TR EMERITUS

“The time is out of joint,” Hamlet, Shakespeare Recently in parliament, the prime minister said: “The CPIB has to report to somebody, it can’t report to God.” That comment was out of joint, it did not seem to fit with the rest of the statements. But first, a look back into the past. Years ago, I had gone for a PSC (Public Service Commission) scholarship interview in my first year at junior college. It was held on a Saturday afternoon at City Hall. It was the first time I had been in the building. After the interview, I took a wrong turn and wandered around. Twice I found myself down a corridor and before a well-polished door with the words “Prime Minister’s Office.” That was not his official workplace, but I wanted to be out of there. Not that I was concerned; I was curious how I ended up there twice in succession. As I my meandering took me into an area which I sensed would lead me out of the building, I ran into Law Minister E. W. Barker: a tall man with a relaxed manner that set you at ease; he swung his brief case as he walked. When he saw me, I greeted him, he nodded and asked which school I was from. Upon responding he said, “You must be here for the interviews.” I nodded and walked next to him. I then had to ask: “Excuse me, Sir, but how do I leave the building?” He smiled, “Follow me.” He then indicated the way down some stairs that opened into a foyer that led to the entrance. I thanked him, he went his way and as I walked down the stairs the lone guard seated at his desk stood up and asked, “How did you get here? You’re not supposed to be here.” I explained that I took a wrong turn, and that Mr. Barker showed me the way out. The guard said I could leave through the main entrance. As I walked out and onto those iconic steps, I looked at the Padang. The breeze from the sea was refreshing even as it hinted at the quietude of lazy afternoons. That Singapore no longer exists. This is not nostalgia but an appreciation for what seem like better days. Yet it is easier to see things as being better when young. Several things occurred to me as I walked away from the building. Without irony or sarcasm: it was almost like being Theseus leaving, with Ariadne’s help, the labyrinth of the Minotaur. More importantly, I soon discovered Kafka; later I understood that though he wrote fiction it was based on personal experience. Notwithstanding, the point is that I was not intimidated by my experience at City Hall. Today, with POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act), the way politics has turned out, a heightened sense of security, and ongoing virus issues: fear among people is sometimes palpable. Fear is also a plague. There are more restrictions, and the constant monitoring has made the word ‘excessive’ lose its meaning. There are good reasons underlying taking to task lies, falsehoods, libellous claims; and it is good to be vigilant. Yet few would argue that the state-of-affairs today is not harming people and the national psyche. The words about CPIB (Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau) and God bothered me. But I wanted to explore the idea of materialist attitudes in a secularist world especially in public life and the media, and the words by PM would have set a context though they would not have been the focus. That piece would interest only few people and it would get more interest from the censors (read: POFMA specialists) not that there would be anything of interest to them. Still, I may post something on a blog at some point, and when the time comes the censors could edify themselves perusing whatever else there just to ensure that everything is kosher: and they earn their salaries. Those words: Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation. It is hard to tell whether it is Kafka, Orwell or Huxley who best reflects the present reality though it is probably a combination of all three. Things are worse under the Biden regime which is pushing the US down the path of totalitarianism. Singapore is not on par with what is going on in America; yet things are out of joint, and it is difficult to see how they will get better until they get a little worse, and from present events it is going to get worse—as more comes into the light.   Sanjay Perera *The writer is the founding editor of Philosophers for Change, and at times writes at The Solemn Investigator of Useless Things.      Read More →

I want to tell the people of Singapore why I decided to participate in the upcoming presidential election. My friends urged me to come forward and become a candidate that is independent of the government. They said that if I stay out, there is a risk that the election will be a walkover or a contest between two pro-establishment candidates. They asked me to come forward to give the people a chance to pick their president, someone who is independent of the government and genuinely represents their aspirations and values. I am answering that call. If I am elected as president, I pledge to fulfil the duties of the president as set forth in our constitution, diligently, honestly, and to the best of my abilities. Safeguarding our past reserves will be my priority, ensuring that they are used wisely for the benefit of our nation's present and future generations. The integrity of our public service is vital, and I'll work tirelessly to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness in its operations. But beyond these constitutional duties, I have a vision— to leverage the power of the president’s office to make life better for the people of Singapore. I will focus on three fundamental areas, crucial to the well-being of our citizens: bringing down the cost of living, ensuring affordable housing for all, and securing jobs that provide a sense of stability and a path to progress. Now, I must clarify that I don't intend to be an adversary to the elected government. On the contrary, I will work in collaboration with the government to achieve the goals stated above. I believe that, on the whole, our ministers do work hard, are competent and they too share the same goals that I have outlined. However, it is evident that some of their approaches and policies are not producing the desired outcome. I want to offer an independent perspective, to guide and support the ministers in finding alternative solutions to the issues at hand. My vision is to build a nation where the people are united and live in harmony. I believe that the people will be united when they feel financially secure and are able to look beyond their immediate concerns and think about the greater good of our society. This was the spirit of unity and pride that Singaporeans felt 50 years ago. We need to rekindle that spirit. I ask for your support to make this our common vision and to turn it into reality.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →

Click to enlarge Terry Xu did two things by choice. He served his 3 weeks’ jail sentence and also appealed against that sentence. He could have applied for stay of sentence pending appeal, but he didn’t. So, before his appeal was heard, he had already served his sentence. With time served under his belt, he succeeded in his appeal. The high court reduced his sentence from 3 weeks (served) to a fine of $8000, but, in default, serve 2 weeks’ jail. That means, if he pays not, he has to serve that 2 weeks’ jail. But then, he had already served 3 weeks before the appeal. That’s a bind, right? A legal Gordian knot to untie? Because Terry’s defiance translated into his refusal to pay that $8000 fine. Unsurprising right? Like the appeal judge Aedit Abdullah said: “The reduction of sentence imposed by the court in effect makes his punishment more severe: The appellant would have been better off had he lost his appeal.” Anyway, I believe Terry had a bone to pick with our system of justice and fairness. I believe he served time to prove a point. It was a principled stand he took. That 3 weeks was the price he paid for sending the message out there that he had done no wrong. In terms of wrong, as a backdrop, Terry published a letter on TOC website (written by contributor Daniel De Costa Augustin) which contained the phrase “corruption at the highest echelons.” That cost him three weeks of personal freedom at Changi accommodation when the charge of criminal defamation was proven at the lower court, and he was convicted. Next came the appeal. He won, at least in terms of sentence - from 3 weeks (oredi served) to $8000 fine. And like the judge said: “…(he) would have been better off had he lost his appeal.” At least, in an outright dismissal of his appeal, it would mean that he had served his time and was free to go. Now, on top of time served, he is being fined. And as expected, Terry is not paying. So, must he serve the default of 2 weeks? Did justice just turn a blind corner? Well, times like this, common sense should prevail right? Hmm…not quite. Common sense at times leaves a gap and it requires judicial clarity to bridge it. That’s why AGC is not letting this go. They argued that “a default sentence is imposed not to punish the offender, but to prevent evasion of payment of the fine.” Impressive? Well, AGC makes the argument that the Criminal Procedure Code “does not provide a mechanism for the backdating of a default term.” AGC then pulled out a Malaysian High Court case “which held that a default sentence cannot be backdated.” Justice Abdullah however didn’t buy it. He used what I would call the public-reaction test. He said: “Any member of the public would be surprised, I think, that the three weeks previously served does not count, and that the appellant remains liable to either serve two weeks’ imprisonment, piled on top of the previous three weeks, or pay $8,000, or subject to enforcement for that $8,000.” “And the justice of the case requires that I adopt a procedure as regards the determination of the default sentence for the fine that takes into account the previously served imprisonment.” And to AGC’s argument that a default jail time is not meant to be treated as punishing an offender, but preventing him from evading payment, the judge gave a common-sensical comeback: “You are in prison. You are deprived of your liberty. You are not free.” I take that to mean that if you don’t pay, you go jail. By your default, you are punished via its enforcement. Yes, for a start, it warns you of the consequences for default. It thus serves a preventive function. But that doesn’t mean you will surely pay, even with that default sentence hanging over your head like a Damocles’ sword. And when the fine as a penalty is not paid, that default sentence as a preventive measure automatically becomes a punishment. Prevention and punishment are therefore the flip side of the same coin. But for Terry’s case, he had already done time for the crime. So, lesson? I am glad common sense prevailed; or else, Terry would have paid double for a single convicted offence, that is, three weeks’ jail and a fine of $8,000, or three weeks’ jail and two more in default. He would have been better off praying that his appeal be dismissed. This may not concern you reading this post. But actually, it does. It demonstrates that justice is not a dead end like the Dead Sea, one devoid of life. And should you ever come face to face with it, you’d hope it’s a human face, and not a tome of dos and don’ts. As one quote puts it: “It is the spirit and not the form of the law that keeps justice alive.” And that spirit is abounding grace, measured proportionality, and a good dose of common sense.   Michael Han * The author is a Director at Hoh Law Corporation and blogs on Facebook.      Read More →