been following my writing on TR Emeritus. If I take my new friend’s Linkedin profile at face value, I realized that this is the type of person that Singapore needs. Someone who was willing to give up a conventional path in academia to try something in a new and dynamic field of study and business (robotics being the high-tech future making stuff that Singapore’s civil service appears to drool over). The man is apparently doing very well for himself. The question that this new friendship has got me asking is – how many are there like him. Good sons of Singapore who had to move and settle overseas to make their mark. I think of this question because the issue of “foreign talent” crowding out locals in Singapore has been a consistent one in the last decade. It’s been the thorn in the side of the government and they’ve always said that they’ve needed to bring in people from elsewhere to get things done. The argument is that we don’t have the people to do the jobs of the future. I have nothing against brining people in. There are skills that need to be imported and I believe that on balance, greater diversity can only lead to better things or as I often say when I’m in a crass mood, that I don’t have an issue with 10 million more people if it leads to an improvement in the gene pool. However, if my new friend is anything to do by, I don’t think its true that we are not producing people capable of making the future. I suspect that we are but somehow these people get stifled and discouraged from actually doing it. I’m not saying that life in the US, New Zealand or anywhere else is necessarily better but there is obviously a group that has done significantly better once they’ve left Singapore. Now, some of it could be financial. It’s been going on with Westerners for years. I remember two of my best friends from England complaining about the “Barrow Boys,” who had come over to Asia to become bank CEOs – their point being “You guys must be desperate – I wouldn’t hire any of them.” Then again, why would you blame any Westerner for moving here? As a friend of mine said, “Wouldn’t you move to a country that worshiped you for being short, fat and bald or all of that?” However, we’re not talking about people who had the “expat” life. We’re talking about people who did world renown stuff. Think of Kevin Kwan, the man who wrote Crazy Rich Asians or Melvyn Tan, the pianist. These guys are well renown in their craft by the entire world, except the country in which they were born. Why is it such that people like that, don’t stay? Why hasn’t someone done a study on why such people don’t stay or what can we do to keep them doing something that works for Singapore. Sure, I get it, Singapore is a small place and for certain things one should explore and take advantage of what the wider world has to offer. Yet, I can’t help feeling that there’s a part of officialdom that doesn’t want to admit that the natives can be excellent at something. Officialdom is out there buying talent from elsewhere but at the same time trying to stifle what we have at home. I think of the Ben Davis saga, where MINDEF practically tried to turn this boy into a national traitor because he wasn’t giving up the chance to play for one of the biggest names in football. In the modern age, its easy to find flexibility, especially if benefits the nation’s brand. I think of the millions we spent on foreign athletes in order to win a medal on the international scale. If memory serves correctly, we got a silver in one of the Olympic Games. The medalist in question took the money and promptly moved back to China. Then, there were the Schoolings who practically sold their flat to ensure their kid would pursue his dream. Luckily for Singapore, he chose to swim for us and we have a gold medal and a moment when Majullah Singapura was played around the world. Again, I don’t have hard proof or statistics to show this and that. What I have is purely anecdotal, however, I don’t think I’m wrong. I remember Lee Kuan Yew once giving an interview on how Singapore could never produce anything worldwide, world-class or world anything because the harsh truth is, we are a tiny nation with limits. That was so sad to hear because, this was the man who made us something to be proud of on the world stage, telling us that we had to stay in our limits and just be content to be a digit for some multinational or some government agency. We spend an incredible amount of time and energy to get lots of foreign things (talent, investment etc) in the name of making things work for Singapore. Yet, at the same time, we spend an enormous amount of time going to war against the local population whenever a section of it chooses something different from the norm. We could save so much and gain so much if we stopped trying to force everyone into a tin can that needed to hire pale and blotchy people to tell them what was good for them. There are Singaporeans out there who have managed to make something of themselves in the wider world. Even if they may no longer have Singaporean passports, they still have some interest in the affairs on their home land. Surely, tapping on this diaspora would pay dividends in so many ways. Who are the people like me? I like to think it's Singaporeans who love this country and the home it gives but want to do something other than what officialdom deems Singaporeans capable of doing. We are not asking for anything. We merely want the chance to do our little thing, at ease with whoever is in power. Leaving us alone is simple and it pays. Find a way to work with us and everyone wins.   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 →

* Take Note Only Contested Seats are Counted. Since 2011 all seats have been contested. But from 2006 and prior, only the contested seats determined the % of votes. So if the Reform Party and Red Dot United did not run, and Jurong, AMK and Radin Mas were walkovers, the PAP mandate would only be 58.7% It would be even less, if People’s Voice and PPP did not contest Mountbatten and Macpherson. Lee Hsien Loong can still proudly say strong mandate because these parties allowed him to. No PAP Prime Minister has had any vote share below 60%. It should have happened this time. It’s not about giving them a walkover, what’s the point if the contest only serves their purpose to justify their support? I dare say if a stronger opposition party had contested these areas, they would have still lost but their percentage would have been in the mid 30% or higher and that would also have brought the winning percentage for the PAP below 60%. So Tolonglah Opposition Parties, stop trying to be Indian Chiefs and boosting your own self inflated egos. Become activists, become NGOs, but stay away from polling. Stop insulting us with your mediocre performances. And no to you combining either. Your entry will not help the Worker’s Party, PSP or SDP. Instead you can become ordinary members of these parties and help them in the groundwork. Or become bloggers.   Veron Rahim      Read More →

With Singapore GE2020 over and lapses relating to the election administration during this pandemic surfacing even as I write this, my legal cases over the years are highly relevant as they have sought to establish through various legal judgments where in Singapore law, the right to vote is fundamentally located? I have sought to clarify on behalf of my clients - that the right to vote is a fundamental right and that it cannot be taken away from citizens of the Republic of Singapore. Once clarified and entrenched in the Constitution, it is essential that any electoral setting be conducted in a free and fair manner so that no one is denied that fundamental right. To date, we have arrived at this position - that the right to vote is not a fundamental right in the constitution but rather, an implied constitutional right arising from the various provisions of the Constitution. The Court stated that, “the right to vote is best understood as a right that is found in the Constitution either as a matter of construing it in its entirety or as a matter of necessary implication in the light of the reference to elections.” They added that, “there is no essential controversy over the existence of the constitutional right to vote.” My most recent challenge in Daniel De Costa Augustin v AG [2020] SGCA 60 was based on: 1) The argument that the 4 May 2020 Parliamentary Elections (COVID-19 Special Arrangements) Act allows for the derogation of the right to vote because it impinges on the ability of some electors to vote by virtue of their status under COVID-19 quarantine or stay home orders; and 2) The argument that for the over 200,000 Singaporean citizens living overseas there are no provisions for them to use postal voting. They can only vote from one of the ten overseas polling stations in Canberra, London, Washington, Tokyo, Beijing, New York, San Francisco, Dubai, Shanghai and Hong Kong. 3) The various restrictions on the opposition parties in terms of campaigning given the pandemic situation. My client simply wanted a declaration that the right to vote and to right to free and fair elections are fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and that a prohibitory order be granted against holding GE2020 at that point in time. The Court in the end decided: 1) That they do not have the power to create the right to vote as a fundamental right from the constitution given that it is not expressly stated; 2) The right to vote is not an unenumerated right and that they reject the notion (as they did in Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor[2015] 2 SLR 1129); 3) The argument that the right to vote was part of the basic structure of the Constitution and in that sense it is a “fundamental” right which cannot be abrogated by Parliament, is mistaken, 4) That it was incumbent on my client to demonstrate the specific aspects of the then pending elections that he contends are constitutionally impermissible; and 5) That my client had no standing to argue the case because he himself had not demonstrated that his personal interests were directly and practically affected. The role of the courts lies in pronouncing the legality of government actions. On many occasions, it requires multiple and long legal journeys as points of law continue to be clarified. Part of the work I do involves this journey of legal clarifications to establish that the right to vote is a fundamental right declared in the Constitution. It is only in this way that the right to vote comes with rights to free and fair elections. The silver-lining in the judgment is that the Court of Appeal has at least provided clarity that the right to vote by Singaporean is a Constitutional right. As we know, unlike other countries, the Singapore Parliament has sat frequently to amend the Constitution. They did so to introduce provisions to allow the election of a President based on race. Maybe one day, they may actually write into the Constitution our fundamental right to vote in free and fair elections so that it is entrenched? Once there, we will no longer need to have these debates on whether it is fundamental, or constitutional. The Daniel De Costa case was taken up by me on a pro bono basis because my client believes that fundamental rights must be entrenched as written Constitutional rights where a Constitution is written. The matter however does not end for my client. The High Court issued cost orders for SGD8,924.85 and the Court of Appeal issued cost orders for SGD15,418.30. The total cost orders amount to SGD24,343.15. The Application to High Court was dismissed on the eve of nomination day and the High Court directed that De Costa pay SGD20,000 as Security of Costs payable to the government/AG by 10pm on the same day in order for him to Appeal. He only had a few hours and the time for appeal would lapse at 10pm and would lose an important public interest law application. He appealed to us and our law firm Carson Law Chambers gave an undertaking to the Government /Attorney- General to pay SGD 20,000 . A sum of 15,000 was ordered in the Court of Appeal when the appeal was dismissed in the morning of Nomination day . We have received a notice from the AG to pay the SGD15,000 plus disbursements on our firm’s undertaking as stated above and we are given till Tuesday ,21 July 2020 to make the payment. De Costa has set up a Go Get Funding page to help raise these funds. He deserves the support of every Singaporean who equally feels that bring the case and points of argument to Court was the true and right thing to do. To this end, De Costa asks for your continued support.   M Ravi      Read More →