TR EMERITUS

Background:   Yong Vui Kong was arrested on June 13, 2007 in Singapore and charged with trafficking 47.27g of a controlled drug, diamorphine, an offence under section 5(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. He was convicted on Jan 7, 2009, and sentenced to death. The man appealed the decision but later withdrew his appeal and attempted to file a petition for clemency to the President of Singapore instead. The appeal was rejected. Four days before his execution date, Yong’s counsel M. Ravi filed an application in the court for leave to pursue the appeal and a stay of execution was obtained. Despite this, following the hearing of the application, Yong’s case was finally dismissed on May 14 this year. He faces the gallows by the end of next month if all legal and diplomatic channels to commute his sentence are exhausted. Law Minister Mr Shanmugam first commented directly on Yong’s case on 9 May 2010, stating that “Yong vui kong is young. But if we say ‘We let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?”. These remarks were made at a public event and widely reported in the Singaporean media. Mr M Ravi, lawyer for Yong Vui Kong subsequently released a press statement, in response to the Law Ministry’s comments on Yong’s case. The statement is reproduced below, verbatim. PRESS STATEMENT LAW MINISTER’S COMMENTS PREJUDICIAL TO YONG VUI KONG’S CLEMENCY APPEAL Cabinet should not usurp Elected President’s Constitutional powers Background and summary 1. This press release is issued in response to the statement from the Ministry of Law regarding the death sentence for Yong Vui Kong. 2. Law Minister Mr Shanmugam first commented directly on Yong’s case on 9 May 2010, stating that “Yong vui kong is young. But if we say ‘We let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?”. These remarks were made at a public event and widely reported in the Singaporean media. 3. In a subsequent statement on 9 July 2010, the Ministry of Law asserted that Mr Shanmugam’s remarks were justified as the Government’s policy is “matter of public importance”. Additionally, the Law Ministry took the opportunity to further prejudice the clemency process by highlighting prejudicial information based on charges that were never brought against Yong. These make clear that Cabinet intends to reject my client’s clemency petition even before it has been filed. 4. The consequence of these statements is as follows: a. There has been an egregious breach of the Constitution as the President, not Cabinet, is supposed to make clemency petition decisions. b. A Cabinet Minister (Mr Shanmugam) and his Ministry have made public statements referring to my client by name, evincing a plain desire that my client be executed regardless of the clemency process. c. The crux of the issue is that it is clear that Cabinet cannot play any further role in the clemency process as it has obviously prejudged Yong’s case. “The President does not have a discretion in this matter” 5. One key concern for my client is that the Attorney-General Walter Woon is on record saying that, “Although in theory it is the President who exercises the prerogative of mercy, in fact it is the Cabinet that makes the decision”. He made this submission in the Court of Appeal. The AG also said, unrebutted, that, “The President does not have a discretion in this matter.” 6. This flies directly in the face of the Constitution which confers the power of clemency on the Elected President himself, and clearly states that Cabinet’s powers are only to advise the Elected President on the exercise of the prerogative. This extraordinary revelation has only come to light as a result of the disclosure made by the Attorney-General in his submissions before the Court of Appeal in Yong’s case. 7. This revelation is startling as clemency petitions are submitted to the Elected President on the assumption that the Constitution is followed in letter and spirit. Cabinet’s exercise of the Elected President’s Constitutional prerogative amounts to a usurpation of the Elected President’s clemency powers conferred on him expressly under Article 22P of the Constitution. The Law Minister’s remarks 8. The Law Minister’s prejudicial comments were made even before the Court of Appeal had passed judgment. The Court had to decide the very issue of whether it is constitutional to execute a convicted person without considering his youth or other personal circumstances. On 9 May 2010, the Law Minister commented that, “Yong Vui Kong is young. But if we say ‘we let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?” Even before the clemency process is initiated, it is clear from these comments that Yong’s youth and other personal circumstances would count for nothing in the clemency process. 9. As a result of all the above factors, I am confident that there will be a judicial ruling which restores to the President his decision making powers on clemency petitions under Article 22P of the Constitution. However, even if this is done, it cannot erase the prejudice displayed by the body which the Constitution says must advise the President. The views of Cabinet on the merits of Yong’s case have been publicly aired before his current petition has even been received. His youth and personal circumstances have been ruled ineligible for consideration even though these are the very things which the Elected President can take into consideration. The President must pardon 10. The only way in which the Constitution can be observed in relation to my client is for the Elected President to peremptorily pardon him in order to assuage the gross procedural and substantive improprieties that have taken place in this case. The Elected President must now pardon my client or the Court must grant my client’s application for judicial review where there has not been and cannot be a proper clemency process. M Ravi, Counsel for Yong Vui Kong Dated 11 July 2010 Earlier report: https://www.tremeritus.net/2010/07/06/death-row-case-malaysian-government-steps-in/  Read More →

In yet another sign that the prices of HDB flats are spiralling out of control, HDB's latest premier project in Punggol Waterway Terraces is asking between $300,000 to $376,000 for four-room flats which are 12 times oversubscribed. Five room flats, which range from $374,000 to $458,000 are 5 times oversubscribed as well. A similar size flat in nearby Sengkang fetched only about $200,000 10 years ago. The prices of new flats are pegged to that of resale flats which have grown by more than 10 percent in this year ago. The astronomical prices are caused partly by the shortage of new flats and rising demand fueled by the relentless influx of foreigners thanks to the lack of foresight on the part of HDB to built sufficient flats to meet the needs of the growing population. The PAP had made known its ambitious plan to increase Singapore’s population to 6.5 million via immigration as early as 2005. However, only slightly more than 11,000 new flats were built between the years 2006 – 2008 when there were over 90,000 PRs and 20,000 new citizens alone in 2008: [Source: HDB Financial Report 2008/2009] Below is a graph illustrating how the rise in the prices of resale flats coincides with the rise in the number of foreigners in Singapore between the years 2000 and 2008, courtesy of Kojakbt, the moderator of 3in1kopitiam: Due to the ruling party’s pro-foreigner liberal immigration policy, foreigners now made up 36 per cent of Singapore’s population, up from 14 per cent in 1990. Though prices of HDB flats have sky-rocketed in recent years, the median salary of the average Singapore worker remains stagnant at $2,400 monthly. Despite widespread disgruntlement on the ground, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan insists that HDB flats are "affordable" and even chides home buyers for being "fussy". The hugely unpopular Mr Mah is likely to face stiff competition from the opposition in his ward of Tampines GRC in the next general election, prompting PAP strongman Lee Kuan Yew to comment that Singaporeans are "daft" if they (dare) cast a protest vote against Mr Mah over rising HDB flat prices.     Debunking official myths of HDB flats series: 1 Myth 1: Singaporeans are “owners” of their HDB flats 2. Myth 2: HDB flats are “affordable” to most Singaporeans 3. Myth 3: Rising prices of HDB flats “generate” wealth for Singaporeans   Related articles: >> Mah Bow Tan: HDB flats are still affordable to first time flat buyers >> Why Mah Bow Tan’s policy of high HDB flats is wrong >> Letter to Mah Bow Tan on HDB policies >> Singaporean want govt to allay anxiety over HDB leasehold >> Mah Bow Tan embarrassed by Reform Party’s Hazel Poa >> Mah Bow Tan: “Unrealistic” expectations to blame for unhappiness about flats >> Taiwanese PR paid record $ 650,000 for 4-room resale flat >> Grace Fu: PRs are helpful to HDB flat owners selling their flats >> HDB launches “traveling exhibition” to trumpet its achievements in the heartlands >> PAP to upgrade 12,000 HDB households ahead of next election >> Mah Bow Tan: We do not want flat prices to go down >> Prices of resale flats to rise further as PR quota reached >> Taiwanese PR offers $50k COV for resale flat >> Mah Bow Tan: PRs have minimal impact on resale flat prices >> No empirical evidence to suggest that public housing is affordable in Singapore >> When will Singapore’s property bubble burst? >> Why HDB is unable to reveal break down costs of new flats now >> HDB to consider introducing rules to curb property speculation >> HDB blames Singaporeans for not selecting flats when given the chance >> Singaporeans worried about retirement after depleting CPF to pay for over-priced HDB flats >> Mah Bow Tan acknowledged that rising HDB flat prices has sparked “fresh concerns” >> PM Lee: Govt does not have control over prices of resale flats” >> COVs of resale flats shooting through the roof >> HDB resale price index hit record high in 2009 >> Singaporean wants PRs to live in rented flats instead of buying resale flats >> Singaporeans wants PRs to be banned from selling HDB flats at a profit >> Shanmugam: Singaporeans likely culprits for driving up HDB flat prices >> Mah Bow Tan: HDB flats remain affordable >> Means testing for PRs to buy resale flats >> Immigration and public housing: should the govt or people plan ahead? >> Grace Fu: hard to predict demand for housing >> Indonesian PR bought 4-room flat at $653,000 >> Mah Bow Tan asks home buyers to be realistic >> PAP MP blames young couples who cannot get a flat for not planning ahead >> Home affordability: HDB versus the public >> Demand vs supply: so many applicants, so few flats >> Number of applicants exceed number of flats >> HDB to increase supply of flats >> Mah: don’t compare with prices in the past >> ERA: 40 per cent of HDB flat buyers are PRs     Please join our Facebook discussion on this article here and invite your friends to do so as well to raise awareness among fellow Singaporeans. This page is maintained independently by a TR reader.   Copyright © 2009 – 2010 The Temasek Review  Read More →

 This article is rated PG/X and intended for mature readers only. It is often entertaining when the most widely distributed (I have not mentioned “widely read”) newspaper, the Straits Times, publishes outrageous letters once in a while to tickle the belly of the Singaporean population. Syu Ying Kwok, among a handful of regular letter writers to the press, had wrote a hymn of a praise to the establishment. While there is nothing wrong with an individual expressing his or her opinion and views, it is sometimes incomprehensible the frequency at which the Straits Times publishes letters which are deemed to perform the metaphorical acts of fellating, tea-bagging and rimming (as aptly described in one Chinese dialect). While the fellating of the metaphorical penis, the irrumating of the figurative scrotum and the rimming of the imagerial anus of the state and establishment may be self-inspired and consensual, many are often quick to point out that the fellater, irrumator and/or rimmer has bought into the dominant ideology of the establishment. Insensitive comments aside, a person like Syu Ying Kwok is entitled to express his admiration and support for the government and its leadership. What makes some of us cry foul is the fact that letters criticising the government often do not get published, illuminating a stark imbalance of “public opinion” as presented on the famous English daily. There is also a complex, in which exists a perception that should a person praise the establishment and those in power, he or she is seen as a willing fellator, irrumator and rimmer. The government becomes anthropomorphised into a man's appendage – penis, scrotum and anus (with buttocks) and all. Political conservativeness here seems to be regarded as to have intimate oral relations with the lingum of the one-party government. I have glanced through a few online forums, whose entries have associated Syu as a person who metaphorically orally pleases the phantom private parts of the power elite. Our attention should be turned to the media that so indulges in such acts of political fellatio, irrumatio and rimming, almost fetishist and exhibitionist in its support for the government. Here, the media is the lapdog, not a watchdog. Everyone has a right to express his or her views and ideas, and should be able to do so without fear, without facing discrimination and without facing violence. Apart from his views on Tan Lead Shake (again), Syu should not be discriminated against for his support for the government and its leadership. It is very interesting how dominant discourses and forms of soft-soaping, curry-favouring and apple-polishing are often greeted with subversive discourses – in the form of ridicule, criticisms and dismissals. What do we ultimately achieve, from the viewpoint of Hegelian synthesis between the thesis and the antithesis? The synthesis becomes a “new” thesis – what I observe to be the continual usage of sexual metaphors in the critique of political conservativeness. But I am sure androcentrism still lingers on in the repeated usage of male-oriented sexual imagery. Essentially, the acts of fellatio, irrumatio and rimming are commonly associated with sexual submission to the appendage and orifice of the male. In heterocentrism, the admirer and supporter of the establishment is seen as either the submissive “woman” or the genetically and psychologically inferior “male homosexual” whose role is to orally stimulate the sexual organ of the state. The supporter is then seen as a willing sexual servant or slave. The supporter is seen as a “vagina” (since the mouth would be one proxy for the female anatomy), receiving the “penis” of the government. In another subversive reading, we could say he/she is an asshole (literally and metaphorically) that is being (duly) penetrated by the political elite. In criticising a believer, admirer and supporter of the establishment like Syu for example, those who christen him with the title of the fellator, the irrumator and the rimmer, are in fact not only reinforcing dominant gender and sexual norms, but also making suggestions of an imbalanced dichotomy in which the heterosexual male is king. Subversive political discourses, which counter dominant political discourses, still employ and maintain dominant gender and sexuality discourses. This makes society fertile for the continued perpetuation and sustenance of homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Sucking the penis, blowjobs, handjobs, licking the scrotum, carrying the scrotum, kissing the buttocks, licking the anus – these are all literal translations from the various Chinese dialects used to describe people who express their admiration and support for the political higher-ups. However, the same language is not commonly used in other domains, such as in the immediate familial and in socio-religious domains. This is how a society comes to define the areas, boundaries and limitations for dominant and subversive discourses. It is also suspiciously Freudian that the logo of the ruler party, the People's Action Party, is one of a reddish (with excitement) phallic lightning placed majestically over a gaping “vagina” of a circle. The phallus is the figure of power and dominance, ready to make the active decisions and conquer the submissive vagina beneath it. Is the “vagina” the people and the “penis”/lightning the state? We are after all constantly impregnated with the rhetoric and ideology of the ruling elite, and occupy ourselves with materials that distract us from questioning the system which perpetuates this. Taxes, the rising cost of living, the fear of political expression and so on, would be the deposited “semen” that lies dormant in the people, who are not prepared to be “pregnant” and are thus for the time-being too burdened to finding the answers rather than asking the questions. You get the rest of the imagery. Rather androcentric and bordering on misogynist (Freud, what!). But it is always entertaining to appreciate the ironies that exist in our lives and society. You cannot change how people think, but you can observe how their thinking contributes to discourse. I will never see the PAP logo in the same light again.   by Ho Chi Sam * Sam is a graduate student studying transgender theory. He has done research in media representations of LGBT people. Other than being a co-founder of the Singapore Queer-Straight alliance, he also aims to raise awareness on issues related to politics, media regulation and literacy, and social harmony. He is happily married and lives in Workers' Party Hougang. He may be contacted on his blog at http://thinkingbetterthinkingmeta.blogspot.com.  Definition & Meaning felletio:  oral stimulation of the penis irrumatio: The English noun irrumatio or irrumation and verb irrumate come from the Latin irrumare, to force one to perform fellatio rimming: Anal–oral sex, also referred to or described as anal–oral contact or anilingus (from anus + lingus (Latin Lingere: to lick, less commonly spelled analingus), is a form of oral sex involving contact between the anus or perineum of one person and the mouth (lips) or tongue of another.     Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →