TR EMERITUS

Agence France-Presse, 25 August 2010 Flash floods along posh Orchard Road. Packed subway trains. Traffic gridlock in the morning and evening rush hours. Intensifying competition for public flats. What happened to squeaky-clean, smooth-flowing Singapore? Widely acclaimed as one of the world's most "liveable" cities, Singapore is now experiencing urban growth woes as it moves to expand its population to 6.5 million in 20 years, up 30 percent from the current level of five million. The target was first cited in 2007 as an optimal population size for long-term economic competitiveness, but strains are already beginning to show as more immigrants and guest workers jostle for space with the locals. Not to mention an invasion of tourists, with arrivals surpassing the one million mark in a single month for the first time in July, thanks to two new massive casino resorts that opened a few months ago. Singapore, one of the world's richest cities, has a land area of just 710 square kilometres (274 square miles) but until recent years, it had avoided the congested feeling of places like Hong Kong and Tokyo. Read rest of article here.  Read More →

Of metaphors and threats, this is the law application, I believe “Dawson J said in Shepherd – “If it is appropriate to identify an intermediate fact as indispensable it may well be appropriate to tell the jury that the fact must be found beyond reasonable doubt before the ultimate inference can be drawn. But where – to use the metaphor referred to by Wigmore on Evidence, vol 9 (Chadbourn rev. 1981), par. 2497, pp. 412-414 – the evidence consists of strands in a cable rather than links in a chain, it will not be appropriate to give such a warning. It should not be given in any event where it would be unnecessary or confusing to do so. It will generally be sufficient to tell the jury that the guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt and, where it is helpful to do so, to tell them that they must entertain such a doubt where any other inference consistent with innocence is reasonably open on the evidence.”[ Shepherd v The Queen [1990] HCA 56; (1970) 170 CLR 573 at 579 per Dawson J. That is to say, one look at ‘TAKING ALL THE EVIDENCE TOGETHER” ( strand in a cable ) rather than link in a chain” and the law does NOT need further guidance where it is unnecessary or confusing to do so. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt and no guilt must be assumed where any other inference of innocence is reasonably open on evidence. The prsecution cannot rely on selected “strands of a cable” but the entire strand of cable and that entire strand of cable must afford and capture evidence of intent to cause physical harm to the complainant. In this case, the metaphor ‘burn” does not sit comfortably with “rallying together” which is a call not to violence but to unity of political purpose. It did NOT say rally together to burn Ah Kow, Ah Ter or Ah Ngeow or burn me. So the strands of a cable prove innocence rather than guilt. All said the police is right to question Malik’s political affiliations. If he is an active party worker, it just may prove his political rhetoric rather than a common criminal with violent intent. And intent, in very criminal event, must be proved to prove guilt. So one finds it hard to comprehend why the police even bother to charge him if it does not want to been publicly seen as high-handed. Perhaps, handcuffing the photo-journalist is not the first case and may not be the last???? I wonder in a little confusion.   Jane Ho  Read More →

The arrest of a YOG critic Mr Abdul Malik by the Singapore police ostensibly on the charge of "inciting violence and public disorder" with a comment posted on the "I hate YOG" Facebook has sent shockwaves throughout blogosphere. Outraged by the mass food poisoning outbreak involving 26 YOG volunteers on 15 August 2010, Mr Malik launched a verbal tirade against the minister in charge of the YOG Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and confronted another PAP MP Mr Zaqy Mohamad over the scandal. According to The New Paper, Mr Malik posted a comment written in capital letters saying that the incident showed it was time to “burn the sports minister and the PAP." In the same posting, he also called on the public to “rally together to vote the PAP out. [Source: Agence France-Presse, 25 August 2010] Three plain-clothes police officers went to Mr Abdul Malik's workplace at Bukit Merah yesterday morning to arrest him and to seize his laptop. A few more may be involved in the "background" preparation leading to the arrest of Mr Abdul Malik who has clarified that he used the term as a metaphor and he never had the intention to threaten Dr Vivian in anyway. The Commander of Bedok Police Station is DAC Teo Chun Ching and its Head Investigator is DSP Goh Tat Boon. Is it really necessary to spend precious public resources on this case? Don't the police have better things to do such as chasing after loansharks and the freelance prostitutes who are invading the HDB estates? Now, the police will not launch an official investigation into the case unless somebody lodged a formal police report. Even so, the police report must be lodged by the person whose name was mentioned in the comment under investigation. In other words, outsiders not privy to the case will be unable to lodge a police report against Mr Abdul Malik for his remark about Dr Vivian. For example, if somebody were to inform the police about this comment posted by Abdul Malik on Facebook, he/she would be treated as an informant and not as a complainant and as such, no investigations will be launched. Such cases will almost never warrant a police investigation in the first place. We have read so many media reports of people being punched in the streets and the police arriving only hours later (if at all) to inform the victims to lodge a complaint to the Magistrate before it can take any action. So the question is: Did Dr Vivian lodge the police report and if so, what are his grounds for doing so? As we can see from previous examples, the Singapore police is especially efficient when the case involves a PAP MP or minister. In March 2010, a 52 year cabby was arrested a day after reminding his PAP MP Lee Yi-Shyan during a meet-the-people session of the Seng Han Thong incident. He was subsequently fined $2,000 for "criminal intimidation". A year earlier, a 17 year old boy who is intellectually challenged was arrested by the police on the same day after he allegedly kicked the door after meeting his PAP MP Lim Hwee Hua. Another man was arrested two days after he called up REACH hotline threatening to beat a PAP MP whose name was not even mentioned. He was later jailed for six months. It is interesting to note that the police has classified this case under "inciting violence and public disorder" instead of "criminal intimidation". This is because the comment was not sent to or even directed at Dr Vivian Balakrishnan himself and so there is no way he can be "intimidated." Section 267C cap.224 of the Penal Code states: Making, printing, etc., document containing incitement to violence, etc. Whoever — (a) makes, prints, possesses, posts, distributes or has under his control any document; or (b) makes or communicates any electronic record, containing any incitement to violence or counselling disobedience to the law or to any lawful order of a public servant or likely to lead to any breach of the peace shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years, or with fine, or with both. Mr Malik did not incite Singaporeans to violence or to protest against the government. How can one "burn" the PAP even if his comment is interpreted strictly to the words? If this is the case, then shouldn't YPAP leader Sinha Shekhar be investigated by the police to for calling Singaporeans "DOGS"? Aren't his inflammatory words more likely to "incite public disorder"? It remains to be seen how the Attorney-General Chambers is going to prosecute him in court, if ever. In the meantime, Dr Vivian should step forth and clarify to the public if he was the one who made the police report. Surely as an eye surgeon, he should be intelligent enough to realize that Mr Malik was using a metaphor and did not mean what he wrote literally? As the minister for youth, Dr Vivian appeared to be out of touch with the concerns and aspirations of young Singaporeans. Netizens are warned to be extra vigilant when commenting about Dr Vivian lest you forget his infamous quote last year: "Anonymity in cyberspace is an illusion.....if need be, we can identify you, and if we have to, we will be prepared to prosecute you." [Source: 21st Feb 2009, Channel News Asia] 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 →