TR EMERITUS

Do you know that since Lee Hsien Loong became the Prime Minister of Singapore in 2004, no death row prisoner has been granted clemency? This means that three presidents – Tony Tan, SR Nathan and Halimah Yacob have never been advised by the cabinet to grant any clemency. At least 80 people have been hanged since 2004. Between 1991 and 2003, at least 414 people were executed. The vast majority of executions were for drug trafficking and occurred during the time when Yong Pung How was Chief Justice, Chan Sek Keong was Attorney-General and Sim Poh Heng was Director of Central Narcotics Bureau. In this period, only six people were granted clemency. The last person to be granted clemency was in 1998 when Ong Teng Cheong was the President. Tharman Shanmugaratnam had been a cabinet minister since 2015. We don’t know how the cabinet decide on whether to grant or reject clemency petitions, whether each minister reads all the documents relating to the petitions, including court documents. We don’t know whether Tharman Shanmugaratnam had recommended clemency for anyone. We don't know how many of those executed submitted clemency petitions. That none of the 80 odd death row prisoners was granted clemency for nearly 20 years is however exceedingly disturbing. Tharman Shanmugaratnam is now standing for election as president. If he is elected, what will be his stand on the death penalty? Will he read all the files pertaining to petitions before him? Will he try to influence the cabinet ministers before they decide whether to grant or reject a petition? It would appear that society is changing rapidly but the government’s attitude towards crime and punishment remain static. It is reluctant to change its hardline policies towards drugs and the death penalty. Judging from the attitude of the young with regard to the recent case of Tangaraju Suppiah, I think society’s attitude towards the death penalty has changed. Never before have young people taken the trouble to walk to the Istana on a public holiday simply to present letters asking the President to spare the life of Tangaraju Suppiah. They didn't succeed. But they have learnt that people will continue to go to the gallows if they do nothing. Ministers who maintain a hardline belief that the death penalty deters crimes will be in for a shock if they do not heed this change. The President of Singapore may be powerless. But are we to expect that because of this lack of constitutional power to grant clemency, he will do nothing but obey the advice of the cabinet or will he do more than being the rubber stamp of cabinet? If Tharman Shanmugaratnam is elected as the next president, what is his stand on the death penalty? Is he an abolitionist? If he is, will he persuade the cabinet to spare the prisoner and break this evil 20 year spell of hanging people? Photo shows young people walking to the Istana to present clemency petitions for Tanagaraju Suppiah in April 2023.   Teo Soh Lung      Read More →

I read with disgust that a coffee-shop at block 631, Ang Mo Kio Ave 4 (AMK) charges its customers 0.60 cents and 0.80 cents for plain water and iced water respectively. Profiteering is considered an unethical and illegal business practice and behaviour. It is the act of taking advantage of a market or situation, in our case, the GST increase of 2 percentage points to maximise profits. I want to stress that I am not against businesses making profits but I am against businesses profiteering just like we must have the good judgement or the discernment of telling the differences between a duck from a swan or a mistress from a wife. Earlier in May, a woman similarly complained that a stall at Amoy Street Food Centre charged her $1.40 for a glass of iced water. Times are tough for too many people and as the average everyday consumers, we can and should do a few things for ourselves. In short, do ourselves a favour. They include one, we should not pretend that time is not tough, two, we should not silently and meekly pay and pay like suckers do and then console ourselves afterward not to patronise those businesses in future lor, three, expose those businesses that engage in profiteering, shame them publicly and warn others about them and four, alert the relevant government authorities such as the Committee Against Profiteering (CAP) which has been reconvened. I also want to urge CAP to have some real teeth and bites and not behave like a pussy cat even when being alerted by the public. The residents of AMK constituency deserve better. They are a largely working class people, quite unlike people living at Rideout Road and if such profiteering behaviours are not nip early in the bud, it will only embolden those business operators further and other businesses are likely to ape them as well. I consider AMK GRC mps, despite having the prime minister among them to be a weak lot. Their former town council manager, Victor Wong who was on the take for over a period of time while all their mps slept and none were aware about it. He was sentenced to jail. I hope that their mps could be more pro-active this time around in putting a brake on profiteering in their constituency, at least for once. Think.   Simon Lim      Read More →

PM Lee and his PAP Ministers tried very hard to cast doubt on the legitimacy of LKY's Last Will and insinuate that this Last Will is "improperly done". But do they have any legitimacy case at all? First of all, they created the impression that a Will must be prepared by a lawyer and explained by a lawyer in details to the person who is signing it. This is totally untrue and misleading. Any person can create his own will and ask two witnesses to attest his signing of the Will and that's all it needs to make the will legally binding. Anybody can dictate and ask any person to type out or "prepare" his will, not necessary a lawyer and then sign it with two witnesses. Thus, the question of "who prepares the Will" is totally irrelevant if LKY had only asked others to help him to revert to the First Will and add some clauses or changes to it. He doesn't even need to employ any lawyer to do it. Just happens that his daughter-in-law is a lawyer doesn't mean that she is the lawyer "engaged" for her "professional service" with professional fees registered for such preparation. If PM Lee or PAP Ministers cannot prove that there is any legal contract between LKY and LSF in engaging her legal service, they cannot fault her for any "inappropriation" in the preparation of the Will. And indeed, after LKY had signed the Last Will, it was said that the will was passed to his own personal lawyer or law firm for safe keeping. It means that, technically speaking, LKY prepared his own Last Will with the help of his daughter-in-law in typing it out. The two lawyers sent to his place to attest to his signing of the Last Will, have no obligation whatsoever in explaining the Last Will as they are not OFFICIALLY engaged to prepare the whole will but were summoned there just as witnesses to the attestation. Thus, I can only say that all these "half baked" doubts thrown out here are just smokescreen... at best, a desperate attempt to make PAP looks better in disrespecting LKY's last wish. Well, I guess this is the reason that PM Lee is reluctant to sue LHY or LSF to contest against the Last Will, because technically speaking, he has no case at all.   Goh Meng Seng      Read More →