TR EMERITUS

I wish to share my views about bitcoin and cypto currencies. When I learned that bitcoin was built on the blockchain platform, I spent some time to learn about blockchain. I formed the opinion that it is an inefficient platform. I shall talk about it in a separate post. I met an expert in the blockchain platform. I asked him about the cost of processing a transaction using blockchain. He quoted a high figure that is not economically feasible. In defense, he said that the cost to come down with improvements in the algorithm. I am not optimistic. There is another issue with cryptocurrency. The proponents said that it allows the participants to transact anonymously, without any oversight by a third party, such as the government. I do not agree that this is an advantage. In my view, it is a disadvantage. Why do I say so? It is clear to me that the cryptocurrency has to be stored in a database that is managed by the database owner. In the past years, there were a few cases where the database had been hacked and the cryptocurrency (i.e. bitcoin) had been stolen. The technology did highlight that there was discrepancy and that the currency had been stolen. What can be done about the theft? Who takes the responsibility? If I am not mistaken, the database owner offered to get all the customers to share the loss from the theft proportionately. They are not able to take the full loss. In fact, I have a strong suspicion that the theft of the cryptocurrency is an inside job. The people who were supposed to manage the database know how to conduct the theft and leave the losses to be suffered by the customers. So, cryptocurrency does not increase security. It still carries its risk of theft and loss. It only improves the transparency. Many people were excited about bitcoin, which is the best known cryptocurrency, because it has increased in value significantly. This is not a real value; it is a speculative value. It is a bubble, like so many other bubbles that occurred in economic history. Many participants have started to create other cryptocurrencies in the hope that they will be as popular as bitcoin. They are called ICO, or initial coin offering. These new coins have not taken off. There were too many coins that dilute the speculative interest. There is no justification for cryptocurrency. If you search Google, you will read many articles about the case against cryptocurrencies. Some of these articles were written by well known economists. Here is one of them. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48852059 There may be a need for a currency to replace the US dollar as the medium for international trade. But the US will fight against it, as they do not want to lose the benefit that they now enjoy as the accepted reserve currency. Here is my conclusion. There is no need and no place for cryptocurrencies. It will die a natural death.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →

Mr.M.Ravi attended the Pre-Trial Conference yesterday of our client Daniel de Costa who has been jointly charged with Terry Xu of The Online Citizen (TOC) for criminal defamation. It was alleged that he made certain comments by email which was subsequently published on TOC that would harm the reputation of members of the Cabinet and therefore has committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Penal Code. The Court has given us (the Defence) directions and would like us to address our constitutional point. Our point questions whether the phrase “the reputation of such person” under Section 499 of the Penal Code is to be read as being limited to “natural persons only” having regard to an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal decided in 2017 and that the Cabinet is not a “natural person” by any definition and in accordance with Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution. The Court wants the Prosecution to address the following: a. Whether the publication harms the reputation of the Cabinet. b. On that question, whether it is the Prosecution’s case that the harm caused to the Cabinet as an entity or that it harms the reputation of individual Cabinet members. c. If the Cabinet is an entity, the Prosecution to address whether it is possible for an entity, Cabinet, to be a victim of criminal defamation. d. If it is relating to individual Cabinet members, whether the Prosecution be further specific who in the Cabinet the charge relates to. The hearing date on the above constitutional challenge has been set for for 27th November 2019 in open court at 9.30am in Court 13( State Courts).   * Facebook post by Carlson Law Chambers.   Case background On 12 December 2018, Mr De Costa was charged for criminal defamation alongside TOC Editor Terry Xu for “publishing an imputation concerning members of the Cabinet of Singapore by words intended to be read, to wit, by approving the publication on the website [The Online Citizen] of a letter from Willy Sum…which stated that there was a ‘corruption at the highest echelons’. Mr De Costa was additionally charged for committing an offence under the Computer Misuse Act of Singapore. Willy Sum was a pseudonym used by Mr De Costa. Published on 4 September 2018, the article submitted by Mr De Costa alleged, “we have seen multiple policy and foreign screw-ups, tampering of the Constitution, corruption at the highest echelons and apparent lack of respect from foreign powers ever since the demise of founding father Lee Kuan Yew”. The offending article was taken down under the orders of Infocomm and Media Development Authority on 18 September 2018. IMDA then reported to the Singapore Police Force on 8 October 2018. On 20 November 2018, the police seized electronic devices from the residence of both Terry and Mr De Costa under court orders. Terry was also subjected to an eight-hour interview with the police on the day itself, while De Costa was interviewed at a later date. If convicted, they face a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, a fine or both. * Courtesy of The Online Citizen.    Read More →

Under Singapore’s electoral rules, the ruling party decides: when to form the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC); who shall comprise the EBRC; what would be the EBRC’s terms of reference; when to announce the formation of the EBRC; when to dissolve Parliament and to call for the next general elections (GE); and the date of the GE. For GE 2015, it was only in response to a question in Parliament that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on 13 Jul 2015 disclosed that the 2015 EBRC had been formed – and that it had been formed 2 months ago. On 4 Sep 2019, it was announced that the EBRC for the next GE has been formed – and that it had been formed the month before. Now we await the EBRC to release the electoral boundaries for the next GE. PM Lee has tasked the EBRC to further reduce the average size of GRCs and to create more SMCs than the current 13. So, we may expect the new electoral map to have significant differences from the previous electoral map. Only when the electoral map is released can prospective candidates really get themselves ready to stand for elections. However, there is no prescribed time interval between the date the EBRC releases the new electoral map and the date when elections are called. In Parliament on 13 July 2015, PM Lee also said: “… to the maximum extent possible, we will make sure that there is enough time elapsed so that everybody can read the report, understand it and know where they stand before elections are called.” Then just 12 days later on 25 Jul 2015, the EBRC released the new electoral map for GE 2015. 1 month later on 25 Aug 2015, general elections were called, with Nomination Day set for 1 Sep 2015 and Polling Day on 11 Sep 2015. I suppose Prime Minister Lee was of the view that 1 month was enough time for “everybody [to] read the report, understand it and know where they stand before elections are called.” I beg to differ. The new electoral map for GE 2015 was significantly different from the previous electoral map. Under the new map, 1 in 5 voters found themselves in a different constituency from the previous GE without having to move house. The 2015 EBRC report gave no explanation or reasons for why and how they drew the boundaries for GE 2015. Prospective electoral candidates were given a very short time to decide and plan for the GE. The interval between the date when the new boundaries were released (25 July 2015) and Nomination Day (1 Sep 2015) was just 37 days. I am struggling to understand how PM Lee deemed 37 days to be “enough time” for “everybody [to] read the report, understand it and know where they stand before elections are called.” Singaporeans are entitled to choose their leaders by elections which are free and fair. Can elections be regarded as fair if there is but only a short time between the date when the EBRC releases the new boundaries and the date when elections are called? We do not have any independent body to assess what is a fair and reasonable interval between the date when the EBRC releases its report and the date when elections are called. All we have is an Elections Department which is answerable to the Prime Minister’s Office. We should really think of having an independent elections commission which will be in a better position to ensure best practices in the electoral process. Our elected representatives have tremendous power over us. Their power over us is based on them having been properly elected. Hence, it is important for the electoral process to be as fair and unbiased as possible. In the conduct of the next GE, many decisions are in the hands of the ruling party. I wonder after the EBRC releases the new boundaries for the next GE, how much time will elapse before the ruling party calls for elections?     Jeannette Chong-Alduross      Read More →