TR EMERITUS

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 →

Cambodia held an election in July this year that was won by the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) of Prime Minister Hun Sen, extending its nearly four-decade grip on power. Aside from the CPP, there were 17 parties running, but most are obscure and none have the clout or resources to mount a challenge to the ruling party. The result was a landslide victory for the ruling party, just as it had been in the 2018 election. The CPP encountered the biggest challenge to its rule in the 2013 election, when it won less than half of the votes, closely followed by the newly formed opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), reflecting the CNRP’s popularity among the youth and trade unions and some disenchantment with the CPP. In the following years, the CPP used its influence over the courts and democratic institutions to hobble its rival, culminating in the CNRP’s dissolution nine months before the 2018 election, for its alleged plot to overthrow Mr Hun Sen’s government. The CNRP’s leader was arrested on treason charges. Large numbers of opposition figures fled into exile and hundreds were convicted of crimes, mostly in absentia in mass trials. Sounds familiar? A similar drama played out in Singapore in the 1960s. In 1959, the PAP won the General Election with a pool of candidates who were very popular with the people, especially the Chinese working class, and formed the government. However, due to differences in ideology, this group split from the PAP and formed the Barisan Sosialis, becoming the main opposition party. This severely weakened the PAP. It was highly probable that the Barisan Sosialis would win the next general election in 1963 and form the next government on account of their popularity and the PAP’s loss in two recent by-elections. However, it was not to be. 113 people were detained in Operation Coldstore for alleged communist activities and for supporting the Brunei rebellion, just before the general election. The detainees included 24 leading members of Barisan Socialis, including Lim Chin Siong, the Secretary-General, whom many people regarded as the “future Prime Minister of Singapore”. They were charged under the Preservation of Public Service Security Ordinance (PSSO), the predecessor of the Internal Security Act, and detained without trial. Some detainees would go on to spend over a decade behind bars without ever being formally charged with a crime. With a considerably weakened opposition, the PAP won the general election with more than 70% of the seats while the Barisan Socialis managed only to secure 25%. It was a close shave for the PAP, but they survived as a result of some unethical and un-democratic maneuvers, to put it mildly. The Barisan Socialis was further weakened after the GE. In 1966, 23 leaders were arrested and detained without trial pursuant to the Internal Security Act, for allegedly attempting to arouse a mass protest outside of parliament. The longest detainee, Chia Thye Poh, MP for Jurong SMC and leader of the Barisan Socialis as well as the de facto Leader of the Opposition at the time of his arrest, spent 23 years behind bars and 9 years under strict rules not to leave Sentosa. As the Opposition became non-existent and the PAP dominating Parliament, the government became more and more autocratic. However, they did a very good job of bringing prosperity to Singapore and quickly transformed it from Third World to First World. Likewise, under the dictatorial 70-year-old Hun Sen, Cambodia has achieved lower middle-income status, with improvements in health, education and infrastructure. Its textile manufacturing sector, mainly for famous Western brands, has boomed, creating vital jobs, while the economy grew on average 7.7 per cent between 1998 and 2019. In both countries, democracy went down the drain. However, the ensuing stability has been the foundation from which the economic growth has sprung. Today, Singapore’s GDP per capita put us at the top-ten richest country in the world. Our currency is so strong that people can take regular overseas holiday. We have world class infrastructures, live in decent houses (albeit expensive and on decaying leases), the economy is vibrant, and the country is generally clean and safe. I thus often hear people say we are so much better compared to many other countries, why are you complaining? That’s because this autocratic government has not been listening to the wishes of the people, despite this being a Republic. They have instead been listening to big business and the very rich people - a bigger population, more foreign workers, higher GST (but low corporate tax and nil capital gains tax and inheritance tax), Free Trade Agreements to protect the profits of foreign corporations among others. The result is that this has become a very expensive and stressful society. People have to work very hard just to keep up with the high cost of living. We are human beings, not robots. We need more than basic physiological needs like food, shelter and safety to thrive. We need security that our livelihood is assured, so that we can focus on doing creative and fulfilling work; to participate in the governance of our country; enhance our self-esteem; to self-actualize; to be ourselves. However, many people are stuck at just trying to secure their physiological needs. They have to work long hours with no work life balance, let alone pursuing higher order goals. (Perhaps, this is what the powers-that-be want, and thus by design). Many people are constantly worried that they are just one major setback from ruin, because their savings, if they have any, can be depleted very fast as Singapore is a very expensive city and the government frowns on providing comprehensive safety nets. The people thus are like the proverbial mice on a treadmill and cannot stop running. In that sense, Singapore is a high class prison - “you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave”. No wonder, many woman would rather not give birth, where workers are the most unhappy in the world, where mental illness is prevalent and suicides are way too high. The silver lining is that Singapore is now a First World Country with an educated population and a big financial reserve. The time is ripe to have a conversation as to whether we want more of the same, that is, an autocratic society dedicated to the pursuit of profits so that GDP per capita can continue to rise, even at the expense of the wellbeing of the people, or, gently rock the boat by pushing for more democracy and therefore policies that align with the wishes of the people, so that their wellbeing will be better served, even if some investors will shun us, especially those who derive their profits mainly by exploiting the people. No, I am not complaining. I am writing so that people will think about the type of society they want their children to grow up in, and hopefully, push for a better one. I am a schoolteacher, and it saddens me that many innocent children I see everyday, who are indoctrinated daily with the “good vibes of our country” will grow up to find that it isn’t what we make it out to be; that they too will be a “prisoner” one day if we continue to put profits ahead of the wellbeing of people.   Foong Swee Fong      Read More →