TR EMERITUS

Click to enlarge I think we have to compare apple with apple. We have to be strict and rigorous in making that comparison. I honestly don’t think it is necessary for Pritam to compare TCJ’s case with Reesah’s case. The facts are different, although they both deal with a moral and ethical failing. LHL admitted that with hindsight, he could have dealt with the case more swiftly and firmly. One of the reasons he offered was that he wanted to be sensitive to the family who were innocent. This is where Pritam jumped in. He said, if sensitivity was an issue, he accused the PAP of double standards. He felt the COP was not sensitive to the plight of Raeesah. He asked, “Does the PAP selectively apply these standards expecting Singaporeans to give the PAP the full benefit of doubt when its MPs foul up, while screaming blue murder when the opposition seeks to make the same point?” That same point is when Pritam told the COP about what Raeesah told him, about a past sexual assault. And he inferred that her lie may be due to a mental condition with root traceable to that trauma years ago. And that was apparently the reason Pritam used to explain why he took time to process the admission; which was about two months. He said he wanted to be sensitive to her medical plight. But, attempting to compare apple with apple, Pritam said that LHL took more than two years to come clean with TCJ’s case, premised on the same ground of sensitivity to TCJ’s family. The point is, isn’t what is sauce for the goose also sauce for the gander too? As such, sensitivity was arraigned and put on trial in Parliament on Wednesday when two former WP Ms Loh and Mr Nathan came out in public to say this: “The revelation by Pritam Singh to the public about what happened to her (Raeesah) in detail, was without her consent, and against her repeated, explicit request for her privacy to be respected.” Loh and Nathan were former WP members for nine years before they quit from WP last November. They quit because they “have accused the WP leaders of being unfair to Ms Khan by not being transparent about their own role in the incident.” In a FB post, they said: “We strongly disapprove of this behaviour. Raeesah Khan made a severe mistake. Still, it does not mean that basic human decency should not be extenders to her because of her error.” This basic human decency revolves around the revelation that was shared in confidence to Pritam, that the details of the sexual assault was rape. Loh and Nathan added: “We watched with regret Pritam Singh’s statements made in Parliament today…We find it extremely insensitive, and horrified to witness this disrespect while watching the COP videos and again today in Parliament.” Pritam tried to explain that the word “rape” used during COP was to show the seriousness of the matter that WP leaders had to deal with. But, in disclosing it so openly and cavalierly, he had breached a fragile trust reposed on him as the shepherd to his broken flock. So, on both sides, one has to really ask, are they being disingenuous when using the word “sensitivity”? For LHL, although he admitted he would have done differently given a second chance, more than two years of feet dragging may be construed more as one closing his eye to the affair, hoping it would just go away, than sincerely desiring to be sensitive to the innocent parties. And for Pritam, breaching confidence to another so blatantly, may be construed more as trying to save his own skin than sincerely desiring to be sensitive to the traumatic plight of his former-mentee. Alas, politics is a minefield, where your conscience and the values you claim to be endeared to will be severely tested. Does one then embrace Kantian categorical imperative, at all cost, or handle each situation as they unravel based on what is ruthlessly pragmatic? Or, is it a hybrid, depending on what serves our longevity, prosperity, and popularity best? I guess we all have to confront our demons on this head on, and ask ourselves, will we walk the path least travelled, that is, the straight and narrow, or will we just follow the chanting crowd into the broad way, leading to a certain blinding success, only if we managed to live with a more pliant conscience?   Michael Han * The author is a Director at Hoh Law Corporation and blogs on Facebook.          Read More →

I disagree with lhl's justification of paying S. Iswaran a S$8,500/ monthly salary while the latter is under CPIB's arrest and investigation. Let me explain. I quote CNA online, 'lhl said that there is no rule or precedent on how to effect an interdiction on political office holder, as such, he used the civil service practice as a reference point'. To begin, S. Iswaran isn't any civil servant but an elected political office holder. I would not have disagreed if he were merely involuntarily suspended from work and assisting the CPIB in their investigation but he has been arrested! I repeat. He is now under arrest. When I look around at the many fellow working citizens who have gone through many years of our education system and are earning very modest wages and/or underemployed and here we have a Santa Claus prime minister paying his arrested minister a S$8,500/ monthly salary while under investigation, my conscience hurts. How could I keep quiet about it? Looking at a $8,500 monthly salary, I know it in my guts that too many of my hardworking and law abiding fellow working citizens would salivate in envy to sky high or simply resign themselves to fate. This is yet another crystal clear example of how divorced from ground reality lhl really is and secondly, the poor judgement that he exercised again and again. If I were lhl, I will pay that arrested ministar a $3,000/monthly salary while under investigation, ie, $100 a day because I am forever mindful that every single cent that he is being paid is coming from our taxpayers. Period. Furthermore, if his MP duties such as meeting the people sessions are also suspended, then logically his monthly MP allowance of $16,000 must also stop. Think.   Simon Lim      Read More →

In her long post June 24 on Facebook, Mdm Ho Ching made several points relating to the presidency and national reserves. I do not disagree with her observations on past presidents but there are several points which are egregiously incorrect. I like to address these issues separately. Today I focus on the issue of the President and the jaga. Ho Ching likened the President’s job of guarding the reserves to a jaga who is simply a watchman at the gate and doesn’t need to know what’s within the premises. Those that go ga-ga at her’s and Critical Spectator’s FB of course swallowed the idea in a heartbeat. On the other hand, madam received massive online backlash from her detractors for that post. For much of the vitriol, no one has actually offered any reason why she is wrong. Opposition voices are loud. But please, explain to the layman why is she wrong. There is a little obnoxious and racist underdone here, or am I too sensitive? In days gone by, the job of jaga used to be the preserve of the Sikh community. Before there was CISCO, in days long past, burly bearded serious looking Sikhs, with their WWII Mark4 riffle, stood guard at every bank 24/7. Big, Strong and Friendly epitome of Sikh guards was Standard Chartered Bank’s advertisement slogan. While Ho Ching is right about the jaga not entering the house to check contents, madam is totally clueless what she is talking about. In insurance, there is a different policy for the house and another for contents of the house. Likewise, the jaga is there solely to prevent break-ins and has no need to check contents. Should contens go missing without any break-ins, the Sikh can shake his head, it's not his problem. Imagine someone asked you to stand guard over his bag and policemen passing by wanted to do a random check. Eh, goondu, try explaining the package of white powder they found inside. National servicemen doing guard duties know the routine. Each detail hands over various items to the next. You inspect all items you are taking over, sometimes including prisoners in the holding cell. When I was duty officer in a communications unit I opened the safe to check various top secret code books are where they are supposed to be. So yes, goondu, we do open the safe. You know what is the perfect analogy madam could have used instead of jaga? Banks providing safe deposit box services. Because the banks actually hold the 2nd key to the boxes and never ever check what’s inside. However, had she referred to the banks, I will still call out goondu. The crucial difference between the jaga and banks to the guards, me as duty officer, and the President, is very simple. In one word – RESPONSIBILITY. Jaga and banks contractually hold no fiduciary responsibility for the contents placed in their care. For the guards, me, and the President, our butts are on the line as regards the contents under our charge. As for the jaga comment, I think madam was irresponsible and misleading the gullible public in trifling a very serious national interest. In my next blog I will explain why the President needs to know how much the reserves are.   Patrick Low * Article first appeared on Down The Rabbit Hole.      Read More →