TR EMERITUS

Some people ask me will I take in Nicole Seah and field her as a candidate? It's a very tough question to answer because the "conventional political wisdom" would dictate that Nicole's political career is "finished". But is it really so? There are two issues here. Why are these people who have been found "guilty" of adultery or improper relationship being asked to leave their political parties and political appointments? PAP says because it uphold the "highest standards" of morality but look, the adulterous relationship has been known for years or at least months before action was taken against them! Furthermore, if it's really about "high standards of morality", does it mean that ALL PAP members, especially their MPs and Ministers, have not committed any adulterous affairs before? Any "improper relationship" before? How about those who were divorced by their spouses due to whatever reasons including their adultery, but got remarried? Workers Party says a different thing. Pritam insists that Leon and Nicole are asked to resign else, face expulsion because they lied to the leadership when asked about their adulterous relationship. No one asks Pritam, what if they have admitted to the adulterous relationship back then, what would he do then? If it's about "lying", a matter of integrity, then does it mean everyone in Workers Party Never lie about anything? That's far from the truth because I know numerous have lied from time to time. You can ask Raeesah Khan, Yaw Shin Leong, Daniel Goh, Eric Tan ... The list goes on. Politicians lie. White lies, black lies, they are still lies. It's because we are just humans, not Saints. So it seems that these four prominent politicians were asked to leave, not just because of morality nor integrity. It's more about bad political optics and the amount of embarrassment they brought upon their respective parties. Adultery is not a crime in Singapore. It's a morality issue, a breach of marital vows to their respective spouses. An issue of cheating their spouses. As I have said, if one can cheat his or her closest family member, one can cheat anyone under the sun. However, if one is to be just an MP who is expected to question policy issues, debating policies, putting checks on the government, but not entrusted with power to run any ministry, does it really matter if they have made the mistake of commiting adultery? I used to be extremely strict on morality, to the point of being OCD. But as I grow older, I realize the world is full of imperfections. It's a strange world actually. Not only people expect their pop culture idols to have high morality but even politicians, lawyers, doctors... Etc to have high morality. This is inspite of the fact that almost everyone doesn't really adhere to high morals! We are just human. While we demand others to have high morals, we don't demand ourselves to do so. Jesus Christ had said it all, let those who have not sinned, throw the first stone. The best part of all these Scandals, is the Scandal of Hypocrisy within the Scandals. But the voters are the ones who dictate the political winners, thus everyone just plays to the gallery of hypocrisy. On the surface, Adultery is a sin, but I still maintain, private relationship between a couple is complex. Nobody on the sideline could really understand whether it's just Lust or Love or both. There isn't such thing as "Whiter than White" anymore because as long as a political party has all sorts of members who lies occasionally, adulterers in the past or present or even divorcees, you aren't really Whiter than White anymore. Thus if I am going to use the more yardstick "similar" but more "Truthful" with less hypocrisy than PAP or WP, I will still accept Nicole Seah with the condition that she gets her family or personal life back in order first. Repent and seek forgiveness. She can still play a good role as an MP, never mind of her weaknesses or past mistakes she made. You don't need to be a Saint or a near perfect human being to debate policies in Parliament against PAP. But it would be totally another matter if it is about becoming political appointee to hold more power or running any public entities. That will involve a lot more thorough assessment. Of course, whether she will be given the Third chance and get voted into Parliament or not, it will depend on whether voters would forgive her past mistakes of indiscretion. People can become foolish at times, making foolish mistakes. But I am confident that after going through the painful experiences, they should not become foolish forever.   Goh Meng Seng      Read More →

Call it fate or karma if you will, the driver that literally sank the political careers of former MP Leon Perera's and Ms Nicole Seah (forced their resignations) has been identified by The Online Citizen (TOC). Although AsiaOne had tried to hide his appearance and identity using a pseudonym "Tan", he has been identified as Frankie Wong, a former personal driver of Perera, whose service was terminated "due to his advancing age". In the video expose released by AsiaOne, the 80-year-old former driver had detailed several instances of ostensibly intimate interactions between Perera and Nicole, suggesting that the duo were having an affair. As fate would have it, he was reportedly caught on video earlier this year being involved in a dispute over a priority seat on a train. Wong had claimed in the expose video that his intention of coming forth was to help Perera and the Workers Party, but from his demeanor in the above video, he surely does not come across as someone who is very "helpful". It was suggested by TOC that Wong had decided to come forward only after being approached by several media outlets, suggesting he was passively sought out rather than actively reaching out to the media in response to the viral video. Understanding how the local media works, it is entirely possible (and legal) that Wong was paid handsomely for his expose. Meanwhile, the initial viral video that was uploaded showing Perera stroking Nicole's hand has been deleted.    Read More →

The young man whom we took on about a month back got himself taken to a meeting where the topic of discussion was over an investigation into what was a scam. When I asked him how he felt about attending a “serious” meeting, he remarked that he was finally learning how the world really worked. He said “I now get what you mean when you say that what looks nice on the outside actually isn’t.” I’m glad he picked that up. I guess I am used to it or perhaps I just grew up cynical but too many of us in modern societies get a little a bit too obsessed with things that look good on the outside but aren’t really. Doing litigation PR was a good eye opener into how respectable wasn’t actually that. Being in corporate insolvency confirmed things. It gets even more so when you live in “status” obsessed Asia, where grandparents fight over who has to be most “respectable” grand kid, which often means which kid works in the most “prestigious job.” We get so carried away by the veneer of respectability that we forget what it actually looks like. Singapore is especially prone to this disease. We’ve been trained to look upon to anyone in a profession and make the assumption that anyone who qualifies for the professional license has a certain level of moral integrity that mere mortals are not capable of. However, as Don Corleone in the Godfather series states “A lawyer with a brief case steal’s more than a gangster with a gun.” A gangster with a gun can only grab so much cash when he (usually are) is robbing a bank. In the process of committing a robbery, the gangster faces risks of having the full wrath of the law coming down upon him. The lawyer by contrast can steal with no risk. Take the basic way in which lawyers make money – time costs. In Singapore, the cheap lawyers start around S$500 an hour. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that anyone who is paid like this, has no incentive to actually solve problems in an efficient way. If anything, the lawyer is incentivized to, well, ensure that the molehill you had is bigger than Everest. Yet, this method of payment is called “professional” and “respectable.” The time that lawyers and other professionals “sell” is supposed to be valuable, though how exactly it solves the original problem in the first place is questionable. Making professionals accountable by allowing for and encouraging “results” payments get frowned upon and as around 2021, charging on a results basis or contingency fees is generally not allowed in Singapore’s professional service industry. One of the most ridiculous examples of “respectable” thievery came in a judicial management situation where the judge had no issue with the lawyer and liquidator charging on a “time-cost” basis but found the auctioneer’s costs prohibitively expensive because the auctioneer had the audacity to charge for results (a percentage of what he sold). Of the three, the auctioneer was the only one who could actually demonstrate the value of his services in actual dollars and cents but apparently that was not considered “professional” or respectable.” Then, there is the example of “Shell Companies,” which are set up for various purposes. In many cases, such companies are set up with the purpose of minimizing taxes, which is not moral and or even illegal in itself. However, Shell Companies have become what you could call the difference between what is legal (the letter of the book) and justice (the spirit of the book). There is nothing intrinsically wrong with setting up a shell company. In fact, it is perfectly legal to do so. However, the question then becomes, the purpose of the said company. I remember being hired to handle the potential media fall out of the Zim Integrated Shipping trial in 2010. This was a case of following the money – except the money was flowing through one end and coming out at another through a web of shell companies. My client, who was the lawyer representing Zim had to concede that he lost to a “master swordsman.” Yes, things looked dodgy but they weren’t illegal. Years later, I would find myself on the side of someone who enjoyed setting up companies across the Caribbean. He wouldn’t own his own life insurance policy under his own name. Had to be done under a shell company. Again, there was nothing illegal about what the guy was going. There was a paper trail to account for things. When people talk about being “by the book,” they’re talking about adherence to the letter of the laws. The argument is about being “prim and proper.” However, after nearly a decade of being in corporate insolvency, one gets to see how the letters of the law get abused. As such, we need to look at the “spirit” of the law and whether a person adheres to the spirit. What is legal may not necessarily be just and we need to understand that bad people get off because they haven’t broken the letters. What we need to ask is if these people have infringed on the spirit if we are to judge them accurately for they are.   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able to meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.          Read More →