Not long ago the Singapore Daily forwarded me the transcript of this interview, by well known criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan to the Singapore Law Review, a journal published by students in the Faculty of Law at NUS:

http://www.singaporelawreview.org/2008/04/interview-with-criminal-lawyer-mr-subhas-anandan/

In the interview, Mr Anandan disclosed about what is already well known in Singapore, the law inherently favours the prosecution, and by extension, the police. He argues for more access by lawyers with their clients under custody, and for a magistrate to be present when an accused pens his statement, especially in capital cases to ensure it's fairly given.

Subhas Anandan, current head of the Law Society's criminal defense lawyers association is championing for a more transparent system.

I disagree and agree with Mr Anandan on that score. I don't think lawyers should have immediate access to their clients when an accused is first arrested and detained for police investigations. By law the police must charge an accused in court within 48 hours, thereafter they can have him remanded in the station for further investigations. Only when these investigations are completed, with the accused released on bail or detained in the state prison, will the defense lawyer be granted access. I think this policy should remain in force.

In most western democracies, notably the UK whose legal system we follow/inherited, lawyers can have immediate access to their clients and those accused have to be cautioned when arrested - that they have a right to counsel and know the charge they are facing. However a key point is also conveyed, they have to disclose what they want to use in their defense and its' less likely to be believed if they hold it back until their trial. It's roughly the same here, an accused when formally charged is cautioned to disclose what he intends to say to the charges. The UK's formal caution reads:

You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned, something which you later rely on in court.Anything you do say, may be given in evidence.

I don't think lawyers should get immediately involved especially when investigations are not completed. The police might need to find out more about the crime and secure evidence or detain accomplices. Getting a lawyer in at this stage might cause many accused to become uncooperative. In cases where an accused is believed to be involved in a series of offences, this could derail the investigations and leave many crimes unsolved.

The system has to work both ways and the police and prosecutors must be allowed first crack at the accused. It does not trample on his rights, just because he doesn't have immediate access to legal counsel. An accused can still choose to remain silent and be uncooperative, and it's still the prosecutors job to prove his guilt in court. Rather the problem lies with what an accused may or may not have said during these initial investigations or interrogations.

In Singapore, the accused is not usually cautioned until the final bit, where he is formally presented with the charges the police are preferring on him. When he is first interviewed and his statements recorded, he is not cautioned that he is not obliged to incriminate himself. And upon completion when he is invited to sign these statements, he is also asked to counter-sign that he was not coerced, threatened or promised anything when making these statements. These statements are kept by the police and prosecutors and is not offered to the accused or defense counsel unless they intend to use it court. Either way, the defense only gets this at a latter stage. Instead the defense will only initially get a copy of the formal charges and the accused's response to them. When the police are satisfied that they have enough to charge the accused in court, only then will the caution under Sec 23 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code be invoked. The procedure is thus:

1) The charge is specified and presented (or read) to the accused
2) The accused is then cautioned as follows:

Do you want to say anything about the charges that was just read to you? If you keep quiet now about any fact or matter in your defense and you reveal this fact or matter only at your trial, the judge may be less likely to believe you. This may have a bad effect on your case in court. Therefore it may be better for you to mention such fact or matter now. If you wish to do so, what you say will be written down, read back to you for any mistakes to be corrected and then signed by you.


There is usually no dispute on the formal presentation of the charge or the accused's response which is duly recorded. The police and prosecutors will rely more on the earlier statements than on this Sec 23(1) caution. The dispute is almost always on those earlier statements, especially if they contain therein an admission or an incriminating point. Quite often in court you will see the accused recanting their statements or admissions and alleging that some form of coercion or even threat/violence was used. Unfortunately the law here seems to be against them, more often than not these statements will be admitted into evidence unless they can prove the police officer is lying, or acting with malice against them. Sometimes they might not even fully understand the intricacies of the case and just sign the admission based on what the officers tell them. And when the case comes to trial, they have a hard time disproving this, basically its the word of the officer against theirs.

I'm not saying all or even a majority of police statements are derived through some degree of wrongdoing or unfairly obtained, but I do feel there is a tiny portion of them that are. Of course proving this is next to impossible, unless you can find a police officer willing to testify to this. In the bad old days, some policemen resorted to using violence to obtain confessions, but I think these are extremely rare these days. Perhaps some form of trickery or coercion is made instead, telling an accused they might lower the charges if he admits or tell him that failing to confess will provoke additional charges. Of course I can't prove this, nobody can unless one is privy and present at the recording of the statements. In the SMRT bus drivers strike case, the accused claimed they were assaulted during interrogations. These were later proven false, but I do wonder if some form of coercion took place. I am not casting a slur on the credibility of the police force, but as long as the status quo remains the same, it will always be plausible that in some police interviews and interrogations, something improper has taken place.

Ex-SMRT bus driver, He Jun Ling when arrested for striking, alleged police brutality.

There is a very easy way to remove any doubts on this possibility - to have all interactions between officers and accused persons recorded or taped. Is this too difficult or cumbersome, even expensive? Perhaps 10,15 or 20 years ago, it might ring true, but in the digital age? I think not. In fact the best proof that it is workable lies in another police procedure that has gone digital - the retaining of personal property and valuables of accused persons in detention.

Whenever a person is arrested and before he's placed in the lockup or even when he is sentenced to jail, his property is displayed before him and photographed or videotaped in some instances. Now why have the police/prison department done this for personal property? Very simple - to prevent any allegation of police/prison officers stealing the valuables or to deal with any claim that the accused says he has such and such an item, and it's not there when his property is returned to him. Previously these items were merely recorded and counter-signed by the accused, but now there's the additional safeguard of it being recorded and filmed.

So if the police can take measures to 'cover their asses', to use a crude but apt description, why not do the same for investigations? Instead of having police officers coming to court to deny allegations made against them by an accused person, why not just play the tape and prove once and for all whether it's true or not? There's no need for a police officer to offer an explanation or describe the circumstances in which a statement is taken, a video recording will show all these. Better still it will allow a judge to get the whole picture, not just the statement itself but all facial expressions and the surroundings. The judge and everyone in court can see whether the police officer was menacing, whether the accused was in a drugged or drunken stupor, whether he was left shivering in a freezing room etc. 

In 18 US states this is being done, I believe in the UK as well. In the latter if no video recording is present, the interviews must be at least taped. Doing this here will not impede police investigations, rather it will ensure that police officers abide by the laws and procedures in place. If they are doing nothing wrong, why should they worry about the recordings in the first place? Moreover these recordings will not come to light unless an accused challenges the statements he gave in court or alleges some form of violence against him.

A suspect being interviewed by a Police Officer in the US state of Florida.

Storing these videos will also not be a problem, once the trial and appeal process is exhausted it can be wiped clean, re-used or disposed off. I believe banks must keep videos of what transpires on their premises for a period of 6 months, unless of course it becomes subject of an enquiry. Police videos can also follow the same route. Better still when an accused pleads guilty and does not appeal within the prescribed period, these videos no longer require storage. For trials it will be kept for the duration of it until a verdict is delivered. If no appeal is lodged by either the prosecution or defense, it's no longer needed.

There is also 1 other benefit in having these recordings. In 'cold cases' - where a suspect is arrested but not charged perhaps due to a lack of evidence, any future investigations down the road, will allow the current investigation team to re-look the investigations done by their predecessors, and perhaps unearth something the accused said that was missed. Or if the accused is arrested for another similar offense later on, what he said earlier could prove useful in the present case.

Police Commissioner Ng Joo Hee wants to play 'Big Brother' by having video cameras everywhere. Perhaps he should start in his own house!

Basically I can find no good reason aside from cost, why police interactions with an accused should not be recorded. Even with costs, I don't think it would be so enormous that we are unable to afford it. The Police Commissioner has stated he wants to have video cameras in every HDB block in future and at various parts of the island. Traffic Police wants to place 300 speed cameras next year and LTA is doing the same to tackle illegal parking. So why not have cameras present at the 1 place in the police station where it can play a very significant part - the interview/interrogation room?

After a trial run earlier this year, you'll soon be seeing more speed cameras like the one above at traffic junctions.

By not having cameras, the possibility that something improper is done by police officers will always be subject to speculation. By having cameras, there will be no confusion or doubt as to what transpired or what was said by whom. The legality of statements derived from accused persons will be clear to all especially the judge presiding at trial. If police officers acted improperly, they will be taken to task - we certainly do not need police officers taking matters into their own hands in our police force. If the accused admitted to his statements, he won't be able to worm his way out of them. This is a win-win situation for justice in Singapore. As it's often said justice must not only be done, but seen to be done, having video cameras in interrogation and interview rooms is definitely a step in that direction.

ASEAN Human Rights NGO raised valid points in calling for the abolishing of the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system in Singapore and a return of full Single Member Constituencies (SMCs). They released a position paper on this issue:

http://maruahsg.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/maruah-position-paper-on-the-grc-system1.pdf

The key points against the GRCs are that it was not decided by a referendum by voters but by a Parliament dominated by the PAP, Singapore had until its' implementation never voted along racial lines, its high cost to contest (at around $15k per candidate x the number of seats) and of course GRCs allows less capable or popular MPs to be elected.

The electoral map from the 2011 General Elections was dominated by GRCs.

The GRC system was introduced to ensure that sufficient number of minority MPs were elected to Parliament so as to ensure their ethnic groups had a voice in lawmaking. Although I'm from a minority, I would not simply vote for candidate based on his ethnicity but rather the party he represents, but more importantly his suitability (his educational or work background) and his capability (can he be the voice of the people and manage the constituency) and I believe the Singapore electorate is mature enough to vote in the same fashion.

However, I won't disagree that by ensuring sufficient minority representation we can avoid a situation where Parliament could by some fluke be filled entirely by Chinese MPs leaving no representation by Malay, Eurasian and Indian MPs. Although I have sufficient faith that even if that were to happen, these Chinese MPs would not hesitate to pass Bills that would ensure fairness to all races and to raise whatever issues faced by minority groups, it would be better that such a scenario is avoided. Racial tolerance has long been a way of life here, and we should not give extremist groups a chance to form or gain ground and preach policies or race issues, that could or would create angst even hatred among the racial groups.

In that sense GRCs serve a good purpose in ensuring minority representation. 2 political analysts have also spoken out against MARUAH's proposal which also demands that certain seats be reserved for minority contests or if that isn't done, allowing 'best loser' minority MPs to take their seats to ensure the percentage of minority representation is maintained:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/political-analysts-caution-against-reverting-to-all-smc-system-025003999.html

Both have voiced concerns about MARUAH's proposal to bring in defeated candidates with full membership rights just in order to ensure balance. In fact I would go further and suggest the Non-Constituency MP scheme that allows the best losers a place in Parliament but without full voting rights, to be scrapped altogether. We don't need defeated candidates in Parliament period. Even if it were to serve as platform for people like Sylvia Lim or say Vincent Wijeysingha to raise their public profile, the NCMP scheme just doesn't square up in a functioning democracy or parliamentary system. Richard Nixon describe it best with this quote - 'in the Olympics, second place gets you a silver, in politics - oblivion'. Defeated candidates could either lick their wounds, work harder on the ground and make a comeback or retire. There is much life after politics and much which one can still serve their country, I think George Yeo has demonstrated this.

Defeated Minister George Yeo is still serving Singapore after leaving politics.

Coming back to MARUAH's plan, one those anlaysts, Asst Prof Eugene Tan instead proposes a '2 man GRC' in which 1 of them has to be a minority candidate. I think this is a better manner to deal with the GRC system, which incidentally if you buy into my argument that NCMPs are a no-no, then GRCs should be as well. I was until very recently entirely against the GRC system and the manner in the PAP has worked it to their advantage. MARUAH rightly points out that not everyone is happy with certain PAP MPs being parachuted into Parliament either by walkovers or riding on the coattails of their more experienced GRC members, all of which are helmed by at least 1 Minister. Macpherson MP Tin Pei Ling will be the clearest example of this.

Very few people believe Tin Pei Ling would be an MP if she had stood in an SMC.

However having a percentage of seats reserved for minority candidates in GRCs is not a bad thing but it should not be in the manner that it's currently being done. In the last elections there were only 27 contests for 87 seats. Furthermore unlike SMCs, where the PM is obliged to call for a by-election, this is not the case in a GRC, where by-elections will only be called if all the members therein vacate their seats.

Asst Professor Eugene Tan in a TV interview on the Punggol by-election.

The best alternative I believe is a marriage of some of MARUAH's plans and what was proposed by Asst Prof Tan. We should have '3 man GRCs' and these should not number more than 10 or slightly over half of the Parliamentary seats. If we have 10 '3 man GRCs' now, that would work out to only 45 seats of the 87. This would bring the total contests to 52, and you could work the ratio out for Malay MPs to number at least 8 in these GRCs with Indians and Eurasians taking up the other 7. And there is nothing to stop parties from fielding these minority candidates in SMCs. I'm sure Ministers like Tharman and Shanmugam would be more than confident on retaining their seats in an SMC, just as I believe Worker's Party MPs, Muhammad Faisal and Pritam Singh, would be a match for any opponent whatever the race in the divisions they currently represent.

DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam has proven to be a very capable Minister and would be almost impossible to defeat in an SMC.

Singaporeans tend to look at parties more than the race of their candidates and being a minority is no real handicap. However having smaller and lesser GRCs, will still guarantee representation of minority races. And the caveat must be that should the minority member vacate his seat for whatever reason, a by-election must be called. If the Govt is really serious about being in tune with ordinary Singaporeans as the National Conversation suggested, then bringing in Maruah (which means dignity in Malay) into the GRC system is the best proof that they are doing so.

Singapore's IOC Vice President, Ng Ser Miang, is in the running to become the President of IOC, replacing the retiring Dr Jacques Rogge. The vote will take place in Buenos Aires on September 10th during the 125th IOC Session. Voting is open to all IOC members and they will also choose the host city for 2020 Olympics from 1 of Istanbul, Turkey, Madrid, Spain and Tokyo, Japan.

Now some may think just because of Mr Ng's association with the ruling political elite here, I am opposing his candidacy. That's not the case, I am against him being elected for the simple reason that there's a far better candidate among the 5 contenders. He is none other than 6 time pole vault world champion, former Olympic Gold medalist and still the current world record holder in the event - Ukraine's Sergey Bubka.

Ng Ser Miang with the Olympic Flame for the 2010 Youth Olympic Games held here.

The other  remaining candidates are Taiwan's Wu Ching-Kuo, Germany's Thomas Bach, Puerto Rico's Richard Carrion and Switzerland's Denis Oswald. All of them together with Ng are businessman or bureaucrats, Bubka is the only true outsider. And together with Bach, the only Olympic champions among them. Mr Ng has served the IOC and the local SNOC with distinction and would not be unqualified for the role as IOC President. However at this juncture, there is just so much more that Bubka would bring to the position that in my opinion dwarfs the others.

He would be a recent athlete and have tremendous clout within the athletic fraternity. The Olympics have in recent times been run, admittedly successfully, as a business and in some ways become quite politicised, that its primary role as a celebration of youth and sports is sidelined. Bubka's elevation to the top post would bring that back into focus. He would understand what is needed and what it is being a modern day athlete competing in the Games.

His stature as a world record holder (broken 35 times by him) would give him far greater clout in the battle against doping that has seeped into some sports. There has been some disquiet about Russia's conservative stance against personal rights notably LGBT issues amongst some athletes and they host the next Winter Games in Sochi next year. Being Ukrainian and an athlete of such stature makes him the best person to address the issue.

Ng argues that an Asian should be given a chance, and he's likely to have better prospects than Taiwan's Wu. However I'm sure he of all people who buys into the meritocratic system propagated by Singapore, will concede that positions should not just go to someone because of their race or nationality. Bubka has the wow factor, he also has the sporting records and the ability to trump up the athletic factor that has taken a back-seat to the commercial interests of the Games.

Hopefully Bubka seen above in his element, will be able to pole vault himself to the pinnacle of the IOC.

But I'll concede because of this Bubka would be something of a longshot, the IOC membership comprises people who possess vested interests in fields other than sports. Their is also a political aspect in their appointments. It's like an elite club of old men who know each other and Bubka is a relative newcomer. There is a chance they will resort to bloc voting, and Ng has a chance in securing Asia's votes. Whether he can persuade enough members from Africa and the Americas is another issue. I wish Ng well and would welcome his appointment as IOC President as any other Singaporean, but I do hope that it goes to Bubka instead.

Moving on, I called for some stiff punishment to be meted for the vandalism of the Cenotaph War Memorial in an earlier post:

http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg/2013/04/throw-book-at-cenotaph-vandals.html

Well the criminal matter has been decided by the courts with the culprit,  Muhammad Khalid Muhammad Yusop,33, given a 3 month jail term and 3 strokes of the cane. He was also made to pay the repair costs of $208:

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/cenotaph-vandal-gets-3-months-jail-3-strokes-cane

In sentencing Muhd Khalid, District Judge Lim Tse Haw noted, that the monument was erected 'to the memory of soldiers who sacrifised their lives, so that we can enjoy the peace we have today'. This is entirely true. I remember a conversation I had with an elderly British gentleman at Pasir Panjang Hill earlier this year. He noted that this was the last place of battle before the surrender of Singapore to the Japanese in 1942. Defending that hill were young men, some even boys in their teens from India fighting on the British side for another country, against an enemy that wasn't at war with India.

Muhammad Khalid Muhammad Yusop's uncalled for 'handiwork'. (Straits Times Photo)

We must never forget the ultimate sacrifise they paid, and the Cenotaph commemorates that and the heroism of soldiers in WWI as well. Defacing the Cenotaph is as despicable an act as desecrating a place of worship.
Sure many of us are fed up with the high handed policies of the PAP or feel there is not enough democratic freedom in Singapore, but spraying the word 'democracy' on the monument is not the way to do it. You disagree with the PAP, there are other ways to express your disgust like having a blog like this for instance.

Let's hope he remembers this when he gets his 3 strokes and may this be a deterrent to other like-minded persons. Use your markers or pens to mark the X (which he also did) on the ballot paper not on a wall or monument.

The Singapore Democratic Party Treasurer, Dr Vincent Wijeysingha announced his decision to quit the party and politics last week, which was duly accepted.

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/sdps-wijeysingha-quits-politics-work-lgbt-issues

Before I proceed further, I must confess that he was my schoolmate and remains a friend. When he made his announcement that he was gay not long ago, I was supportive of it and expressed my admiration for his courage in making such a gutsy decision, even when he was not compelled to. I believed then as now, that a person's orientation should never be an issue in public service, be it politics or elsewhere.

Vincent Wijeysingha (in SDP red) made a shock resignation announcement, not long after 'coming out'.

Although it should not be an issue, nevertheless there will always be some who will question it and express opposition to it, even in more liberal Western democracies, what more Singapore. There is also of course some debate about the 'gay agenda' in Singapore, ranging from the disputed Section 377A of the Penal Code which still criminalises gay sex, to calls for more equality for gay and lesbians, even until marital union. I am unable still to decide where my support should lie, on the 1 hand I appreciate and understand that certain religions and religious groups will oppose it and on the other that equality should be for all. I also appreciate the fact that the authorities (AG's Chambers) have come out to say that it will not actively prosecute men or women engaging in consensual gay or lesbian sex done in private. Although I do understand the unease that gay men feel that as long as the rule remains on the statute books, they can never be certain it might not be used against them in some way.

Proposition 8 on equality for same sex couples, was put on a separate ballot paper during the 2008 statewide elections in California.


I think much more debate needs to be had on this issue and in the end it's for the people at large to decide. The best way in my opinion is for it to be done like a referendum during a general election, like it's done in some US states where questions are put to the voters at the same time they are voting for their elected representatives. But I appreciate also that this needs time and we may be years away from putting this across. Which is why I am somewhat puzzled by Dr Wijeysingha's sudden resignation.

He has come out to say that he faced no pressure to quit his party nor was there reason for him to believe that his orientation had turned voters against him. He acknowledged the best way to answer this was in an election, with voters deciding whether he was electable or not. Instead he has said, his quitting was because he feels that he needs to work on civil liberties more than politics, which deal mainly with social and 'bread and butter issues.' There is nothing wrong with this position either, people quit politics all the time and especially after an electoral defeat. In that sense, there was nothing wrong in his team-mates from the Holland-Bt Timah GRC team quitting the party. 1 of them, Tan Jee Say, was compelled to because upon standing for the Presidency he was obliged to quit his party. The other, Ms Michelle Lee quit soon after the elections, whilst the remaining candidate, Dr Ang Yong Guan has taken a much lower profile after the loss. Only Dr Wijeysingha remained active after that loss, and in fact he went further up his party hierarchy by becoming its Treasurer after the GE.

Then SDP candidate, Tan Jee Say quit the party following his decision to run for the Presidency as mandated by law.

But what I find slightly troubling is why he allowed things to go much further before resigning. Don't forget he was on the candidate list to contest the vacant Punggol East seat, had the SDP decided to run. As much as I may disagree with Lee Kuan Yew on many issues, I agree with his statement made some years ago, that politics is a serious business, and we must have candidates that are committed and qualified. Dr Wijeysingha is certainly qualified and he did raise several pertinent issues, but I'm afraid this resignation was hasty and may well be the death knell of his political aspirations. Again I say, there is nothing wrong for him to resign to focus on civil issues even LGBT rights, but the point is that he should have not allowed his political activity to escalate after the 2011 loss. What would have happened if say he stood and won in Punggol East only to be disillusioned after 7 months? That would have been unfair to the voters there and for his party.

Dr Wijeysingha (together here with Paul Thambyah) allowed his name to go on the prospective SDP candidate list for the 2013 Punggol East by-election.


Moreover why did he have to resign his membership from his party? After all he did say, he was attracted to the SDP because of their stand on social issues and his only agenda was the people's. He could have just resigned his committee positions and remained an ordinary member, declined to stand for future elections for the time being and focus on the civil issues he believes needs raising. Or he could have quit after the elections of 2011 and delved straight into this. It's not as if the issue of civil liberties did not arise prior to GE 2011, it's been there for God knows how long, with so many seasoned opposition candidates and rights activists bringing it to the fore. Even with LGBT we have well known people like Alex Au amongst others who have been raising the issue, not to mention a few gay men who brought it all the way up to the Court of Appeal to highlight what they think is unfair about the Law and their status. Dr Wijeysingha's foray will not dramatically be a game changer, perhaps it might raise its profile a bit but as mentioned this is long drawn out affair that needs time to resolve.

Well known blogger Alex Au who's gay, is noted for his struggles as an LGBT activist.

After all as an MP (if elected) he would have the best platform to raise any civil liberty issue - the very body that is capable of changing the Laws. Even if he's in the minority, he being gay, would provide lawmakers the best first hand view of what difficulties he's had to endure, if any. And being an MP albeit an opposition one, he's able to reach a far greater audience both at home and abroad on any civil liberty issue. He could really take the debate much further than as an activist.

Both JB Jeyretnam and Chiam See Tong seen above with then Speaker Yeoh Ghim Seng, had to endure defeats in earlier elections before attaining victory.

Lastly, whilst the SDP graciously accepted his resignation, it does also raise questions about their screening process for candidates. Voters might be wary of electing someone from their party only to have him quit the party a short time later. Opposition politics in Singapore is often a long, lonely drawn out affair, even victorious ones like J B Jeyaretnam, Chiam See Tong, Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang all had to endure defeats and work hard on the ground to win over the voters before attaining victory. Dr Wijeysingha's resignation might give the impression to prospective candidates that they can join a party, hope to get elected and quit thereafter if unsuccessful, instead of hard work on the ground. You just don't 'talk the talk, but must walk the walk'. Worse still, this might be the impression that voters might take and they then choose the 'devil they know' in the PAP, as 'the lesser of 2 evils.'

It remains to be seen if Dr Wijeysingha will make a comeback into politics and with which party, and whether voters in future will welcome him back and go on to elect him. As a friend, although I suspect some will say after this piece, that with friends like me who needs enemies? Nevertheless as a friend I wish him all the best in his new endeavour and hope he can be more successful in it than he was in politics.

Needless to say, the City Harvest Trial is the talk of the town, not just to Christians but almost everyone, from coffee-shop aunties, taxi drivers, heck even my mother who doesn't really keep up with things is eager for more juicy details from the on going trial. Although there are 6 defendants, the 'star' of the show is Kong Hee, the leader of the City Harvest Church in Singapore. Although not a defendant, the 'co-star' has to be his wife, Sun Ho, a church worker turned singer.

City Harvest Church in Jurong West St 91, got more exposure than it bargained for with this trial.

Anyway the trial  still has a long way to go yet before we get a verdict, so I'll indulge in something I've always liked to do for things like these - offer/predict the odds one way or the other for the primary actor. In fact I had offered odds last year in a reply in another blogger's post - Limpeh is Foreign Talent - he has written extensively on the CHC saga, you can check his website out - http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/. A year on with the trial in full swing, I think it's time to update the odds.

However before going into that, I'd just like to comment on 2 things that have been reported in the press. The first - Sun Ho's singing caper in the US has attracted many responses in multiple blogs, so pardon me if I indulge in some opinion giving of my own. The reason given by Kong Hee and others for sponsoring his wife's music career was to try and win over new converts in the US, similar to what she had done in Taiwan, China and possibly Hong Kong. The idea was to attract the attention of the secular world by being part of them - hence the term 'Crossover Project'.

Sun's Crossover Project - that's how it was labelled, as this presentation in a Kong Hee sermon demonstrates.


Strictly speaking this is not a bad idea, sometimes you have to walk in person's shoes or be part of their way of life in order to spread your message, win their trust and help them. However in Ms Ho's case, it was a failure of epic proportions, if you believe their version that getting her to become a popular singer in the US would attract many young secular people to turn to Christianity based on her songs and lifestyle. Of course there could be another version, as some have inferred - it was all a scam or excuse, to siphon church funds in order to further her music career. Which is the true version, will of course be for the learned judge to determine.

However let's just look at their explanation. There is a secular world out there, especially in the US, where young people have turned away from God. The best way to reach to them is to do something they can identify with - pop music, and use that as the platform to spread your message of Christianity. And to do that, Ms Ho had to become a top singer like Katy Perry, Beyonce, Brittney Spears et al. Once she achieved this stardom, she would have a large following and use it to get her followers to turn to God. However it seems neither she nor her husband really did a full study whether this would ever work. Sure some people will imitate their idols and do similar things, but the large majority won't, they are just there to listen and enjoy the music. And even those who do imitate, won't keep doing this forever, they would change when a newer and perhaps better singer-turned idol comes along.

Wildly popular and very beautiful Beyonce Knowles (a), resisted the temptation of tying her singing career with her faith, unlike Ms Ho.

So the whole idea that in order to win new converts, you had to be a rich and famous international star, just doesn't seem logical. Do I really need to go into the songs? I think by now everyone has heard it and realised how underwhelming they are and that's putting it mildly! Worse still is her attire in the music videos, it's really hard to draw a link from a skimpily dressed unheard off singer singing in a voice and tone that's hard to understand, and then connect it somehow with a message of salvation via Christianity. Even the Jamaican co-singers have very little connection with what young people in America listen to music wise. Maybe if she got into 'Black music' and procured some Afro-American singers, it might have at least appealed to the many who like 'Black music'. Instead she went Jamaican on us! It was not just an epic fail but a tragic one as well. And who's bright idea was it to go to the US? What's wrong with Singapore or Asia? Since CHC is based here, shouldn't the priority be to first spread the message here before embarking on career in the American music industry?

How does one link Sun Ho seen performing in this music video and Christianity is the $50 million question!

A reason or excuse would be to associate this with her career in Taiwan, HK and China, where she was supposedly very popular. The US was the natural progression or so it seems. Her performances in these Asian countries brings me to the 2nd point - they were so successful and won over many new converts to Christianity! In fact this was the very point another central figure in this saga, Hanafi Wahju inferred to in his testimony. He was happy to donate and fund this Crossover project, because it was a cheap and fruitful return. The millions spent to entice and cajole these new converts, was worth every cent, furthermore you can't really put a price on salvation. So what if there were millions spent, the end result of winning over new souls for salvation is priceless!

Indonesian businessman Hanafi Wahju (a) did not hesitate to fund Ms Ho's career, or did he actually fund it? That's a key question in the trial.

But let's look a bit deeper at how they arrive at these figures. It seems that they were quite presumptuous about this. It's like that 'old chestnut' used in politics - it's not how many votes you get, but who does the counting! So how did they count these 'votes of conversion'? Easy, just tally the number of concert and event goers at her gigs in these countries and count them in her favour. According to some figures I read on their webpage sometime back, it seems there were hundreds of thousands attendees in China, HK and the rest of Asia and maybe a million or more in Taiwan, throughout her singing career in these countries.

A poster of Ms Ho's concert in Shanghai. Had she focused her career in the Far East, she might have had a greater impact, and certainly this case would have never arisen.

But how accurate are they? Perhaps there were some who were really overcome by divine intervention at her concerts and because of it, turned to Christianity, but I'm certain the majority were not swayed. And don't forget a number of them would be repeat attendees, yet were counted as new. And then you would already have Christians from other denominations that attended these events, yet they would also be counted as new converts. Strictly speaking as long as you follow a certain denomination in Christianity, it's considered that you are 'saved', but some churches do not accept this, they insist that one must only follow their teachings in order to be considered saved. So a 'saved Christian' who church hops, is always considered a new convert by that church.

This Biblical verse in a nutshell explains the basic tenet of Christianity, however it seems to CHC it's not enough unless you follow their lead on this.

Then let's not forget that many would also just be caught up in the moment at the concert, they could be coerced to saying yes by an over-zealous volunteer, or just simply answer so, when asked in order to get out of a sticky situation. How many actually continued to follow CHC and her affiliates after saying yes? I think if you go into the details and add all of them up, you'll find the figures very much lower than what was proclaimed by CHC. Still you gotta credit CHC and Kong Hee in particular, they really did a very good PR job in projecting a very positive image over a long period of time. Even now, despite the sordid details coming out, both in and out of court (by former church members), he still enjoys the support of the majority of his flock.

Kong Hee and his wife, Sun Ho, making their way to the Subordinate Court for his trial.

Anyway back to the original point of this post - what are the odds in relation to the final verdict of this case. Please note this is purely recreational and in no way am I encouraging anyone to wager on them.

1) Kong Hee (KH) acquitted on all charges - 15-1 (someone else carries the can or insufficient evidence)
2) KH guilty on at least 1, acquitted of the rest -7-4
3) KH guilty on 2 counts, acquitted on the remainder 4-9
4) KH guilty on all counts - 4-1

Initially when he was first charged, I thought KH would escape the charges because some other defendant would 'carry the can' and avoid sending him to jail. However as the trial progresses it seems all the defendants are sticking to their guns and maintaining their innocence. Therefore it would fall on them to rebut the prosecution's case and raise a reasonable doubt. As such, I've lengthened the odds on a total acquittal based on what I've seen thus far of the trial. Obviously things can change rapidly, and his odds could shorten if more and more favourable evidence emerges. Next is the possible sentences if he's found guilty (this obviously depends on how many counts he's convicted on):

1) 5 years jail or less - 15-1 (likely conviction on just 1 count)
2) Over 5 years and up to 7 years - 8-1 (could be 1 conviction or 2)
3) Over 7 years and up to 10 years - 3-1 (likely 2 convictions)
4) Over 10 years and up to 13 years - 9-5 (2 or more convictions)
5) Any sentence above 13 years - 7-1 (guilty on all counts)

Obviously this is guesswork but it's based on sentences for some offenders involved in cheating with sums running into several millions. However it'll fall to Senior District Judge See Kee Onn who's hearing the case to decide what weight he would place on any conviction and what degree of culpability he deems KH to be involved in if he finds him guilty. It's also quite fortunate for KH that he got Judge See as the trial judge. Judge See is among the fairest judges on the Bench. If KH cannot convince him to prescribe a lesser sentence,  I think it'll be quite hard for him in any appeal to reduce the sentence. Obviously he might still be acquitted and make that point moot.

Senior District Judge See Kee Onn (back row 2nd from right) alone will determine Kong Hee's fate, irrespective of what's been said outside court.


So that's it for now for my prediction on where this might end up in. There's still a long way to go, and the odds could so easily change. Furthermore even if it does, it cannot be a true barometer because I'm basing it solely on what's being revealed in the press and elsewhere. Moreover there's only 1 person who's best placed to decide the outcome, and that's Judge See. We can talk and guess, but Judge See alone after hearing both sides and the evidence adduced that will determine KH's fate, one way or the other.

I was reading Limpeh is Foreign Talent's latest article on the manner in which his lawyer Edwin Tong is defending him. It raises 3 interesting scenarios about the lawyer, and after reading it, I think the outcome of this case will boil down to this key question: Is Kong Hee a Knave or Fool? Let me give a few scenarios myself, however before that I must caution that like everyone else who's commented on this case, I'm handicapped by not knowing exactly what are the charges he's facing and whether there's multiple counts for each charge.

The Knave of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland is associated with trickery. Is KH a Knave?

To recap: Kong Hee (KH) according to what's been printed in the press is facing a charge that involves diverting $24 million of church building funds into bond buying in Xtron to fund his wife's music career, another charge of concealing that by diverting another $26 million of church funds to redeem the 'sham bonds' and a 3rd charge of falsifying church records/accounts to conceal the first 2 acts. Terms like embezzlement and falsifying accounts have been used but there are no such terms used in the Law. Instead you have acts like cheating, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust as an agent, forgery for the purpose of cheating and so forth. All of these have different thresholds that must be crossed in order to be guilty of them, some may require the 'mens rea' (premeditation) as well as the 'actus rea' (the commission). Others may be a 'strict liability offence' - yes or no - like beating a red light - you either did or did not, whether you planned or not is irrelevant.

Sun Ho aspired to be like Shakira (a). Maybe she should have tried plastic surgery instead of singing.

That said, because we do not know exactly the specific charges he's facing, we may be wondering why Mr Tong is adopting a certain line of questioning or why he's making certain inferences to Shakira or Beyonce, by linking Ms Ho's attempt to stardom to them. KH may well be guilty in the court of public opinion but that does not make him guilty in a court of law. The prosecution is painting him as the knave, whilst thus far it seems Mr Tong is happy to point out he's just a fool, who got involved in a 'hare brained idea' to fund Ms Ho's stardom in the hope of furthering his church's goal of winning more souls to Christ'. There was nothing sinister about this, yes church funds were used but he was entitled to use them as the leader.

So where does his alleged acts fall under? Let me illustrate with 3 scenarios:

Scenario 1.

You need to buy a book for school that costs $50 on Monday. On Saturday you ask your father for $50 to buy the book and he gives you the money. Then on Sunday, your girlfriend tells you,'You are such a cheapskate, you never bring me out'. In order to placate your girlfriend, you then use that $50 on her. Then on Monday when your father asks you for the book, you panic and borrow your friend's book to show proof of purchase. So did you cheat your father? Not necessarily, it would be cheating if you knew you had to bring girlfriend out and used the book purchase as an excuse to get $50 from your father. Instead you would be guilty of something lesser, by lying to your father and covering up your mistake.

Scenario 2

The Catholic Archbishop is raising funds to renovate his ageing church - the Cathedral of the Good Shepherd. Because this is a National Monument, it also receives part funding by the Government. Donations and offerings are being solicited from worshipers and well wishers. In addition the Church also receives regular donations and offerings for ordinary use. Can the Archbishop use building funds from the Govt for any other purpose? The answer is no, this is public money, he has to use it for the renovations. Can he used funds specifically donated for the renovations for other purposes? Now this is a grey area - if the donor is known, he can always ask that donor for permission to use it differently, but if the donor is anonymous, then it depends on church rules and laws relating charity. But can he use ordinary donations to fund the renovations or something else? Yes, he can.

Scenario 3

Your friend gives you $100 and his HP bill and asks you to pay for it, as he's too busy to do it himself. After receiving it, another friend tells you that he's about to receive some funds from his father, but needs $100 to go to JB to collect it. He asks you for $100 promising to repay it promptly. Since you don't have $100 on you, you instead lend him the $100 you got for the bill payment. He goes and collects the money in JB and promptly repays the $100, which you then use to pay the bill. Did you cheat your friend? Probably not, but under the law you may broken some minor procedure by using the money for a different purpose, even if it was in good faith.

Or maybe Kong Hee was just a fool, setting himself and CHC as laughing stocks beyond April 1.

So turning back to KH, the question is whether these 3 scenarios fit into what he's alleged to have done. If he came out with a scheme like in Scenario 1 to dupe donors into donating so he could fund Ms Ho's career, that would be cheating. But if he got them without deception but used it as such and then covered it up, it would be something lesser. If he as in Scenario 2, received funds specifically for church building and used it for Ms Ho, then he would be guilty of cheating. However if the funds were not specified, and he used it as such, the question would boil down whether he's allowed to under church rules and the Charities Act to use them for this. Or if even the funds were donated for church building, whether he could use them differently if it was provided for under law or if the church constitution granted him that power. Finally if like Scenario 3, he received the funds, but saw a more urgent need to use it for Ms Ho's career, and then later took steps to repay the amount, he might only be guilty of something lesser.

Edwin Tong appears to be grappling with more than a Burmese Python in this case.

So there it is, my take on the case as it stands and where it might be heading based on what I've read thus far in the press and online. Mr Tong might be using a legal strategy to paint KH as a fool into believing that by funding Ms Ho's career, he could make her a Shakira or Beyonce, and thereby use that to raise his church's profile and achieve its goal of winning over new converts. The fact that it failed miserably is immaterial, the Law does not punish you for being dumb or having foolish dreams. The prosecution is trying to prove otherwise, that there was a clear deception or at the very least, even if there was no deception at the beginning, there was evidence of a cover-up or improper auditing after it became clear things were going south. Something like the Watergate Affair, Richard Nixon did not order the break in at Watergate, but once he found out, he authorised a cover up.

The Watergate Scandal brought down Richard Nixon and his associates. Will KH suffer the same fate because of the Crossover?

Whichever way this turns out, we'll only know sometime in the middle of next year, unless there's a dramatic turn, with the prosecution failing to prove a 'prima facie case' (and the case thrown out) or if the defendants including KH, 'throw in the towel' and plead guilty. This whole saga may be sordid and leave some of us dumb-struck at the foolishness of KH, but it appears that there was a 'winner' in all of this. Yes, like or loathe her, Sun Ho sure did have have a 'whale of a time' living the high life of a super-star, residing in Beverly Hills and rubbing shoulders with the stars. Now how many wives can boast that their husband did those kind of things for them?


Sun Ho at the Grammy Awards. I would describe this as a 'wardrobe malfunction', Sun Ho would describe it as 'the time of her life'

Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), the nation's 1st PM turns 90 today, which incidentally is also the 50th anniversary of Malaysia Day. I've finally decided to write a piece on him, because it would be kinda strange having a sociopolitical blog on Singapore and writing on subjects but avoiding any piece on LKY. It would like writing about world football but failing to mention Brazil, or talking about royalty today, but ignoring Queen Elizabeth II altogether.

Brazil's 1982 WC team. You just can't talk football without mentioning Brazil. The same with LKY and Singapore politics.

Opinions on LKY generally would attract a lot of positive vibes especially from those who can see no wrong in the man or his People's Action Party (PAP). To them he's like a modern day Messiah who rescued/founded Singapore from a poor fishing village and turned it into a modern metropolis (Sorry Raffles, you can join Parameswara in the dust bin of history). But there are others, who due to their opposition of him and his party have unfortunately suffered one way or the other, and until this day have a deep seated hatred of him and everything he represents. Take blogger Gopalan Nair for instance. A former opposition candidate and lawyer, he's been jailed and disbarred and as such uses his blog - http://singaporerecalcitrant.blogspot.sg/ to launch a tirade at every perceived injustice at LKY's door. Do I agree with him? Obviously no, but whom am I to judge him? If perhaps I had suffered for my convictions, this very blog might have turned out to be a staging ground to rant at LKY and the PAP too.

Now an American, Gopalan Nair hates LKY with every breath of his body. His blog criticises LKY for every possible wrong to have befallen Singapore.

Since I haven't suffered any injustice, I think I can be a little less partisan in offering my opinion of him. As in the title, it's just my own view - just 1 man's, and in the final analysis, I don't think this piece will be ever read by LKY and even if it was, it would hardly matter to him anyway. Also it's a little play on his book - One Man's View of the World, because again in the final analysis, while LKY can have the most grandiose plans and ideas for the world, and receive a lot of well wishes from world leaders, it's also very unlikely they would attempt to follow his lead on policy. Maybe 1 or 2 would, but I don't think Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, David Cameron et al, would be rushing to get aides to decipher and strategise on his proposals.

Just as LKY's entitled to offer his view of the world, I think I'm entitled to my views of him.

My take on LKY

a) He was very lucky

This might appear sacrilege to some PAP die-hards, but I think even he would have to concede the point. Don't forget he was born into an upper middle-class family that was able to send him to the UK to study Law. Not many Singaporean Chinese could afford that. No doubt he did his part in excelling in his studies. And next you gotta consider that he survived WWII and Japanese Occupation. It is a fact that many of us today forget, that we would not be around today if our fathers perished in that war. Some anti-Lee figures will accuse him of collaboration, but the plain facts are there is no concrete evidence to such allegations, just mere inference and we have to accept his version of how he managed to survive and leave it at that.

LKY posing with residents during 1 of his early forays into politics.

His next lucky break was his foray into politics at a time when the call for independence was ringing loudly throughout the world and it also appeared at Malaya and Singapore's doorsteps. His work in the unions and his education gave him a headstart, and he was in the right place at the right time.

Dr Toh Chin Chye, the man who nearly headed the PAP and thus become PM.

Luck also had to play a part in his attaining the leadership of the PAP he help found. He had good colleagues in Toh Chin Chye, S Rajaretnam and Goh Keng Swee and he had survived a narrow vote for the leadership over Toh. And then he had Lim Chin Siong, whose broad appeal to the Chinese lower and middle class attracted many votes to the party. Of course, Lim was proving to be a thorn in his side, but again luck played a part when then CM Lim Yew Hock gave him the 1959 elections on a platter by arresting and jailing Lim and his cohorts. That cemented his party's popularity and he was able to consolidate power without the interference of Lim.

Not JBJ, not Chiam See Tong not Mahatir, LKY's biggest arch-rival was Lim Chin Siong.

The next lucky break came prior to our merger with Malaya on his 40th birthday. The Malayan PM was unwilling to admit Singapore into the Federation because of his fears of the Communist threat, so it fell again to the British to use their powers under the ISA to round-up and jail Lim and gang a 2nd time, before they had a chance to contest the 2nd elections of 1963 that again returned the PAP to power.

Barisan Socialis members in the early 60s, their decision to walk out of Parliament and boycott future elections proved a telling point that helped the PAP to control and cement power.

He would have another stroke of good luck when the Barisan Socialis decided to walk out of Parliament and not contest future elections. It turned out to be one of the most foolish decisions by an opposition party, as it paved the way for Lee to rule unchallenged and cement his and his party's stamp on Singapore. And since then every opposition party has struggled to gain a foothold or offer a serious alternative to the PAP at the ballot box.

LKY and Cabinet proclaiming Singapore's Independence on 9th August 1965 at City Hall.

Perhaps LKY also had a stroke of bad luck, because he never saw full independence of Singapore and the events of 9th August 1965 came as a shock to him. But he was able to for the 1st time to govern Singapore on his own without any form of interference from other countries or powers. And he made the most of it.

b) LKY was/is a very intelligent man

You can accuse LKY of some things, but stupidity definitely isn't one of them. Unlike the many newly installed/elected leaders in independent countries in the 50s and 60s, LKY avoided their chief mistake - going after the money. Most of these leaders would later fall by the wayside despite their lofty ideals because once in power, they sought to entrench themselves by ensuring that lucrative contracts headed their way and that of their cronies. Instead LKY distanced himself from this - I don't think there's ever a case where you can prove he was corrupt in any form, LKY instead went for power. He consolidated his control and made damn sure that his policies got carried out.

A floor plan of a 4 room HDB flat in the late 1970s. Modern housing has to be one LKY's greatest achievements.

Despite any reservations, you gotta admit his record speaks for itself. He seized on Lim Yew Hock's drive for more schools by introducing compulsory education. Most people were still living in attap huts and kampungs, but LKY pressed on to ensure that the move to public housing was permanent. Basic things like drinking water, electricity, proper sewage systems and public transport were carried out meticulously. Singapore quickly woke up from its slumber and was well on its way to modernisation - and as PM, LKY has every right to the accolade as the 'Father of Development' - (and not the Founding Father title bestowed on him by PAP die-hards).

c) LKY had several good men under him

It's no use being a great leader if you don't have the proper persons under you to direct your plans and policies. And LKY was extremely fortunate or very wisethat he was able to procure the services of his early Ministers and Administrators. Alone he would have never been able to carry his vision, but such a reliable and loyal team helped tremendously. His appointment of Dutchman Albert Winsemius as the Chief Economic Advisor was a master-stroke. Prof Winsemius' advice helped LKY make Jurong an industrial hub that created many jobs for the fledgling country and his policies also turned Singapore into an air and sea hub.

LKY and wife with Dr Winsemius. The Dutchman's appointment as Chief Economic Advisor, might go down as LKY's greatest ever appointment.

1 other fact that should not be forgotten was LKY's ability to marshal Singaporeans to work hard and take part in nation building. He realised he had a core group of citizens from India and China, that had no choice but to make this country their home because of events back home. He used this mass migration to great effect and urged them to build a better home for their children. Our parents built this country and they did it under LKY's stewardship. A lesser leader might have had a harder time in cajoling them, but LKY used his authority and charm to great effect.

d) His Flaws

Once a hater, but these days LKY  holds the CCP (in session above) in a very positive light.

Like all great leaders, alas even LKY had his flaws. His stubbornness in pursuing policies like the 'Stop at 2', 'Graduate Mothers Scheme' and even his heavy handed use of the Law to silence critics are some of those. And because of that, we are facing the repercussions today.We have a clear problem with pro-creation and by making the PAP too powerful, the party is in danger of losing touch of the struggles the common man faces and has a hard time accepting criticism of policies that people do not want. It's said the most important thing in being a father, is letting go - let your children chart their life course - you provided the basics, but there comes a time, you must let them loose. That perhaps has been LKY's biggest flaw, being such an intelligent man who achieved much for his country, he still cannot accept that his country is entitled to disagree with him and do things differently. I find it sad that a man who fought Communism (especially Chinese Communism) now finds aspects of Chinese Communist rule appealing. To me, no matter how good or successful the Communist Party is managing China today, democracy with all its flaws is still the best and only course that Singapore must follow. The people must always be masters of their own destiny, even if you have created the best Govt or party, it must boil down to them to have unfettered and free choice in choosing their leaders.

Conclusion

In some ways LKY has made the PAP very much like the British Colonialists he fought against for independence. An entrenched institution that refused to brook or accept criticism of their methods and being slow to relinquish their stranglehold on power, because they either thought they had the right to rule or that only they knew how to get the job done.

That said, I think LKY will be judged in a positive light by historians. I think George W Bush got it right when he said this year that a legacy can only be judged 50 years or more after you've left office and by that time, you'd be dead anyway. Given that LKY has served for more than 50 years, it's possible to reflect on part of his legacy, but the true test would be how Singaporeans 50 years from now look back at his time in power. Maybe LKY will just have to make do with what his former nemesis Dr Mahatir Mohd once said when asked how he wanted history to reflect on his time as Malaysia's PM - merely that he was PM at the time.

Lee Kuan Yew in August 2013. Love him or loathe him, turning 90 is a rare feat, we shouldn't begrudge him.

That said, I am sure many Singaporeans (not of anti-PAP persuasion) will join me in wishing him well on the occasion of his 90th birthday. Discovery Channel has program on LKY that will air tonight, perhaps some of you might want to check it out.

Lawyer Madasamy Ravi has always been in the news, usually for representing clients with some 'beef' against the Govt, defending human rights and occasionally for some 'antics' he pulls off, as a result of having a 'bi-polar disorder'. He may not be among the best or top echelon of lawyers here and probably doesn't have a long experience of practising law, but there is 1 quality he possesses that no one can begrudge him, and sets him apart from many other lawyers, even the senior ones. That quality is his tremendous energy and determination to fight for the best possible outcome for his clients.

Lawyer M Ravi is 'the go to guy', for people on the wrong end of the Govt's stick.

No case highlighted this quality more than the matter of PP (Public Prosecutor) v Yong Vui Kong, a 25 year old Malaysian. To recap: In 2006, Yong then an 18 year old, was already involved with unsavoury criminal elements in KL. Soon he became a drug courier for this syndicate (although he denies he knew he was delivering drugs) and was making multiple deliveries to Singapore. However his luck eventually ran out and he was arrested by the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) sometime in June 2006. After analysis the drugs was determined to be heroin and weighed in at around 48 gm. Actually the initial amount was much larger I believe, normally in heroin trafficked here, almost 90 % of it are impurities and other elements. For the purpose of the Law, only the pure heroin content is taken into consideration. So his amount trafficked was probably in the range of 400-500gm prior to analysis, which reduced it to 48 gm of pure heroin. For 400gm, that would cost in the several thousands on the street, thus it was indeed a substantial amount he trafficked.

A youthful Yong Vui Kong was charged with trafficking nearly 48gm of heroin and faced death by hanging after being convicted.


He was duly charged in court for trafficking heroin, which carries a mandatory death sentence for any amount above 14.99gm. During the High Court trial, Justice Choo Han Teck had asked the Prosecution if they would be willing to reduce the charge because of his relatively young age - he was just 6 months older than the minimum age - whereby accused persons can given capital punishment (18 years and older). The DPP declined and upon convicting Yong, Justice Choo was obliged to sentence him to death.

Justice Choo Han Teck presided over Yong's trial. He had tried to persuade the DPP to reduce the charges against Yong, but the PP declined to exercise that discretion, which only he (the PP) possessed. Justice Choo then was duty bound under Law, to impose the mandatory death sentence upon finding Yong guilty.

The next step for accused persons sentenced to death is to have the right of an automatic appeal to the Court of Appeal - the country's highest court. Yong who had been represented then by lawyer Kelvin Lim, advised him (the lawyer) not to proceed with the appeal as he had the mistaken belief the Appeal couldn't proceed unless he had fresh evidence to rebut the charges, moreover he had lost the will to fight. (These were the versions that were reported by sources close to Yong). With the legal process at an end, Yong had a final chance to appeal to the President for clemency. This is where M Ravi came into the picture, he was informed of this case and took over the case 'pro-bono' (working for free). Mr Ravi did the customary clemency petition sometime in late 2009. However on 20th November that year, the President (acting on the advice of the Cabinet) rejected Yong's petition and he was duly scheduled to be hanged on December 4th.

The Supreme Court of Singapore. The Court of Appeal, the nation's highest court sits at the very top of the building (where the spaceship like disc is perched).

It was from this juncture onwards, where Ravi's sterling quality of dogged and unrelenting determination to save his client's life came into play. In almost every other case involving a death sentence that has exhausted the 2 stage legal process - High Court trial and appeal before the Appellate Court, and the final avenue of executive clemency, the matter would be over. Practically every lawyer defending such a prisoner, would advise him to make his peace with God and his family, and prepare himself for the inevitable date with death. But not every lawyer is M Ravi - he would try his best to find some legal loophole or never considered possibility. He had tried this before - I can't recall how many times, but I remember his first - where he tried desperately to save his client - another Malaysian youth, that time an Indian in his early 20s. Despite his best efforts, up to a point where he got into a heated argument with Justice Woo Bih Li and got cited for contempt of court and possible suspension/disbarment - he failed in his mission and his client was eventually hanged.

Mr Ravi clashed with High Court Judge, Justice Woo Bih Li.

2 days before Yong's scheduled execution, Ravi made a desperate plea for a stay of execution on the grounds that Yong's appeal had not been heard, and it would be a bad precedent to set - where a person is condemned after the initial trial and no superior court had stepped in to ensure that the trial judge arrived at his decision based on the correct legal procedure. It's always better to proceed with caution in these cases where the ultimate penalty is imposed, because nothing can be done to reverse it, if it was proceeded with but later found that some new evidence or error of law had arisen. This time, the duty judge hearing the application agreed and Yong was spared the hangman's noose for the time being, and 6 days later, the stay was extended until the Court of Appeal heard the appeal and arrived at its decision.



M Ravi with a team of foreign lawyers including Edward Fitzgerald (2nd from left), a Queen's Counsel, who volunteered to assist in Yong's appeal.




Ravi then proceeded to prepare for this appeal even enlisting the help of Queen's Counsels (the UK's top legal eagles). On the other side, he worked with NGOs to highlight the case and petition for clemency for Yong. Yong having outlived his execution, was also able to see his mother and family for the 1st time since the arrest and he became a more devout Buddhist.

Yong Vui Kong and his mother pictured together in a campaign poster.

In March 2010, the appeal was heard before the appellate court chaired by then Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong. It arrived at its decision in May that year, but alas, it upheld the verdict imposed by the High Court and Yong again had a date with the hangman. In the interim, Ravi and other NGOs rallied to the cause, even petitioning the Malaysian Govt to appeal on his behalf. Although the Malaysian Govt declined, many Malaysian parliamentarians including the Foreign Minister Anifah Aman wrote to the Singapore authorities in their personal capacity. Separate campaigns to save Yong from the gallows was launched on both sides of the Causeway.

Some of the Malaysian MPs and Senators who spoke up on Yong's behalf to the Singapore Govt.

Meanwhile Ravi started on another legal maneuver, this time questioning the death penalty and hanging in particular, as being a cruel and inhumane punishment contrary to Articles 9(1) and 12 (1) of our Constitution.
The High Court rejected his arguments, but Ravi did not stop there, he filed another appeal before the Court of Appeal, which again rejected his arguments in April 2011. The next step he took was to file another clemency petition to the President to spare Yong's life.

1 of the numerous vigils, talks, campaigns and gatherings assembled to plead for Yong's life.

Having failed twice with his legal arguments, Ravi this time tried another tact - challenging the clemency process as being flawed and improperly managed by the Cabinet. Instead he argued that the decision to grant clemency was solely under the purview of the President. Again the High Court rejected this argument, ruling that while the President exercises this power, he had to act on the 'advice' (in reality the decision) of the Cabinet. Finally in April 2012, the Court of Appeal upheld this decision and it appeared Yong had finally run out of legal avenues.

Now some people have questioned Ravi's motives and his decision to go through with all these legal challenges. They suggest that Ravi is merely delaying the inevitable and giving Yong and his family false hope. Some even argued it was a waste of public resources (Court's time and public expense for hearing costs). Others went further and suggested that Ravi was just an attention seeker, using this case to raise his profile as an 'International Human Rights activist cum lawyer' with minimal regard to Yong's fate. Finally there were also some who put the blame squarely at Yong's door - which had a legitimate point. Nobody forced him to traffic drugs - he chose to take that path, and drugs destroy lives and are a menace to the well-being of society. As such he had to be hanged like others before him, failing to do so would indicate partiality on the part of the Courts or Govt.

My views on this case, can be summed up with 2 questions:
A) Did Yong knowingly traffic drugs? Answer: Yes
B) Should Yong be hanged? Answer: No.

Some of the heroin seized from drugs traffickers displayed at CNB's office.

Yong has denied knowing that the 'gifts' he delivered into Singapore on behalf of his 'boss' and 'gang' in Malaysia was in fact heroin. Obviously I do not have full arguments made before the courts, but in 'layman's terms', I find it hard to belief that he was unaware or completely innocent and naive. Firstly, he wasn't caught the first time he trafficked, he had done it repeatedly, surely a reasonable person would after sometime question why was he making these deliveries and what were the contents? Being Malaysian, he would also be well aware that drugs trafficking carries the death penalty on both sides of the border. Although just 18, it was never proved that he was very immature, had a low IQ or just plain stupid. Moreover even if  he was a bit dumb and immature, the most logical course would be to consult an adult friend or family member and relate this matter to them, soliciting their views and advice. Surely a reasonable person 18 years or no, would have some suspicions. Yet Yong chose to be blind to all these because of the money he was raking in - which incidentally should raise another red flag. He probably knew what he was doing, and even if he didn't, refused to take precautions or effort to find out.

Some of the logos of secret societies in Malaysia. Some have direct affiliates in Singapore.

The 2nd point comes via his own testimony that he got involved in a gang in KL. In Singapore and Malaysian terms, this would be a 'secret society'. These societies have ties in both countries, a gang in Malaysia would be affiliated to another gang or to the branch of the same gang here. I have friends who were gang members and 1 common thing all gangs share is protection of its members. After all that's the 1st reason why people join gangs, to have protection, 'a back up force if you like'. And gang leaders would never trick their subordinates into doing something so risky as trafficking in drugs. Doing so and if such a member was caught would make the gang look very bad and lose its respect 'on the streets'. They would also try their best to recruit 'outsiders' to do these kind of 'jobs' as far as possible, and would only allow their members to do it, if they insisted on going through with it and bearing the risks themselves without sullying the gang's name and reputation. Therefore it's highly probable that Yong would have been told of the contents. Maybe he was a 'bit gung-ho and had some youthful immaturity' - knowing the risks but too overly confident that he would get away with it.

M Ravi with Yong's brother leaving the Supreme Court after another defeat. But still he persevered and refused to throw in the towel.

And so back to the case. Having failed thus far, it looked like Ravi had exhausted the legal avenues with only the Presidential pardon able to save Yong's life. However I fully agreed with all the actions undertaken by him. Sometimes in life you must have optimism, to not give up until it's over. Every day delayed, is another day of life for Yong.  I had written previously about the death penalty in a post :

http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg/2013/04/death-to-death-penalty.html

While I support the death penalty in certain cases, I don't think it should be pronounced on drug traffickers especially the couriers or 'mules'. As such, I fully supported Ravi's methods, as long as there was a chance, he was right to try it, in order to spare Yong's life. And then out of the blue, a few years after Yong's supposed execution date in 2009, the Govt decided to review the death penalty. Yong (and all death row inmates) got another stay of execution without having to petition the court!. Finally in 2012, the Govt amended the Law and it passed with consent, giving everyone who was facing the penalty another chance to appeal, and if their cases met certain conditions, they could petition the judge to amend the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The key condition being that the PP must provide a 'certificate of cooperation' stating that the prisoner had assisted substantively in investigations and as such the PP was no longer seeking the mandatory death sentence to be imposed.

And so it transpired that Yong's case has been reviewed and the PP has decided to issue the certificate to him:  http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/index.php/headlines/30687-pair-on-death-row-may-escape-gallows.
Although this is by no means a 100% certainty that he will escape the gallows, Mr Ravi must still persuade a judge to reconsider the sentence, and the judge still retains the power to overrule the PP's recommendation. However, the certificate removes the biggest hurdle that has 'hung like an albatross' around Yong's neck these past 5 years, and he clearly has a better chance of saving his life than he ever had since his arrest. And if he does succeed he has a chance of being freed in 20 years (maybe a few more years), when he would still only be in his mid-40s.

Yong's cooperation fingered the masterminds/main players of the drug trafficking syndicate. Here's the charge sheet of 1 of them.

And this is so, in no small part due to his lawyer M Ravi, who never gave up and stuck to his guns. He believed his duty was to act in the best interests of his client. Whatever his failings or faults, past, present and in future, nothing can take away the credit he deserves in saving a person's life. His dogged determination and refusal to give up even in the face of insurmountable obstacles is a victory for humanity. And for that, I salute you, Mr Madasamy Ravi.

If not for Ravi's unwavering determination and unorthodox methods of appeal, Yong Vui Kong would not be around to have that 2nd chance. He even campaigned for him.

NB: I must concede I may have gotten the sequence of his appeals jumbled up. Some sources I read put some cases ahead of the other, while other sources have it as reflected above. The facts are correct though, he's had 3 appeals before the Court of Appeal and 2 clemency petitions.

Needless to say with Lee Kuan Yew turning 90 last Monday, the main stream media notably the Straits Times has been waging a media blitz to remind all Singaporeans of the tremendous contributions of the former Prime Minister. Naturally we have been inundated with remarks and articles by notable Singaporeans who were falling over themselves in a rush to have their praises of the great leader read and heard. Not to be outdone, the Straits Times former Editor, Janadas Devan had his speech at a conference at Shangri-La Hotel on Monday plastered in the broadsheet's Saturday feature special yesterday.

There was a lot of big talk and praise at 'The Big Ideas Conference' last Monday.

That conference was suitably titled 'The Big Ideas of Lee Kuan Yew'. In the article, Mr Devan's title is listed as 'Director of the Institute of Policy Studies' - a Govt think tank. What they conveniently failed to add was his other title - Chief of Government Communications at the Ministry of Communications and Information.
http://www.mci.gov.sg/content/mci_corp/web/mci/peoplekeywordsearch.html?keyword=janadas%20devan
Perhaps it was an oversight and perhaps we should dispel the notion that Mr Devan's article entitled 'Gardeners with Guts' was an attempt to drum home support of the Govt by one of its chief spokesmen.

Mr Lee at Tree Planting Day 1963. He's been called many things, but this is the 1st time I've heard him called a gardener!


In a nutshell Mr Devan's article states (to use the words in the paper) - 'The image that occurs to one as we recall what went into creating this country is not of a nanny or housekeeper, let alone the East Asian autocrat of caricature. A more apt image might be that of a constant gardener whose careful husbandry - of resources, talent and values - was directed persistently at fitting everything to a whole'. This may well have some truth in it. LKY did after all put a lot of commitment and drive in making Singapore a more modern and somewhat successful country. In my own nutshell I can summarise that looking at the overall picture, you gotta say LKY probably got more right than he got wrong. However this article is not about my thoughts but Mr Devan's attempt to gloss over the flaws made by the former PM - the image of of a nanny and replace it with that of a careful gardener.

Former Minister of State and Ambassador Lee Khoon Choy whose victory in the Hong Lim by-elections saved LKY from arrest according to Mr Devan.

Unfortunately for Mr Devan, I submit that his very argument fails with the example he gave in the speech/article. That example was the Hong Lim by-elections of 1965. This was just weeks before our separation from Malaysia. Tensions were running high and there was concern that Malaysian PM Tunku Abd Rahman would consider arresting LKY. The reason being the PAP's poor showing in the 1964 Malaysian GE, and whether the PAP still had the legitimacy and mandate in Singapore, with its vision of a 'Malaysian Malaysia' based on meritocracy. The PAP had lost the Hong Lim seat twice, and a further defeat might just prove to be the catalyst for KL to take that drastic measure. Instead Mr Devan argues (correctly) that the voters of Hong Lim understood the high stakes and rallied behind the local Govt and the PAP won the seat with a comfortable 60% of the votes. The rest is history - with the victory the PAP showed it had the mandate, and the Tunku decided the better course was to let Singapore go rather than remove LKY from the scene and try to micro-manage Singapore himself.

Then Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abd Rahman putting his point across to LKY.

Mr Devan's argument thus is now based on the premise that the voters of Hong Lim and by inference Singapore as a whole, were matured enough and wise enough to understand the issues and gave a ringing endorsement through the ballot box. As such it is a fact seen over and over again, whether here or elsewhere, that democracy trumps everything else - in short the will of the people must be respected. The problem now for Mr Devan is how is he going to square this up with the views and actions taken in later years by LKY in respect of democracy?

Worker's Party MPs from Aljuneid GRC . Are they symbols of democracy or repentance?

Was it not LKY who said, he wanted 'fathers' (meaning parents and older voters) to have double the votes of 'younger and immature voters'? Because he feared younger Singaporeans might vote in more opposition. Was it not Mr Lee who introduced the GRC system that in effect dilutes the voter's ratio of electing 1 candidate for each vote into something that could range from 1:3 to 1:6? Was it not Mr Lee who chided the voters of Aljunied and told them to repent for making a choice of the WP over the PAP? Was it not Mr Lee who raised the deposits for candidature for a Parliamentary seat from $500 (which he inherited from the British - and it still remains at $500 in the UK today) to nearly $15,000 today? I could go on and on, but I think the picture is somewhat clear.

Janadas Devan, the Chief Spokesman of the MCI, certainly knows how to perform his role.

The picture simply put - while Mr Lee may have at times been a careful gardener as Mr Devan says, but he has also been a 'nanny and autocrat' with little tolerance for dissenting voices. Just because he's clever, just because he's gotten many things right and just because he's seen his party win clean sweeps, does not mean that the will of the people may be cast aside for the sake of progress or modernisation, and all manner of opposition silenced. The best example I can think of is that of a family. Each of us has a family, and each family has its own fair share of problems. Just because your family is having a hard time, does it mean that an outsider can come and order your family around to clean up whatever perceived mess without your consent?

If the people of Singapore in their wisdom decide to vote in the opposition, however 'pathetic, useless or underwhelming' they may perceived to be by the PAP', does that give the PAP the right to stop them or put obstacles in the people's choice? The answer has to be No.

Mr Devan as the chief spokesman of the Govt, the best advice you can give them is to let the people make the choices they want. Singaporeans today are not different than in 1965, in fact I would say we are more mature. We understand what is at stake and the PAP should not try to become like the British colonialists back then, who always thought they and not the people, knew what was best. Be open and fair, who knows maybe the legacy of the 'careful gardener' will be given another ringing endorsement?

Mr Janadas Devan's father, the late President Devan Nair's thoughts on this matter would have made a far more interesting read. (NUS picture of Mr Nair as Chancellor)

An interesting after-thought would be what his father, the former President who had a major falling out with LKY and the PAP, would make of this article/speech?

I had previously not taken any position in the ongoing saga of repealing Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises homosexual sex between men. However with recent developments, most notably the rejection of the application to be represented by a Queen's Counsel by 2 persons seeking to declare this section unconstitutional, I believe it's time to close this chapter once and for all by repealing the disputed law.

Section 377A is probably the most talked about in Singapore. Even the Internal Security Act doesn't get such coverage.


Section 377A of the Penal Code makes it an offence for any male to procure, attempt to procure, or abets the commission of an act of gross indecency with another male, whether in private or in public. The penalty is jail for up to 2 years. Parliament had debated this issue back in 2007 and the Govt decided to retain the law primarily based on the issue of morality, conservative Asian values or culture and as a nod to mainstream religions that regard homosexuality as inconsistent with their teachings.

The Govt had also announced that no prosecution will be undertaken if these acts are done by 2 (or more) consenting adults (18 and above) in private. I felt that the position taken then was basically quite alright and also as a comprise between the 2 main opposing parties - religious groups and gay advocacy groups. However recent events both here and abroad have made reconsider my position and I think it's time to repeal it altogether. My reasons are as follows:

A) Enough time has lapsed

Then Nominated MP, Siew Kum Hong made a passionate plea for the repealing of Section 377A in October 2007.

When then Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong raised the issue of repealing the section in 2007, it was the 1st time Parliament had a chance to debate it. Outside parliament, society had more or less also become more accommodating and tolerant of gays. However since it was the 1st time, there was also a lot of apprehension among the more conservative section of society and of course a jolt to religious groups that oppose homosexuality outright. It was a good time to debate and raise the issue but perhaps just too sudden to repeal altogether.

Ivan Heng, Mark Richmond and Michelle Chia promoting Pink Dot 2013. The majority of Singaporeans had no objections to the event.

But now as we approach the end of 2013, much water has passed under the bridge, and people are not as cautious as before about the existence of gays in our society. Almost everyone has a friend who's gay, have seen movies or shows about gays or at least a character in the plot who's gay. Events like Pink Dot garner a lot of coverage. In short society in Singapore now accepts that gays are a part of it.

B) The issue won't go away.

Despite the measures undertaken, the retaining of the section has been a sore point among the gay community. Challenges have been made in court and it has thus far been struck down. Lately 2 men who have been in a relationship for 16 years have challenged the constitutionality of the Law. They argued that despite the no prosecution stance, they are still liable for arrest and investigation and the section still marks them as having broken a law. They lost their case in the High Court but now are appealing it in the nation's highest court - the Court of Appeal. They have engaged the services of a Senior Counsel - Deborah Barker and have sought to have a renowned Queen's Counsel - Lord Peter Goldsmith, a former Attorney General in the UK to represent them as well. This application has been rejected as the Judge felt that Ms Barker is more than capable of handling the matter, whilst noting that in appeals the written arguments are more important than oral arguments. Lord Goldsmith could still assist in the drafting of the arguments, it was not necessary for him to address them orally.

An application to admit Lord Goldsmith - the former AG of the UK to argue an appeal on the validity of Section 377A, proved unsuccessful (PA photo)

The Appellate Court will hear the case from October 14th onwards. Because of the implications - the questioning of Articles of the Constitution, the AG's Chambers have also been forced to appoint Senior State Counsels or lawyers to argue the Govt's response. The Court will then determine the matter and the verdict should be straightforward -  either they accept the plaintiff's arguments and rule the law unconstitutional or accept the status quo by declaring declaring otherwise.

Kenneth Chee (l) and Gary Lim (r) are the 2 appellants in the up coming case. 

Nevertheless if the Court throws out the case, the issue won't go away. The gay community will still feel hard done by and unlikely to stop their campaign to have the law repealed eventually. But what has society gained from this case? Nothing much, except that a lot of tax payers money and court's time would be wasted to hear this case, and lots of legal fees paid.

C) Only the Govt can resolve this issue

Even in the event the Court upholds the plaintiff's arguments and rules the law unconstitutional, it would fall on the Govt to enforce the decision by repealing  it. And if the Court goes against the plaintiff's appeal by declaring that the law isn't so, it will rule that only Parliament can change the law. In other words, it will come back to square 1 - at the end of the day only the Govt through Parliament has the authority to repeal the law.

The Govt can resolve this case and save the Court's time,  by declaring it's intention to handle a matter that it has the power and ability to do so.

D Is the Law really necessary?

The counter claim to my arguments above will obviously be, we shouldn't bow in to pressure just because some segment of society won't back down. That is very true, we shouldn't bow to pressure. However this matter is unique, because you cannot force a person to change his orientation by law. You can let religion promote morals, but it's like gambling, you cannot stop it. At the end of the day it boils down to the individual.

Is the law actually necessary? Will repealing it make more straight men turn gay? Of course not, gay men will remain gay and straight men will remain straight. Will repealing it harm religions? Of course not, religious groups and leaders are still free to preach their teachings which say it's wrong and their followers are free to accept this teachings.

Ratanlal and Dhirajlal's famous book on the interpretation of the Indian Penal Code. Our Penal Code is based on that Code.

A key question that has to be asked which has no bearing to the court case, is whether this law would have been included in a new constitution, if Singapore is granted independence tomorrow? I highly doubt so. This law was inherited from the Indian Penal Code which the British introduced here during colonial rule. The British themselves have removed this law from their statute books. If we did not inherit this law from the British, I doubt our statutes would have this law in the first place.

E) What other Laws are available after repeal? 

Let's be clear that repealing Section 377A should only be about that. Repealing it does not mean gay marriages will be allowed or that gay couples can adopt children or any other matter. Those matters obviously will be raised after this law is repealed but those are social issues that need more time, fuller debate, maybe even a referendum down the road. Those matters are not urgent and do not carry the stigma of arrest or criminality.

A map of countries that approved gay marriage. That situation does not arise with the 377A debate which is about criminality.

If Section 377A is repealed, it would only mean that gay men can engage in sexual activity in private. Existing laws pertaining to public nuisance and indecency exist for any acts in public, and they would then apply to any indecent homosexual acts in public. The laws pertaining to commercial sex would also apply. And rape laws must be updated to include any man who uses force on another man for sex.

F) This is not a major issue that would impact society 

Finally Section 377A is not a major issue facing Singaporeans now. If it's repealed it's not gonna turn out to be a major factor that would have an impact on people's lives. It would not also become an election issue, people are more concerned with jobs, foreign talents, transportation, housing and other bread and butter issues. They are not going to vote against the Govt over what 2 men do in their bedrooms. It's a non issue and by the time the next elections come, this matter would be a mere statistic and forgotten altogether.

Pastor Lawrence Khong should be allowed to carry on preaching against homosexuality. The gay community must accept people like him, even if they disagree with his views.

Religious leaders can't and won't use this turn their flock against the Govt either, but perhaps some gay men might just be swayed by it and cast their votes for them. The Govt loses nothing, and any fallout can be easily resolved by dialogue with religious groups assuring them that the repealing is merely removing an outdated punishment that isn't practised anymore, not a license for the promotion of a gay lifestyle. And even gay advocacy groups can be told that the repealing is just that, nothing more. These groups should also be made aware that as much as they have the right to pursue their orientation, religious groups have a right in their teachings which discourage it. In a secular society, both sides must learn to live with the other.

Problems like affordable public housing are more pressing to Singaporeans. Repealing Section 377A will have little or no impact whatsoever on the vast majority of citizens.

In closing, this debate and the actions taken to get Section 377A repealed have been going on long enough. It's getting pretty boring for the majority of us, not involved, bothered or touched by it. The law serves no purpose and poses no threat to religions, which are still allowed to preach against homosexuality. For gays, repealing the Law is just to remove any doubt or stigma of criminality for consensual sex between 2 men in private. It cannot be taken as a license to attack religions or as the green light to pursue more radical rights. It's just a recognition that society treats you like any normal person in regards to your sexuality. 

Let's just close this chapter once and for all and focus on the more pressing issues facing Singaporeans today.



 

                                       If you're happy with Mah Bow Tan, clap your hands!




I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I read the following interview Mah Bow Tan, the former Transport and National Development Minister gave to the New Paper:

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/mah-bow-tan-i-didnt-step-down-because-high-housing-prices-0

In the interview he claimed he wasn't pushed from his post as Minister because of skyrocketing HDB prices but because he felt it was time to retire and give the younger generation a chance to take over. Yeah right! If this was the case, the first question the reporter should have asked him was why he didn't retire from Parliament as well? Why stay on as an MP? Had he quit, maybe Dr Koh Poh Koon could have replaced him on the ticket, instead of having to face a humiliating defeat at Punggol East.

Dr Koh Poh Koon might have already been an MP, if Mah Bow Tan quit politics in 2011.

Not forgetting that his replacement as MND Minister was Khaw Boon Wan, no spring chicken himself, with a bypass surgery and merely 5 years younger than him. I don't see much difference between a 63 year old (his age at GE 2011) and the then 58 year old Mr Khaw. Using that as a yard stick, that means PM Lee's talk of finding a successor in future elections is hogwash, the successor should have already been there, anyone 5 years younger than him has a chance of becoming PM.

The very 'young' Khaw Boon Wan, whom Mah kindly vacated his Ministerial seat for. And some others had to take on 2 portfolios, Mah could have so easily held on to his, because of the shortage.

Clearly Mr Mah is in dreamland. And he should count his lucky stars that probably the only reason that he didn't follow his Aljuneid GRC MPs out of Parliament was the underwhelming campaign waged by his opponents and their then leader Goh Meng Seng. Had the NSP fielded a stronger team and focused more on Tampines GRC, they may have been able to cause an upset.

The only good thing to come out of the NSP's defeat at Tampines was the resignation of Goh Meng Seng from the party. Let's hope for the sake of voters he stays out of politics altogether.

And for his legacy, he claims with pride the development of the Marina Bay area. Yes, Mr Mah, the Marina Bay is gleaming now, but it would have been so the moment the Sands group decided to build their hotel and casino there. Instead of looking back with pride at that, you should have looked back with pride that you made public housing affordable and gave many Singaporeans a roof over their heads. Unfortunately you can't, because under your tenure, HDB prices have soared out of control and have reached a stage where owning one now will put future generations in deep debt. A 3 room flat on the resale market that was under $70,000 when you took over, now costs nearly 4 times that. The same goes for flats across the board. A 30 year studio apartment for elderly costs $100,000 that has to be paid in cash, when they are forced to downsize because they have no savings left after paying for their bigger flat or could not afford to complete the payments.

The Marina Bay, Minister Mah's pride and joy. I wonder if the sentiment is shared by those with exorbitant loans to pay off for their flats.

How about looking back with pride at that Mr Mah? Instead of making public housing affordable you allow it to skyrocket and now HDB is in a bind. To step in and make housing cheaper again would mean that those who paid the sky and moon for their flats, would never be able to recoup the amount paid and suffer huge losses. So the vicious cycle must continue, prices have to be kept high and people forced to struggle to pay them off. The only solution offered by your successor is to force them to buy very small studio apartments. Maybe you should try selling off your Tg Rhu condominium and moving into a tiny HDB studio apartment and see how you like it.

Then PM Lee Kuan Yew trumpeted Mah Bow Tan's qualifications in GE1984, but the voters of Potong Pasir saw through it and voted in Chiam See Tong (a) instead.

And how can we forget your previous tag as Mr COE when you were Transport Minister? Will you look back with pride at that too? Now that you have retired and said you want to spend more time with family, why don't quit your seat as MP as well and ask the PM to call for a by-election? I doubt you'll be asked to contest again, but if you really are going to, tell the PM you wanna end the same way you started - in a single member constituency (Potong Pasir 1984). Heck, if you do contest and win in a SMC, I'll gladly concede that Singaporeans will look back at your legacy with the same pride as you have for it.

Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam outside the Supreme Court with his ubiquitous 'mutton chop' side burns.

This week marks the 5th anniversary of the passing of Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam (known simply as JBJ). JBJ holds the distinction of becoming the 1st opposition MP elected into Parliament since independence. His entry into politics and especially Parliament, served a as severe jolt or wake up call to the people of Singapore in their quest for a more balanced, transparent and representative form of democracy. It can be said that JBJ's victory broke the 'glass ceiling' of 1 party rule and served as the catalyst for the growth of the opposition and alternative voices here. In some way, the electoral victories of Chiam See Tong, Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim and others can be traced back to the path first trodden by JBJ.

Pall bearers carrying the coffin of J B Jeyaretnam for his funeral service at St Andrew's Cathedral.

We have seen much this past month about the role of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) in Singapore's history and politics, yet JBJ's death anniversary has hardly raised a whimper in the national press despite his colourful and remarkable presence in our political history. This article while not exhaustive hopes to rekindle his memory as our 'Lion of Democracy'

A) Early life

JBJ was born as the 3rd child of a Ceylonese Tamil family, in Jaffna Peninsular, in then Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). His parents were Malayan Anglican Christians. Upon returning to Malaya he studied in a French convent in Muar (he was the only boy in his Primary 1 class!). His education like many was disrupted by WWII and his family evacuated to a Johor Bahru plantation and lived in a hut. He enrolled in Japanese classes/schools in JB and Syonan (Singapore's Japanese name) to further his studies as he put it - 'at the time we didn't know if this was truly the end of the British Empire'.

Having gained some proficiency in Japanese, he was quite naive when his Japanese tutor told him to follow him and start a Japanese class in Muar. He wanted to go, but his father put a stop to it and instead found him a job at the Census Dept. Later he moved on as an interpreter in the Transport Dept, when the Census Dept closed down. He was forthright in admitting why - at the time the Japanese started recruiting young men to work in 'the Death Railway' at the Siam-Burma border. Having a job meant that he wasn't likely to drafted in service at the notorious site. The job paid little but it gave him a chance to buy stuff like tapioca which became his family's staple food during the 44 month Japanese Occupation.

A stamp that was used in Johore during the Japanese Occupation.

He would go on to admit that the occupation moulded him into what he would become later. He was a shy and timid boy, but war forced him to take initiatives and be a man. It made him more out-spoken and independent. After the war he continued his education at the English College in Johor Bahru and then he moved to Singapore to complete his pre-university studies at St Andrew's School.

An image of a young J B Jeyaretnam (sans side-burns, which look of his do you prefer?)

In 1948 he left for England to read Law at University College, London. His father actually wanted him to read medicine instead. Instead he sent his application to read Law at University College (where Mahatma Gandhi had graduated) and was surprised to be admitted in. He graduated with LLB (Hons) in early 1951 and then passed his Bar exams later that year. Whilst in London, he met one Margaret Cynthia Walker, a fellow law student and a relationship blossomed. He was called to the Bar in England on 27th November 1951, thereafter returned to Singapore and joined the Legal Service. Margaret stayed behind in England but distance did not end the relationship and she joined him in Singapore in 1956. They got married in February 1957. They had 2 sons - Kenneth (b 1959) and Phillip (b 1964). JBJ's best man at his wedding was Tan Boon Teik, who would become Singapore's longest serving Attorney General (AG).

JBJ with his youngest son, Phillip, now a Senior Counsel in his own right.

In the Legal Service he first started on 'the other side of the fence' - as a Crown Counsel, DPP, Magistrate and finally 1st Magistrate (equivalent of today's Chief District Judge). His explanation for entering the Legal Service was the inspiration he took from John Laycock, the first local appointee in the Executive Council and later founder of the 1st political party - the Progressive Party. He believed he had to put public service first. He quit the Legal Service in 1963 to go into private practise. There are of course 2 versions for this - the JBJ version being he was disillusioned with the manner the Legal Service was heading under the new LKY Govt, or the LKY version that he quit because he was bitter at not being appointed a High Court Judge. (The norm for the Sub Court's highest judge).

B Entry into Politics

Initially JBJ like many of his fellow countrymen, was a fan of LKY. He admitted that when LKY first burst onto the scene, he was very impressed by what he saw as a fellow lawyer standing up for the rights of the ordinary workers and their unions. However as the PAP entrenched itself politically, he became disillusioned by what he saw as the trampling of the very basic rights of the people.

He was aligned to the Workers Party (WP) created by former Chief Minister David Marshall in 1957. After Marshall's defeat in the 1963 elections (having won the Anson seat in a 1961 by-election), the party's fortunes took a drastic tumble and it appeared on its way to oblivion. Marshall quit politics altogether, and his deputy Sam Chong Meng and the Secretary General, Chua Chin Liat were both detained under the ISA. The party leadership then fell to Chiang Seok Keang who somehow managed to barely keep it afloat.

JBJ was then mulling entering politics and intended to form his own party. However the WP through a group of lawyers invited JBJ to join then. He did so and in 1971 became its leader - the Secretary General at the age of 45.  His entry rejuvenated the party and it contested the 1972 GE under his stewardship. They ran in 26 seats and lost all, with JBJ losing in Farrer Park garnering a mere 23% of the vote. But this was the first step and more defeats were to follow.

A younger JBJ, around the time he took over the Worker's Party in the early 70s.

In the 1976 GE, he contested this time in Kg Chai Chee, and produced the best result amongst the opposition candidates, garnering 40% of the votes against the PAP's Andrew Fong. The dice had been cast and the WP with JBJ in particular, was becoming a force to be reckoned. In those days by-elections were routine and when the Radin Mas seat fell vacant following the death of it's incumbent, N Govindasamy in 1977, JBJ entered the fray. But it proved to be a humiliating defeat, he garnered less than 30% of the votes to the PAP's Bernard Chen.

In 1977, he faced what would prove to be the first of many - a lawsuit for defamation arising for certain remarks he made during the 1976 GE in rallies at Fullerton Square. It started when LKY in a press conference declared the opposition candidates as inconsequential men with no sense of what to do when elected. They would give everything away and try to be popular, or worse do what the followers of the Malayan Communist Party thought were popular. It was also quoted by the Straits Times that the PM remarked on Nomination Day, that opposition party leaders couldn't even manage their own personal fortunes and accumulate anything, as such how could they accumulate and manage the economy?

Lee Kuan Yew campaigning during the 1976 General Elections, which resulted in lawsuits against 5 opposition figures including JBJ.

JBJ then countered in 2 rallies both at Fullerton Square. In this first he accused the Govt of dishonesty in the re-settlement of farmers in the Jalan Kayu area and on the issue of sterilisation of mothers with more than 2 children. In the 2nd, he responded to LKY's remarks directed at the opposition and made the remarks that got him sued for defamation:

'Well my dear friends, I'm guilty of that. I'm not very good at the management of my own personal fortunes, but Mr Lee Kuan Yew, has managed his personal fortunes very well. He is the Prime Minister of Singapore and his wife is the senior partner of Lee & Lee and his brother is Director of several companies including Tat Lee Bank in Market Street, a bank that was given a permit with alacrity, banking permit license when other banks were having difficulty in getting the license'

JBJ was represented pro bono by John Mortimer QC and assisted by his wife, already diagnosed with cancer at that stage. Justice FA Chua found the remarks defamatory and awarded LKY who was represented by another QC, Bob Alexander, damages of $130,000 with costs.

 John Mortimer QC, who defended JBJ in the 1977 lawsuit. He also remembered for the television series ' Rumpole of the Old Bailey', which he wrote.

In 1979, a series of by-elections were called to bring in new blood into the Govt ranks. These elections saw the entry into politics of Tony Tan, Teh Cheang Wan, Howe Yoon Chong and Devan Nair. JBJ contested in Telok Blangah against the PAP's Rohan Kamis, but could only garner 38% of the votes. In 1980, a GE was called 2 days before Christmas. The Worker's Party contested in 8 seats, with JBJ setting up a rematch with Rohan Kamis in Telok Blangah. Although he did better than the previous year with 46% of the vote, he could not prevent another PAP clean sweep. The only other candidate to score over 40%, was a certain Chiam See Tong in Potong Pasir.

JB Jeyaretnam addressing a rally during the 1980 General Elections

So the 70s would end with JBJ building up his political clout and becoming a major threat to the PAP's clean sweep in Parliament, but after 5 contests, he had yet to break the glass ceiling. 1980 would also end in tragedy for him, with the passing of his wife Margaret, who lost her battle with cancer. Defeated and alone, he had to raise his 2 sons on his own (albeit as young adults), but he was not broken. In the next part, I'll touch on his later political battles until his death in 2008.

 

 I must concede I had wanted to write this part earlier but sometimes you need to find the inspiration to write or blog. Anyway life in Singapore is stressful as it is and writing or keeping up a blog is a kind of luxury, not available to many. Take Gintai for example - finally after a year's absence, he's restarted blogging and that too only after he lost his job at SMRT after 18 years. He blogs at - http://gintai.wordpress.com/

Anyway let's turn our focus back to that grand old Lion of Democracy - Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam or JBJ as he was commonly known. I'll pick up from where I left off.

A) A Political Breakthrough 

After ending 1980 on a sour note, with another election and the sad loss of his wife, 1981 would be a watershed year in JBJ's life.

Harbans Singh of the UPF (2nd from right) watches as JBJ greets PAP's Pang in the Nomination Hall. (ST photo)

The ball got rolling in May that year with the demise of our 2nd President, Benjamin Sheares. The then PM, Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) decided to nominate Anson MP and NTUC Chief, CV Devan Nair for the position. Mr Nair then resigned the seat he held for barely 2 years and a by-election (as was the norm then), was called. It was said that this year's Punggol East by-election had some similarities with the 1981 event, in that it was hoped (by the PAP) that the 2 main opposition political parties or top candidates, in this case - JBJ and the SDP's Chiam See Tong would contest. Both had garnered the highest votes amongst opposition candidates in GE 1980. If they did run, this could play into the hands of the PAP's candidate - Pang Kim Hin, a newcomer to the political scene. The situation was tense on Nomination Day, when both Chiam and JBJ turned up. In the end, Chiam withdrew graciously, but just like Punggol East there was to be no straight fight with the UPF's Harbans Singh throwing his hat into the ring. And just like it was to happen this year, he got bruised, garnering just short of 1% of the total votes.

JBJ (with Wong Hong Toy to his right) celebrating his 1981 victory with Anson residents (ST photo).

On election day on October 21st, JBJ stunned the nation by eking out a 4% victory over Pang to become the 1st opposition MP since independence. In fact looking back and comparing this year's by-election, the similarities were stunning. Like Dr Koh Poh Koon in Punggol East, Pang was a newcomer. He tried to fight his own campaign ignoring the grass-roots. His privileged position as a businessman failed to connect with the working class voters of the constituency. Victory was thus JBJ's to savour and he would prove to be a thorn in the PAP's flesh for the next 5 years in parliament.

J B Jeyaretnam's campaign poster during the 1984 General Elections.

In GE 1984, JBJ had to defend his seat against a 'star candidate' - Ng Pock Too, who was LKY's political secretary. Ng also had experience in the NTUC and EDB and it was hoped with his connections with the labour movement coupled with the backing of LKY, he would win back the seat for the PAP. It was not to be, JBJ easily retained the seat by winning a 13 percentage point victory. He remarked after being declared the winner -'My dear dear voters of Anson, you have withstood the onslaught of the mighty PAP, and I salute you!'

B) The People's Voice 

The UK had started to televise its parliamentary sittings and Singapore followed suit.For the 1st time ever, ordinary citizens got a chance to watch their MPs in action. The PAP though must have soon regretted the decision, because JBJ (and Chiam, the other elected Opposition MP) thrived under the cameras. Despite their overwhelming number of MPs, it was the PAP MPs who bore the brunt of JBJ's ripostes. Sometimes he would give lengthy rebuttals and at other times, just a short word or 2. Once Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon went on a rambling tirade at JBJ - saying he was disgrace to the voters of Anson and making remarks of that nature in relation to his role as their MP - JBJ, stood up and simply said - 'Why don't you go there and tell them that!?' Dr Aline Wong, another of the newly minted female MPs also dabbled in the anti-JBJ rhetoric lecturing him on his duties and roles as an MP - again JBJ came up with the perfect one-liner - 'Thank you, Grandmother!'

J B Jeyaretnam at the despatch box during the opening of Parliament in 1985.

Very few MPs it seemed could handle a debate with JBJ and it was left mainly to LKY to respond to JBJ in parliament. LKY needless to say went all out to paint JBJ in the most unflattering terms, calling him a 'dud' amongst other things. This strange term stuck so much so that JBJ's son and current Reform Party leader, Kenneth, calls himself -'Son of a Dud' in his writings. In another instance LKY said bluntly that JBJ was a troublemaker and it was his duty to destroy him politically. He remarked, 'so long as J B Jeyaretnam stands for what he stands for - a thoroughly destructive force, we will knock him. Everybody knows in my bag, I carry a hatchet and a very sharp one. You take me on, I take out my hatchet and we meet in the cul-de-sac.'
This moniker was the one JBJ decided to use to his advantage - portraying himself as the victim of the Hatchet Man (LKY).

JBJ was hugely popular in his Anson ward, that large crowds used to follow him every time he attended the constituency.

In the House, he rose to speak for those whom he felt had been left behind by the PAP in their push for economic development. In one instance he pushed for better compensation under the Land Acquisition Act where the Govt only paid a pittance to ordinary citizens for taking their land, only to build flats and charge them at market rates. He felt that the land owners too deserved to be paid at market rates. The Minister responded by saying that it was 'for the greater good' that the Govt bought such land at the 1970s rate because it saved the Govt 'millions in redevelopment costs'. Together with Chiam, JBJ was aghast even then that the Govt acquires land on the cheap and then builds flats and charges Singaporeans the market rate - a trend that many will note still takes place today, although the Govt still insists that the HDB is losing millions.

JBJ together with fellow opposition MP Chiam See Tong at an Istana reception with Speaker Yeoh Ghim Seng looking on.

JBJ was heart a democrat - he firmly believed in the democratic process, that ultimately the people must decide their own future, instead of having policies rammed down their throats by the Govt or not being consulted on things that affected their voting rights. He vehemently opposed the GRC system and the Elected Presidency which made changes to the voting rights of the people without the recourse of a referendum.

Then Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin, ordered a re-trial after JBJ was acquitted on all but 1 of the charges of misusing party funds.

As a lawyer, he wanted a system that followed the democratic principle - separation powers between the 3 branches of Govt - the Executive, Parliament and the Judiciary. In 1 speech before the House he questioned whether there had been interference in the judiciary in an ongoing case involving himself and other Worker's Party members over the transfer of party funds. Having been acquitted by the then Senior District Judge Michael Khoo of all the main charges except one, where he was fined just $1000, the case went to appeal before the then Chief Justice, Wee Chong Jin. The CJ ordered a re-trial and SDJ Khoo was transferred out of the judiciary. The CJ meanwhile had reached the mandatory retirement age and but was given an additional 3 year term on the recommendation of the PM. JBJ alleged Executive interference in the Judiciary and a Commission of Inquiry was set up, headed by Justice T S Sinnathuray. JBJ alleged that the CJ owing to his renewal was beholden to the PM amongst other things and requested certain assurances from Justice Sinnathuray. When the judge refused, JBJ refused to testify arguing that he had parliamentary immunity. LKY responded by moving an amendment that certain things in the House would no longer have that immunity.

The Senior High Court Judge at the time, Justice T S Sinnathuray presided over the Commission of Inquiry looking into Executive interference in the Judiciary.

But JBJ was undeterred, as a lawyer trained and educated under the British system that was practised here, he saw it the duty of an opposition MP to continously question the Govt of the day. Even if policies were right, he had to question and demand answers. His job was not to govern at that stage but to be the voice of the people, to ensure that Govt policy and conduct was scrutinised. Naturally this was not appreciated by the PAP, so used to having their own way without murmurs of dissent or to be in a position to control that dissent.

C) The Fall and the Wilderness Years

Following the DPP's appeal and the CJ's order for a retrial, JBJ was this time convicted on all charges by Judge Errol Foenander and received a 3 months jail term. He appealed but Justice Lai Kew Chai threw out the appeal and instead varied the sentence. He reduced the jail term to 1 month and imposed a fine of $5000 (an amount enough to disqualify him as an MP). Accordingly on November 11th, 1986, JBJ entered prison to serve his sentence and his seat was vacated. (No by-election was called this time and the seat was later abolished in subsequent elections). His imprisonment was met with derision both at home and abroad. In fact I was told by some prison officers, even they could not bear to have him inside the cells, and he was accorded as much privilege as they could allow. It tells you something of the man that even his jailors feel sympathy for him.

Justice Lai Kew Chai sealed JBJ's fate as an MP by sentencing him to a $5000 fine amongst other things.

The conviction besides disqualifying from his seat and running for elections for 5 years thereafter, also robbed him of his ability to practise law. In short he lost both things he held dear - being the public's voice and his rice-bowl. A convicted lawyer will be referred to a Court of 3 Judges who will determine whether he should be 'struck off the rolls'. In this case, it was a mere formality (normal for convicted lawyers to be disbarred), unless he could somehow proved that his original convictions were wrong. The 3 Judges were the Chief Justice, Justice F A Chua and Judicial Commissioner Chan Sek Keong. JBJ had objected to the Chief Justice's presence on the panel but it was turned down, because they ruled under the law, the Court of 3 Judges must comprise the CJ. He was ordered to be struck off on 14th October 1987 and it took effect upon being formally served to him on January 12th 1988. JBJ applied for a stay of execution until a final appeal, but it was rejected and he couldn't practise.

However there was still one option, since independence we had retained the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (for short referred to as the Privy Council) - as the nation's highest appellate court. The Privy Council was empowered to hear all appeals from High Court cases, after the local Court of Appeal had handled the matter. It was also empowered to allow disbarred lawyers to appeal decisions of the Court of 3 Judges, and JBJ duly launched an appeal to this body in November 1987. The Privy Council sits as a body of 5 senior judges from the House of Lords in the UK (termed the Law Lords).

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or Law Lords pose for the cameras.  

In 1988, the Privy Council heard the appeal by JBJ. 1 of the first things they ruled was the refusal of the CJ to excuse himself from the Court of 3 Judges. They ruled it was not mandatory for him to sit on the panel especially if the matter involved a decision made by him. They found it absurd that if such a situation arose that the CJ's enemy was before the panel, he could still sit in judgment. He should have stood down. They then ruled that while this was only an appeal against disbarment, they had to look at the conviction itself (even though they could not change it), because the conviction determined JBJ's fate as a lawyer.

In the end, with 3 judges reviewing JBJ's case, it turned out that the original judge, Michael Khoo (above) had gotten it right.

In reaching their unanimous decision, the 5 Law Lords ruled that SDJ Khoo had been right all along except in convicting JBJ of 1 charge. They expressed disappointment at the CJ who on hearing the initial appeal, did not use the correct methods in reaching his decision and did not take action as he was empowered to and instead sent it back for a re-trial. They allowed JBJ's appeal to be re-instated and made the following statement about the convictions:

'Their Lordships wish to express their deep disquiet by a series of misjudgments that led to the appellant (JBJ and his co-accused, Wong Hong Toy), to have suffered a grievous injustice. They have been fined, jailed and publicly disgraced for offences they were not guilty of. The appellant, in addition of being deprived of his seat in Parliament, was unable to practise his profession for a year. Their Lordships orders him restored..., but because of the course taken in the criminal proceedings, their Lordships have no power to right the other wrongs which the appellants suffered. Their only prospect of redress....is by way of pardon by the President..'

So JBJ was reinstated as a lawyer but he had lost his seat, still had a criminal conviction and a disqualification from running for a period of 5 years. So what would be his next course - obviously to seek a presidential pardon on the grounds of the Privy Council's declaration of his innocence. And what response did he get? The most shocking one - instead of the pardon, the Govt moved to abolish all appeals to the Privy Council on the grounds that it was no longer relevant and the UK judges did not understand the situation on the ground in Singapore, plus our judiciary was matured enough to make correct decisions. As for the pardon, this case best reflects why the President's pardoning power should not come entirely from the Cabinet, but perhaps from him alone or from other independent bodies. Despite the overwhelming evidence and conclusion from the Privy Council, JBJ was never pardoned.

As he was bound to accept the Cabinet's decision in the matter, President Wee Kim Wee was unable to pardon JBJ, despite his convictions proven wrong by the nation's highest court at the time.

And so, he had to watch on the sidelines, as GEs 1988 and 1991 came and went. However his absence did not weaken the Workers Party (WP) like Marshall's in the 1960s. Instead the party continued to be vocal and gave a good account of itself in 1988, losing narrowly in Eunos GRC and then in 1991, it had another MP in Low Thia Khiang. Despite being out of Parliament, the lawsuits he had to face didn't stop either. In 1989, he lost another one with LKY being awarded $230,000 not counting costs, for a speech he made during the 1988 campaign pertaining to the suicide of MND Minister Teh Cheang Wan after his arrest for corruption. Through the support of friends and donations he was able to pay that off.

D) Return to Parliament and Leaving the WP

Having missed out on 2 elections, JBJ was determined to contest the next one which was called in 1997. But before contesting, he had to again dig into the coffers and pay off 2 lawsuits stemming from a 1995 article in the WP bulletin, 'The Hammer'. Although the article was written in Tamil (which he didn't understand or speak), he was held liable as party leader and editor. The article chided those involved in Tamil Language Week as being 'PAP stooges' and accused Indian MPs of 'nakedly prostituting themselves to the PAP'. The lawsuits and costs came to over $700,000.

The Worker's Party's bulletin - The Hammer. A Tamil article in 1995, saw JBJ getting sued with the total figure nearly $700,000 including costs.

Yet he overcame that even, and assembled a 5 man team to contest in Cheng San GRC. In a closely fought election, the PAP succeeded somewhat in portraying 1 of his running mates, Tang Liang Hong as a 'Chinese Chauvinist', and it's believed that this had an effect with minority voters supporting the PAP. JBJ and Co garnered 45% of the vote, not enough to win of course, but enough for him to become a Non Constituency Member (NCMP).

Lawyer Tang Liang Hong was painted by the PAP as being anti-Christian, anti- English language and a Chinese Chauvinist. He was later sued for  defamation by the PAP leaders and a total judgment of close to $10 million was awarded to them.

However, his legal woes continued, as the PAP leaders went after Tang Liang Hong, JBJ got caught in the cross hairs. In 1 election rally during the 1997 campaign, Tang Liang Hong who had made police reports against the PM, LKY and gang, handed them over to JBJ as he was making his speech. JBJ then announced to the crowd 'And here are the copies of the police reports made against them by Tang'. This innocuous statement was deemed defamatory by the PAP and JBJ was again sued. High Court Judge S Rajendran awarded the PAP leaders a mere $20,000 and held JBJ liable for only half their legal costs. Unfortunately for JBJ, they appealed and the amount rose to $100,000 in damages with full costs.


WP campaign poster for the bitterly fought Cheng San GRC in GE 1997.

As he fought his political battles, his funds were depleting and when he missed an installment on the lawsuit payments, the PAP sued him for bankruptcy. In 2001, he was declared a bankrupt and as such had to vacate his NCMP seat. As the bankruptcy was timed around GE 2001, JBJ was unable to contest that. Meanwhile a storm was brewing within the WP, the younger leaders were not as willing as JBJ to tackle the PAP in a confrontational manner that would lead inevitably to lawsuits. Finally on Oct 24th 2001, JBJ ended his 30 year stay with the party he help rebuild. He was sore that the party's younger leaders notably Low and Dr Tan Bin Seng were unwilling to help pay his legal fees and get him out of bankruptcy.

E) The Final Chapter



J B Jeyaretnam's book - Make it Right for Singapore. It was so hard to get a copy initially because no one wanted to publish it here.

Unable to contest in GE 2006 and on his own, JBJ resorted to writing and produced 2 books - 'Make it Right for Singapore' and 'The Hatchet Man' to garner monies to settle his debts. Coupled with support from well wishers, he made an offer to pay over $200,000 in 2007 to LKY and Co to settle the lawsuit. They accepted, perhaps thinking at age 81, he was no longer a threat. But good old JBJ wasn't one to go without a fight. In July 2008, he sprang a surprise by setting up a new party - The Reform Party, and was hoping to lead it in the next General Elections. Alas, after years of fiery speeches and battles, his brave heart finally called it a day and he passed away on September 30th 2008.

The hearse carrying JBJ's body leaving St Andrew's Cathedral for his final journey.

Such was his legacy that thousands attended his wake at Mount Vernon, from ordinary folk to High Court Judges. His funeral service attracted over 1,000 people and his passing was reported in numerous newspapers the world over. That was his legacy, a fearless and untiring Lion of Democracy. Perhaps in closing it's quite fitting that I finished off this piece today - Oct 21st, the very day in 1981, that he made his mark in Singapore history and hopefully the first stage in us becoming a functioning and proper democracy, in the years to come.

'No government, anywhere in the world, can be so good that there is no need for an opposition. It is only in dictatorships, where one man rules rules the country without an opposition.' - J B Jeyaretnam (b 5.1.1926 d 30.9.2008 R.I.P)


 

On Monday, the Defense Minister, Ng Eng Hen announced in Parliament that national swimmer Joseph Isaac Schooling's request (via his parents) to defer National Service (or conscription) had been acceded to, following the support of the Ministry of Youth and Sports.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/lawrence-wong-welcomes/856090.html

This is indeed welcome news and although I am principally against conscription, I think that debate is for another occasion. Now is the time to get behind Joe in his quest to achieve his dreams and to bring glory to Singapore. In response, Joe declared in a phone interview to the New Paper, that while he's glad he's got the conscription issue out of the way, he would only celebrate if he wins gold in the Rio Olympics in 2016.

Joseph Schooling has reason to smile after being able to defer NS until after Rio 2016.

He has indeed set himself a very tall order and his coach, Sergio Lopez has set certain targets for him as well. These are to win gold medals in the following competitions:

a) The 2013 SEA Games in Myanmar for the 100m and 200m Butterfly
b) The 2014 Asian Games in Incheon, Korea for the butterfly events in the 50m, 100m and 200m respectively
c) The 2015 SEA Games in Singapore for the same 3 events
d) The 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics for the 100m and 200m Butterfly

Former Olympic Medallist Sergio Lopez Miro, has set his protégé, Schooling, some high targets, which is expected of a coach who knows his swimmer.

The question begets - Can he win all these events? It's possible but highly unlikely he'll be able to strike gold each and every time. The 2 SEA Games events can be considered as probable, with the Asian Games a clear possibility. That leaves the big one in Rio - which I submit at this current juncture seems only a slight possibility.

Olympic Champion, Chad le Clos, will be Schooling's biggest obstacle in Rio 2016.

I am not being defeatist but I am looking at the bigger picture - winning gold at the Olympics is never an easy thing. Joe will not only need to train well, but he needs to peak at the correct moment. In the Olympics, the difference between a medallist and an also-ran is literally in the hundredths of a second. To quote a familiar line, Joe will needs the 'stars, the moon and the sun, all to line up in a single line' and have Lady Luck on his side. There are literally hundreds of really good swimmers out there, eyeing that gold medal and one of them is Chad le Clos of South Africa. Joe will face a real battle and will need to swim the race of a lifetime to win any medal, let alone gold. Even his coach Lopez, could only win bronze at the Seoul Olympics.

Therefore as much as we want Joe to win gold in Rio, let us not put too much pressure on him or consider it a failure if he fails to achieve it. If he continues to train hard, disciplines himself and does everything he's supposed to do and gives his best effort, that should be enough for us and for Singapore. If he can make the Final of either event at Rio, that in itself is a great achievement, anything else is a bonus. A bronze or silver medal would be an outstanding achievement, gold would be something to cherish for the ages. But let him get there first and let's see how it all pans out.

The road to Rio 2016, will start in Naypyidaw 2013 for Joseph Schooling.

We will cheer him on and there should be no recriminations should he come up short. Let's just support his endeavour and his journey to achieve his dreams, and let's start with wishing him well in Naypyidaw in the SEA Games.

Next  I wasn't the happiest man, when the Football Association of Singapore (FAS), appointed German Bernd Stange, as the national team coach, as reflected in an earlier post:

http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg/2013/05/new-lions-coach-bernd-stange-most.html

However nearly 5 months into the job, whilst I still think we should have appointed a local coach, I will also readily concede that he has done a good job thus far. Some may be surprised at this statement given the team's results haven't been good or much to crow about. We only beat Laos 1-0 in a friendly recently despite beating them 5-2 in his 2nd match in charge. That was in between 2 losses in the Asian Cup qualifiers 0-4 and 0-2 to Jordan and Oman respectively, plus a 6-1 thrashing at the hands of China and a humiliating 0-1 loss to Hong Kong (given that we are generally better than Hong Kong).

The 'Young' Lions were no match for the experienced Oman team in the 2015 AFC Qualifier at Jalan Besar in August.

However the main thing that he has been doing right and should not be faulted for the bad results, is his commitment to blood youngsters, especially local players into the senior national side. That is always the correct approach to take. The National Team represents the nation, it is the correct thing to get young local players into it so that they can mature into better players. Winning at this stage is not the key. It's more important for them to get experience, exposure to foreign teams and climate, to gel and play to a certain style and tactics. This is something we should have done years ago. Unfortunately the FAS mentality and that of our previous coach, Raddy Avramovic, was to win at all costs, even if it meant giving citizenship to 'crap' players like Agu Casmir, Egmar Gonclaves, Shi Jiayi and let a 40+ year dinosaur named Alexander Duric, lead the attacking line.

Alexander Duric waves to fans after being substituted. Thankfully he has waved good-bye to playing for the National Team.

None of these players would have walked into their respective national sides, let alone a top club in their top division, but somehow the FAS contrived to award them stellar contracts, accommodation and citizenship. It's not as if we were able to persuade Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo et al, to come and join us, we went to sign the 1st two or three foreign players we set our eyes on, none of whom were very much better than our local lot. Sure they gave us a marginal edge and allowed us to win the AFF Cup. But that victory was as hollow as our 'imported and soon to leave for home' table tennis players achievements. This is the national team for crying out loud.

National Team coach Bernd Stange (a) has adopted the right approach since taking over.

We hope that some day, the present team can be like our team of 1980, but at the end of the day, we can only select the players that are available. If none of them turn out to be a Sundram, a Fandi, a Quah Kim Song etc, it doesn't matter. We take the best that's available, provide the support and training for them to give their best. That they go out and give their best, should be more than enough. If through those efforts we win, well and good, if we don't, it's alright too. We are not Brazil, heck we're not even close to Asian giants like China, Japan, Iran or South Korea.

At age 17, Adam Swandi is one of the youngest ever to earn a national call-up, and he hasn't disappointed.

However if we bank on youth and nurture them, more often than not, it will reap dividends. Just look at Malaysia. A decade ago, they were in the doldrums, but what have they done? They've supported their league (M-League and Malaysia Cup), kept the faith in blooding the youth side and now that these players have matured, they have once again become a reasonable force in the region. All 'made in Malaysia'. So Bernd Stange is doing the correct thing in giving young players like Madhu Mohana, Adam Swandi, Gabriel Quak, Hafiz Abd Sujad and Zulfahmi Ariffin a place in the senior side. If he doesn't get cold feet and lets this team grow, I am positive they will improve and become much better over time. And they showed what they could do with a 2-1 win over Syria in the latest Asia Cup qualifier, that gives us a glimmer of hope of qualifying for Australia 2015.

Gabriel Quak is ecstatic after scoring the winner against Syria recently.

Stange is also nurturing Aide Iskandar, who will lead the U-23 side in the SEA Games in Myanmar. Hopefully when his contracts ends, the FAS will finally come their senses and let Aide or another local coach - either Sundram or Fandi take over. Talking about Fandi, it's clear he wants a crack at a Singapore side. Whilst it's not possible for him to replace Aide at the U-23 selection, he should be considered for the vacant Lions XII job. It will do Singapore football no harm, and certainly a lot of good, if we give the chance to another local coach who could, because of the exposure, coach the national side in future. I gather Richard Bok is also interested in the position.

Probably our best player ever, Fandi Ahmad (a) wants to coach Lions XII.

But I will not begrudge the FAS if they want to go for a foreign coach with a proven track record for the Lions XII job. Why the ambiguity, you may ask? Simple - Lions XII is not the national side or a national team selection, it's more like a club side competing with state and club sides from Malaysia. For the Lions XII, the occasional foreign player (if he's good) is not a problem, after all other Malaysian sides have signed a few 'household names' - Pablo Aimar at Johor FC, the obvious standout. If the FAS is so desiring of success like table tennis, then by all means fashion a successful Lions XII like the successful 1994 Malaysia Cup winning team, with foreign imports.

It's alright to have 'foreign imports' for the Lions XII, just like the 1994 team (a) did en-route to winning the Malaysia Cup.

But please leave the National Team alone, and give the local players the chance to represent their country.

Former Transport Minister Raymond Lim in an interview to coincide with his book launch poured cold water on the concept of a 2 party system:

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/two-party-system-try-litmus-test-says-ex-minister-raymond-lim?page=0%2C0

Using double speak that may attest to his years in journalism and economics, he tried to paper it by raising 2 questions:

a) Whether the system can evolve to forge consensus to get the necessary things done?
b) Whether we have the capacity to get things done?

The recent US Govt shutdown will be the 'ace card' the PAP will use to oppose 2 party rule, rather than point to how effective it is in 90% of democracies worldwide.

As expected he uses the recent breakdown over the Budget in the United States to highlight the flaws of a 2 party system. What he failed to show is how 2 or 3 party systems has worked in almost 90% of democracies worldwide. Germany has a multi party system, so does France, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and even in places like India and Malaysia. Has the system failed there? Are these countries teetering on the brink of economic and social collapse?

Ferdinand Marcos came to power as a young popular figure, by the time he was deposed he was a 'tired old man out of touch with the reality of his people'.

Let's look at the countries closest to us that have this system - Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines. In the Philippines and Indonesia, years of dictatorial 1 man and 1 party rule has been usurped by an outpouring of anger by citizens who have been long subdued and made to bear circumstances that encroached on their ability to lead the lives they wanted to lead. The state brooked no dissent. Opposition leaders were arrested and even killed. Dissenting voices were silenced. The only reason that prevented the people from rising up earlier was because the Govts could at the minimum provide some form of economic stability, placate some dissenting voices with promises and some token change and obviously by the use of draconian laws.

Once seen as Indonesia's saviour, President Suharto was seen as the obstacle to their progress by refusing to share or give up power. It took a turn in the economy to rouse the people into forcing him out.

Unfortunately like a '1 trick pony', eventually they ran out of ideas to sustain and maintain this veneer of stability and the people finally had enough and rose to remove them. What happened next? We can also add Thailand to this picture? The long 1 party rule was usurped by opposition parties that were able to win popular elections. Did all these countries collapse?

Gus Dur (Abdulrahhman Wahid) like Habibie before him, was seen as an ineffective successor to Suharto, but the 1 thing he did right and it turned out to be the most important thing - he ensured that Indonesia did not fragment. Only he as the senior most Muslim leader could convince the country that the Chinese and other minorities too had a part to play, and he was able to bring consensus and rapprochement about.  

No, but yes they had upheaval to begin with. Years of abuse and an entrenched elite would not be so easily repaired or replaced overnight. The initial replacements may not have been up to the mark and they too had to be replaced, but at least once in power they did not go down the same road of the party they replaced and were no obstacle to the democratic process. Despite their failure to govern effectively, the people understood that a return to 1 party rule was not the option. Successor Govts have not come from the once powerful party, but successor Govts have built on the democratic process and learnt from the mistakes their predecessors made. Nobody is accusing Messrs Yudhoyono or Aquino Jr of mis-management.

A strong opposition in the Dewan Rakyat and the loss of a plurality at the ballot box, has seen Malaysia Prime Minister, Najib Razak, singing a different tune from his hardline mentor, Dr Mahatir Mohamed.

In the case of Malaysia, unchallenged rule by UMNO and its allies have led to an alliance of opposition parties that now pose a grave threat to their domination. Whilst still unable to seize power at the centre, they have made inroads at state level. The proof of their ability lay in the fact that 3 of those state Govts have been re-elected and every state now has an effective opposition in the Assemblies. And what effect has this had on the Federal Govt? We now see a Malaysian Govt that no longer talks down to the people, we see a change of policy, we see a shift to try and raise the standards of living. We see a Govt that is ready to admit mistakes and replace ineffective leaders.

The SMRT Corp has had a virtual monopoly and little oversight for far too long, and during Minister Lim's tenure, the inevitable cracks showed up.

Which brings us back to Singapore and Mr Raymond Lim. A 1 term Minister, his tenure at Transport has been marked by a failure to reign in the vehicle population - Oh yes, who do we have to blame for allowing finance companies to give out cash rebates and no down payments for buying cars? Yes, it's you Minister Lim. Cars were on the roads faster than the production line, because all the Ministry was keen to do was to cash in on the COE. For public transport, not much was in the way of reigning in the operators and ensure they were able to maintain the infrastructure. They were allowed to increase fares, the monopolies of SMRT and SBS (Comfort Delgro) were given a free hand to do as they pleased. Then what happened? An ageing system crumbled under the weight of increased population. Breakdowns that were 'a once in 50 years thing' (to borrow the phrase from one of his Cabinet colleagues) became an almost everyday affair. Trains and buses were packed to the brim. Roads that were once pristinely maintained, now operate under 'a cut and paste method'. Yes Mr Lim, all these and more occurred under your tenure at Transport.

It would unacceptable for millionaire managers like David Moyes to blame anyone but himself if results at Manchester United turn sour. The fans and the Press would have none of it. He's paid well to do his job, he must produce the results or out he goes, no 2 ways about it.

And blaming you is not unfair. Say Singapore is a football club like Manchester United. We go and hire David Moyes and pay him millions. And then the results turn sour, can he come out and say, 'Oh no it's not my fault'? Can he come out and blame the fans for turning on him? Of course not, we are paying you to do a job and if you can't perform, we have the right the choose someone else. You can never blame the electorate for wanting somebody else when you don't perform.

If the WP did not take Aljuneid and give your team a scare in East Coast, we most likely would have to bear with another term with you in a Ministerial position. That in a nutshell is why a 2 party system is a must. If citizens do not voice out their displeasure at failed Govt policy and the best way to do that is by punishment at the ballot box, then Govts would be very less likely to change a winning formula.

The 'brilliant Stop at 2 policy' that was the cornerstone of the PAP's platform in the late 70s and early 80s. This policy is a key reason why we have a problem with producing children and no replacements for an ageing population now.

The PAP has always been a practical party as far as this goes. If there is no vote of discontent, they will never change policy. Why did the 'Stop at 2 and Graduate Mothers policies go? Was it because 1 day they woke up and said, 'Hey I think this are not sound policies'? Nope, even LKY conceded as much after the 1984 elections. It was because they feared losing the 1988 elections that they removed them, at heart he still believed it were good policies to begin with. So you see, if people do not respond at the ballot box, the PAP is unlikely to change.

The Cabinet. Robust debates or 'Aye, Aye Captain' is something the voters must decide.

Of course we hear talk of 'robust debates' in the Cabinet and by fellow PAP MPs in the House. But at the end of the day, they are all part of the same family and have the party whip to follow. In the end 'U-turns' are not a PAP plaything, they stick to their guns and defend the party's core beliefs. Let us look at 2 other policies that have not been challenged because of this 1 party domination.

20 year commemorative stamps to mark National Service in 1987. It should also have marked the end of it, to go with the changing situation in our defense and around the world. 

Firstly it is National Service and defense spending. There will never be an acknowledgement by the PAP that National Service has outlived its sell-by date and that we should have a fully professional armed forces. Terms like character and discipline building are used as an excuse. Excuse me, you don't need to send men to carry a gun to make them disciplined and build character. Whatever happened to moral education, social justice, rule of law and pursuing a 'wholesome and inclusive education'? Did we see Australia descending into chaos after the Whitlam Govt scrapped conscription after taking power in 1972 after 20 unbroken years of Liberal/National rule? Nope. Their Armed Forces were able to adapt with the times and have thrived with a fully professional army.

Then Australian Opposition Leader Gough Whitlam campaigning in the 1972 Federal Elections under his simple but effective slogan - It's Time. It was time to remove conscription and he did so upon winning power, a move that has not been overturned by successive Govts.

National Service was a key element in our early defense, but it's no longer necessary with a shift to technology. The threats that existed then have faded - there's no Chin Peng and his Communists, no Vietnamisation of South East Asia, no Indonesian confrontation, no sinister plan by Malaysia to retake Singapore. So why have conscription? Simply put, it's a vote loser as far as the PAP think if it's scrapped. The PAP fear that removing it will turn some voters who see it as a must having served, into voting elsewhere. That's the primary reason they do not want to change it, fearing an uproar at the ballot box.
An RSAF F15SG based overseas. We have 143 fighter jets, but how many are based here? Do we need so many and can we get all of them here in the event of war without a danger of them being destroyed?


1 party rule also means there's no challenge to the Govt's insistence on spending billions on defense. Do we need the finest fighter jets, do we need so many tanks, ships and submarines? How many of them are actually in Singapore. If war comes, how soon are we able to get all these resources back here? And who is the enemy gonna be? Rather than pursue a policy of close cooperation with our neighbours alone, they wanna show - 'hey don't mess with us, we are strong too'. I am not saying we should not buy tanks, planes, ships etc. Of course we need them, threats still exist, but these threats are not from neighbouring countries but rogue elements - or terrorists. Can we use our planes and tanks to bomb these threats? The Govt sells the threats and with 1 party rule there's nothing to challenge them.

A 10 year look of our population's 'manufactured growth' beginning from 1980. The figure continues to grow as the Govt uses this '1 pony trick' approach to boost the GDP.

Secondly, 1 party rule means there's no challenging the Govt on the account of their population theories. For years they sold us the theory that the people were Singapore's only resource. Then what happened, by the very policies that made Singapore produce less owing to runaway housing costs, they realised they were now short of the numbers needed. Because their policy to sell Singapore was always based on population, they came out with a 'brilliant plan'- if we don't have the numbers, we'll just go out and get them with an open door policy. And that flawed policy now leaves us in this dire position, where salaries have all gone down, Singaporeans are squeezed left, right and centre, housing prices continue to rise, transport problems increase and Singaporeans find themselves '2nd or 3rd choices in the workforces'.

Young PAP members on a visit to China. Some have liken the party's style of rule to the Communist Party of China (CCP) - No dissent, No U-turns and an insistence that only they have a right to rule.

This is what happens when you have 1 party so entrenched in power that it refuses to see its own mistakes. It believes its policies and its alone are suited for the greater good of the country. And it goes out of its way to defend these policies and brooks little tolerance for opposition to these policies. And it places obstacles preventing an effective opposition or another party from taking over.

A 2 party system will have its flaws as seen in the US, but in the end of the day, the US is still the US. The 2 party system is what brought America to the fore-front. At the end of the day, the parties will still come together for the greater good and there is no reason that just because of 1 blip, it won't work here. A 2 party system will ensure that a Govt is aware of its flawed policies and that the people have a recourse to remove them if they do no want to change these policies.

If a small token opposition can remove an ineffective Minister like Raymond Lim, it only proves what a greater opposition and alternate Govt can do for the greater good for Singapore. With that, I rest my case.

Raymond Lim autographing his book. He better hope it fares better than his tenure as Minister for Transport.

I think this is a question that has been debated intensely. Those who vehemently oppose them, will testify that the end is near and if you read blogs and other online websites of an anti-PAP flavour, you might form the same view. Then there are those that do not hate them with the same passion but have grown disillusioned and as such are yearning for change. Next you have 'conspiracy theory buffs' who believe that they should lose but through some 'trick' notably due to the influx of 'new citizens', will stay in power. Finally you have those that support the PAP and would laugh off any suggestion that this scenario would befall the party.

PM Lee leads his AMK GRC team in a victory wave after the 2011 GE. Unless there is some dramatic shift in the opposition's style of contesting elections, he should be very well repeating the act in 2016.

Unfortunately for the rest, it does appear that those in the latter group will at this juncture, be the ones that will be proven right. I know this will sound like heresy to those who have read my previous blogs entries and I may even be dubbed ' PAP mole' amongst other things. I'm afraid that is not so, I honestly feel that for the country to advance forward and the political process especially policy-making to be in line with the aspirations of the people, it would be better for the PAP to suffer a defeat.

The victorious Aljuneid team from the WP. Does Low and gang, hold on to what they have in 2016 or try and branch out?

A defeated PAP by whatever margin would not be the death knell for the party, and at this stage even those with 'wild dreams' will accept that they will unlikely be driven from power and left with a tiny segment of MPs. They hold all the 'ace cards' and the electoral system is fashioned by them and clearly in their favour. The GRC system despite the 'Aljuneid upset' still ensured that unpopular and weak MPs and Ministers like Mah Bow Tan, Lee Bee Wah, Tin Pei Ling, Raymond Lim, Wong Kan Seng and others, retained their seats despite polling their lowest numbers ever. If another party other than the SDA contested in Pasir Ris, their total vote percentage would have definitely fallen under the 60.1% mark.

Malaysian PM and deputy Muhyiddin Yasin raise their hands in triumph after the 13th Malaysian elections. Despite losing the popular vote, they still had a 44 seat majority in the Dewan Rakyat.

But the PAP does not fear this, and as much as they would like to have the majority of votes polled nationwide and preferably above the 60% mark, they will be prepared for a lesser percentage. If the figure is above 2/3 that ensures they can amend the Constitution, all the better. But like the Barisan Nasional in Malaysia, I think they would be even prepared to lose the popular vote but retain a working majority in the House. As for Constitutional amendments, there is no real urgency for them to have that 2/3 majority. They have through 50 years of unbroken rule already manufactured the Constitution into what they want, not much further change is required.

Singapore's Parliament building. The PAP would do anything to retain control of it.

Those who oppose the PAP or have become disillusioned are looking at the possible 2016 GE (unless they go for an earlier poll), as the time when the long era of PAP rule ends. I am afraid that is a 'very very' longshot, as we stand at the mid-way point. As one who likes a little wager from time to time, I would wager at this juncture that the PAP will win around 60 or more seats out of the projected 90 in 2016 (they are bound to increase the number of seats). That is still a 2/3 majority. My reasons are based  on the following factors:

A) No single strong opposition party

This is the main point. Of all the opposition parties, I think it's fair to state that the likes of the SPP, SDA, Reform Party and any other smaller parties that may emerge are unlikely to win around 5 seats, let alone one. They do not have the numbers, the resources, the financial clout and even the experience to convince the voters that they can win and deliver. Their only selling point is that they oppose the PAP and will be banking on voter discontent to see them over the finish line.

Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss, speaks during an election rally in 2011. She was recently installed as the new party leader.

That leaves the NSP, SDP and of course the Workers Party. The National Solidarity Party (NSP) has now undergone 2 leadership changes since the 2011 GE. Thankfully the misguided and underperforming Goh Meng Seng has quit politics and now thrives as a political pundit whose only claim to fame is to snipe at the WP he was once a member of and of course to take pot-shots at the PAP he failed to beat. His successor Hazel Poa, has given up her role due to health reasons, and the mantle is now passed to lawyer Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss. She's quite a good speaker and has some good ideas, but her party is still untested at ground level. There also remains too much deadwood in the party. 2 or 3 good candidates in her party does not equate to all of them being electable. She would probably have to field an 'A team' to in a GRC and herself in an SMC, to have any chance of winning seats.

The SDP's Chee Soon Juan has toned down his rhetoric, but would he have done enough come 2016 to convince voters to give him a chance? 

The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) remains under the leadership of Dr Chee Soon Juan. He should be able to contest in 2016, if he stays out of trouble. But can he win? He has managed to attract some good candidates but some of them have left the party. He might be able to field a few more but there's no way he can field 20-30 candidates, and even if he did, it would be an Herculean effort to go from the 30+ % of votes the party's been getting to the magical 50% figure. The SDP's greatest asset is also its Achilles Heel. The SDP always raises social issues, like the plight of the needy and poor, health and transport costs, housing, a more just society as far as laws go. All these sound good and correct but it doesn't mean it can be introduced straightaway. The SDP relishes a fight with the PAP over this, but forget the PAP has the trump card. They have the data, the statistics and the track record, something the SDP clearly lacks. Rather than focus on the ground, and getting elected to serve the ground first and then focus on national issues, the SDP wants to battle the PAP over the Budget. For all these ideas, they are still unable to convince Singaporeans that they can do a better job. Internal divisions and the high turnover of electable members also work against them. People have to be convinced that SDP MPs will stay in the party and work for the greater good of Singaporeans, instead of their own positions in the party hierarchy. Good men and women they certainly are, but can they work together?

That leaves the WP as the main viable alternative party to the PAP. While many myself included believe that their policy of growing their number of MPs slowly but surely, will reap dividends in future elections, the fact is that they have to ask themselves - are they ready to step up to the plate? Are they willing to govern if given the chance? To do so means they have to field far far more than the of number candidates they did in 2011. The WP must decide whether it will go for broke and try to run in a majority of seats, if not all. If they don't, effectively this means that they are handing out the victory declarations to another 4-5 years of PAP rule.

The Workers Party unveiling some new faces. Will they be able to deliver on their own or require a 'big gun' from Aljuneid to lead them?

To do so means they must take risks, the Aljuneid team has to be broken up, and its senior members like Chen Show Mao, Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang must go and lead teams in other GRCs. 1 can stay behind but the rest has to move out. The WP is honest about its own capabilities but sometimes they must look at the bigger picture. If they don't attack in 2016, when will they do? In 2021 or 2026 perhaps? By that time, the current crop would probably need replacing and the whole process must start again. And don't forget, all this time the voter demographics will change. The 'new citizens' currently at 2.8% is set to increase. This is a sure vote bank for the PAP. Their children will also reaching voting age by that time and even if the WP is ready in 2021 or 2026, the votes to carry them over the finish line might no longer be there anymore.

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin convinced his then junior, Barack Obama, to run for the Presidency in 2008.

Judging from remarks made by the PM and his team, there seems no real change of direction from the PAP. Instead of focussing on getting or level the playing field for Singaporeans in the workforce and reducing housing costs, he talks of 'foreigners out to steal lunches', building smaller flats for people to downgrade and going full blast to make Singapore's GDP grow at all costs. This is the "Barack Obama moment' for the WP. Then Senator Obama was barely into his first term as a US Senator from Illinois, with little experience in heading a large government. He had a lot of ideas, promise and appealed to a broad spectrum of American voters tired of 8 years of Republican rule. The cry for change was ringing out loudly, but he too had his doubts over his ability to win and then lead the country. Then came his senior Senator in Illinois state, Richard Durbin, with the famous advice - 'the moment was the present and it had fallen into his lap. He had to seize it and give it a go, to delay or postpone could very well mean that the moment was lost forever'. Would he take that chance then in 2007 and launch his presidential bid? Well he did, and the rest is history. So the same moment now falls upon the WP, will they seize the chance and give it a go, or wait and postpone and hope it comes again in future elections?

The runaway costs of HDB flats is 1 of the 3 main things the WP should focus on.

The WP doesn't have to have lofty ideals ala the SDP. They only need to focus on the 3 pressing issues - Housing, Employment (Immigration) and Transport. The rest they can simply say they will maintain the status quo for the moment. There's no need to think about NS, repealing the ISA or 377A, changing foreign policy, altering FTAs and others. That can be done over time. Instead just run on a campaign to make housing affordable, curb the influx and dependency on FTs and make transportation smoother and if possible, cheaper.

B) The PAP's doomsday warnings and carrots

Needless to say if the PAP sense a threat to their hold on power, they will not let up on doomsday warnings that the opposition will destroy the country in 4-5 years. You can expect commentary upon commentary in the local papers and media, reminding Singaporeans on how dire the situation is. And some will definitely buy it.

The Straits Times and other state controlled media will not be slow to trump up the PAP's virtues and the dangers of an opposition victory in 2016. That is as certain as night follows day.

There will those who agree wholeheartedly, there will be those who are unsure and those who worry about the future. I think it's wrong for opposition supporters to lay all the blame at the 60.1% who voted the PAP the last time. Some of them genuinely fear that the economy will tank, property prices will soar and that their children will have to face upheaval. As much as they dislike the PAP's policies or some of it, it's just better to trust 'the devil you know, as opposed to the one you don't'.

They 60.1% voters ensured the PAP sat on the Speaker's right hand side after the 2011 elections. How many of them will be prepared to switch sides in 2016?


But we must also respect these voters, these are genuine concerns. Plus the PAP's carrots although not the 'best on offer' are the ones they have become accustomed to. Therefore it's important for opposition parties especially the WP not raise the jitters of these voters but go out to allay their fears. No wholesome change, no outright policy shift except in the 3 most pressing areas.

And the WP must abandon the idea of forming a coalition govt with the PAP. They will be the big losers in the end. The PAP will still hold the balance of power and force them to stomach certain policies. Later when the bickering starts or when collapse seems inevitable, perhaps even akin to the Lim Yew Hock Govt, and thus make the WP bear the brunt of unpopular policies, the PAP will go to the voters with the slogan - 'I told you so' - you wanted a change and see what happened? They would then come back stronger than ever. The WP must not form a Govt unless it has a majority or with an agreement with some other opposition party. If they fail to win a majority and the PAP is the largest party without the majority, let them continue. The WP can support it by not proposing a no-confidence motion until the time comes for that, but in no way should they enter into an alliance with the PAP in forming a govt.

C) The system that favours the PAP.

When the PAP was fearful of losing the 1988 GE after losing a mere 2 seats to Chiam See Tong and JBJ in GE 1984, what did they do? They came out with the masterstroke - the GRC system. Then came the upgrading carrot and the Town Councils for future elections. So don't be at all surprised if, to quote 'Baldrick. in the Black Adder series' - that they 'have a cunning plan' in place to ensure they remain triumphant in 2016.

'Baldrick' (r) whispering another one of 'his cunning plans' to his master - the Black Adder. The PAP is bound to come up with one of their own in 2016.

Some will say 'new citizens' might be part of the plan and even at 3% or so, it can make a lot of difference in marginal seats. And they draw up the electoral boundaries don't forget. What better way than to carve out a few juicy SMCs and smaller GRCS, so as to force the WP and others to target them and leave the way clear to get the rest of their members in via the bigger GRCs and as such, the winning majority. Expect 'carrots' that force voters to choose into either taking them by voting the PAP or vote for the opposition and head to the back of the queue.

Tony Tan with LKY. He might be a 'lame duck' President now with the PAP in power, but it can soon change if the opposition wins. He would wield the power to deny them use of the reserves and dismiss them if he saw fit.  

And as a last resort they still have Tony Tan as President. All past reserves will be locked up and only he has the key. He can prove to be a major stumbling block to an opposition Govt intent on overturning certain PAP policies, but need the resources in the reserves to achieve that. And if an opposition govt operates on a weak alliance, without a working majority or even a small one, and there is an impasse in the House to pass Bills, he has the authority to remove that Govt and commission another - in this case a PAP one. Or he can wait until the opportunity arises where an election would force them from power and return the PAP back stronger, to dismiss such a govt and force the election. All this is not fantasy, it has happened before, in the Australian Constitutional Crisis of 1975, the Governor- General Sir John Kerr dismissed a Labour Govt that had won power after 20 years in opposition, and still possessed a majority in the Lower House. President Tan can easily do the same to any WP led Govt.

Not always, but fortune does usually favour the brave. Will the WP be brave enough in 2016 to try and wrestle power from the PAP?

In closing, as much as we can talk of 2016 and pray and hope for the change, or to see the PAP voted out, the reality is that it will require considerable effort on the part of the opposition parties. Even then it might not be enough given how the PAP controls virtually every facet of the democratic and political process. The opposition and the WP in particular, must make a difficult decision - do they want to risk it and give the people the choice to consider that change? If they don't and continues as before to contest in some wards, merely to win more seats and just give the people an 'anything but PAP' choice, then it's a shoo-in that the majority of voters will not buy that option. Some will and the PAP might lose more seats, but in the end, still achieve their objective to continue in power and carry out the policies they seem intent on pursuing. In doing so, the dangers they face in 2016, could very well fade away in future elections. Fortune they say, favours the brave - the WP and to a lesser extent the other parties have gotta be brave and grasp at the current outpouring of discontent. To paraphrase the Tennyson quote, 'its better to have fought and lost than to not have fought at all'. They and perhaps many Singaporeans, will to regret if they fail to do so.

Before I go further into this article, let me state that it's not an attempt to be seditious or to spark anger and discourse, rather it's a personal observation. Since I am not a Malay or a Muslim, I feel I can write about it in a neutral manner, based on my own observations and interaction with my fellow Malays citizens. It may or may not be entirely correct and perhaps some observations may be wrong, however I hope that those that are right will be given thought and hopefully - action. This is also not an attempt to criticise the Govt for failing to respond or acting in an improper way, rather it's an attempt for the Govt, be it from the PAP or anyone else, to consider the present circumstances of the Malay community and see whether change or improvements are necessary and should be implemented.

The report of the 1966 Constitutional Commission that helped draft our Constitution.

Articles 152 and 153 of the Constitution state:

Article 152  Minorities and Special Position of Malays
(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore.
(2) The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognize the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.
 Article 153  Muslim Religion
The Legislature shall by law make provision for regulating Muslim religious affairs and for constituting a Council to advise the President in matters relating to the Muslim religion.

The reason to link the 2 Articles is obvious, almost all Malays in Singapore are Muslims, therefore any discussion or consideration of Islamic matters will inevitably involve the Malay community.

Then Australian PM, Gough Whitlam pouring sands into the hand of an Aboriginal Leader, signifying the act of returning lands that once belonged to them which were seized during Colonial rule.

Given these 2 articles, there should not be a sense of incredulity or disbelief when measures are taken for the Malay community's benefit. This has nothing to do about being a secular state or meritocracy, it does not affect these 2 policies, rather these 2 Articles intentions are to 'level the playing field', to give recognition to the community and to assist them in the context of Singapore as a multi-racial country. Articles and policies like these are not new or novel to Singapore, even in democracies like the United States and Australia, similar measures have been undertaken for the native peoples - the Native Americans (to use a politically correct term to describe the 'Red Indians') and the Aborigines (for Australia).

Former Singapore Idol winner Taufik Batisah is what you can describe as a 'typical' Malay. Casual western dressing, speaks and sings in English and gets along with everyone else.

The Malays in Singapore are unique, although faithful to their culture, they have also embraced the modern world and kept up with change through the times. Malays here are not averse to listening to Western music and dressing, they have infused other races' dishes into their own cooking, they speak and study English and are able to mix freely with the other races. They have not gone into a 'shell' or barricaded themselves into an enclave. There is a free spirit of give and take and they have routinely welcomed immigrants from other parts of Asia who have set up home here. It would be very fair to say that the Malays have welcomed the Chinese, Indians and Eurasians and accepted them as fellow citizens.

Govt policies in the past have helped traditional Malays like those seen above, make the transition into modern living.

And I will also credit the Govt and the Malay leaders for policies since independence right up to the turn of the century that have assisted the community and made them relevant. I remember in the 1990s speaking to some Malay friends and telling them why this was so. I told them to compare themselves to the Indian community in Malaysia and see the difference and how policies here had benefitted them in some ways.

As this Malaysian article attests, Indians living in poor communities have been struggling to get even basic amenities like seeing a doctor when ill.

In Malaysia you find there is a gulf between the lower or poorer Indians and the upper ones. Essentially every community has 3 groups - the lower, the middle class and the upper. It's hard to criticise the upper classes for their success, perhaps they were born into richer families and thus were able to upgrade and better themselves further, be it in education, business and lifestyle. The trick is to help the lower class and bring them up to the middle class and then to ensure the gap between the middle and upper class isn't wide. It's important therefore to have a middle class that's capable of improving themselves. In Malaysia, the Indians at the bottom level had little support and were not able to educate themselves better. Some managed and the middle class themselves improved at a greater pace, that so much so they were closer to the upper class. In the end you had 2 classes essentially, the lower and upper class, and inevitably the gap was huge. You find those at the bottom end with little hope of ever upgrading themselves, they were left to do menial jobs and the crime rate soared in that segment, because they saw this was the only way out of the vicious circle.The recent protests this century by the Indian community in Malaysia lends support to this theory.

Malay students from Bedok Green and Yuneng Secondary discussing lessons. Correct policies have helped Malays get an education and then excel.

But in Singapore it was different, the Govt realised early on, it needed to push the Malays at the lower end to better themselves especially via education. That's where Article 152 kicked in. Malays were given discounts in fees from primary school right up to tertiary level. There was an insistence that they study in English, although Malay was the national language. Malays moved away from the kampungs and into flats and were encouraged to join the workforce and move away from their 'agricultural lifestyle'. What was the result then?

Malay teachers receiving awards. They are among the group of 'middle class' Malays that arose through sound policies designed to help them.

We then had a 'new Malay middle class' blossoming and eventually take root. Malays were able to hold their own amongst their counter-parts and the gap between all 3 segments was narrowed significantly. This allowed the Govt to be able to tackle the problems faced by those at the lowest level, with the middle class being able to hold its own without too much support. And for this, the Govt deserved credit.

But what has changed in the last decade? Unfortunately, the 'open door' policy has affected many Singaporeans, and the Malay community has been hit quite badly. Malays were the 2nd largest community after the Chinese. I don't have the full figures but I think it was nearer the 20% mark in the 70s and 80s. On paper they are still the 2nd largest group although the percentage has dropped.

A diagram on Singapore's population last year. Note the figure that the 'resident population' grew by nearly 10%! This is because the Govt conveniently counts PRs as part of the total. And they will only show the composition of the resident population, but not release data on the composition and ethnicity of the '1.7 million non-resident ones'

In the latest data released - the 'resident population' which includes over 1/2 million PRs is 3.72 million. Of the citizen population of 3.2 million - Chinese make up 74.2 %, Indians 9.2%, others (mainly Eurasians) 3.2% and the Malays at 14.2%. On paper this looks quite similar to past demographics, the balance was maintained by the different ethnic groups. However in reality this is not so, if you add in the 1.7 million non-resident population. Nearly 1 in 4 of them are Indians from India. In fact this latter group is so large it even outnumbers the local Indian population. And the overwhelming majority from this group are not lowly-skilled construction workers on work permits, rather they comprise more educated ones on employment passes or higher, working in PMETs and similar positions. They stay here longer and many have brought their families in as well on dependant passes.

Indian construction workers in Singapore. We don't mind if they make up 1 out every 4 foreign workers. They are here to do a job and help us tremendously. We salute them and wish they get paid better for what they do.

If you factor in this group, the Malays are no longer in 2nd place. Of the 3 main communities they have slipped to last place and may represent less than 10% of the total number of the 5.4 million people in Singapore. This ordinarily should not be a problem, as is the case in other countries that have a large foreign workforce, notably Middle Eastern states.These states practise a clear 'positive discrimination policy' that ensures that their native populace are always placed ahead of the queue when economic benefits are rolled out.

Rather it's the PMETs from India that have been allowed to grow and grow. Squeeze locals out of jobs, bring their families along and get housing and then when all's done and dusted, sell everything, take their monies and bid adieu.

Even though the Govt continues to say its policies are meant for Singaporeans first, the stark reality on the ground is that it isn't so or has not had the desired effect. And the Malay community has been amongst the hardest hit. As mentioned  before, the trick is always to ensure the middle class is able to look after itself, to hopefully progress further and narrow the gap with upper class, but at the very least maintain its position. Doing so means the shift of focus can squarely be at the bottom, so they themselves can narrow the gap with the middle class. Unfortunately the reversed effect has occurred. The bottom ones have indeed narrowed the gap with the middle class, not because they have progressed so much, but rather that the middle class is now struggling and slipping closer to them. The gap between them and the top has widened so much, not just within the community but in the country as a whole. The obvious danger is that they might end up as their Indian counterparts across the border, with a tiny or non-existent middle class, they comprise just 2 groups - top and bottom

A Philippines advert on available jobs here. So many have been allowed in and taken away jobs that lower end and middle class Malays could depend on.

The problem lies squarely with the influx of PMETs and job-seekers from other countries especially the Philippines. These groups have taken the middle management places that the Malays in the middle class have previously had access to. It gets even worse as there are other FTs that have taken jobs at the lower levels that Malays at the bottom had been able to be employed in. Just look at how few local Malays are able to procure jobs in the service industry like waiters, receptionists and the like. How many middle class Malays can find employment as Asst Managers, supervisors and senior officers in the IT industry? All these jobs have been taken by Indian Indians, Filipinos and other FTs from Asia. Some Malays have complained in the past, they felt left out or found it difficult when employers advertised for Mandarin speaking employees.That may have been described as unfortunate even unavoidable, because of the larger Chinese community which sometimes dealt with Chinese speaking clients. However it was also not impossible then for most Malays to find jobs because these companies also knew that employing an all Chinese workforce would be problematic when the issue of annual leave and holidays came about. Nobody wants to work on their 'festive days' therefore it was prudent policy to ensure a mix of races in their employment.

Left to its own devices, the private sector was able to resolve these issues and most Malays were quite content with the status quo, as they still had avenues for employment and be able to upgrade themselves and get promoted. Unfortunately all this has changed on the ground, these very same Malays now find themselves even further down 'the totem pole' because they are unable to compete with the influx of foreign workers, who were prepared to work in these positions for lesser. Being in a foreign country also meant they would be willing to work longer hours and forgo holidays and the like. Rising costs and rentals also meant some Malays in business notably in the food industry, could no longer operate and had to shut down. The lower level Malays had to find low paying jobs with little or no benefits, and even these jobs are now harder to come by.

Mee Toh Secondary Malay Dance troupe. Small groups like this and other stuff are all that is left to suggest that Singapore was a Malay country to begin with.

This has created angst amongst the community. Just try to talking to them. Many feel they have been short changed by their leaders in Govt. While they never had a problem with immigrants in the past setting up shop and becoming fellow citizens, they now feel that this welcome has gone overboard and they feel squeezed right left and centre. Worse still some of them feel little has been done to acknowledge them as the native people of Singapore. Except by way of the national anthem, a few commands in Malay (military), some cultural events and songs, there is little to reflect their roots. Education costs itself has gone up and is no longer a sure fire guarantee of better jobs and lifestyle. Already forced to compete in the past because of being a minority, the competition has gotten stiffer and they face enormous hurdles with rising costs across the board.

Masagos Zulkifli was the Junior Minister at Education going into the 2011 GE. Yet he did not get the full Ministerial position when the vacancy arose. Instead it went to newbie Heng Swee Keat, while there were other Ministers holding 2 portfolios. Couldn't Mr Heng be appointed there instead and Masagos at Education? But that's PAP logic for you.

Therefore I think it's prudent for the Govt to relook their status, condition and help them, in line with what was envisaged in Article 152 and to a lesser extent Article 153. I propose the following:

1) Education

a) Free school fees for all Malays at primary and secondary levels
b) Heavily subsidised fees for polytechnic and Pre-University studies
c) A minimum 50% subsidy for University education in any local university, and a 1 time subsidy of up to $10,000 for studies in selected foreign universities
d) To encourage Malays in the fields of Mathematics, Science, Law and Medicine, an additional subsidy above the 50% in local universities, and up to $20,000 in these fields in selected foreign universities.

2) Housing

a) Scrapping the rule on ethnicity for purchase of HDB flats


3) Employment

a) For any employment position below the salary scale of $5000, companies must employ at least 5% Malay employees to be given a certain tax break or pay a penalty. There has to an exemption of course, but companies must show why they need to be exempted - eg: a Chinese restaurant or they do not yet have Malay candidates with sufficient credentials for these positions. This exemption must not be in perpetuity but subject to yearly or bi-yearly renewals.
b) For employment positions above $5000, they need to employ at least 2 Malays to enjoy the same tax breaks and be subject to the same exemption rules and penalties.

4) Civil Service

a) Scrapping the rules on not employing Malays in supposedly 'sensitive positions'
b) By convention: A Malay should be appointed as the High Commissioner to Malaysia and Ambassador to Indonesia.

5) Govt.

a) A new Ministry for Minority Affairs or a new Dept within an existing Ministry
b) At least 2 Malay Ministers, 1 of whom will always helm the above Ministry and be responsible for Muslim Affairs as well.
c) If it's not possible to have 2 Malay Ministers for the moment, ensure that a Malay by convention is always appointed a Deputy Minister (Min of State, Sr Min of State) for the following Ministries :  Home Affairs, Education and Foreign Affairs.

6) Religion and Language

a) Make it mandatory that all employers ensure an extra hour time off every Friday for Muslims wishing to attend prayers, unless the job scope is such that it's not possible. However this must not become a routine denial.
b) Malay employees exercising the rule, must compensate for the missed hour during the working week by either working late or accumulating the hours until it reaches 1 full work day (or 1/2 day as the case maybe for 5.5 days work weeks) and work the extra day or take leave to make up for it.
c) Alternatively employers can allow Malay employees wishing to fulfil this obligation, to change their off day to Friday.
d) Allow all Muslim women to wear the 'hijab' if they so desire as part of the uniform. These should include any student above the age of puberty who wishes to dress modestly as per their beliefs. Girls can wear longer skirts or pants. The only exemption to the 'hijab rule' should be in jobs where it's not practical to do so - eg: operating machinery where the scarf might get caught and pose a danger to them, or in certain medical professions where it might compromise the procedure.
e) Promote the Malay language, as the 2nd language of Govt. Govt documents should also have a mandatory Malay translation.
f) Ensure a weekly simple Malay language class in all secondary schools. Although not an examination or test based class, it should have the same effect as a CCA. This is to ensure that all students have a basic understanding of Malay.

7) Health

a) A 1 off $5000 subsidy for all Malay patients above the age of 60 in hospitals. Richer Malays who do not need this subsidy, can transfer it to a fund that will distribute the extra monies to those who need it more.

8) Transport

a) A monthly cash voucher of $20 to every Malay family (count both parents) earning less than $3000 gross. For single parents and unmarried singles above the age of 40, the gross sum would be less than $1500 monthly.

These are some of the policies I think the Govt could or should consider to help the Malays. All of it may not be possible and I don't have access to the data to show how much it will cost, but I suspect a country like Singapore with its wealth, would not be severely handicapped by the costs. And some policies do not cost a thing, like the 'hijab rule', scrapping the ethnicity and no 'sensitive appointment' ruling, appointing Ambassadors and Ministers.

Malay ladies advertising their scarves or 'hijab'. It's a non-issue really that should be allowed as part of the uniform, but one that will nevertheless show Malays that they are indeed special.

I would like to explain further on some of these suggestions, but I think continuing in 1 article will make it too cumbersome and boring to read. So I will pen another article perhaps tomorrow or Monday.

Malay, Chinese, Eurasian or others, we all wish our Indian Hindu friends and citizens 'A Happy Deepavali'.

Before I end, I would like to wish the other minority group - the Indians, many of whom are Hindu - Best Wishes for a Happy and Fulfilling Deepavali.

To add on and perhaps give an explanation to some of the suggestions I made in Part 1:

http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg/2013/11/lets-make-article-152-special-again.html

First things first, I am not advocating a full 'bumiputera policy' as in Malaysia or full affirmative action, rather a policy of 'positive discrimination' that ensures that Article 152's aim is enshrined. I am also not suggesting that poorer Indian, Chinese or Eurasians should be left out, they too need every aid they can procure to better themselves and to live with the demands of modern day Singapore. However I am suggesting that the Malay community gets the same treatment, but with a little bit more to ensure that their lower and middle class are able to compete and maintain themselves.

There is nothing racist or discriminatory in wanting or providing the extra help for them. It won't alter the dynamics of Singapore. And it's line with the Constitution and democratic ideals of the country. In a democracy it's not always important that the majority get their way, but rather that the majority always considers the minority. That is true democracy. If the tables were turned and the Malays were the majority, I would be asking the same for the Chinese or Indians, whichever was the native peoples.

Anyway as I couldn't explain some of the points I raised yesterday, I shall explain them today. I do accept that some of them are unwieldy and not possible at this point of time. Some can be rejected or modified. I do not have the data or means to give specifics, I am just a humble blogger, not a million dollar minister with the backing of the Civil Service. These are just ideas that I hope will be considered over time and I hope others too will join in and make suggestions to help improve the situation. It will be to Singapore's benefit that we have an entrenched native community working side by side with other communities in the decades to come.


1) Education

I suggested free school fees for all Malay students in primary and secondary school. But more importantly, subsidised fees for tertiary education. This will encourage them to push their children to get the best possible education available. Further subsidies for Science, Maths, Law and Medicine, will be carrots to get them into these fields where they have traditionally struggled.

2) Housing

Unlike a bumiputera policy, I am not advocating for anything special here. They should go through the same process as everyone else, however the rule of ethnicity should be scrapped. Not just for Malays but Indians as well. What's the problem if I have more Malay, Chinese or Indian neighbours in my HDB block? It's not as if we are going to invite them to stay in them are we?

Plus there are some benefits in having same races living next door to each other. They will be more tolerant to the cultural and religious practises. But this is a small issue. We have no problems with religious beliefs of our fellow citizens and neighbours. To each their own. Plus if meritocracy is the foundation, then flats should be sold on a 'first come first served basis'.

3) Employment

I do agree that my suggestions are a bit far fetched. It's not possible to force each and every employer to employ 1, 2 or a percentage of Malays in their workforce. But I think the spirit is important. An additional tax break should be given to employers that employ lower end Malays. This is primarily help them with the influx of FTs that have squeezed them from these jobs.

Of course this policy must also be for all other Singaporeans suffering because of the Govt's open door policy, but in line with Article 152, the Malays at the bottom end should be given a little more job protection, so that the gulf between them and those at the upper end does not widen.

4) Civil Service

Again this is a no brainer. It's a tired old assumption to suggest that a Malay's loyalty could be questioned if war ever breaks out with our 2 Muslim neighbours. Let anyone from any race be in any position based on merit. As for loyalty and trust, leaders should be observant and have mechanisms to monitor their men, not be paper generals. Anyone can be disloyal or treacherous because of money and greed, race or religion has nothing to do with it.

Since the talk has always been the 'bogeymen' of Malaysia and Indonesia, then make sure our envoys to these countries are always Malay. They would be able to understand and communicate better with them. And pursue proper policies with these countries, based on mutual trust, trade and benefits for all sides.

5) Govt

Instead of having fanciful named ministries, ensure there's one that deals entirely with minority affairs. Not just for the Malays, but Indians and Eurasians too. Make this Minister, a Malay. He will be responsible for Muslim Affairs as well and will also be responsible for raising issues of the other communities in the Cabinet.

Have another Malay as Cabinet Minister of some other portfolio. I think there are enough of them that could have been appointed instead of having just the one in Yaacob Ibrahim. And have deputy ministers for 3 portfolios - Home, Foreign and Education - portfolios that have an impact on the Malay community.

6) Religion and language

The 'hijab rule' will have no effect performance or bother anyone. It's not mandatory, those who want to wear let them wear, so long as it matches the colour of their uniforms. Just like it's for the Sikhs. No issue really.

Friday prayers is another. 1 hour once a week isn't gonna make much a difference. Make it law that employers give the time off for those who want to fulfil this and make them pay back that hour in some way.

As for language, didn't LKY say that he wanted more Singaporeans to learn Malay? Why not give him his wish? It's not a very difficult language and is a national language as well. It won't displace English as the language of commerce or education. A single 30 minutes class once a week for secondary students will help them pick up some basic Malay, which would not be unhelpful when they travel and do business with Malaysia or Indonesia. No tests are involved, maybe a little bit of writing material and learning some basic communication. I think Christian mission schools also have a once a week Chapel lessons for their students. It's not mandatory. This would be something similar but have an advantage as a CCA and a useful language skill.

As for promoting Malay nationally in documents (not spoken) it would give them a special feel within the lines of Article 152. Canada has French as an official language as well. This would be akin to that but to a lesser scale.

7 & 8) Health and Transport

This would be a program to help needy Malay families. It need not be up $5000, it could be lesser, but just not a token. For transport, a $20 voucher for those earning less than $1500 should not be an issue, better still make it for all races who are in this bracket. The reserves are there to help people like this, not just to grow the GDP or spend it on integration programs for foreigners.

In closing I do believe some of these measures, and hopefully there will be others, will ensure that the Malay community will not be left behind in the country of their ancestors. Whether they are the smallest minority or not, it doesn't matter as long they truly feel special. It will help to ensure the middle class remains competitive and those at the lower end have the chance to join them there.

The Anonymous group with the ubiquitous 'Guy Fawkes Mask'.

Obviously the hottest topic these past few days has been talk of hacking by someone styled
'the Messiah' who claims to be part of the larger 'Anonymous hacking fraternity'. In the past week, he has hacked into AMK GRC's Town Council Page

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ang-mo-kio-town-council-website-hacked-102124881.html

It was followed by a video 'threatening to wage war with the Singapore Govt' over Internet licensing and asking Singaporeans to wear 'red and black' to mark "Guy Fawkes Night' tomorrow, and promising more such hacks in future:

http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/youtube-anonymous-hacker-group-threatens-112903985.html

For good measure, he (or they) also hacked into a blog hosted by the Straits Times, over an article by reporter Irene Tham which 'misrepresented their video by suggesting' they were seeking to wage war against Singapore as a whole, instead of only the Govt and IDA in particular. They demanded an apology and the resignation of Ms Tham. For good measure, they notified that they had previously hacked in to the FBI and NSA websites as well, declaring that doing so to the Singapore Govt would not be a problem.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/anonymous-threatens-singapore-government-in-youtube-video-091443515.html

Before I go into this latest saga and offer my opinions on it (judging from the title, you can guess where I'm leaning), I want to instead lambast the Deputy Editor of the New Paper (TNP) Melvin Singh, for a most idiotic article in their Saturday edition. I've cheekily decided not to post the TNP article itself but a copy of its contents, the reason being obvious, no point giving him or the article the coverage and cheap attention he desperately craves for:

http://www.digitalone.com.sg/news/article/27572

In the previous day's edition of TNP, one of Mr Singh's reporters, Ronald Loh, sought the views of an anonymous lawyer, who said such a video and declaration of war against the Govt contravened the Penal Code and the perpetrator was liable to face to  he death penalty. Before I lambast Mr Singh, let me just tell Ronald Loh that he should not get all excited whenever any lawyer, anonymous or no, offers an opinion. You can get 100 lawyers and end up with 100 differing opinions. Like Clint Eastwood once said in a movie - 'Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one'. Unless the lawyer is a DPP or the AG (as PP), I would not read much into such fantastic claims. Yes, 'waging war against the Govt' is an act of treason punishable by the death penalty in almost any country, even in the US. In countries that have abandoned the death penalty (notably EU nations) it would carry the stiffest sentence bar death.

TNP's Dy Editor has gained a reputation for being an 'attack dog' against certain Opposition members and a promoter for everything good about the PAP.

Am I being ambiguous? No, waging war or the threat thereof, would have to include far greater action and a series of diabolical planning, designed to bring down the democratic institutions or subvert the rule of law, in order for it to be deemed a capital case. Mere threat as in this case, would fall far short of that. And even thus far, the actions of hacking have not had a detrimental effect to be anywhere close to attract that dire sentence. I agree in modern warfare, cyber terrorism has changed the dynamics and can cause a series of breakdowns that could cripple a country. Perhaps that would be line with a treasonous act, then again, if the hacker(s) are operating from a foreign country it's very unlikely in the event they are ever caught and extradited here (provided we also have an extradition treaty with them), they will face the capital charge. Most countries have laws forbidding the execution of extradited criminals. So all this talk of death penalties are mere journalistic excesses, and to add further, if the offender is indeed Singaporean and prosecuted under this law, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that such acts of hacking would fit the description of an act of war.

'Waging war is an act of treason' which obviously could bring the perpetrators to face the hangman's noose. But it's quite tenuous to link the recent hacking to the death penalty.

Talking about journalistic excesses brings us to Mr Melvin Singh. In his article, he boldly addressed 'the silent majority online', referring to the hundreds of thousands of users online who unlike me, do not comment or bother with things such as these. He urged them to take the threat as an attack on themselves and the country, not just the Govt. He cites a few examples:

1) Hacking into the Pentagon's websites (USA)
2) Hacking into Israel's road traffic system resulting in massive jams
3) Hacking into Adobe (USA) to get credit card details

He also touched on criminality online like the hacking of the City Harvest Church website, previous incidents where 2 young bloggers made offensive remarks against Muslims, former Singaporean lawyer Gopalan Nair for 'threatening, abusing and insulting' a public servant and an engineer last year who posted a picture of bombing the Govt ministers attending the NDP similar to the attack on Anwar Sadat in 1981. He also said that if we 'mollycoddle online criminality' people will get bolder, and that any online hacking of the Govt is akin to an attack on Govt infrastructure. It would therefore be an attack on our way of life and as such, an attack on Singapore. In closing he urged everyone especially the silent majority to roundly condemn the threats.

After winning 'numerous journalism awards' notably for praising the PAP Govt, Irene Ng was able to switch from political correspondent to politician. Perhaps Melvin Singh is hoping to follow suit.

Gosh reading all the chest thumping drivel leads me to 2 conclusions - he either wants to be a Govt lawyer or DPP in future, or secondly and most likely, he hopes that by being an apologist for the PAP, he might follow in the footsteps of his ex-compatriots like Yatiman Yusoff, Irene Ng and others, and be invited to a 'tea party with the party big-wigs' and offered a position as a candidate for elections!

Let's look at his examples: "Hello Mr Singh stop acting like an idiot and study deeper into your examples before making references to them'

a) The Pentagon gets not 1 not 2 not 3, maybe hundreds of cyber attacks a day. Not just from hackers in their own country and around the world, but 'perceived enemies' of the United States, including countries. And the United States itself does hacking of its own, trying to penetrate the defences of countries and groups they believe are hostile to them.

b) The same goes for Israel. Israel has been at war, under threat of war and attempts to wage war with and from countries and groups that oppose them. So long as the Palestinian issue isn't resolved, these attacks will continue. Cyber attacks that attempt to cripple Israel's infrastructure are par for the course. These hacking doesn't necessarily come from Anonymous, but very likely is state sponsored. In other words, countries that oppose Israel will hack or sponsor hackers to damage Israel in any way possible. And Israel does the same too, they will try everything and anything to spy, hack and disrupt the activities of countries like Syria, Iran, Iraq and even non-enemies like Egypt and Turkey.

The US Dept of Defense or Pentagon for short, is always under cyber attack on a daily basis. Has it crippled them? Nope, it just gives them the excuse to do attacks of their own in the name of 'national security'.


Linking the hacking activities of the USA and Israel by Mr Singh is both mischievous and fallacious. The situation in these 2 countries are entirely different to the one that we in Singapore live in. The hacking is done by these states themselves and retaliatory attacks are always likely to happen. As for Mr Singh's reference  of the attack on Adobe to garner credit card and bank details, this has always been an on-going thing. Since the advent of the internet, criminals have not been slow to shift to the cyber world in order to further their criminal enterprise. Online hacking into banks, phishing, scamming etc, goes on around the world on a daily basis. It even happens here in Singapore.

Former politician Gopalan Nair leaving the Sub Courts, during his trial for sedition and contempt of court. He's been called many things by the Press, but this is the 1st time, I heard him being labelled a 'cyber criminal'!

Furthermore using Gopalan Nair's case has no bearing whatsoever. Anyone who knows him or reads his blog, will know he's been at the receiving of the Singapore political system. Whether his views or hatred of the PAP is right or wrong is a matter for people to judge. He was jailed for criticising the judiciary in an on-going case similar to subjudice, no relation to this hacking incident. The other cases cited were acts of stupidity on the part of the offenders that descended into the criminal aspect. They have been punished and roundly condemned. Bringing all this cases up to bolster his argument, shows how shallow his is, or simply put, he's trying to use his position in the Press to further strengthen his desire for continued and uninterrupted PAP rule.

Minister Vivian Balakrishnan trying to convince voters during an election rally. It's normal for ministers to make a pitch and try to influence voters, it's another for reporters to be doing their bidding.

As a reporter, moreso as an editor, he should use his position to enshrine the primary duty of any media outlet - to present and report the facts as they are and not to show bias. Op-eds are of course acceptable, reporters can have a view but they should more than anything try to be balanced. Newspapers should not descend into the political arena and become a staging ground to garner people's support for a particular political party. If a Minister or PAP MP had made the statements he made, I would have no argument. It's the norm for any Govt to make the most of situations like these for their benefit and to strengthen their position politically.

Mr Singh's remarks and rallying cry spread panic and fear designed to get people especially the silent majority worked up into believing that 'a clear and present danger' exists, when there isn't one. And in doing so, they are advised to side with the Govt and possibly support them beyond the normal and natural sphere of trust that exists between any elected Govt and its citizens. Not many people have the time to read up on everything online, to get themselves acquainted with incidents and events that are happening. Most will rely on the press, especially the printed media to give them the news. If the Press is biased and presents a case as stark and dangerous as Mr Singh has, they would most likely buy into 'the propaganda' that something sinister is happening and they must close ranks and rally with Govt.

Media under the control of the Military Junta, labelled Margaret Thatcher a pirate who had seized the Malvinas (Falklands) from the Argentine people.

It's a given that people anywhere in the world are almost certainly to side with their respective Govts in any event or threat of war. Some Govts like the Argentine junta in 1982 started the Falklands War to turn the people away from the dire economic situation and instead side with them because of the war. Even in cases where a 'real war' does not exist, Govts can use a security threat to garner support. Why do you think George Bush won re-election in 2004? People were unhappy with the economy, the prosecution of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan amongst others things, yet Bush was able to squeak in in a tight election, why? Because the chief concern of the voters then was the security of country. Bush and the Republicans in Congress had successfully made security the number 1 issue and convinced voters that they, rather than John Kerry and the Democrats, could deal with the threats better.

Then Senator John Kerry was unable to defeat the unpopular George W Bush, because voters believed Bush's message that only he could protect the country's security.

Mr Singh's article is a similar attempt to rouse fears. He uses the term 'not to mollycoddle online criminal activity' and cites certain stark incidents to create a grave threat and then urges people to rally and speak out. I agree we should not condone online criminal activity but we should not also 'mollycoddle attempts by people with an axe to grind or ulterior motive' to 'pull wool' over us and dupe us into believing things or threats that haven't reached a critical stage.

The self-styled 'Messiah' making his anti-Govt pitch in a Youtube video.

That said, it would also be remiss of me to end without offering some sort of analysis of the 'Messiah' and 'Anonymous' actions. While it's certain 'Anonymous' is likely a collection of people the world over, it's also possible that 'the Messiah' (being a member) is not Singaporean and based overseas. However it's certain that he has been briefed by one or more persons based or living here. The Messiah might have easily latched onto the CHC saga online and then hacked their page, but he would have needed help to be told exactly what PAP MP Ang Hin Kee, Irene Tham and Bertha Hanson had said or posted in order to hack into their respective websites. He also mentioned staying out of the Dinesh Raman case, in order not to jeopardise the outcome.

Unless he is indeed Singaporean, he was urged to do so by 1 or more Singaporeans. So the question begets, did he do the right thing in hacking those sites? And is the call for Singaporeans to rally in some form tomorrow correct? Finally what about the threat 'to wage war against the Singapore Govt and IDA' in particular?

Unlike what was spouted by TNP's Singh, Loh and their anonymous lawyer, the actions by the 'Messiah' in hacking all those sites would definitely be offences under 'The Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act' (Chapter 50A). You can read up on the Act in the link below:

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=0;query=CompId%3A3f984861-0f9f-4b15-908d-760d286e52db;rec=0;resUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fstatutes.agc.gov.sg%2Faol%2Fbrowse%2FtitleResults.w3p%3Bletter%3DC%3Btype%3DactsAll

So whichever way you look at it, it would be an offence under Singapore's law. You can come to the conclusion that some obviously have, that he has broken the law and done the wrong thing. As with every offence, it would be for the Police to investigate and the DPP to prosecute. So these actions are no different from all other criminal offences. And like those cases, we leave the Police to do their jobs, while we share our opinions and express support or displeasure for them. That said most people would not have been overly concerned or bothered with the hack into CHC. Some may even say that MP Ang deserved it for his remarks over the 'Woodlands spitting incident'. The same goes for Irene Tham because of the one-sided and biased nature of reporting by the Straits Times (ST).

MP Ang Hin Kee has used 'the old chestnut' - "My statements were taken out on context' when referring to the Woodlands spitting case above.

So these acts while deemed criminally wrong would find sympathy with a portion of Singaporeans, large or small we are unable to gauge at this point. Most people would not bat an eyelid if it continued in similar vein, 'perceived wrongdoers and arrogant persons' getting a taste of 'pay-back'. So the 'Messiah's' hacking in such a manner would not be a cause of concern except for the police and authorities, it may even seem to be amusing.

Police 100 Occupiers 0. The planned 'Occupy Singapore' protest attracted loads of policemen but no protester.

Next we look into his call into rallying in some form or other, on Guy Fawkes Night on November 5th. You can read up on Guy Fawkes online. Essentially he tried to blow up the House of Lords in the UK and thus kill the King, so that he could be replaced by a Catholic head of state. Effigies of Guy Fawkes are burnt on November 5th, to celebrate the plot's failure - it's also called Bonfire Night. However in recent times, Guy Fawkes has been less maligned and has come to symbolise a movement by oppressed people the world over to remove or protest against tyranny. So the call by him is for Singaporeans to wear  red and black tomorrow, meet, wear 'Guy Fawkes masks', discuss and perhaps even protest against the harshness of PAP rule and their attempts to deny citizens the right of freedom of expression especially online. There is of course some truth in what he says about oppression and the stifling conditions imposed by the IDA. However the question must also be asked whether such action will have the desired effect in Singapore? I don't think so. The Occupy Movement itself didn't catch fire in Singapore and we have had many calls online for some kind of civic action, not all of them have been successful. Perhaps only the Hong Lim events to protest the "Population White Paper' and ' Pink Dot' have been successful.

Wearing AC Milan's red/black jersey tomorrow won't get you arrested, I can assure you.

It's very likely that his call tomorrow will be a 'damp squid'. Even if there was an outpouring of support, most people would be unlikely to gather and protest because as we already know, Singapore has strict laws on unlawful assemblies and protests. A police permit is a must for any such activity and these are nearly impossible to come by unless it's by some Govt approved body like the NTUC. So the 'Messiah's call' while 'good intentioned' (if you take that view), will still be illegal and those participating would be liable to arrest and prosecution. The only legal possibility is if one simply decides to wear red and black tomorrow. That in itself is no offence, unless one urges others to do by some form of communication with the specific intention of promoting the "Messiah's message'. So it's up to you, whether you want to wear those colours tomorrow, as long as you keep your thoughts, intentions and the wearing, private, you should not worry about threats of arrest. And no, I won't be encouraging you either, it's a decision you should decide for yourself.

The 'Messiah's declaration of war' has all the similarities of this zombie related movie.

And so finally we come to the actual video and the contents therein which was 'deemed a declaration of war' against the Singapore Govt. As a responsible blogger, I cannot condone such a threat, although I can sympathise with those who have fallen afoul of some of the draconian actions undertaken by the Govt over the years and up to the present. I can sympathise with citizens fed up that the Govt refuses to listen to their displeasure over policies like immigration, housing and employment, and instead calls any negative remarks against them as 'merely noise'.

However you will also note that this same 'noise' can also be deemed as a threat to the stability and security of the country. This is when the Govt finds it convenient to pass some law or rule to restrict freedom or gain control of cyberspace, in the same vein they have controlled the main stream media. Strangely the very next day after video, the Govt announced a $130 million plan to boost the country's cyber defense. It cited a series of cyber attacks worldwide in recent times.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/singapores-cyber-defence-firepower-gets-130m-boost

Obviously this will set tongues wagging, given the timing of the announcement. Some have even suggested the spate of hackings was actually the work of the Govt itself to garner support for the policy as this article suggests:

http://therealsingapore.com/content/messiahs-hacking-false-flag-attack

Well it does raise some interesting questions doesn't it? However until proven otherwise, I think we can give the Govt the benefit of doubt, after all isn't it their duty to bolster our nation's cyber defences in the first place? Instead of having conspiracy theories, perhaps we should ask why did they take so long?  Isn't it an on-going worldwide phenomenon, where groups and individuals try to hack into various Govt sites, whether for the sake of fun, justice or something more sinister?

Threat or no threat, it's the Govt's duty to protect Changi Airport and other key installations against cyber attacks.

This aside, here's the very real problem with the "Messiah's actions'. He may never have had the intention of hacking into something more destructive like our nation's defense, the airport's control systems or something similar. And most probably these would also be very very difficult if not impossible to do unless sponsored by a state with a significant cyber arsenal like the US, China or Russia for example. The attacks on the FBI and NSA did not render them useless or cause a serious breakdown. It could have very been a small insignificant page with no real bearing on these organisations ability to function.

He may only able to hack into blogs or websites with 'primitive or out-dated software' (you will note that the main ST page wasn't hacked, just a blog, the same with AMK Town Council, not the Ministry overseeing it). However this will not stop people like Melvin Singh and the Govt from proclaiming that a doomsday scenario exists. And even if significant data from online Govt sites is vulnerable to hacking, they will not blame themselves for failing to upgrade, monitor and test these systems as is their duty, instead they can so easily push the blame to an individual or groups of hackers. Better still if they can tie these people as being foreign and out 'to get Singapore'. Nothing rallies citizens more than an attack (real or perceived) on their sovereignty by some foreign group, movement or country with sinister designs.

The 'Messiah's'  threat was similar to one made in the film 'V for Vendetta'. Is it just a prank after all?

So in trying to stir the people of Singapore into rallying for more freedoms, the 'Messiah' and 'Anonymous' has in effect scored a very big own goal by uploading and posting that video with the implicit threat of 'waging war against the Govt'. Not everyone is sophisticated enough to differentiate between the two, not everyone reads articles like these online, not everyone is Net savvy and there's still a huge number who are more likely to believe what the Press feeds them, especially if these relates to 'immediate threats' on their everyday lives.

Just imagine what would be the impact of such a threat or a more serious form of hacking during the election period? You see no Govt (PAP or no), will go out an say - 'Hey, don't worry, we've got everything covered, these 'hacking' are all 'ikan bilis' or small fry, they cannot and will not affect our infrastructure. Banks, CPF Board, Defense, LTA et al, have very very secure networks that are not prone to such attacks. Or even if an attack is launched, we have the means to detect and repel them'.

The 'Messiah's' nemesis - the IDA seized upon the video and hacking to shutdown numerous Govt websites for what it termed 'planned maintenance'. This very act made some believe that a major attack was underway and IDA was merely denying it. A similar video or hack in 2016 could be used to describe another planned maintenance as a 'doomsday scenario'.

Instead the Govt and party members may instead paint a very grave situation that needs immediate action by those with sufficient experience to deal with them. Do you want to put a new untested Govt in power, when the country is facing an attack and hope they will be able to deal with it effectively? Or as in this case, the Govt can feign ignorance or just be silent and let the media drum up a frenzy of doomsday scenarios. They can then come in at the very last and say, only we will be able to deal with it, and if you vote us back, we'll ensure it's eradicated. Of course other scenarios could exist, they can also step in at the last and save the day, by making an example of somebody. This would put them in a very good light and get the majority (especially the fence sitters) to swing their way.

So the 'Messiah' should consider his position very carefully if he's a Singaporean or getting instructions from a Singaporean who has 'some noble and good intentioned' ideas, but doesn't realise by his very actions, he's jeopardising them and playing into his opponent's hands. Moreover for all the angst and displeasure at the Govt, it's still within the democratic process for them to be removed from power. The opposition has not yet formed a strong group of candidates that's able to displace them at the ballot box. The opposition hasn't yet been deprived or cheated out of victory, yes they have obstacles placed in their path, but the PAP Govt  can still be removed at the ballot box.

CHC's Kong Hee really needs a 'Messiah' to rescue him from an 'all expenses paid stay' courtesy of the State. The Messiah can go entertain and mollycoddle Kong Hee and no one would bat an eyelid.

My message to the 'Messiah' is simply this - 'Thanks but no thanks'. If you wanna go after individuals like Kong Hee and chastise out of touch MPs like Ang Hin Kee, that's really your choice and you must bear the consequences if you or your source gets caught. I'm basically neutral on them, although I note it's a criminal offence like any other. However when you step into the political arena, and try to influence or punish the Govt in this fashion, I gotta express my displeasure as it's a very foolish thing to do, even it's merely a prank or that you do not possess the full means to do anything meaningful except utter idle threats. Once you step over that line, your efforts no matter how noble will have a drastic and dramatic effect on me and my fellow citizens, because in the Singapore context, it will be used against you and anyone that supports you, to portray 'a clear and present danger' that doesn't exist.

I'd be happy to let Joseph Schooling be dubbed 'the Messiah' if he wins a medal at Rio 2016. Other than that we don't need any Messiah, only for people to exercise their discretion and votes wisely in 2016.


And that can only mean 1 thing, the opposition will be discredited and the Govt will milk every opportunity to ensure that only they have the means to protect us from you. Your actions or threats instead of bringing the Govt to its' knees, will only serve to ensure they are returned to power, perhaps even stronger than before.

The on-going saga of cyber hacking and threat of 'war against the Singapore Govt' has dominated the online chatter like a bush fire. As with many things that involve politics and social media, a lot of conspiracy theories, myths and urban legends have been making the rounds. 2 posts on social media sites online caught my attention - the first, someone suggested that the hackers would target the stock market and cause it to crash, therefore he advised selling. The second, was a new father who was waiting to have his son's birth registered at a hospital, but because there was a glitch that delayed the registration, he immediately blamed the Anonymous hackers for it.

Unfortunately Myths and Urban Legends in Singapore is not just related to the supernatural as related in the above book, but the political arena as well.

With such wild imagination making the rounds, I think it's a good opportunity to touch some of the myths and urban legends that have been making the rounds in Singapore over the years. So here's a list of 10 of them. I hope it will clear the air and make people less gullible when it's mentioned to them in future. Obviously I cannot be 100% certain that some of them are just myths, some may have a slight ring of truth in them, but I believe most can dismissed as myths outright.

1) The Messiah and Anonymous can hack into all Govt sites, and bring chaos to Singapore.

The self styled Messiah making his pitch in a video last week, directed at the Singapore Govt.

This is the most recent myth. With the Messiah and his Anonymous group successfully hacking into certain webpages like the ST blog, AMK Town Council page, City Harvest Church website and not to mention, the 'declaration of war' against the Govt, quite a number of people believe outright that they will be capable of hacking all Govt websites. Some believe that they will also be able to cripple our infrastructure. A recent comment by The New Paper's Melvin Singh comparing the recent hacking to others in the US and Israel, has exacerbated this misconception. Fortunately a recent post by someone to 'The Real Singapore' has put it in the proper perspective:

http://therealsingapore.com/content/anonymous-declaring-%E2%80%9Cwar%E2%80%9D-pap-government-%E2%80%93-note-regular-it-dude

This post more or less, explains the improbability of the Anonymous group being able to launch a massive cyber attack on Singapore and decimate its IT related infrastructure. Unless this group has state of the art software and the protection of a state, such a devastating attack is unlikely. Furthermore, it would also require the Govt here to have been doing a very poor job of securing its cyberspace and infrastructure, for them to succeed.

 2) The Messiah and Anonymous will face the death penalty if caught.

I touch on this in my previous post:

http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg/2013/11/tnps-melvin-singh-is-idiot-but-messiah.html

Although threats and acts of war could attract the death penalty upon conviction, it's very unlikely the Messiah and Co, would ever face a capital charge. It would require far more than just mere threats and simple hacking. Even if they were 'responsible' for the 'planned maintenance shutdown' of Govt sites over the weekend, I don't think the threshold has been crossed to attract that drastic charge. They would most likely be charged under the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act, or be detained under the Internal Security Act. But first the Govt needs to catch them. There's always a possibility they might be caught, but as seems certain that they are operating from overseas, the Govt will need the support of friendly countries to assist in the detection and apprehension. (By the way last night, the search page from the PMO was directed to a Stomp page with an Anonymous photo inserted. Again this did not crash the main PMO webpage, just the search option and this I gather has been fixed with the search page taken down for maintenance. Not something dramatic just an easy SQL injection, but as usual it has got some people believing in doomsday scenarios with traffic lights going out etc. The link is below)

http://www.therealsingapore.com/content/anonymous-attacks-pmo-website-despite-pm-lee%E2%80%99s-threats-hunt-them-down


3) The Govt is actually behind the attack, in order to win support and bolster its position.

This is another urban legend that been making the rounds. The timing of an announcement of a $130 million cyber protection program and the series of planned maintenance, has caused some to believe the Govt is actually behind the whole thing. Of course no one can prove this, and as such the Govt will enjoy the benefit of doubt.

However it's also clear that these incidents can easily cause 'copycat' hackers to emerge and lay the blame on Anonymous. All this is conjecture, but it's also very telling that if more drastic hacking is inflicted, it can turn a sizable number of swing voters over to the Govt's side. With a pliant media ever ready to leap to their side, any hacking close to elections, could very well be the deciding factor. Anonymous should back down from its threat and voters should be careful and more discerning, if they were to occur. They should not believe everything they read.

So much for the myths surrounding the hacking. here are others that have been associated with Singapore.

4) Lee Kuan Yew is the founder of modern Singapore.

With a myth surrounding Singapore's modern founding, Stamford Raffles (in an 1817 portrait) has had a name change to Harry Lee Kuan Yew!

This is another more recent myth. LKY is not the founder of modern Singapore. That accolade belongs to Sir Stamford Raffles who made the discovery and set us on the road to modernity in 1819. The original founder was Sang Nila Utama, who most likely spotted a tiger when setting foot here and mistook it for a lion. As such he named the then Temasek as Singapura or 'Lion City'

5) Singapore was a mere fishing village until LKY stepped in.

The Marina Bay seafront in 1959. Quite an impressive looking fishing village, don't you think so?

Another myth perpetuated by certain pro-PAP segments. Singapore was not a fishing village when he first came to power in 1959. It was already a city with close to 400,000 people. It was an international port, with modern infrastructure like roads, public transport, schools, a police force, the Civil Service amongst other things. LKY took it a step further building on those things, but we were no where close to being a 'mere fishing village' in 1965 (or 1959 for that matter).

6) The Govt can trace your vote (Your vote isn't secret because of the serial numbers)

This actually has some truth in it but not the way conspiracy theorists have made it out to be. Your vote is secret, the serial numbers is there to show proof that you were issued a ballot paper. However if for example, you lost your IC and somebody used it to vote, or if there was any irregularity, you can make a report. This is where the process becomes complicated, a High Court Judge has to be appointed to oversee the case, and only he can order the votes be scrutinised. This is done in the open, both contesting parties will be allowed to be present. There has to be some form of electoral fraud before this will be allowed, to date no party has ever filed such a claim.

After an election, all ballots, the registration papers etc  will be sealed in the presence of candidates or their election agents, who will be invited to sign on the seals. The sealed boxes will be transported and kept in the High Court vault, only the Judge can order its scrutiny. If there is no challenge, 6 months later the boxes and their contents will be transported to the incineration plant where they will burnt, again candidates from all parties will be invited to witness this.

The above precinct in Toa Payoh Lorong 8 is under Potong Pasir constituency, but for how long is question?

So no one will know how you voted if you didn't announce it, you are of course free to reveal it. However because the counting is done via precincts, both parties contesting the constituency will be able to know how a particular precinct voted. 1 constituency might have around 8-10 precincts with around 2-3000 voters, for example the 8 blocks in Lor 8 Toa Payoh near the hawker centre is part of Potong Pasir. I spoke to an election agent of Chiam See Tong once, and he said this precinct was a solid vote block, so don't be surprised if this precinct is absorbed into Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC in the next elections.

7) The PAP will break up when LKY dies.

LKY at age 90. Some believe he needs to live forever for the PAP to remain in power.

This is another myth although it might happen, it's very unlikely. Common sense will tell you why. Just look at how PAP MPs sing from the same song-sheet and how 'new candidates' do likewise. Do you think they will abandon the party policy just because LKY is no longer around? Why should they? They are handsomely paid and enjoy the perks of power, do you think they will throw all that away just because LKY isn't around? They are more likely to rally together and try to rake in the sympathy vote if you ask me.

8) Singapore will collapse if the Opposition comes to power.

This is a myth perpetuated by the ruling party and their supporters. The simple questioned to be asked is this - Will foreign companies pull out, will the Civil Service stop working and the banks and other businesses close down merely because there is a change in Govt? The simple answer is no. It's true the stock market might be slightly affected if a weak coalition comes to power but this is normal everywhere. Stock markets like the status quo, for example in the US, whenever a President is re-elected, the Dow Jones will see a slight upsurge. But these things tend to correct itself after a short period when things stabilise. The same for Singapore, if a different party comes to power, the indexes might dip a bit before returning to normal.
Unless the new Govt goes out and does some crazy stuff, there will be no cause for concern. Things might change and certain policies scrapped but that is to be expected. Likewise some people will benefit and some will suffer because of the policy changes, especially those 'elites' who have benefitted much from the PAP's open door policies.

9) The Opposition will change everything when in power.

The Opposition need not try to fix too many things all at once. Overpopulation, housing and transportation should be the immediate ones where their attention should be on, if they do the impossible and win power.

This obviously can happen, but the danger for any such Govt is trying to change too many things too soon and then get bogged down over 1 or 2 issues which they cannot fix. This leads to instability and eventually this Govt will lose the people's trust. So if a prudent opposition comes to power, don't expect wholesale changes - they won't be able to kick out every FT, they might not scrap NS, lower GST (not immediately), scrap COEs, bring down prices of flats straightaway and the like. They will need time to review changes and decide the course they intend to take. It might take longer than just 5 years to dismantle each and every PAP policy, if at all. The most likely thing will be to make changes in certain key areas like housing, immigration and fairer wealth distribution, but the bulk of PAP policy will remain for sometime yet.

10)  National Service/ High Defense Spending is a must to prevent future wars.

Obviously no one can 100% rule out a war befalling Singapore. There must be a degree of prevention and we must continue to have a military, however the grave situations that we faced in the 1960s, 1970s and even 1980s are no longer existent. There is no Communist threat, no Vietnamisation of South East Asia, no Indonesian confrontation and no belligerent threats from any of our immediate neighbours. The bond between ASEAN nations is strong, and even when Myanmar was under military rule there was little condemnation from other ASEAN nations.

Brothers in Arms. Military Chiefs of the 5 nations lock hands in a sign of solidarity.

Moreover we are still part of the 5 Power Defense Agreement with Malaysia, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. And we have good relations with the 2 superpowers - the USA and China. Therefore a scaling down of defense spending should be the more prudent course. We should move away from a totally manpower oriented military to one that embraces the latest technology and intelligence. There is of course a possibility of us facing a terrorist attack, if not as us directly then perhaps foreign establishments based here like the Israeli and US Embassies, visiting US warships etc. So maintaining a highly trained professional military to deal with them is still needed.

National Service is not a must to combat or meet these challenges. If the situation changes in the years to come, then by all means reintroduce conscription. NS is also not needed to discipline our young men. You mean to say without NS, our kids will all become mindless psychopaths or rebellious? Don't we have very strict laws already? If really NS must still be kept, then reduce the term of service and reservist duty. Place more emphasis in utilising them in the Civil Defense or Police Services, rather than military.

Then US President Ronald Reagan came up with the quip - 'Trust but Verify', in his first meeting with then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik in 1985.  

So there you have it, the 10 myths and urban legends that many Singaporeans buy into. Obviously these are the political related ones, perhaps another time, I will describe the other everyday ones that are still prevalent. Whatever it is, don't believe everything you hear or read (even my posts). Instead you might want to heed that old Russian proverb - Trust but Verify.