TR EMERITUS

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 →

We always think that the truth shall set you free. Do we really mean that? Do we know what that takes? It’s easy to use that on someone, but how about ourselves? Alas, in truth, it is often a freedom most of us would rather avoid so as to embrace a lie we can’t live without. I guess there is some truth when Churchill in wartime remarked, “Truth may be so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” But, in Leon and Nicole’s case, the only war that is waging is not in the battlefields, but in their conscience. Mind you, the greatest battle of mankind is fought and forged there, for life. And the truth is one they cannot, or dread to, confront because the price to be paid is just too great. You have to be in it, to feel it. Lies are much cheaper to maintain because living in the shadow gives one the feeling that they will not be caught. Darkness thus emboldens, like numbing alcohol, but it is a boldness that is blind to all consequences, even to the ones we long to protect. It is different in the light, where you practically leave nothing to speculation. It’s the glare that uncovers our nakedness. But the glare is not because of the intensity of the light of truth. It is because of the opacity of the darkness we take refuge in, which is intensified by the depth of our denial. That contrast, which is largely self-inflicted, creates the glare, not the gentleness of truth’s light. We know the stubborn trail. Nicole, when asked, denied it. Leon too denied it. Their responses were firm and swift. Instead of a bodyguard of lies, they hired an army of gravediggers to bury the truth. They just can’t afford to face it, or leave the lies behind. That’s quite understandable. It’s an instinctive reaction to self-protect. But over time, it becomes an illusion more believable than reality. And by that time, the voices of the opposition is silenced and our conscience no longer needs any more convincing. Like I said, lies are cheaper to maintain and it perpetuates a pervasive veneer of self-impunity. And thus explains the glare when the recent video of Nicole offering her hand and Leon stroking it as a form of affection was put in circulation. I know parliamentarians are the best of our best. They represent the people with passion, conviction and integrity. They have earned that coveted title and place for fighting tirelessly, overcoming political obstacles. We all respect them for their character, stamina and fortitude. We know they are not perfect. But they embodies what we hope to emulate for ourselves, and our children. We can’t dismiss the sacrifices they have made in their hardscrabble journey for the people, right? These few days, PM Lee and WP Pritam kept reminding us about high standards of excellence for public servants. But what we need now more than ever is moral courage embodied, not a moral signpost planted by the kerb of the human journey. At our crossroad, when the rubber meets the road, can we say what Martin Luther once declared: “Here I stand; I can do no other.” At times like this, I learned much more about moral courage, not from the best of our best, but from a wise commoner, Frankie Wong, 80. He has a good heart and a clear conscience. Frankie is Leon’s former driver for more than a decade. He was terminated because he stood at that crossroad and can do no other. He paid the price for fighting for the truth. He recalled that Leon once told him this: “I remember how we once talked about David Ong, and he said it was stupid for politicians to get into affairs, losing everything because of a woman.” Frankie said that he told Pritam about the affair and asked that he do something about it. But “all Pritam said was okay, and hung up.” Even after being sacked, and threatened to be sued, making that a troop of lawyers, not just bodyguards to protect a lie, Frankie said: “I don’t hate Leon. I hate the party leaders who didn’t help Leon when I told them about the matter, and even until now, none of them has contacted me. Now, Leon’s future is destroyed…Leon is actually a nice guy, he treated me very well.” While we should never judge a person by a fall, or be condemned by it, we should demonstrate moral courage at all times. Yes, it will take time to wake up to what we have done, and the people we have hurt. But it is the courage to own it, to take responsibility for it, that marks the first crucial step, not just for our recovery, but for fighting back our integrity. And I always believe that no one is beyond redemption. But it takes moral courage to take a stand even after a fall, and this time, earn back the trust we have broken and fight to heal from there, for all.   Michael Han * The author blogs on Facebook.          Read More →

Nicole Seah I would suffice that the loss of Nicole (as a party member) is a loss to the face-wanting Wayang Party (WP), that’s all to it. Nicole has struck me as a very sincere and caring person since her debut into politics a decade ago and my view of her (unless proven otherwise) has not changed simply of a short sexual tryst she had with a lao uncle, who allegedly is a color wolf. As I have been saying, a person’s sexual wants and preferences should not be used as a gauge of that person’s ability to perform and I stand by that. There are openly gay politicians in the world and some of them are performing remarkably well. These sexual tryst are an individual's private matters and we have no business poking our nose into their affairs, and even if there are issues, it is still a family affair, best left to the spouse and family members to sort them out. I would opine that Nicole would still be an asset to any oppo party that can look beyond the fiasco and take her into their stable. Alternatively, Nicole could stand as an independent if the other oppos are too afraid of taking her in for fear of losing "face".  I think she would be able to outperform any oppo candidates in a 3-cornered SMC. Unless we are a society still living in the 50s, i.e. lao uncles and lao aunties, I doubt anyone would be bothered with her short sexual tryst and discount her for that. So unless Nicole decides to leave politics for good, oppo parties should seriously weigh and consider enlisting her onto the team, since now that she is ‘available’. The WP, like someone suggested, had never really wanted her in the first place and joining the party was possibly Nicole’s greatest mistake. Let’s all ask ourselves honestly, does it really bother us if a lady that has a short sexual tryst becomes our MP? Or your wife was not a virgin when you married her? Besides, is having a short sexual tryst a Penal Code offence to even begin with? How many of us can thumb our chest and say we NEVER had any sexual trust with someone that is NOT our spouse? People love Nicole for who she is, her mind, her soul, her sincerity, surely not her body (well, maybe some lao tigo). Most of us really cannot be bothered with who she sleeps with, that is a matter only her hubby can cry father cry mother about. There is a saying in China: 我老婆和谁睡关你鸟事啊? 我是她老公, 我都没说话, 你算老几啊? Politics is not about face, it is about the lives of peasants like us. I would rather have a MP who really cares about us, athough she may ONS at times, over someone who is a eunuch and cannot be bothered with whether we live or die. What do you think?   Andrew   * Escalated from a comment by our techie, edited slightly for spelling and clarity. The views expressed are purely of his own and not indicative of the stand of TRE.           Read More →