TR EMERITUS

Kwa Kim Li All major issues leading to Oxley Saga were due to Lee Kuan Yew's (LKY) niece, his lawyer Kwa Kim Li! [LINK] First of all, she acted unprofessionally by giving her client's vital confidential information to Lee Hsien Loong (LHL) without prior consent! Secondly, she misled both parties that she wasn't involved in preparing the last will but in effect, her client LKY DID GIVE HER INSTRUCTIONS to do so and she had agreed to do so! Putting these two issues together, it is apparent that LHL's inner doubt and suspicion about his brother Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) and Lee Suet Fern (LSF) was basically enhanced by such misconduct and misrepresentation by this first cousin! It created an impression that LKY was reluctant to change his will and didn't instruct his lawyer to do so but under the strong persuasion of LHY, LSF and Lee Wei Ling (LWL), was "forced" to change his will. it created the impression that LHY, LSF and LWL were so eager to "achieve" their agenda that they even bypass LKY's lawyer and prepare the will without LKY's lawyer's knowledge! All these are untrue! LKY did instruct his lawyer Kwa to prepare amendments to his will and she has agreed to do so! She is in full knowledge that these are LKY's own decisions and there is no single doubt that these are really LKY's clear will and desire to amend the terms of his will. For whatever reasons, lawyer Kwa didn't prepare the last will immediately for LKY to sign. LSF helped to complete the amendments in full accordance to what LKY wanted. Nobody can ever doubt LKY's decision to demolish the whole 38 Oxley right after LWL passes on. This also means that LHY, LSF and LWL have been telling the truth all this while!   Goh Meng Seng      Read More →

I know it’s a little unusual to celebrate my lack of career progression in a month marked by the celebration of labour, but ever since the Attorney General’s Chamber (AGC) decided to double up as the defense counsel for Mr. Karl Liew for lying under oath, I’ve been blessing the twist of fate that helped me escape from being a prisoner of any given profession. What do I mean by this? The answer is that too many of us tend to see the world through the eyes of our given profession. We forget that our profession exists to serve a wider business and social goal. Sometimes, we get so caught up in being a member of a profession that we forget that the world is greater than our profession. This is, I believe, the most charitable explanation as to why the AGC made the decision to take on the role as Karl Liew’s defense attorney on the charges of lying in court. This single decision has made every other prospection look ridiculous because whenever the rest of us hear of someone else getting slapped by the authorities, we’re bound to start calculating and asking ourselves “Why are you throwing the house at this guy who did something that didn’t actually harm people but kissing this other guy on the hand when he went out of his way to do something that did actual harm to someone else (I’d say 26 months in jail is a hefty price to pay for a crime one didn’t commit). The most recent example of this, was the story of how the National Environment Agency (NEA) fined a 62-year-old man S$27,600 for selling food without a license. More on the story can found at: [LINK] Nobody is disputing that licensing for hawkers is wrong. We accept that there is a need to maintain certain standards of hygiene in the good industry. Nobody wants a scenario where mass breaks of food poisoning take place. The license that hawkers need in order to practice their trade is our way of ensuring that there are some standards. Nobody is disputing that the NEA had the right to fine the man for not doing this paper work in getting the license. However, what people have an issue with is with the comparison. The AGC were willing to let Mr. Karl Liew off with a S$5,000 fine for lying to a public official and in court in order to send his former maid to jail. Even if you take Mr. Liew’s father and family fortune out of the equation, the fine that the AGC wanted to impose of Mr. Karl Liew is not punitive nor would it have endangered Mr. Liew’s ability to make a living. As a well to do Indonesian businessman I had to deal with, once said “It’s a speeding ticket that needs to be paid.” By comparison the fine of S$27,600 imposed on the hawker is punitive. Think of the number of roasted the chestnuts the man would have had to sell in order to pay the fine in addition to what he’d need to sell in order to pay business cost and to survive. No matter how you look at it, one cannot help but feel that the government is keen to let the influential off, even when they do things that hurt innocent people but quite happy to throw the book at ordinary people who overlook the rules that people in offices impose on their ability to make an honest living. What can be done? The answer should probably lie in a look at the basic purpose of our system of punishments. Shouldn’t the purpose of legal punishments to ensure that certain things that obviously harm people and by definition the rest of society don’t happen again? Surely the ideal situation is to punish the crime but allow the person to continue being economically productive. How many tissues does he need to sell to make ends meet? This is particularly important when you are looking at a situation where there is a growing number of old people who are unable to make end meet. Singapore argues that it is a society that does not believe in “welfarism” and making its people “soft.” However, we have to ask if we’re doing something else – making so many rules that it becomes difficult, if not impossible for old people to make a living. There is also the need to ensure that the general population understands that the rules apply evenly to everyone, no matter how rich and powerful they are. The Karl Liew’s of this world have shown that they are happy to crush people using the system even if they have to lie and cheat to get their way. We consistently sell the point that we are a country that has “rule of law.” However, the AGC’s decision to deduct Karl Liew’s pocket money for going out of his way to harm someone, the general public is inevitably going to compare this against the punishment issued to everyone else by any other government agency and question this. They will inevitably ask if we have “rule of law” or “rule by law.” For example, we talk about the need to execute people for drugs in order to “deter” drug crimes and use. It is argued that we need to “deter” through punishment regardless of the “criminal’s” social status. However, this clearly does not apply to well to do criminals. Case in point – Karl Liew. Every time a “harsh” punishment is issued, we’re going to be led to the fact that the AGC was perfectly willing to let someone who committed the text book definition of perjury in order to send an innocent person to jail by taking away their pocket money. Let’s ask ourselves if this is something that should be asked in a country that prides itself for having “rule of law.”   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 →

'Singapore aims to create 80,000 well paying ICT ( Information and Communication Technology) jobs by 2025'- Lawrence Wong, CNA online. 2025 isn't too far away and it is quite possible that many people might have mistaken him for saying that Singapore aims to create 80,000 well paying ICT jobs in 2025. (Please read this paragraph again). I stress, it is by 2025 and not in 2025. Between now and 2025, it is not unreasonable to think that at least less than 30,000 well paying ICT jobs have alearly been created and although I am not looking for a job, such news invigorate an older person like me too. The obvious question that comes to most people's mind must be of that 80k well paying ICT jobs, how many of them will go to Singaporean workers and will foreigners snatch a lion's share of them from under our nose under an immigration liberal pap government? I have also not forgotten the lucrative levies that is waving at the pap government when foreigners are employed too. I imagine myself to be a CECA fella now working in Singapore and reading such a news must make me slobber and want to share them with my relatives and kampong friends back home as soon as possible. Seriously, such good kang taos are just too delicious to let pass. A truly useful government must not only know how to disclose pretty numbers. That is the easy part. The government is, after all, the biggest employer in the labour market and that is not counting all the government linked companies and private companies that do most of their business with the government yet. Also, although lacking impressive academic credentials, our polytechnic and ITE graduates didn't graduated from inferior institutions or are incapable of delivering satisfactory performance in many ICT and related jobs. I would like to strongly urge the government, its linked companies, our unions, our institutions and private companies etc that do a major part of their businesses with the government to take a clear lead in employing our Singaporean workers, first and foremost, in any ICT jobs and hopefully that practice could then send a clear signal to foreign employers. Charity must begin at home, begin deliberately and strongly and not just plain waiting for things to happen like waiting for durians to drop, so to speak. Think.   Simon Lim      Read More →